Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/January 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 1[edit]

Armenia Orphan Drug Act?[edit]

(the first WP:RD question of 2006!)

Does Armenia have an Orphan Drug Act and if it does is it focues on production or accessibility? Thank you.

69.210.240.234 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Gulrana[reply]

Baudelaire translations[edit]

Is there any sort of consensus on the best, or a few good, translation(s) of Baudelaire, more specifically Les Fleurs du Mal? Or at least of which are to be avoided? --Tothebarricades 04:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumers Protection[edit]

What is the liability to a manufacture if it's product injures a consumer.

Depending on what jurisdiction you are asking about that could vary from a lot to not much. But see product liability for more info. - Taxman Talk 18:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

based on common law. based on common law.

Population With a University Degree in Japan[edit]

How many people (in percents) in Japan have a university degree?

I beleive its around 57%.
What are your sources?
According to the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, in 2004, 34% of 25-64 year olds in Japan have either a "either a college or university education." - Akamad 21:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would trust the 34%. Even though College degrees are becoming common world wide 57 % is still high. However it is possible 57% have some kind of post secondary education.

how many taoists are there[edit]

i would like an authentic reference on the number of adherents of Taoism ( as recent as possible ) , and the areas around the world it is mostly spread . if there is no exact number due to political reasons or reasons related to the nature of taoism , i would like a reference that states this fact ,

thank you for your help Hhnnrr 14:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm afraid i'm not able to view the site , thanks for the help .. but i still need sources , help please .Hhnnrr 23:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the afore linked site "Membership: 2.7 million; % of World: <1%." Cited references: "Membership Data from the World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2004, Page 612. Derived from the "Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, 2003.; Percentage Based on the UN projected world population of 6.301 billion for mid-2003." WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Mephistopheles[edit]

I would like to know the sources for the article in Wikipedia for the Mephistopheles article, specifically the "extra-biblical sources" and "17th century manuscripts".

  • In cases like this, it is always best to ask at the discussion page of the article in question, which in this case is of course Talk:Mephistopheles.--Pharos 16:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U S Prez[edit]

who was the first U S president?

See President of the Continental Congress#The myth of the "First President of the United States". Gdr 19:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While Gdr is correct in linking that particular section of the article, going by how Americans define the president currently, the first of the U.S. Presidents was George Washington. Dismas|(talk) 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna's Like A Prayer Album and the Pop 100[edit]

Does anyone know what singles blocked "Express Yourself" and "Cherish" from #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and does it count to have #1 on the Pop 100 what I mean is like if I have 5 #1's and I my single hits #8 on the hot 100 and #1 on the Pop 100 is it counted as a #1

US C19 trader with plains natives

  • It depends who is doing the counting and for what purpose. If you were a music chart buff who liked keeping statistics on which artist has the most #1 hits on the Hot 100, you would ignore any Pop 100 #1's which failed to reach the peak position on the Hot 100. On the other hand, if you were a record company trying to put together a compilation of #1 hits for almost any artist less popular than The Beatles or Elvis Presley, you would count a #1 hit on any chart you could find for that purpose. Seriously, though, I would consider the Pop 100 a lesser chart than the Hot 100, so if I were compiling a list of an artist's #1 hits, only Hot 100 #1's would be counted unless there was good reason to use a different chart instead. As to your first question about the Madonna hits, perhaps someone here has access to a library with Billboard magazine on microfilm, and can look up the charts between June and November 1989 (when those singles were in the Top 40), or the book Billboard Hot 100 Charts: The Eighties (ISBN 0898200792). --Metropolitan90 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus,messiah,savior,but not God[edit]

I really need to know if there is a religion that believes as I do that Jesus was the only begotten son of God.That he was a savior to mankind,but that there is only one God and Jesus was not Him.I am desperately searching for a church family that I can join in fellowship.One that I would feel comfortable with,believing as I do.

I think you are thinking of Arianism. Modern proponents of this theory include Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as Christadelphians, the Latter Day Saint movement and Islam. However, these groups generally do not recognise Jesus as saviour. [[Sam Korn]] 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LDS theology has never been truly Arian. Mormons used to believe that all men could become gods if they followed the plan of eternal progression. Over time, as the church abandoned isolationism and sought integration into American society, this doctrine was softened to become the plan of salvation. Halcatalyst 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Nontrinitarianism for a discussion of Christian groups that disbelieve in the Trinity. Your views seem closest to Binitarianism, but you might consider Unitarian Universalism. Gdr 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think Islam is what your looking for ..

I feel the same you need to read about Islam hopefully it will help you

  • Yep, Islam is definitely your best bet if you feel that sharing the same opinion about the exact nature of Christ is more important than whether you're ok with killing women to preserve "family honor" or think homosexuality or converting religion deserve death. alteripse 17:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims don't believe Jesus is the son of God.~~

And if u don't find any, just believe it yourself and be happy :) --Cosmic girl 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus proclaimed to not only be the Son of God, but God himself. Is it possible to believe some of what He said, but not all of it? If He says He's God, but you believe that He is not God, do you believe that you are worshipping a nutcase? Anybody that proclaims to be God, and I don't believe them, I consider them insane, especially not deserving of worship. Be wary of trying to fit God inside your own little "box". God cannot be anything that you want Him to be. He is what He is, take it or leave it.

January 2[edit]

Version of "The Legend of Xanadu" festuring Tommy Reilly on harmonica[edit]

Can you please help me locate details, such as the orchestra that recorded this track in the late 60's

This is the list of versions of that song that came up on allmusic.com. The first version was in 1968, released on the album If No One Sang by Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mich & Tich. But there appears to be no mention of Tommy Reilly. Perhaps he is in one of the other versions of the song. - Akamad 10:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

financial structure - usa[edit]

In researching the stock market I need to understand the organization of the stock market . RElation bbetween a stock or bnd and the market or exchange in which it is traded . IE. most technology stocks are listed on the Nasdaq. Index funds relate to the S&Pand mutual funds. What I'm looking for is a hierachical chart or flowchart showing the relation of the various market entities to each other.

US Constitution[edit]

What is the only crime defined in the US Constitution? Is it murder, treason, corruption of blood, or tax evasion? Thanks!!

Will I get the credit when you take the test?<g>. You'll find your answer in Article III, section 3: [1]: it's not murder or tax evasion, and "corruption of blood" is not a crime, but a power held by Parliament which was reckoned so corrupting and unfair that it was specificallly prohibited to Congress. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it says at the top of this page, "Do your own homework." WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Seventh Day Adventists celebrate Christmas and other main stream holidays?[edit]

unicorn[edit]

what do the unicorns signify on the Scottish Royal coat of arms? Kerr--Dockerr 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom says that the unicorn represents Scotland itself - which is the reason it's usually portrayed as being chained. The reason for the choice of a unicorn was simply that it was seen as a fairly dangerous animal. GeeJo (t) (c) • 04:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more depth in the symbology or meaning, try looking up heraldry somewhere. -Del

GERMAN P.O.W, during w.w.2[edit]

how many german p.o.w. taken alive by the russian army during W.W. 2?

This is not recorded reliably. The number is likely in the hundreds of thousands, but much lower as a percentage of the German army in Russia compared to the western front. On the western front, killing of those who surrendered was uncommon, while on the Russian front it occurred all too often, so many units on both sides fought to the death or disintegrated rather than surrendering. alteripse 15:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous duel?[edit]

The Introduction to Early Reviews of English Poets, by John Louis Haney (1904) says "Lockhart, who was the recipient of the worst abuse, demanded of Scott an apology or a hostile meeting. The outcome of the controversy was a duel on February 16th between Scott and Lockhart's intimate friend, Jonathan Henry Christie. Scott was mortally wounded, and died within a fortnight; the verdict of wilful murder brought against Christie and his second at the inquest resulted in their trial and acquittal at the old Bailey two months later. It would have been well for the London Magazine and for literature in general if that unfortunate duel could have been prevented or at least diverted into such a ludicrous affair as the meeting between Jeffrey and Tom Moore in 1806."

My question is, what type of ludicrous affair was the the meeting between Jeffrey and Tom Moore?--Prosfilaes 08:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people in question were Thomas Moore and Francis Jeffrey, whose article contains a short summary of the event - apparently, they faced each other in a duel which was called off because one duelist's pistol was found to contain no bullet -- Ferkelparade π 09:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Moore redirected to Thomas J. Moore, and I've been bit by similar lousy redirects before. Thanks for the information.--Prosfilaes 09:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Jeffrey was a critic who attacked both Moore's Epistles, Odes and other Poems, and the author himself as "the most licentious of modern versifiers". Their duel evaporated when they met (they became lifelong friends), before it was initiated, and before the guns had been loaded. That the pistols were thus unloaded when examined led some to call Jeffrey and Moore cowards. Moore challenged Lord Byron for subsequently saying Jeffrey and Moore had used "leadless pistols" and that the duel was prevented by the interference of the Magistracy (rather than the good sense of its participants) yet when the two likewise met they likewise became close friends: Moore in fact becoming Byrons biographer. Ref: Jeffery W. Vail. The Literary Relationship of Lord Byron and Thomas Moore. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001, [3] - Nunh-huh 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon's defeat in Russia[edit]

Hey- I was wondering how the geography of the Russian empire worked against Napoleon's Grand Army? 71.9.0.234 11:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far away from France? Big country? Muddy marshes? Cold? Start reading at Napoleon I of France, and then continue at Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. Although these don't detail the geographic aspects of that military campaign, the references listed might give you some leads. Lupo 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest enemy, however, was typhus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size of comic books[edit]

Have read many of your articles on comics but want to find out the exact dimension of comic books over time as heard this has changed. Ie what size where the comic books in the platinum, golden, silver, bronze and current ages.

You could try going to a comic book store and asking if you can measure copies of comics. Or maybe ask a collector. -Del

Yin yang[edit]

Where can I find a yin yang symbol which is surrounded by a pentagram and the 5 symbols Ku, Fu, Ka, Sui, and Chi.

  • If my (basic) Japanese does not defeat me, I'd say that you'd be talking about the Five Elements. Check there as a start. It doesn't have a picture, but it may direct you to a site which does. If all else fails, go to Wikimedia Commons and type Five Elements in the search box. --JB Adder | Talk 07:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demark's Economy[edit]

Who are the factory owners in Denmark?

This is one of the last questions on my assignment on the Danish culture, and I've searched everywhere for it, and can't seem to find it. Please help, your help will be greatly appreciated. Kirsten

The people who own factories of course! Sorry, but this is a very vague question, and very difficult to answer without any context or explanation of what detail you need. Did you want a list of names of factory owners? A demographic breakdown? Maybe the previous question(s) will make it clearer. --Canley 22:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents[edit]

How come you say Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, but not Ronald W. Reagan? MartinHagberg 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Same reason we say "Bill Clinton" rather than, say, "William J. Clinton" and "Jimmy Carter" rather than "James E. Carter" -- it's how the subject in question is or was best known. Now, are you asking why they are best known with or without their middle initials? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a small side note, Truman's full name is, in fact, Harry S Truman; there is no dot after the S, because there is no name which it represents. I think it comes about because both his grandfather wanted his name, but would've been insulted if the other's was included. (A little factoid from Reader's Digest Book of Facts) --JB Adder | Talk 07:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population in Denmark[edit]

Sorry, it's me again. I have another question about Denmark.

What are the largest groups-age, race, religion, language, ethnic group? Who is in the minority?

If you could help me that would be great. Charts of some kind would be preferable to show me the difference between the five different topics. Thank you so much for your help!

The CIA World Factbook should be of assistance. Grumpy Troll (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
See above under "Search first" and "Do your own homework". This is not something difficult to find. Try typing "Denmark" into the search box. But my offhand guess is that the largest group is teenage blacks devoted to Shinto and who speak Uzbek natively. --BluePlatypus 17:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Life in Denmark[edit]

Hey this is Heather. I thought it was kinda weird that someone else is doing a report on Denmark too! Well, maybe this question will help me and that girl somewhere out there. Well, here it is.

Rate the average person's health and happiness. (Medical care, life expectancy, security, opportunity.)

Remember, this question has to do with the Danish culture. Thanx a bunch! from Heather

It is also somewhat strange that the other person doing a report on Denmark and yourself are using the same Internet connection, if not the same computer. Grumpy Troll (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Have you heard of the Human Development Index? Denmark is a solid 14th; rather lower than its Scandinavian neighbours (Norway is helped by its oil wealth) but still ahead of countries like the United Kingdom, for instance. --Robert Merkel 22:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Can Architecture Fit In Careers of International Careers[edit]

Basically,some people are interested in more than one career,like me.For example,I want to major in International Business,but then yet want to major in architecture.I'm fascinated by big and tall buildings and their structures.And i'm also interested in International Business.Now my question is "Can their be a such thing as an International Architect or Urban Planner?"Can the two mix?You know go around and talk business into building your ideas of reality.I've always wondered that,so now i'm trying to find out.


Andre' Ward

  1. "Architecture (classical Greek: αρχή, 'start', τέχνη, 'craftsmanship') is the art and science of designing buildings and structures. A wider definition would include within its scope the design of the total built environment, from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating furniture. Architectural design usually must address both feasibility and cost for the builder, and function and aesthetics for the user."
  2. It's a given (for many) that Globalization or international trade is here to stay.
  3. So I would say the answer is yes. Halcatalyst 04:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VanGogh[edit]

What type of mental condition did VanGogh have?

Depression. See Vincent van Gogh. alteripse 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mental condition? He had a medical condition of epilepsy and was treated for it by doctors in Arles with digoxin. No doubt he had the psychiatric condition of depression, whether with mania or not. Geogre 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Karls of Sweden[edit]

There was a king Charles VII of Sweden but apparently no Charles VI. Why not?

List of Swedish monarchs says:

There are lists of Swedish pagan monarchs with dates far older than these. These records contain the early kings, of the House of Yngling, and give an explanation to the numbering of the monarchs, particularly the names Erik and Karl (Eric and Charles)

This is correct for "Erik" but not for "Karl"; the lists of Semi-legendary kings of Sweden and Mythological kings of Sweden include no Karls. So why do the Karls start at VII? An anonymous note on Talk:Charles VII of Sweden suggests that Charles IX of Sweden deliberately inflated his regnal number:

This king [i.e. Carl VII] was Carl I Sweartgarson (Sw: Karl Sverkersson), not Charles VII. Carl II Canuteson numbered himself correctly in the 15th century, but Carl IX (1604-1611) began a new numbering series wanting to use a higher (false) number

Is this right? Can someone provide a reference? Gdr 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The answer is that Charles VII (Sverkersson) was the first historical king named "Karl" according to tradition. The other 6 were inventions of Johannes Magnus (not Charles IX) according to Nordisk Familjebok (1955 edition). They aren't included in the mythological and semi-legendary kings since those either existed or had at least been invented early enough to not be disprovable. The fact that Johannes Magnus is responsible for the numbering scheme is mentioned on the Swedish version of the list. Consider merging that into the english version. --BluePlatypus 00:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Gdr 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coin question[edit]

i have in my procession a coin in a sliver color.inscription on it reads.georgivs v.d g.britt:omn:rex f.d.ind:imp with a mans head .on back it's has one florin in the 1920's.also on the back it's looks like a big cross.four crowns on top of each cross.there is also some sort of swords pointing on each corner.inside the cross there are three lions top and bottom.the other two has some kind of lion standing up with sword. and the other one seemlike harp or a sailing ship.you can e-mail me back at derek.hesbaldwin@nf.sympatico.ca or by phone at 1-709-596-6738. p.s.please reply back a.s.a.p. 

                        thank you 
                        derek

[[:Image:76-834.jpg|thumb|George V silver florin]]

Does it look like the coin on the right? If so, it's a George V silver florin. The legend stands for GEORGIUS V DEI GRATIA BRITANNIARUM OMNIUM REX FIDEI DEFENSOR INDIAE IMPERATOR; that is, "George V, by the grace of God, king of all the Britons, defender of the faith, Emperor of India". The four components of the cross are the quarters of the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom: three lions passant guardant for England; one lion rampant for Scotland; and a harp for Ireland. Gdr 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. What was your question?[reply]

Declaration of Independence[edit]

One of the signers of the American Declaration of Independence regretted during the war having signed it, and wanted his name removed from it. Does anyone know what this guy's name was? All I could find was someone who wrote a letter in 1808 saying he regretted signing the declaration, but who changed his mind during the revolutionary war?

January 3[edit]

Theme of death[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone knew of a painter who dealt mainly with the the theme of death, or to be even more specific, the fear of death? Thanks Deyyaz 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not what you are looking for, but arguably this is the theme of all vanitas. Notinasnaid 16:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VALUE OF ESTATE OF SURGEON JOHN HARRIS[edit]

John Harris, a Surgeon's Mate on the Second Fleet to arrive in Australia in 1790, died in 1838. I have seen estimates of his wealth at time of death, as high as (current value) $50 billion. I canot believe such a high figure. Can you please tell me what the probate value was for John Harris at the time of his death?

Michael

This question has been asked & answered before, I can't remember the details but most folk reckoned the $50 bn figure was derived from taking the current value of all the land he owned. AllanHainey 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who Are "Lily and Isabelle"?[edit]

I just brought home two female kitten (sisters), and I'm looking for names of famous sisters or famous women duos of history and/or literature to use as their names (i.e. not Paris and Nicki). :) I found a similar dilemna posted on a message board that I can only read (meaning I can't posted my question) and someone suggested "Lily and Isabelle." I've done some searches and I can't find a last name or a context. I'm wondering if someone at Wikipedia might have any insights (or names suggestions). Thanks so much! --128.125.222.124 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you like "Lily", the cats named in the Alice in Wonderland books are Dinah (the mother), Lily, (the white kitten), and Kitty (the black kitten) - Nunh-huh 11:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pension[edit]

Pl. inform the origin of word pensin and which country first introduced the pension scheme and in whcih year?

If you mean a pension scheme a la Social Security or other such things, then I think Germany under Otto von Bismarck in 1889, basically co-opting a platform of the Socialists.
MSTCrow 12:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MSTCrow is correct as to governmental programs. See Social security#Social insurance. As to private pensions, our article on Pension is deplorably weak on the history of the concept. JamesMLane 08:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish terminology[edit]

I asked this question elsewhere some time ago but it got no responses. So I thought I'd put it out to a wider audience.

As a gentile, I often wonder about this. Is it OK to say a Jewish person was "born as a Jew"? A person with Jewish blood/ethnicity would usually be described as "Jewish". A "Jew" would be somebody who adheres to the Jewish religion (which can include people with non-Jewish blood). If I have this right, a new-born baby might be Jewish, but "born as a Jew" sounds as wrong to me as "born as a Buddhist", or "born as a Christian". Religion is not an inheritable trait. Am I right? JackofOz 11:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being Jewish is an inherited trait, and devolves from the maternal line. Therefore, any Jew who was born of a Jewish mother is "born a Jew."
MSTCrow 12:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I realise this could get very complex, but I've never understood how this works. As you say, a person (call him/her Baby A) born of a Jewish mother is a Jew. That's fine, because the baby shares the mother's Jewish DNA. It's an inherited trait. Now take Baby B, who is born to a Jewish father but a non-Jewish mother. As I understand it, Baby B is not considered a Jew, even though he/she has just as much Jewish DNA as Baby A. How come Jewishness is an inherited trait if the mother is Jewish, but not an inherited trait if only the father is Jewish? I can't really see how cultural protocols can override genetic facts. JackofOz 12:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a cultural protocal as it is practicality. You always know who the mother is; Judaism being passed down through the mother was instituted only in the early Middle Ages when rapes and pogroms became common, and often a Jewish woman would have a a baby without knowing the father, or the father's religion. To prevent losing Jews, the maternal descent was instituted. Before that, it was a tribal religion, in fact more of a tribe (ethnicity) rather than religion. From a spiritual point of view, the mother is rewarded for carrying the baby and caring for it by having the right to pass on the religion. As Judaism is a home-based religion, it makes more sense for the mother (who back then was in charge of the home) to pass the religion. As well, it prevents a Jew from judging a fellow Jew on the basis of theiur observance; born a Jew, as full a Jew as any other. Remember, you can also convert, which makes you as full a Jew as any Jew born of Jewish parents. Unlike wizards, we do not believe in "pure-bloods". Hope this answers your question. Sputnikcccp 13:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Always more questions, unfortunately. So, Baby A above is born a Jew, and remains a Jew even if he/she is never observant. But Baby B, not born a Jew, might nevertheless have been brought up practising the religion of his father from a very early age, but in order to become a Jew himself he would have to "convert" at some stage. Is that how it works? If so, convert from what? JackofOz 13:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it sounds silly, but you have it right. Baby A can be the least observant Jew, but s/he are considered a full Jew, no less a Jew as the most observant Jew; even if Baby B practises Judaism, if s/he wishes to be considered a Jew (i.e. for a Jewish wedding or funeral) s/he would have to convert to Judaism with a rabbi. They would be converting to Judaism, not from anything really, but in theory thy would be converting from the religion of the mother. Thanks for the questions! Sputnikcccp 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there's obviously no such thing as "Jewish DNA" any more than there is American DNA or Catholic DNA. Jewish identity is inherited but not genetic. Rabbis speak of having a Jewish soul. People can of course convert to Judaism and some believe that Jewish converts were also born with a Jewish soul -- it just took a while for them to realize it. --דוד ♣ D Monack 21:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock band timeline?[edit]

Heya! Sorry this is a bit of a dappy question. A couple of months ago, I printed off a kind of graph timeline showing important bands and when they were around - it looked like a bar chart but sideways. Now, I can't find it anywhere, despite spending most of yesterday trying to find it - I've tried searching popular music etc. but it only comes up with written timelines which are very detailed and in years, whereas I found a simple diagram of important bands. I was wondering if anyone knew how I can access it or what page its on, or if its actually been deleted. Thanks!

Theology[edit]

Isn't theology trying to study rationaly the irrational?---Cosmic girl 14:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could say that. May I ask what your point is? I suppose it's a nice tagline, but little more. -- Ec5618 14:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what I meant was that, what is the point of theorizing so much about God and saying that he is unknowable at the same time! those people don't make sense to me, if god is irrational and unfathomable, then we should just leave the subject alone and investigate through the scientific method what can be investigated like the physical world, because if we theorize and theorize about spiritual matters and defend this or that point of view rationaly we are just confussing ourselves. I say this, because I was reading the article about saint anselm, and I think he came up with this whole theory about why Jesus came here and died and it made sense rationally, but then...what he says makes so much sense to me, but still I don't see why all that had to happen in the first place, since for example, us humans, never asked to be created,so there shouldn't be no 'sin'. It's confussing, but I hope I made it somewhat clear. haha.--Cosmic girl 14:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for actually waiting for an answer; many people horribly misuse this desk.
If we assume the existance of a god (say, the christian god), for argument's sake, then he told humanity how to live, by producing/co-authoring the bible. Doesn't it make sense then to study that text, to try to figure out what is meant by the text? Considering that the bible contains many things that do not seem to make sense at first glance, detailed study of the bible seems necessary.
Religion isn't rational per se, but if one assumes it is rooted in fact (an irrational belief, to be sure), one must rationally consider the implications of that. It may be irrational to believe in the existance of a deity without having been presented with proof, but to people who have accepted that irrational belief, but it is entirely rational to study that deity, through whatever means.
And I hope that made sense to you. -- Ec5618 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


thank you :) --Cosmic girl 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Theology differs from secular Religious Studies in that there is an assumption of faith in God, though the student of religion may also be religious, and the theologian, for that matter, may question his faith. Take a look at the article, and you'll see that there are all sorts of ways of doing theology. One is called apophatic or Negative theology, which seeks to understand what God is not.
  • Reason is of course important, but it is not the only way of knowing. Intuition is another. The two used together can lead you to places reason alone cannot enter. Halcatalyst 18:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat responsive to your question is this poem from Wikisource. Note in particular the last verse, often censored when the poem is included in anthologies. JamesMLane 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic influence on Dante[edit]

I have heard that Dante's "Divine Comedy" have interesting parallells to various arabic texts, where could i find reliable facts on this subject?

VIETNAM 'S CORRUPTION[edit]

Please tell me about the corruption of Vietnam country and how to rate it ?

See the relevant chapter in Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2005. According to TI's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2004, Vietnam rated 2.6 out of 10, making it the 102nd most perceived corrupt of the 146 countries surveyed. Gdr 17:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lermontov's quote "Finita la comedia!" From where?[edit]

Out of curiosity I'd like to know from where Michail Lermontov has borrowed the quote "Finita la comedia!" (or if he's the one that made it up) in his book "A hero of our time". A web search only told me it's a common quote, mainly on russian sites. Any help is greatly appreciated.--83.252.190.238 16:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds quite similar to the famous last line of Pagliacci, "La commedia è finita." Not sure though. --George 18:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, that is another use of a similar phrase. I should add that Lermontov's novel was completed in 1839. As of now I'm thinking it's a phrase used at some time to announce the end of an actual comedy (as opposed to the irony of the statement in both "A hero of our time" and "Pagliacci") or perhaps the last words of Dante's "Divine Comedy". Anyone else know the origin of this phrase? --83.252.190.238 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The play is over, applaud" is apparently a way to end Roman comedies, and was supposedly Augustus' last words (and also Beethoven's). Maybe it's related to that. Adam Bishop 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not the Divine Comedy, which ends with "the Love that moves the sun and the other stars" ("l’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle"). - Nunh-huh 02:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Clementine Churchill[edit]

How did Lady 'Clementine' pronounce her name? Was it, as in the fruit? or as in 'tyne'? Thank you. 86.133.52.2 17:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but I can tell you that in general terms the "long i" (IPA [ai])pronunciation in these types of names was the more common older pronunciation. AnonMoos

She prounced it 'Clemen-TEEN'. I know that because I used to know June Churchill, the second (I think) wife of Randolph Churchill, Clementine's son. 90.202.104.92 (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uncomfortable work enviorment[edit]

I've been working at a law firm for 7 monthss, now and 2 days before Christmas my boss fired my mom which was my supervisor. Since then I have been feeling uncomfortable at my workplace ex. One of the partners at the law firm demand that I do what ever he ask of me whether it has to do with work or not. I feel this is unfair because he is asking me to do personal favors for him, and he feels I am obligated to do whatever he ask of me while I'm on their clock.Another situation that made me uncomfortable is when I asked for my christmas that the secretaries before me recieved I was told that the company is having finacial troubles and they just gave my mother her bonus for the year and that they can not give us both a bonus. Are there any laws against this?

  • Probably there are no laws against this sort of thing. If the partner or anyone else asks you to do something illegal, unethical, or immoral, you can and should refuse. You can also quit and find work elsewhere. Halcatalyst 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Race in USA[edit]

What is the racial breakdown in the USA per the census.

See Racial demographics of the United States for a complete answer. --Kainaw (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

women in britain[edit]

what did women in britain after the romans left do when they had their periods

It's really hard to know, as there aren't many (if any) records of women's daily lives. This page (from the Museum of Menstruation) posits that women in Europe simply bled into their clothes, but it describes a time period a lot more recent than what you're specifying. I'd speculate that they used moss, absorbent barks, soft absorbent leathers, or they may have just let it flow. Natgoo 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but wondering what they did differently before the Romans left, or is this a subtle allusion to the TamPax Romana? alteripse 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who invaded Spain in the eigth century AD?[edit]

I think it would be Moore appropriate to list the 2nd question separately with it's own title. StuRat 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Okay. Natgoo 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a hint :-) StuRat 21:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh no! I'm so sorry, it's the Moops, the correct answer is the Moops." Adam Bishop 06:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, that was in the svnth century. Halcatalyst 13:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

progress[edit]

hi :) , to which economical system do we owe our high cuality life these days? (see what 'Bucky Fuller' sayes about the billions of billionares) I guess we owe it to capitalism, but I want more opinions, and also, to which belief system, I think it is rationalism,and/or pragmatism, but again, I'd like to know more points of view. --Cosmic girl 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think pure capitalism is almost as bad as pure socialism. Those countries which have been most successful are somewhere in-between, with ths US being perhaps the furthest toward pure capitalism and European and Asian democracies being closer to pure socialism. The US still has a progressive income tax rate and social programs such as unemployment insurance, a government retirement plan (Social Security), and public assistance funds, so it's not pure capitalism. However, it lacks the socialised medicine of most other western nations. Countries which are closer to pure capitalism than the US, such as many in Africa, tend to do poorly, due to constant conflict and revolution driven by the starving and unemployed poor. I don't think much argument is needed to show that pure socialism/communism is a failure. The fact that the Soviet Union collapsed and China has adopted capitalism is evidence enough. I would also say cultures which accept science also do much better than those stuck in the distant superstitions of the past. It's hard to build a communications satellite when you insist that the Earth is flat. StuRat 21:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (It does no good to take cheap shots at peoples' beliefs in your answer by using pejorative terminology. Instead of being so judgemental, try opening your mind and accept people who might believe differently than you. That will surely make for a better society.)
I generally second the above. Though I think it hardly fair to blame capitalism for the problems of post-colonial Africa - to put it mildly, there are major issues.
But yes, a certain moderate sort of capitalism - specifically, some sort of mixed economy - has certainly given us our current, fabulously well-off socities. This should come as no surprise: It is mathematically provable that a free market will lead to several desirable outcomes which are not guaranteed in a command economy. Of course it also has its disadvantages, and this is why modern economies are more or less mixed.
As for your question about rationalism or pragmatism - I'm not sure what you're asking. Please do clarify. --George 22:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that the most important refinements of capitalism are government regulation over competition and the distinction between public goods and private goods. If private companies had to build all of the streets and schools, we never would have developed the low-transaction cost trade network or the large middle class. --Mareino 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, we are clear that comunism and socialism aren't ok, because they ( to me) aren't rational since they go totally against human nature...but how come there are still people that have so much faith in those systems that should by now be ignored or laughed at. and other thing, I think free trade is good, and I live in a 2nd world country, but I don't understand why is there so much enphasis on fair trade in the 1st world by some activists when I think the WTO is doing a good job by sponsoring free trade...since free trade has given my country a cuality of life that it wouldn't have had if the world haden't implemented a free trade policy. but I don't have something clear, which country or countries have the most radical capitalism? just to compare.thanx :D --Cosmic girl 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's spelled quality.
  • I would say there are very few people who have faith in pure socialism. Most people who argue for socialism are in fact arguing for a mixed economy slightly more tilted toward socialism and less toward capitalism than at present.
  • By "living in a 2nd world country", do you mean a former communist nation ?
  • One problem with just "free trade" is that it neglects the advantages of first world nations, such as being able to afford to subsidize industry, which allow them to beat third world nations in trade, once trade barriers are eliminated. Thus, third world nations try to link the elimination of goverment subsidies for industry with trade negotiations.
  • Another problem with "free trade" is that first world nations have expensive requirements on companies for environmental protection and employee retirement programs, which may not exist in other nations, thus giving the first world nations a competitive disadvantage. Therefore, first world nations typically want to "level the playing field" by imposing similar requirements on nations with which they compete.

StuRat 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for correcting me, english isn't my 1st language... by a 2nd world country I mean...a 2nd world country haha...it's Perú. maybe free trade isn't fair with 3rd world nations, but I still think it's the wisest way to go, it may sound cruel, but sometimes we have to let reason control emotions in matters like this. I also think that a somewhat mixed economy works best, but only recently, since pure capitalism was really productive in its first stages.--Cosmic girl 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation. The third world countries have been the more willing to free trade than many first world countries, who:
  • are unwilling to cut their farm subsidies (to protect their farmers).
  • are unwilling to open up to sectors like business process outsourcing (to protect their workforce).
  • etc.

I see stuff on supermarket shelves which say in largest available font "Proudly made in the USA." Such things don't happen in the third world countries. deeptrivia (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also see stuff in store shelves marked "Made in USA", but when we unwrap packaging at home, we found it was really "made in China". This is a case where the retailer thinks "Made in USA" sells, and not care if it is true or not. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no they don't happen, but I think we should start thinking as world citizens and not as envious nationalists.I want the progress of the world, and if my country wants to succeed, it has to make efforts, because I wouldn't want to ask for charity of the 1st world, it's stupid, everything we achieve has to be earned.--Cosmic girl 23:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe truly free trade would eventually result in an even distribution of wealth and incomes throughout the world. This might sound good, but it means a radical loss of wealth and income in the first world nations to accompany a radical rise in wealth and income in the third world nations. It's hard to imagine that the first world nations would agree to this. StuRat 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(Moved answer to next question down below. StuRat 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

huh?, I think u have the wrong question here...hehe --Cosmic girl 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dont mean to be pedantic, but ...

There is no sense in stating something such as: "pure socialism is a failure"

first, there is no clear agenda related to socialism. Just as an example, anarquist groups that i had contact with would call themselves "libertarian socialists" and their ideas are extreamely opposit to the marxist-leninism and, therefore, to the events of the USSR and CHINA. They would want a local and participative revolution, either of a radical democracy ( as in people making the law and enforecing it, whithout autorities ) or through the strait and foward desolution of the state, while a marxist sees the revolution as a part of and historical process ( careful, it`s gonna hurt ... ) in which the economical relations set the other relations in a society. Therefore, before political, social or any other kind of change, there had to be a change in the way of producing goods. before people getting to the power, the means of production would have to be set in a way that would produce this social structure.


The need of "wise leaders" to guide the peoples revolution is also highly disputed amosgt socialists, and, however, both the chinese and the soviet societies where based in such a concept in a very rigid way.

Just to be sure socialism DOES NOT MEAN soviet-style planned economy

That said, and back to the core of the question

( as i understand, the reason of our quality of life this days, and , on a broader perpective, the way we organize our society )

our quality of life has increased mainly in captalist countries. Fact. And, in my opinion , this was due to two main causes

1st ) in fear of socialist revolutions ( mainly ) governments created structures to give to the people some of what they needed ( why not due to good will ? well, then why didn't they do it before the socialist "ghost". And why are they undoing it ?*)


2nd ) there was need to create market for goods. If you wanna sell, and always sell more, there has to be someone to buy.

This second part is the part where one that beliaves in captalism says ( and, btw, i don`t ) : see, it is great ! works "automatically". Well, not quite ...

the creation of markets does not mean that there is a need to give people what they need ... After all, there can be military expenses, amongst others, to buy your goods. And even when the market in sough on the people, it might not go to where thay need. There is more investiment been made in "male erection pils" then on the cure ( erratication ) of some diseases that have been curable for the past 50 years

dont mean to get this commet boorinnly big, so, i'll just say that , in Cuba ( and god forbid me defending Castro ) the death of children that where just born ( dont know the name in english, but that will do ) is the same as in a very whealthy captalist country: the USA

  • as to "undoyng it", Yes, we are. Everywhere, reforms seek to make employment cheaper, by reducing the amount of rights of workers ( hours of work, retirement ... )

some contries in asia ( was it south corea ? ) are cutting back on medication proveded to its citizens ( AIDS medication, if i got it right ) ( sorry, learned about this back in ealy 2005, in the World Social Forum, and could not google it ) europe itself is trying to allow conpanies from less regulated contries to use their work regulamentaions in other contries of the EU

that said, good night

The term is "infant mortality", and just because Cuba equals the US in one measure of progress doesn't mean it equals it in all, or even most, measures of progress. StuRat 09:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure deal.

Cuba most surely is not capable of producing computers, and their riches are minimun. They still work sugar and cigars, and have enduring economical difficulties. Those difficlulties are , though in some measure helped by the US embargo, mainly due to economical problems genereted in the island itself, and in it's dependent relashionship to the former USSR. Also, most of it's resourses where ( in lack of a batter word ) given to it by the former ussr

that said,

i still find it pretty amazing, that, in such a poor contry, they have managed to have such a good public health ( and education, btw ) i dont know exacly what you mean by "measures of progress", but, in my beliave, the only things that really count as progress are: education ( and other ways of a person to grow, such as arts ),health and freedom ( of speech, to come and go ... ) and the rest, especially revenue and tech, are nothing but means to those higher ends. Though minimun result where a chieved on the latter, the two previous ones show an impressive record

though some would say that a "really socialist" society could grow in economy further than a captalist one, i sincerely think it can't. I just don't know exactly how important that would be ...

i realise know that, iun my prior post, I just said what socialism wasn't, but not what it is, so i quote from the article socialism

"Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production."

and i just have to say that most pro-capitalism text i had the opportunity of loking upon ( those that would argue in favor of capitalism as a system, not those who , inside a capitalist context, produce "capitalist compliant" ideas in other areas of knowledge ) just talk about the way in whith people can, by their choices of buying or not certain products, enchance their quality, and support the production and development of products they need. As in an "indirect control of means of production". So is the main advantage of captalism just a feeble form of socialism ?

well, know that i've made some positive statments, i probably should be more vulnerable to answers ... i just hope so !

Cold Light

haha... ok, I didn't understand much of what u guys said... but anyway, it's obvious that cuba is not doing ok, so why cling to socialism? I really don't get it, it has been showed over and over that capitalism increases the overall wealth of humanity so why not just be a thankful capitalist? why is there still that desire to be a rebel? I mean even the poor do better than the rich did some time ago...so I'm sorry for what I'm gonna say, but I think people should quit bitching about capitalism because it has done a good job, and I am just a silly south american 20 year old female so what do I know?, but economists think this way too, so don't believe me, believe them. --Cosmic girl 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

will try my best to cut to the chase:

1st) not all kinds of socialims have been "tryed and proved wrong"

2nd) even if captalism makes us whelthier ( pretty sure i got that word wrong ... ) doesn't it take to much for that ?

  • i mean, an EXTREMELY POOR and RATHER ECONOMICALLY UNSUCEFULL country, such as Cuba, can, with their scarse resources do as much ( if not more ) for health and education as the US ? i can only imagine what a contry with more riches could do ...
  • and also, there is the fact that many people, in captalism, are compeled to devote their lifes to nonsense. Pure and simple. They have to create needs that aren't because, otherwise, they can't make a living ( while there are many needs that are forgotten )
  • Also, it seems to stimulate our competitive and non cooperative tendencies. Wars are the maximum expression of that, but thera are also the elderly people in Japan, that are beein less ans less able to rely on their relatives, that are just SO busy.

I don't know if captalism is the best way to wealth, but i think it is not the best way to make us live longer ( health ), or to become better people ( education, society and cooperation )

do you guys still watch cartoons ?

there are some things that are remarcable about Tom and Jerry, and that might just claroify a bit my personal opposition to the so-called pragmsatims behind the thinking that states that "socialism didn't work, captalism worked, so leave it alone "

( i cant remember the script of the cartoon in detail, but this is just to make a point clear )

Tom builds himself a plane ( as i can remember, he adds to himself a couple of wooden wings, possibly from a table ) and flies ( by jumping from a roof ) However ( this is just to make the point, that part is similar, but does not come from any cartoon i remember to have seen )that bowling ball he had thrown at Jerry sooner in the cartoon , and had, for some reason , flown high into the skies, falls right in Tom's head a moment before he can seize the unsuspecting mouse. A second latter, Tom is building a gigantic mouse trap and the whole plane idea falls into oblivion

This is, as far as I can see, just what people have been doing to socialism. It's thesis was "the control of means of production by the people". Some guys, behind this thesis, got hold of the means of production, and used it to their own. And the whole thing went to hell Therefore ( in this simplistic theory ) socialism is not viable, does not work, and should never again be considered

i realise that wikipedia questions might not be the place for this, but gotta do it somewhere

Cold Light

So are you agreeing with me that socialism does not work?, and also, like you said before or someone said : capitalism makes us comptetitive and not cooperative hey if we are competitive, we become better persons faster, for the good of humanity, if you had noone to look up to or to ..let's say envy you would be just LAZY and not motivated, personally I love capitalism, and I don't complain about not having it all because i don't, and I'm glad there's people richer than me, because if they are, they have that burden and I don't and also, they make contributions to the world, so in fact, I'm thankful, it's like, I guess a socialist would hate bill gates, I think the opposite way, I love bill gates, because thanx to him I'm writing this now, and he deserves what he has, and if I do something for the advancement of humanity, then I deserve to have what I deserve to have, and if I don't , then I don't, and I'm not gonna be bitching about it, because that was my choice.---Cosmic girl 16:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark Stuff[edit]

There's a general rule against doing people's homework for them (we're worried about cheating and plagarism), so don't expect anyone else to answer these questions. Check out these links, and once you've gotten almost all of your assignment written down in your own words, feel free to come back with more specific questions if you're still curious.
--Mareino 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The following was moved from the above question to here. StuRat 23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As others have said, do your own homework, but here's a cryptic hint for question 5: Tasmanian real estate agents...--Robert Merkel 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh, "Tasmanian real estate agents"!. see below for comment about homework and some links. I really can't believe a teacher has assigned you such vague and badly-worded questions! Some more articles that might help you do your own research: Education in Denmark, Demographics of Denmark and Religion in Denmark. --Canley 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be The Better career[edit]

With my interest in International Business, and architecture,what would be the better career?Which one would make the most money?You see,i'm interested in both,so if i go in either one,people will know thats its not just because of the money.Its kind of hard to choose between the two though,for me.I wonder if i can merge the two together...........which one is more popular based on peoples' view?These are a couple of things i need to know in order to pick either one.If i'm missing out on any additional information,please let me know when answering the question.Thank you for your time.

Andre' Ward

Is 'International Business' a particular career? Do you mean working for IBM, and if so, in what capacity? Notinasnaid 20:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean like working for companies that have businesses overseas.Yeah International Business can be considered a particular career.It depends though what you would do while in that business.Some people i've read about were in businesses like that,and then,some way started their own businesses or became intrapreneurs.With being an architect,you can build stuff and possibly start your own business.

Andre' Ward

  • Andre' my man, you need to go to a good university that offers both IB and architecture. (If you're an American, virtually every school with "State" in the name qualifies, so you'll have no shortage of options, but I recommend Carnegie Mellon if you can get in). As someone who has friends in both fields, I can tell you that you can make six figures in either field by the time you turn 30 if you go to a good school, get good grades, an exhibit the kind of social skills that big companies need in their most skilled employees. And yes, you can do both; Santiago Calatrava is a pretty good role model. --Mareino 21:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would civil engineering be a good way to get started?Because you see,I'm here in South Carolina,and i'm thinking about majoring in civil engineering at theUniversity of South Carolina since they don't have any architecture majors for right now.I know i read some things on certain architects,and some articles said that they started off with civil engineering and worked their way up.Some also majored in some art courses,just to keep that in mind.But overall,i just basically want to know if civil engineering would be a good beginning.

Andre' Ward

  • Yes, I'd say so. Since you're interested in the business end, I'd say art is not a good choice as an undergraduate major, but engineering is definitely good preparation.
  • Civil engineering is the oldest of the engineering disciplines, since something like it was used by the Egyptians, the Romans, and even ancient Britons (e.g., Avebury, which is like Stonehenge but older). Architecture is also obviously very old. Halcatalyst 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it comes down to your choice is between Civil Engineering (CE) and architecture you should consider your personal interests:
  • Do you like drawing and art? CE has no drawing or art, whereas Architecture has lots.
  • Do you do well at maths? You need to do the harder maths courses at school to do CE (gererally), whereas architects don't know what maths is (generally).
  • An engineering course is hard work, make sure you are really interested in the subjects (I can talk about this if you like) before you decide to do a four year degree. Architecture (at least at my uni) is not as hard.--Commander Keane 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing this from my desk at KPF so I think I can offer you some sound advice. These day's Architecture and International Business are essentially the same thing. Every large firm and many small firms do work around the world, especially with all the building happening in China and Southeast Asia. If you're interested in both I would consider enrolling in Architecture and taking some business classes. Firms always need people to act as Managing Architects who take care of the business end of things.

You don't sound like a design wonk, but I still wouldn't recommend Civil Engineering. If you want to make buildings do Architecture, if you want to make bridges do Civ-E. Both degrees are rigorous and difficult, but they prepair you for different things.

Finally you should consider that almost all accredited architecture schools in the U.S. are five year programs. You come away with a professional degree, but if you don't want to put in the extra year don't do it. The path to an architecture degree is paved with those who burned out along the way :) My school (PSU) enrolls about one hundred architecture under-grads each year and graduates fifty to sixty. Half of those who leave do so during or after their first year, many for business.

That said, I'm glad I chose architecture every day I walk into work. Jasongetsdown 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Architecture lucrative?Civil Engineering lucrative?I want to be nationally and internationally known for my works of buildings and other creations like others.I want to do something i enjoy and have good pay.Some architects have became both,engineers of all kinds and architects.I kind of changed my mind about going to the University of South Carolina because it doesn't offer architectural courses and Clemson University seems to be the only University with it.So which one is lucrative?

Andre' Ward

You will earn good pay as a civil engineer or an architect. I would guess that there is more oppurtunity to become famous as an architect. More importantly, civil engineers and architects do vastly different jobs - you should consider your interests when desciding between them. You have expressed interest in buildings. Civil engineers that work on buildings include (all hold a CE degree):
  • Strucutral engineers - design the building itself (I think this is what you might be interested in)
  • Geotechnical engineers - consider/test the soil below the building
  • Construction engineers - organise the construction of the building, on-site.
For example, consider the design of a small office building. An architect will work with the client in choosing the shape of the building, and the extras (like will it have glass cladding etc). Structural engineers will get the basic plan from the architect and do do calculations for the wind, earthquake and floor loads. They then choose beams, columns and a floor slab, possibly modifying the intitial architects plan. Usually the architect will organise the project, eg work with the engineers, the door suppliers, constructors etc.--Commander Keane 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 4[edit]

The Embargo Act[edit]

Was the embargo act of 1807 actually constitutional? -AK

  • A basic principle of the Constitution is that Congress enacts laws (article I). The famous case Marbury v. Madison (1803) set the precedent that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and can declare laws unconstitutional.
  • So, since it was legally enacted and not overruled, the Embargo Act was constitutional. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea. Halcatalyst 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply because the Supreme Court does not rule an act of legislation unconstitutional does not make it so. One must remember that sovereignty lies with the people, not the courts; for instance, slavery was never constitutional, even if the courts ruled otherwise for a time. MSTCrow 13:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question, as I understood it, was whether the act was seen as consitutional at that time rather than whether it would be considered constitutional now. I believe it was.
  • It's true in principle, of course, that sovereignty lies with the people, not the courts. However, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's settled law that, short of constitutional amendments, the Supreme Court has the final word on what is "constitutional."
  • BTW, slavery was indeed constitutional. It was recognized implicity by the Three-fifths compromise during the Constitutional Convention. The 13th amendment (1865) abolished slavery. Halcatalyst 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slavery was implicitly recognized because it wasn't possible to rip it out. The three-fifths clause was designed to limit the number of Representatives in the US House that the slave-holding States would have, thereby implicitly recognizing that slavery was unconstitutional, and allowing it to be enforced as such in the future, by placing legslative majority in non-slave holding states. I don't know how anyone can say that "it's settled law" that the Supreme Court has the final word on what is constitutional or not. That goes against our entire history of law, and the Supreme Court itself is not monolithic on holding such extensive and far-reaching powers. The only place such nonsense exists are government textbooks, which aren't known for being accurate anyways.
MSTCrow 01:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. My question was whether if we study the constitution now, was the act actually constitutional? I know at the time the supreme court didn't stop it, but there were many times laws and acts were passed that at the time the supreme court ignored or ruled was OK and later it was declared unconstitutional. What in the constitution allowed or didn't allow the passing of the embargo act? -AK
  • I would say, honestly, nothing, either way. The Consitution was what it was at the time, just as, today, it is what it is: A written document.
  • But American politics is and was in large part a "seat of the pants" operation. It involves a lot more people now than then, but... hey, it's about partisan politics and foreign policy. Jefferson was anti-British and pro-French; the French and the British were at war, and the British were shanghai-ing Americans to be British sailors. The Embargo Act attempted as a strong countermeasure to cut off Anglo-American trade. You could say that Jefferson was defending America, just like Bush today. Or you could say he was running wild, just like Bush today. Halcatalyst 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people at the time, particularly but not just Federalists, thought the Embargo Act of 1807 was unconstitutional; some talked of secession. The relevant Constitutional issue was of course the "commerce clause." But, to quote this page, "in 1808 a federal district court, in the case of 'United States v. The William', ruled the embargo constitutional." The verdict is here. Not everyone agreed with the ruling. The real problem was not with the Act itself, but with the enforcement of it, which potentially violated the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the opposite of the word intaglio (the antonym)?[edit]

added by gina: 1-10-06 ... The word I am looking for is to describe a type of preparation for painting. An artist coats the prepared canvas with a color - say, burt umber - and paints the images over the color (rather than over a white canvas). Sometimes, the artist lets the color show through. Generally, this textured color approach makes a richer painting. I am pretty certain this technique originated during the Rennessaince ... there is a specific name for the technique that I can't remember. Intaglio is applying a coat of dark color -- like a black crayon -- on a piece of art paper and then scratching through the crayon to create an image. The opposite of that is the word I am looking for.

Thank you for any help. Gina

The antonym of a carving? It doesn't have a logical opposite. --Kainaw (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nouns don't generally have opposites. But for what it's worth, the opposite of "an engraved thing" is "an unengraved thing". - Nunh-huh 02:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about relief? Dalembert 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo is an antonym. Halcatalyst 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry:[edit]

Who wrote the poem containing the following passages: I loved you and perhaps I love you still The flame perhaps is not extinguished It burns so quitely within my soul No longer should you feel distressed by it .... ?

These lines?:

"I loved you; and perhaps I love you still,
The flame, perhaps, is not extinguished; yet
It burns so quietly within my soul,
No longer should you feel distressed by it.
Silently and hopelessly I loved you,
At times too jealous and at times too shy.
God grant you find another who will love you
As tenderly and truthfully as I. "

Thanks!

Shoplifting[edit]

What are the effects of shoplifting on the community?

plz and thnk u

  • Increases the cost of items to everybody else, as businesses must raise prices to cover losses.
  • Increases in mistrust in the community, with security guards needed for all businesses.

StuRat 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know about you, but I prefer an increase in price for items to cover security expenses rather than losses. Otherwise you never stop it. - 131.211.210.11 09:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adds to everyone overhead to pay justice system to warehouse the people who got caught into prison, where the cost of doing so is often higher than the value of the stuff they swiped. User:AlMac|(talk) 11:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Increases other crimes. Once a person happily commits one crime and gets away with it, others don't seem so bad. --Kainaw (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-> this theory, that simple crimes make way to bigger ones which i beliave is called "broken window theory" lacks cientifical foundation. When it was aplied ( namely, to the secury of New York ) it did not cause noticible change in crime rates ( yes, crime dropped, but when you consider the influence of the number of cops , that has raised, and the overall crime reduction throughout the USA, this and all the other revolutionri crime fighing theories seem to have little influence, if any ) source : freakonomics

as to prices, well, they are pretty more complex than that ... some of then might rise, while other can't due to other characteristics of the markets

Tasmanian Real Estate Agents[edit]

What does Tasmanian Real Estate Agents mean?


I dont know if you are from Australia, but it is more than likely the name of a group of people who sell Real Estate in Tasmania--Ali K 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People who buy and sell land and houses and business facilities in Tasmania, I would imagine. StuRat 06:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is referring to a cryptic hint I gave her for an earlier question. Herein lies a lesson in how to use Google. Go to the website http://www.google.com and type the words "Denmark" and "Tasmania" into the search box, and click the search button. It will become abundantly clear what I'm referring to; a specific real estate agent from Tasmania who holds a prominent place in the minds of the Danish people. --Robert Merkel 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good reason as to why that is the case (it's in the article, but I'll explain it here anyhow): Crown Princess Mary of Denmark worked as a Tamanian real estate agent, prior to her meetup with, and subsequent marraige to, Crown Prince Frederick. --JB Adder | Talk 07:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, actually. She was never a real estate agent personally, as in having a licence to conduct such a business. She was employed by a real estate firm, as a sales director. And it was in Sydney, not Tasmania. JackofOz 08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about myself?[edit]

What dating system was around back when christian monks preserved written history of my existance through the dark ages? Was it this BCE crap? No, I didn't think so--Xenaphon 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it wasn't BC either, and they knew how to spell your name correctly. Adam Bishop 06:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See section 2 of Anno Domini. Gdr 11:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's mentioning Wikipedia:Three revert rule in connection with Xenophon. Notinasnaid 12:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huh? can someone explain this question to me please? --Cosmic girl 03:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Cosmic Girl (or try to), there was this Greek philosopher. Two people have joined Wiki, using that person's name as their account names, one of them misspelled. Plus the two of them have not been having a harmonious relationship. At the time of the REAL Greek philosopher, assuming one or more of these accounits is not claiming to be reincarnation of the REAL guy, there must have been some kind of Calendar system. Then over the centuries, new kinds of systems were developed, such as the Mayan calendar. Was it them, or the Aztecs that had a Y2K type of end-of-universe time when their Gods would play havoc with their civilization? Most of the West today is on the Julian calendar which is named after some Pope in the middle ages, where AD means after Christ (the D for latin for him that I not remember the spelling for), and BC means before Christ. Meanwhile the Chinese, and some other folks are on some other calendar system (I know about some of this because you can set on some computer systems to compenstate for which system you doing business with). So I understand the question, I just not know the answer. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of Mrs. Broslofsky, "What what what?" Most of the West uses the Gregorian calendar, not the Julian calendar, and the Julian calendar is named after Julius Caesar, not a medieval pope. If the question is what dates did monks use for Xenophon (c. 427-355 BC) before the notation of "BC" was invented, they'd likely have used ab urbe condita, Alexandrian era, or Anno Diocletiani dates. The "D" in anno domini dates stands for "domini" or lord, not the Latin for "Christ". 355 BC is roughly 399 AUC. - Nunh-huh 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand the question, I just not know the answer, and there's obviously a lot of stuff I think I know but don't really. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although he wrote some philosophical dialogues, Xenophon wasn't just a philosopher. He was also a soldier, mercenary, politician, historian and novelist. Xenophon himself identified did not number years but identified them by the events that took place in them. For example, in Hellenica he identifies some years like this:

... the year of the evening eclipse of the moon, and the burning of the old temple of Athena. (i.e. 406 BC)

Some Greek historians dated by Olympiads; thus 406 BC would be the 3rd year of the 92nd Olympiad. Gdr 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese art[edit]

Is anyone familiar with 'azuma'? Japanese anime? Thanks!

What I meant was...can someone explain/define what 'azuma' is? Thanks.

Are you looking for Kiyohiko Azuma, manga artist? Or maybe Hiroki Azuma, a critic who has written about anime? (See Azuma for other, less likely, possibilities.) Gdr 16:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

britain armour[edit]

what was armour and swords like in britain after the romans left? was it like roman armor or pict armor or saramatian armor? and what were the swords like?

flags[edit]

I'm doing a report on the meanings and what different flags of the world symbolize. What do these flags symbolize? I just need websites, and I can take it from there. Sarah

1. India 2.Japan 3. Denmark 4. Italy

Your help would be greatly appreciated!

We have articles on all of these which explain them in great detail. See Flag of India, Flag of Japan, and so on. —Keenan Pepper 17:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, for most vexillological topics, the Flags of the World website is still a much better resource than Wikipedia.--Pharos 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

best selling male solo artist[edit]

who is the best selling male solo artist

In terms of records sold worldwide, I believe it is Elvis Presley. - Akamad 19:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Elvis Presley says that he "[h]as sold over one billion records worldwide - the first to do so - and is the best selling record artist in history." Our article on Michael Jackson notes his departure from the Jackson 5 and states that "[h]e has since become the biggest selling solo artist of all-time, with worldwide sales of over 300 million.[4],[5],[6]" My first thought was that Jackson must have sold more records because the population was so much larger during his peak years, but, against that, he seems to have had longer breaks between albums than Elvis did. Because of Jackson's early work with his brothers, it's conceivable that both our articles are wrong -- that Elvis is the best-selling solo artist but that Jackson has sold more records than anyone else (if you count all the Jackson 5 records). Ah, but in that case, could Paul McCartney aggregate Beatles plus Wings plus solo records? I don't know. Even All Music Guide equivocates, saying that Elvis's extraordinary sales figures "may make him the single highest-selling performer in history." [7] Thanks loads, you wussies. It would be nice if we could get all this cleared up by Elvis's birthday this coming Sunday. JamesMLane 09:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely doubt that the Jackson 5 sold over 700 million records (which is what Michael Jackson would need in addition to his 300 million sales in order to even equal Elvis's tally). MJ does have the biggest selling album of all time. Proto t c 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's invasions[edit]

What kept hitler from invading Switzerland or Sweden?

See Switzerland during the World Wars (also Operation Tannenbaum) and Sweden during World War II. (Other European nations which remained neutral throughout WW2 were the Republic of Ireland, Spain, Liechtenstein, and Portugal.) Gdr 18:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, people just ask this now because it's the example question. Come to think of it, I seem to remember a lot of people asking about the capital of South Africa before I changed it... =P —Keenan Pepper 19:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And don't forget to read answer previously posted on this page. - Mgm|(talk) 19:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having some nuetral areas was helpful to the NAZIs, for example, by allowing for simple prisoner exchanges with the Allies. Later on, they provided a possible escape route for NAZIs wanting to avoid trials and punishment. StuRat 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, don't forget, an escape route for their money, as well! From Switzerland: "Modern historical findings, such as the research done by the Bergier commission, indicate that another major factor [that the German invasion was never initiated] was the continued trade by Swiss banks with Nazi Germany." Common Man 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe people keep asking this question because it's the example question at the head of the refernce section? Halcatalyst 05:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually maybe it's because human nature is to not read. (See three lines above yours :) - Taxman Talk 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's tragic, because without written language, we wouldn't have civilization. OTOH, maybe that would be a good thing. In any case, as the linguists insist over on the Language reference desk, the only real languages are spoken ones. {You'll have to pardon me today. I'm not feeling cynical, but rather too much in the both/and band of reality.} Halcatalyst 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan - burning cross[edit]

Why do the Ku Klux Klan burn crosses? The article just says it comes from some movie, but it doesn't seem to say what it stands for. It comes across sort of like burning a flag, but somehow anti-chistianity (or what should I call that) doesn't seem to fit in with the Klan. DirkvdM 18:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movie, The Birth of a Nation, is based on the book The Clansman. The book is the first historical mention of KKK cross burning. However, the writer, Thomas Dixon, admitted that he took liberty with the cross burning. It wasn't from the KKK. It was from the Scottish history (particularly one of Dixon's favorite poems "The Lady of the Lake"). D. W. Griffith knew that a burning cross would look great in his movie. So, he kept it. The KKK liked it and adopted the practice. --Kainaw (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation Laws in South Carolina[edit]

I wonder why are the annexation laws so strict in South Carolina.I mean why?It slows down the expansion and growth of some cities.But now today,some cities of SC are still growing regardless.They complain about urban sprawl,well i'm like maybe if the annexation laws weren't so strict maybe they could possibly capture and stop urban sprawl.Will these annexation laws change in the future?Because i think its ridiculous.I mean its an alright state and everything and its highly recognized in the country,but still though these laws has gots to go.Its either that or pick another General Assembly or another team of the state government instead.Thats the way i see it.

Andre' Ward

The laws are strict to protect the poor. Look at James Island outside of Charleston as an example. They have tried multiple times to annex themselves as their own city. The catch is that they only want to annex the rich parts of James Island and leave the poor parts for the city of Charleston. The annexation laws require James Island to annex it all or take none of it. If it wasn't for such laws, all the poor parts of SC would be annexed as one city and all the rich parts would be another. --Kainaw (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned why this is a problem. The reason for annexing only rich neighborhoods is to avoid paying taxes to support the poor. Take a peek at the census and you can see that in South Carolina it is very much a racial issue as well. The poor neighborhoods are predominately black. The rich ones are predominately white. So, selective annexation is also a tool to keep black children out of white schools. Also of note: The James Island case that I mentioned has been back and forth through the courts. They have been instructed to annex all of James Island or none of it. They continue to try and find ways to be selective. Similarly, Daniel Island is currently in a predominately black county. It is a new hot-spot for rich whites to move to. So, they are fighting to be reannexed to the neighboring predominately white county. Again, a rich/poor and black/white issue. --Kainaw (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, rich people are still free to move away to avoid being asked to support the poor people around them. This has happened in my home town of Detroit, which is now into a serious budget crisis as a result of the rich moving to the suburbs. StuRat 09:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are more ways to solve the municipal governance questions than there are states in the union. In Pennsylvania, for example, there simply is no unincorporated space -- everything is a self-governed community of some sort -- and merging or reorganizing them requires majority votes by every involved constituency, plus the state legislature. Why? Because Pennsylvania places a huge value on historical continuity, and so far, is willing to pay the social costs attendant with that value. South Carolina's system has its flaws, but any change is certain to have non-obvious consequences, and that gives most politicians pause. --Mareino 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth Night[edit]

Hi, in the play Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare, act 2 scene 5, when Malvolio was reading the letter he said '"M.O.A.I." doth sway my life' what does MOAI stand for? Thanks

Gosh I hope that's not a homework question, which we don't answer (see above). But there are places that might be able to help. Have you tried SparkNotes? --George 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean he wasn't talking about the Moai? Joking aside, M.O.A.I. is believed to have been an inside joke. Some people (ie: Leimberg) claim to know what it means, but others refute their claims. --Kainaw (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism[edit]

which theologians have influenced current catholic thought? I mean, in which theology is current catholiscism based? and also christianism. thnx.--Cosmic girl 23:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Catholicism was mostly invented around the time the Roman Empire switched to Christianity, starting with Constantine in 312 AD. Many of the self-serving doctrines, like the infallibility of the Pope, the right to torture and murder anyone who disagreed with the Pope, and the selling of indulgences, came about subsequently. I believe this is a manifestation of the saying "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely". I will leave it to others to list the specific people who invented these policies. StuRat 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. StuRat 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the Catholic question, you will most definently want to read our article on Doctors of the Church. The biggest name, however, is certainly Thomas Aquinas.
I'm not clear on your other question - I don't know what "Christianism" is. If you mean non-Catholic Christianity, there are many such theologians. You could do worse than to start with Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli. And here are some select articles on more recent and influential movments in Christian theology: Karl Barth, Liberation theology, Historical Jesus, Fundamentalist Christianity. --George 00:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, for Balthazar I should have said "was" <g>. Halcatalyst 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can Ratzinger speak of rationality when religion is inherently irational? I mean, miracles aren't rational, the trinity isn't rational,stuff like that isn't rational,dogma isn't rational since we are creative creatures, so why does he have a theology of the 'rational'? how come?--Cosmic girl 15:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think many people have argued that religion is not inherently irrational. In Catholic theology, Aquinas springs right to mind, as does the whole tradition of natural theology. For that matter, all the arguments for or against the existence of god(s) are based on the presupposition that one can reason about religion. --George 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Spiritual is most rational." Dean Inge. [[Sam Korn]] 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catholicism works a lot like the common law. New ideas always build upon the old, which reinforces the impression that the Church is unchanging. And considering they are talking about life, the universe, and everything, the Church takes great pride in how slowly and carefully it develops new thought. --Mareino 02:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're being picky, it's actually "The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything". JackofOz 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


CATHOLICISM CONTINUED!

  • To Cosmic Girl: I believe that other than Aquinas and Luther, the latest and most impactful teacher is Basil Hill. In his latest book, "The Golden Fleece Found," not only does he re-construct the first 300 years of pre- and post Roman Chrsitianity, but uses data from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hebrew archaeological data to vet those events against the records of history. By re-tracing all branches: the Greek Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox and Russian Orthodox to the records of the Jerusalem church that James the brother of Jeshua headed, many questionably Roman reports can be thoroughly scrutinized against new prophecies coded in Hebrew texts and their fulfillment from the Book of Acts. This results in completely new revelations which WILL FORCE some teachings--formerly questioned by Justin Martyr, Polycarp and Martin Luther--to be revisited. By showing that contentious issues and the splits that occurred were prophesied, "Infallibility" has to be perceived as mythical--in light of scriptures like Romans 3:23 "All have erred and come short."

T.A.

By showing that contentious issues and the splits that occurred were prophesied, "Infallibility" has to be perceived as mythical
Am I the only one who sees the irony in that statement?--◀Pucktalk▶ 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cool,I'll try to check basil hill out but the truth is that I didn't get your point at all...--Cosmic girl 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese unload[edit]

When I wrote the stub Lebanese unload I thought this would be notable. I could think of one incident where firing guns into the air as a sign of celebration was very prominent (in Albania). Does anyone have historical context and other recent examples of this ritual? JFW | T@lk 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was at least one incident where wedding guests in Iraq were bombed by US planes as a result of this practice, which the planes took as hostile enemy fire. Also, you might want to mention that the bullets come back down at almost the initial velocity, and have killed civilians when they do so. This practice is therefore illegal in most cities. StuRat 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this came up in a past reference desk question (I don't recall where, but you could find it in the archives if you really wanted) where I thought the bullets come back at the same speed too. The conclusion at the time was that wind resistance is a bigger factor than I thought and they only come down at something like 20-30% of initial velocity. I think that's still more than enough to kill though. I also recall reading articles well before the latest Iraq war on firing guns into the air being a not uncommon practice in the middle east, but I never found them again to confirm that. On that specific term being used, I've never heard it. - Taxman Talk 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every New Year's Eve, the police in Los Angeles warn people not to shoot their guns in the air at midnight. People don't seem to understand that their bullets have to come down somewhere. Usually through the roof of somebody else's house. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 5[edit]

List of crazy Laws and government policies[edit]

Just wanting to compile a list of what the title basicly states that have been passed throughout history, eg. Cambodia, Pol Pots policy of genecide of those who wore glasses etc. (7121989 01:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • "Crazy" is sort of a matter of opinion. You and I might agree that Pol Pot's policies were nuts, and so might The Vast Majority of Humanity, but that doesn't make it so. That said, you'll have to do your own homework if you want to cover all of history. But do have a look at Pol Pot and The Killing Fields. Halcatalyst 04:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek and Hebrew[edit]

Is there a place where I can learn greek letters pretty well? Hebrew as well (and prehaps actually learn the latter language)

The former because we're reading the Odyssey and it would be nice to understand some of the footnotes, and the latter because I have a Jewish background. 

—Ilyanep (Talk) 02:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want the letters of the alphabets, see Greek alphabet and Hebrew alphabet. Actually learning the languages is a bit out of the scope of Wikipedia, but you should be able to find some basic language guides and phrase books on Wikibooks for Hebrew and Greek. --Canley 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently commenced learning Hindi on my own, and found that through some searching it is fairly easy to put together a list of free resources for learning popular languages. First check the external links in our articles on the language, then google for learn Hebrew, and filter out the crap. Eventually by following links and recommendations you'll find a bunch of good websites. For Hindi I was able to find quite a number of sites that would teach you the script, how to write it and pronounce it with audio samples and animations, etc. Then your local library should have some of the teach yourself Hebrew type books, or if you want to spend some cash the local bookstore will certainly have a few or buy them on Amazon or bn.com, etc. I also highly recommend the Pimsleur audio lessons with some caveats. The method itself is awesome and makes a ton of sense, but their choice of words to emphasize is not perfect. A few of the words they teach you are really stupid ones that no native speaker would use. So as long as you consider that, 95% of the words you'll and all of the sentence structure, etc that you learn will be very helpful. They're a bit expensive so if you live near a large university their language learning center or library may have them available. Combining whatever of the above methods should work if you're persistent. After 5 or so months of less than a couple hours a week on average I think I'm well ahead of where I'd be if I'd taken a class because I can learn the way I want to. - Taxman Talk 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Google "learn hebrew" and you'll get many results. - AK

The Violation of Jasmine Lynn[edit]

Please list the actresses in the movie The Violation of Jasmine Lynn by uniform number. In particular, I want to know who #00 and #69 are.

No. Do your own, um, homework. Proto t c 12:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. I wanted to know who #69 is: she's really cute. (Jasmine Lynn wears #70, I know that much...)
IMDB has a cast list for this movie; from there you should be able to find pictures (try google image search, for instance) of each to determine which one you're looking for. Don't try this from your work PC unless you're really trying to get yourself fired...--Robert Merkel 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jesus real?[edit]

See historicity of Jesus, and perhaps you should think about what you mean by the question. Did you mean "was there a religious leader in Judea who went by the name Jesus about 2000 years ago", or did you mean "was the son of God born in Bethlehem about 2000 years ago, and did he (amongst other alleged miracles) walk on water, turn water into wine, and die on the cross only to be resurrected a couple of days later?". Many non-Christians would answer "maybe" to the first question and "no" to the second.--Robert Merkel 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even atheists and critics of Christianity often, if not usually, believe that Jesus existed, but was only a man. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, not only admits the historicity of Jesus but shows a good deal of admiration for the man - despite extreme disdain of the religion that followed him. --Tothebarricades 06:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe C.S. Lewis wrote many proofs that Jesus was the Son of God. I read his book Miracles some time ago, and was convinced myself. Personally, I believe that there is nothing to lose if one believes in the existence of God, Jesus, miracles, etc. - indeed, there is something to be gained. Igor the Lion(Roar!) 11:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody's interested, this argument in favour of believing in God is basically Pascal's Wager. --Robert Merkel 12:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lewis'most famous argument in favor of the divinity of Jesus is actually his trilemma -George 14:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Jesus didn't actually exist, then some alternate explanation would be needed for how Christianity began. I say we go with the simplest explanation and say that a person, named Jesus, did live some 2000 years ago. As for the miracles and divinity of Jesus, I will leave that to the theologians to argue indefinitely. StuRat 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repent upon my "duck and cover" attitude. The question is sensible.
There can’t be any consensus beween encyclopedists about such a big one, and my own reluctance must not matter.
One true fact is that Jesus existed and exists for some men. Their truth cannot be ignored. Others don’t believe it and there are no proofs else than - good faith.
Imagine that prescription time is not due and that the case would be submitted to a judge : a man was condemned to death by an illegal power (Rome conquered Palestine without any reason like a retaliation from aggression) but there is no evidence : what to do ?
Who to hear in court, who to condemn : the Holy empire was some legal follower of the latin one, but is it somewhat extinct. The Church took plenty of the empire’s powers, plus some more, but those powers are extinct too. Sure, they kept some archive of such cases : do that material follow our criteria of falsification (in Popper’s sense) ? The gospels were written centuries after the alleged facts and are suspected of bold refactoring.
If, like Pascal, you give benefit to doubt, this is not a scientist attitude. --Harvestman 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Gospels are, as we know, historally inaccurate, as they were written some decades after Jesus died, and were thus mostly hearsay. We can confirm, however, which miracles happened and which ones might not have happened, by the sheer simplicity of seeing the number of times a certain miracle was written in the Gospels. Some of them appear in all four Gospels, some of them appear in even the newly discovered ones (I think), etc. I think that would build up its chances of being real, wouldn't it? Anyhow, we all accept that the Gospels are inaccurate, though only to a certain degree.
As for the benefit of the doubt, I exercise that towards my fellow man, and maybe towards God, but there really is no need. I have witnessed some small "miracles" myself and others I had verified by several eyewitnesses (now tell me about a mass hallucination theory, go on). I don't mean really great miracles like the sun crashing down to Earth, or the parting of the Pacific Ocean, I mean small "coincidences" that all happen at the opportune moment, needless to say, simultaneously, as if some Great Cosmic Force hath manipulated them.
For instance, when I was 12 (I don't mean to brag, but this is a good example of what I am talking about), I entered a national music competition (violin), and my violin teacher, quite shockingly, neglected to teach me in favor of his other students. He and his other students withheld one of the concert pieces from me, so that we had to negotiate with the board of judges to let me play another (available) piece. I was not given a single lesson for 4 months, and only received coaching from my accompanist, who is a pianist and naturally had no experience with the violin. All the pieces were difficult, and without a teacher, my chances of winning were extremely low. Moreover, one of the judges was biased against my teacher and his students.
So I practised hard by myself, without any help from any violin teacher, and, come the week of the competition, I win. Youngest competitor in the high school category. First prize. And to top it all, I was surprised to learn that this judge who was biased against my teacher and co. actually voted for, and defended, me. Now how do we explain this? Use Occam's razor and you come up with the explanation that a)I'm a darn good violinist (which would really be a nice compliment but still far from reality); b)I cheated (but there is zero opportunity for cheating in a music contest, unless you smuggle in a CD, and that's going to be pretty obvious); or c)I bribed the judges (also out of the question, esp. as a "rival" judge voted for his opponent). I am left with the outlandish idea that perhaps God had something to do with this. Perhaps He sent down His Holy Spirit to enlighten the minds of the judges? Who knows.
For the atheists, I know this is quite strong language for you, and you might automatically put up your defenses and say, "That isn't true because we know it can't happen," or, "There can't possibly be a God," or other variations thereof. Permit me, however, to subject you to another anecdote I believe may support the existence of God.
In the recent past, quite a few years ago, something extraordinary happened to my brother (henceforth, I shall tone down my language and use only scientific terms). He was a young boy then, eleven years old, and on that specific day, he snuck out of his room to play ball with his friends on the street. This was in direct violation of his mother's orders, but you know how young boys are. So, at around 1300 hours, Manila time, he went out of the house and played ball on the pavement. While they were playing, one of the boys kicked the ball into the street, so my brother ran to get it. Unbeknownst to him, there was a taxicab traveling towards him at a velocity of 50-60 kph, and at the same moment that my brother ran onto the street, the taxi hit him. So great was the force of the impact that my brother flew into the air, rotated exactly 720° in midair, and landed on the other side of the street on his bottom, just in time to see another(!) oncoming car stop right in front of him (about a foot away). He was promptly rushed to the hospital, tests were done, etc. etc. and the startling findings were that he had obtained not one single bruise, cut, concussion, broken bone, or ruptured organ. Abrasions were negligible. In the doctor's words, "it was as if nothing had ever happened." To top it all, the taxi that hit him had been dented.
If you are ever in doubt, as I was when I first heard it, rest assured that I have verified this tale with all the eyewitnesses, and the medical and police records still exist, unaltered. I now ask you to answer two simple questions: what are the chances of a boy in that circumstance coming out alive and without a single bruise? What are the chances of the taxi getting dented? I haven't worked out the math, but I believe that the answer to both questions is "very, very small". That all the circumstances fitted together in such a way that my brother did not get hurt is, for me, enough to prove that a God (or a deity or great cosmic fluid of some sort) exists in the universe and that he is merciful enough to prevent a young, unimportant little boy from getting injured. There have been many more incidents and scenarios that prove that, at least, the good triumphs over evil, and that there is a God.
I am not one to give in to compromises or to "mystical" explanations of things. For one thing, I do not believe in UFO's, aliens, psychics, King Kong (aka Bigfoot), and related stuff (though I do believe in ghosts, an abundance of which we have in the Philippines), so I am pretty hard to sway. However, very early on, the Hand of God (for atheists: influence of the great cosmic fluid or something similar) has influenced my life and the parameters not under my control. You may say that to believe in God as Pascal's gambler did is a compromise, and I think so too. One should not believe in God just because if there is a God, you would be better off. One should believe in Him always. There is enough proof in the world (disregarding "intelligent design" and variants thereof) if one just has enough patience and motivation to look for it. And one has to be open to the evidence, and be objective. Eventually, skepticism will crumble, and one will see that there is a God, and one may have already seen Him before(!), under the names Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and so on. C.S. Lewis was an atheist before he was convinced that God existed. Einstein, too. Some well-known psychiatrist, too, was an atheist, before he accumulated enough evidence that convinced him that He exists. And if God exists, then Jesus exists/ed, as we get miracles from him, too. I would think so.
This leads me to another question. We may now assume that God and Heaven exist, whether you like it or not. C.S. Lewis, in his Chronicles of Narnia illustrated the scenario of a non-Catholic doing good work and eventually ending up in Aslan's Paradise. In real terms, an atheist does much good in the world, and when he dies, he is surprised to find himself in heaven. My question is that would this truly happen? Would God even accept an honest and good non-believer into His Paradise? Igor the Lion(Roar!) 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope so, my faith sustains the hope, and I believe more than anything else that God is love (not the WP article, which is about a band).
I hope it doesn't. I congratulate Igor on winning, and his brother on surviving, but their personal experiences aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. As for his concluding question, I think (not sure) that Christians have differed on the point. Some say virtue alone will get you into Heaven; others say "no way to the Father but through Me" or whatever the language is, meaning that belief in Jesus is an absolute prerequisite. I think there's even a compromise position, that "virtuous pagans" who died before Jesus' ministry are now in Heaven, but that, with the teachings of Jesus now available, that loophole has been closed, so that only believers may enter. Clarifying the Christian view(s) on this point would be an appropriate subject for Wikipedia. JamesMLane 02:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the French word roman[edit]

What is the etymology of this word? Online Latin dictionaries are no good, and I'm curious as to whether it derives from Latin or has anything to do with our word "Roman" or what. --Tothebarricades 06:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you move your question over to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, where one could hope the language mavens hang out. JamesMLane 08:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a cognate of the english word "roman", both originating with the Latin word "romanus" (= english "roman"). From "romanus" you have in Latin "romanicus" (of Roman origin/style), which turned into old french "romanz" (to write in vernacular language, "roman style" as opposed to a non-latin tounge). From this you have the english "romance", originally meaning "written in french", but eventually shifting towards today's meaning "a love story". And in French you also got "roman" = a novel. The word "roman" in that sense has been borrowed into German and most Germanic languages. Note the english word "novel" is from Italian "novella" or French "nouvelle" meant "new", (from "new story"), but in those languages it means "a short story", as does the english "novella". So you have to watch out: "a novel" isn't "eine novelle" or "une nouvelle" but rather "ein roman"/"un roman". --BluePlatypus 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Tothebarricades 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole thing is also tied to the Troubadours and the idea of courtly love, which in turn (during the 18th century in Europe) evolved into our current delusion (pardon me, conception [no pun intended]) of romantic love. Halcatalyst 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Roman-ces were called romans in French because, initially, these were tales re Roma -- matters of the founding of Rome. Each of the works dealt with an Aeneid-like tale. Gently and slowly, the works began concentrating instead upon other figures from roughly the same lineage (cf. Roman de la Rose and the early Arthurian tales that place Arthur at 230 AD). So, from "Roman tales" they came to be "Arthur tales" to "courtly tales." Just general slippage. In English, the roman died out, somewhat, while it continued in France and Spain. Therefore, when the English began to re-import these stories (particularly Orlando Furioso), they came to use the French "roman" and pluralize it. Hence, the English word "romance" referred to such courtly stuff, while the later term "novel" was used to refer to the "new tales" and "novelties." Geogre 22:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spain? But the Spanish term is "novela." Weird how French kept the roman term through all this time. --Tothebarricades 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my ignorance of the Spanish. That is interesting, because the romance continues without significant interruption in Spain. It is, after all, the literature that Don Quixote is making fun of. The Don had read too much romance and convinced himself that he was a knight. Cervantes represents a break, and the picaresque comes, I think, from Spain to England. Perhaps you know when "novello" comes to replace "roman" in Spanish? Geogre 04:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

string length?[edit]

how long is a piece of string? and where does this question originate?

thanks to all Angus more- gordie

You could try taking all the angels that fit on the head of a pin, laying them end-to-end, and then measuring them. Ba-dum, chhh! But this does sound like an intentionally unanswerable question, such as a koan (the sound of one hand clapping, tree falling in a forest with no one around, etc.). Contemplate the unknowable... TheSPY 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)TheSPY[reply]
I've heard the question posed as a joke. The "correct" answer is: twice the distance from the center to either end. I have no idea about its origin. JamesMLane 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to strings, as in String theory, if so, I believe they are in the order of a Planck length (10-35m). If this is what you meant, best to ask this on the Science reference desk. - Akamad 11:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Varies with what system you are talking about. In most older basic interpreters and pascal compilers, they are at most 255 characters long, but newer compilers usually shift this restriction. (I've also heared that some basic interpreter had the vary low limit of 6 characters.) Length of a source line is also commonly limited to 255 characters. In old seds, the buffer length is limited to 4000 characters. In classical vi, line length was limited to what fits on a single screen, otehrwise the line couldn't be displayed. In the age of windows 3.1, many applications and languages limited it to 2^32 or 2^31 characters. Nowdays these kinds of arbitary constraints are rare -- they are usually only limited by how much virtual memory (or address space, if that's smaller) can hold. A limit on the length of filenames is usually enforced by most systems though, as otherwise there would be a danger of accidentally creating files that are haro to delete because their pathname doesn't fit in the memory. – b_jonas 22:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucky Fuller[edit]

Hi, does any of u guys know what was Buckminster Fuller? ( an atheist, agnostic, theist?) I've already read the article but I can't find anything that gives me that information.--Cosmic girl 16:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy believed that the universe was a Great bucky ball administered by a godlike fullerene. Little progress has been done about those questions of faith. I still can't figure out why a cosmic person can ignore such things.

But let us imagine that faith pertains to private life : why such a question ? Do I define myself in terms of my beliefs, should I ?--Harvestman 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who Was Buckminster Fuller? by E.J. Applewhite says:

Buckminster Fuller had one of the most fascinating and original minds of his century. Born in 1895 in Milton, Massachusetts, he was the latest--if not the last--of the New England Transcendentalists. Like the transcendentalists, Fuller rejected the established religious and political notions of the past and adhered to an idealistic system of thought based on the essential unity of the natural world and the use of experiment and intuition as a means of understanding it. But, departing from the pattern of his New England predecessors, he proposed that only an understanding of technology in the deepest sense would afford humans a proper guide to individual conduct and the eventual salvation of society. Industrial and scientific technology, despite their disruption of established habits and values, was not a blight on the landscape, but in fact for Fuller they have a redeeming humanitarian role.

Gdr 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank u guys,I think Bucky was a really cool person :). ps. that cosmic person comment was funny. :) --Cosmic girl 19:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

isn't it ironic that bucky balls are destructive while bucky fuller wasn't destructive at all?.lol. --Cosmic girl 20:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buckyballs are destructive?? —Keenan Pepper 03:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they have something to do with free radicals and they damage cells somehow, but I don't know.--Cosmic girl 13:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Fullerene article has a section on possible dangers. It sounds like you're already read it :-) . Halcatalyst 19:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually I read it somewhere else, but I don't remember where, is it ok to say you're already read it or is it you've already read it ? I thought it was the 2nd one.--Cosmic girl 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, it's "you've already read it." Typo! My apologies. Halcatalyst 23:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Transcendentalist memo. Nothing to do with Maharishi's TM. I'll complete my creed by saying thay one does not define him|herself by his faith : his faith defines him and the actions he takes on. As a cosmic person too I believe that all our world belong to us and that creed makes me a WPian. --Harvestman 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been answered with a link to Buckminster Fuller. Bethefawn 0227; 9.1.06

HISTORY[edit]

CAN YOU TELL ME HOW EVENTS WERE RECORDED OR DOCUMENTED, FOR EXAMPLE AS THROUGH THE AGES FROM THE CAVEMAN DRAWINGS TILL DVD'S AND COMPUTER. 201.238.65.126 16:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we (humanity) have recorded history through whatever means we possesed at the time. for example through cave paintings and then through written word after we developed language, but also, it's not only what the people before us recorded willingly, it is also what we find with sciences like archeology, those things are records too, but they weren't made purposefully to be a record, they where only part of the daily life of those people, hope this helps. :) --Cosmic girl 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is regarded as "history" today is largely a product of the late 19th century. Much of what came before that had a very different notion of history — the Bible, for example, has aspects which we would clearly identify as "historical" but it is not written for the same purposes or using the methods of a Rankean historian. The "simple" recording of events is known generally as chronicling, but even that is a number of different practices spread over time and space. Our article on historians gives a very schematic outline of the history of historical thought and method. Our article on recorded history might also be useful. --03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also there is the fact that what we consider recorded history is just what hasn't been destroyed/edited/reinterpreted & changed by time or those preceding us. AllanHainey 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Superbowl Head Coaches[edit]

How many teams that have won the superbowl were coached by a head coach who had been there before; either as a head coach an assistant, or player? Of the ones that didn't have Superbowl experience; how many had been in involved in a National Championship at the Collegiate level.

This question would take some research to answer. Visit this list of Super Bowl coaches and then Google-search the winners. -- Mwalcoff 00:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I researched it as to the coaches who had been to the Super Bowl as a player, assistant coach, or head coach. I didn't research the collegiate championships. By my count, 29 of the 39 Super Bowl-winning teams had head coaches who had been to the Super Bowl before either on the winning or losing side as a player, assistant coach, or head coach. --Metropolitan90 09:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs[edit]

The article on the 1986 reorganization act of the military gives me the impression that the Joint Chiefs do very little in their day-to-day jobs. It says that they hold no direct control over the military. If this is true, then if a major war broke out between the United States and a powerful nation, would the Secretary of Defense be the one in charge of planning the overall troop movements? Would he design the campaigns and then send the orders off to the troops to execute them? This seems strange to me...can anyone give me a clue as to what the Chairman actually does?

--163.153.132.5 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article on the Joint Chiefs of Staff? The initial section answers your question, and your supposition is more or less correct. While the Secretary of Defense is not likely to be planning troop movements, he is part of the chain of command for those units. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what are the actual sales of amerie's latest album because it said us certification as Platinum[edit]

is her album platinum? where did u get that information

I had a look on the riaa.com site, if you search "Amerie" as artist, it states that All I have is Gold, but does not list Touch as either gold or platinum, therefore, I am going to remove the reference to the platinum status. - Akamad 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did witch hunting decline during the 17th century?[edit]

[no question]

Much like whales, witches were overhunted and their population suffered drastically until the recent advent of conservation efforts.
On a more serious note, the western world increasingly looked to scientific rather than superstitious explanations for events. When you don't believe the witches are at fault, you don't bother hunting them. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a supplemant to Lomn's comment, see Scientific revolution. --Tothebarricades 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any "witch hunt", taken in the broadest sense, will eventually "run out of steam". The "witch hunt" of the US House Unamerican Activities Committee in the 1950s and many revolutions, like the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and (Chinese) Cultural Revolution had many similar features, such as condemning people on little or no evidence, such as their unwillingness to denounce others. Such "witch hunts" eventually either attack powerful figures who are capable of launching a counter-offensive (such as the military, in the US case) or begin to scare the majority of the population, as they feel the "witch hunt" has spread far enough that they might personally be harmed by it. Thus, a certain "tipping point" is reached where the majority oppose the "witch hunts" and put an end to them. StuRat 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. All witch-hunts, literal ones and modern ones were cases of mass hysteria. And those come and go as long as there is fear for them to feed on. Witch-hunts died out in the 18th century because the enlightenment got rid of the superstitions and fear of witches. --BluePlatypus 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...to be replaced with any number of silly moral panics. Nothing ever changes. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you're all a bit off the mark, here. The question should not be "why did witch hunts stop," but "why did they start?" Further, the question cannot be asked universally. Why did they occur in Germany? Why did they occur in France? Why in Italy? Did some nations have fewer than others? In fact, in England, what we find is that there were very few witch trials and hangings prior to the 17th century and then very few after only a few years. Why is that? Well, consider the political temper of the time. When heretic trials are underway, there are fewer witch hunts. Secondly, James I of England had written a book on Demonology before coming to the British throne and had a strong belief in witches. Thus, during his reign, it was good politics to find witches. After he was no longer king, witch trials dry up rapidly and go back to their pre-Jacobite numbers. Interesting, yes? By 1710, they're regarded as a freak show by people in London. On the other hand, in Germany there were many more witch trials right along. One reason may be the type of Protestantism in a particular place. For whatever reason, the German folk and Scottish folk inflections of Protestant thought held a higher belief in witches than the Church of England sort. Geogre 22:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting and seldom discussed aspect were the witch hunts among Native Americans, which lasted into the 19th century. Tecumseh's brother Tenskwatawa, for example, rose to prominence as a witch hunter, and reportedly had several accused witches killed. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina's Growing Cities[edit]

South Carolina cities are experiencing tremendous growth,and i'm wondering if they are going to become like big metropolitan cities like Atlanta,Miami,Charlotte, you know cities like that.Well specfically I'm talking about Greenville,Spartanburg,Charleston,North Charleston,Columbia,and Myrtle Beach.These are cities that are experiencing tremendous growth right now.Based on the laws,I kinda of still think cities will be a good decent size.But you know Columbia,i think needs a better well-defined financial district.Thats what they are working on now.So does Greenville and Spartanburg.They are getting there,but i wonder how long its going to be though.Overall though,my question is,are these SC cities going to grow to the other cities i mentioned earlier?

Andre' Ward

I don't have an answer for you but you may find the article on urban sprawl interesting. Dismas|(talk) 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My opinions for the near future (the next 50 years or so)...
Columbia: Yes. It will continue to grow.
Myrtle Beach: No. It is a tourist attraction, not a metropolitan city. Through outside investment, it could eventually become like Orlando.
Charleston: No. The Board of Architectual Review will not allow buildings to get larger and the JC Long laws forbid filling in the bay with dirt to make more land.
N. Charleston: Maybe. It is still suffering from the loss of the Navy base.
While populations will continue to increase in all of the cities, a skyscraper metropolis will not necessarily form. --Kainaw (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to treat William Gibson as a futurist (rather than a somewhat overrated novelist) you'd come to think that the metropolises of the east coast of the US would eventually sprawl into on eanother (Gibson calls it BAMA, the Boston-Atlanta metropolitan Axis, aka The Sprawl). That model is what became of Los Angeles and the Greater Tokyo Area - unless the city and state governments actively try to keep space between the cities, they'll inch together (one easment, one grand mall, one special case at a time) in ribbon development. Then it won't matter if Columbia has a financial district at all, any more than it matters whether Reseda has one. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a place on the upper East Coast called BosWash.This area includes Boston,Baltimore,Washington D.C.,New York,Newark,and several more i think.The two that are officially linked together is Newark and New York City.The others are kind of linked together.The population density up there is intense.The states in that are Rhode Island,Massachusetts,Connecticut,New York,New Jersey,Maryland,and Virginia.Check that out.

Andre' Ward

Mental Disorders[edit]

Hi!

I have been wondering for the last year and don't know where to go about finding the answer... is there a specific mental illness designated for people who believe themselves to be characters inside of novels, or who are convinced that novel-worthy events happen to them on a regular basis? Any response would help me tremendously; thank you so much!

Boze

Well I'm not sure if there is a specific term for it, but the syptoms you describe seem to fit the Grandiose Delusuional Disorder. Start there, and hopefully someone else can help you more. --Articuno1 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if there is a specific term for novels, versus movies, TV shows, real life, etc. Also, the term may not distinguish between people who think they are fictional characters and those who think they are some other real person. The only term I can think of is delusions of grandeur (which may not appear to apply if they pick a character which isn't very "grand"). Basically, they can't stand how bad, painful, or boring their ordinary life is, so imagine they are somebody else, to such an extent that they lose touch with reality and "become" the new character. StuRat 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed my link just redirects to delusion. Perhaps someone more qualified than myself can add a specific article for delusions of grandeur, or at least a stub. StuRat 21:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While that might seem like a rather specific query, a single symptom isn't enough to diagnose a disease. Especially when it comes to mental illnesses, where different underlying problems can give similar symptoms. It could be caused by anything from Schizophrenia to some other form of Psychosis, Dissociative identity disorder (a controversial diagnosis). Whereas a person who believes novel-worthy events happen to them regularily could have a personality disorder (such as Narcissistic personality disorder), but may still be able to function. I'm not a psychiatrist though. --BluePlatypus 21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's some form of psychosis, probably schizophrenia, since delusions of grandeour are one of the simptoms of this disorder.--Cosmic girl 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled symptoms. StuRat 22:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question reminds me of the movie A Beautiful Mind, where (Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow) the John Nash character lives out a spy novel in his mind. In the movie and in Nash's life the disorder was certainly paranoid schizophrenia. Paranoia can also be associated with the mania of bipolar disorder. If it's a good feeling the person experiences in his/her delusions, an extreme manic phase of biploar disorder is a good bet. Halcatalyst 05:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That is a wonderful movie! -- Boze

I'm just going to plug my Napoleon in popular culture article whilst I get a highly tenuous chance. --bodnotbod 00:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest School in West Virginia[edit]

I have been looking on the net and tried to look here to find it but I am not having any luck. Could you please help me find out when the first school was started in wv?

Thanky you so much

Sandra

Since WV was split off from Virginia in 1863, the question comes up, do you mean the first school in WV after the split, or the first school in the area that is now WV, when it was still part of Virginia ? StuRat 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my grandfarther[edit]

hello ive been told that my grandfarther fought or at least lent his services in the russo-finnish war as a doctor im just trying to find out if he's listed anywhere ie a search engine for men and woman who fought or were involved in this war it would mean alot to me to find out this. regards fish

What side was he on? If it was the Finnish, was he in the Finnish armed forces or the volunteer corps? What unit did he belong to? Etc. Anyway there's no such search engine. The records aren't in digital format. If he was on the Finnish armed forces, try the Finnish military archive. They can give you copies of his documents if they have them. You'll need his full name, date of birth and place of birth, and date of death (if applicable), and if you don't know Finnish you'll need someone to help you fill out the form and so on. And it'll cost you a few euros. --BluePlatypus 01:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 6[edit]

Question about Tolkien's Silmarillion[edit]

I have a question about J.R.R. Tolkien's work. Does he at any point in The Silmarillion describe how Middle-Earth came to be the world as we know it? (Assuming that, as I remember, the preface to The Hobbit suggests that within the myth of Tolkien's world, the events of The Lord of the Rings were intended to have occured sometime in the past of the modern era). If not, do any of Tolkien's work deal with this? Thanks. --Brasswatchman 00:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle earth is a region of Arda (the Earth), the history of which is described at History of Arda. I think it's mostly in Silmarillion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a big giant paragraph in Arda correlates "ancient" places in Middle earth with their "modern" equivalents. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. Thanks. Is the actual transition from Arda to Earth ever described by Tolkien, as far as you know? --Brasswatchman 01:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Timeline of Arda says "Tolkien has often mentioned that after the War of the Ring the ages went on and now we are likely in the beginning of the Seventh Age, a bridge that connects this fantasy to reality.", but doesn't give a cite for this saying - I'd ask on its talk page (as it should have a cite supporting it). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ramone's religion[edit]

Was Johnny Ramone Jewish?

Well, according to [8] and our own List of Jewish American Musicians, only Joey and Tommy Ramone were Jewish. GeeJo (t) (c) • 08:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were to talk about Jewish as an ethnic thing rather than just the religion, he may have been Jewish (if he took it over from his father). My gut instinct is to ask: Does it really matter? - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I thought the ethnicity passed down a matrilineal rather than patrilineal line. GeeJo (t) (c) • 11:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Boyd[edit]

Hello. I am looking for information about Matthew Boyd who was the Provost of Renfewshire (Glasgow)from 1827 - 1830. How can you help me? Regards Chris Reid Brisbane Australia

I guess the Clan Boyd or the Renfrewshire Council might be able to provide some answers. Lupo 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbalistic technique[edit]

I am currently reading the Sefer Yetzirah. In the process I got a little sidetracked trying to work out a way to visualize what to me is very abstract. I started playing around with combinations of letters. I made a table of the mother letters, the double letters and the single or elemental letters. You can see it here.

Taking each mother letter and combining it with the double letters adjacent to it and the single letters adjacent to them I came up with twenty four combinations, eight for each mother letter. You can see them here.

It is similar to the two hundred thirty one gates in the Sefer Yetzirah. I know its not the same thing. I used a different technique and I'm not presumptuous enough to think it is anything more than just an interesting trick. Considering the gates I decided to try combinations of each mother letter with all the double letters and all the single letters, not just those adjacent to them in the table. I wrote a PHP script to actually do the work. I came up with two hundred fifty two combinations, eighty four for each mother letter. They are here. I don't speak Hebrew so I don't know how many are actual words and how many are just nonsense, but I have translated some of them via Morfix and I'm still working at it. It has been curious to say the least.

All of this has been to lead up to my question. Is there an historical precedent for this type of exploration? I'm epsecially interested the adjacent letters scheme, but I'd like to know of anything using the three classes of letters to form words. Being totally self-taught in Kabbalah there are tremendous gaps in my knowledge, but I can't believe I'm the first person to try this. I'd be interested to know if anyone has done this in the past and written about it, even if it just turned out to be a dead end.--◀Pucktalk▶ 10:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table is quite similar to what appears in the center of the "Rose Cross Lamen" of the Order of the Golden Dawn, except that that's in circular form. AnonMoos 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Lon Milo DuQuette discusses the Lamen in detail in Understanding the Thoth Tarot, but as I look at that it doesn't really aligned the same way--the Lamen has aleph adjacent to koph and pe--and wouldn't produce the same combinations of letters. The Lamen's design seems to have more to do with the Tarot trumps than with Hebrew per se. I'm actually not looking for Hermetic interpretations at this point anyway. I'm more concerned with traditional Judiaic Kabbalah in respect to the Hebrew alphabet itself.--◀Pucktalk▶ 20:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any other takers on this? Or am I just going to have to actually read those twenty-six books I have on my Kabbalah shelf? Oh, the Humanity!--◀Pucktalk▶ 11:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

role of the media[edit]

  • Definitely a big question. What IS the question? Halcatalyst 18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be or not to be? that is the question.... isnt it?--Goshawk 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can mention some roles of the media: Inform, Misinform, Entertain, Brainwash... --Kainaw (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iconographer[edit]

contact sister christina dochwat

Who is Helen Frakenthaler?[edit]

Who is Helen frakenthaler?

I think you spelt it wrong. Do you mean Helen Frankenthaler? --Canley 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amerie[edit]

according to billboard.com the riaa list that amerie's latest album touch is certified gold so if u don't mind iam going to put back the GOLD reference ok?

Yes, that's OK. Good for you! --Canley 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judiciary term[edit]

A law making an act a crime that was commited before the law was passed is called an ....

A retroactive law? See Nulla poena sine lege for more info. -Canley 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term being looked for is ex post facto laws, the making of which by Congress is explicitly prohibited by the US Constitution, among others, and is generally seen as a violation of the rule of law. Brian Schlosser42 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, it is against the US Constitution to pass retroactive criminal laws, but not other retroactive laws. Congress could pass a 100% tax for your income last year and take all your money, for example. But don't worry, this isn't likely to happen until the Democrats win the next election. StuRat 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your highly politicized POV separate from your answers on the reference desk. While I realize that it is hyperbole, I feel it is out of line. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 03:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retroactively : had you time to do your homework properly before reading all this ? Also, there must be a way to find a word by its context. It is called (not google, not wikipedia) ... (please help). --Harvestman 21:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Million Bicycles in Beijing?[edit]

How accurate is the song in this regard? The article mentions the accuracy regarding the astronomical distance but doesn't comment on the bicycle claim. No websites that I've found seem to comment either. Thryduulf 17:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 14 million people in Beijing. If half the people had a bicycle, that would be over 7 million. Because bicycles are rather common in Beijing (many people drive to a parking area and bike the rest of the way to work), I would be surprised if the number was as low as 9 million. --Kainaw (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many millilitres of milk would a mother be able to give on an average daily?[edit]

How many millilitres of milk would a mother be able to give on an average daily?

A mother what? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can safely assume he means human. --Nelson Ricardo 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on lots of things: how soon after delivery, whether other foods are being offered the child, whether there is 24 hour skin to skin contact, how many children are being suckled, whether the mother is adequately nourished, etc. A nursing woman can easily produce a liter a day of milk, which would be a pretty ordinary daily intake for much of the first year, but maximum output given the right circumstances and an unusually productive person would be much more. Does that cover it? alteripse 12:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generations of European Americans[edit]

On an average, for how many generations have the current European Americans been living in the US. What about the current African Americans and Asian Americans? deeptrivia (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty hard to answer, even for one person. I, for example, have a grandfather who was born French-Canadian and also have an ancestor along another branch who fought in the American Revolution. So, am I a 3rd generation American or 10th ? StuRat 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A , and probablly even after 1900. As such it is likely that most people probally 5th or fourth generation of Americans. I my self am a fourth generation american.

African Americans mainly came over as slaves, the slave trade ended in 1800, As such most african Americans families came over in colonial times. Such means that most Americans are at at least 10th generation. Asians it varies. Many came in the second half the 19 century, this makes them 5th, 6th 7th generation Americans, many of these early chinese where eventually absorbed into the general population. In the early 20th century imigration law grealy restricted asian imigration until the mid twentieth century. Many Asians came post word war II, thus it is safe to say that perhaps a majority of asians are first second and third generation.

If one were to order the groups by average number of generations in the U.S., it would be first African Americans, second European Americans and third Asian Americans.--Pharos 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
majority of European Americans now have families who came here after the Civil war may be true but it is also true that the majority of European Americans have much older, even colonial ancrestry. "It only takes a little leaven to raise the whole batch." If 7 of my grandparents are recent (early 20th century imigration) immigrants but one has colonial ancestry, what is my average generation? What does the question mean? Rmhermen 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rmhermen has a good point; you need to calibrate your system before you can get an exact quantitative answer (and you might want to hire an actuary, too). But Pharos is definitely correct that the African American bloodline would come out as older in aggregate than the European bloodline. Amerindians present a special case. Certain Native Americans and Hispanics would have aggregate bloodlines in the US for millennia, while others would have rather short bloodlines in the US, since their roots trace to Canada or Latin America. I don't know how to aggregate that.--Mareino 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eminem[edit]

In eminem's new album "Curtian Call" one of the songs titled "Shake that" has a background sample that sounds very familliar.

Can you identify it for me?

Thanks

nickelback[edit]

is chad kroger born in canada and is there anyway his name was bruce hedrick

Yes, Chad Kroeger and his brother were born in Canada. There is nothing I have seen to imply he ever had another name. --Kainaw (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God[edit]

is it christian, or catholic to say that God is everything, because I've heard that from a couple of Catholics, but I don't think the church promotes this view, since to me it sounds a little like eastern mysticism...so are those catholics that think that way, at odds with their creed? or am I being too close minded or dumb...--Cosmic girl 20:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not the official view of the Roman Catholic Church - you should browse the Catechism for all the official details. I also don't know of any major Christian theologian who's held such a view, though certain Western philosophers have (e.g., Spinoza). --George 20:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is that I have devout catholic friends who, when I ask them what god is, just answer god is everything or god is in everything or god is infinite and uncomprehensible but that to me certanly doesn't sound like what the church says...but it's true there are a lot of catholics in latin america that have mystical views of god, and also there are a lot of agnostics and atheists that are catholics suposedly, like mylself, I'm supposed to be a catholic, but I am actually an agnostic.--Cosmic girl 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are many strands of mysticism, Christian and otherwise, but IMHO this kind of talk is just pre-Vatican II intellectual abstraction reduced to popspeak. More specifically, it's easy answers applied to a hard religion. Halcatalyst 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The belief that "God is everything" sounds like pantheism which is not a mainstream Christian belief, but see the article about pantheism for references to aspects of it in Christianity. "God is infinite and uncomprehensible", on the other hand, seems to be consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church cited above: "We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God - 'the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable' - with our human representations." Catechism § 42. --Metropolitan90 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Panentheism is a concept related to pantheism. See this discussion for its relationship to Christian belief. Halcatalyst 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, the list of attributes really pertaining to God amounts to zero. The list of attributes that men didn't try to fit to God also. What is the point ? Can someone say something sensible, or is it better to shut up (that's zen). --Harvestman 21:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To say it with a few more words: negative (apophatic) theology holds that no attributes of God can be known, but that God can be experienced. A 14th century anonymous Christian book which exemplifies this approach is The Cloud of Unknowing. Halcatalyst_
And that is also mentioned by Hilton and Rolle, and Soren Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript argues that, indeed, if God were known, God would be subjective, since all knowledge is subjective, and therefore God must be known experientially -- hence his formulation of the "leap of faith" into paradox. (Specifically, paradox demonstrates that language and subjectivity is insufficient. This insufficiency points to an Other. That other cannot be known but can be experienced or lived. Once lived and experienced, it is still not known, but, rather, communed and intersubjective. You cannot know that the Other is God ahead of time. You can only know that it is a void of reason. This drvies rationalists nuts.) Really, though, all of these headers from a particular user seem to be nothing more than an attempt to get a college freshman dormitory bull session going. Not really the point. Geogre 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what did Soren Kierkegaard mean when he said subjectivity is truth? --Cosmic girl 18:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is subjectively so is so. I.e. if it is within you, it is true within you. This, however, is in the context of the usual realist dichotomy of subject/object. In contrast to those who had posited a real that matters and is apprehensible in a pure form, if only the messiness of subjectivity were cleared away, he argued that the subjective state is the only thing that can ever be known because knowing is a subjective activity. Thus, whether the yellow bicycle is yellow and a bicycle and the same for two observers or not is not really a thing to argue about. Like Nietzsche and Marx, Kierkegaard had been a student of Hegel's, and Hegel had brought up the problem of pure knowledge of the objective world in his Phenomenology lectures. Nietzsche solved the problem one way, Kierkegaard another, and Marx apparently skipped class that week. Geogre 19:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the bicycle thing something to argue about if supposedly we can never know objective truth since our knowing is subjective? I mean, wouldn't then we have to argue about every single thing? even about evolution and the roundness of the earth because truth is subjective and god may be fooling us or whatever... I actually think its useless to think truth is subjective even if it is,because we gain nothing from it, but we've gained a lot of progress by asuming that truth is objective and that we are capable of finding it, is there any philosphy that you think goes with my views? because I haven't found a single one that says what I think.--Cosmic girl 20:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One problem with simple subjectivity is, how can I know there is anything else? And if there are other "subjects" like me, how is is intersubjective communication possible? Phenomenology takes up this challenge, so you might like to read the article. Halcatalyst 20:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hi

My name is Phillip I'm writting a bookabout Nazi Germany, whick one of the caracters is Grand Admiral Karl Doeniz, I need to find out if he has any next of kin still alive and how to get a email to them, I need the copyrights before I can Publish it, can you help me with this,

Thank you for any help in this matter

Please don't post your e-mail address, as it can be picked up by spammers. --George 20:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you need copyrights for? You don't need copyright or approval from next-of-kin to write a biography of someone. Copyrights cover artistic works, not people's lives. You'd only need a copyright license to reproduce something he'd written/recorded (to an extent larger than is considered 'fair use'). Of course, you could be violating privacy or libel laws if you were writing about someone unknown, or something which is not true, but that protection isn't particularily strong for a public figure, which Dönitz certainly was. --BluePlatypus 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Archiving Methods[edit]

I would greatly appreciate if anyone could describe the mythically efficient, if mystifying, archiving method used in Russia or USSR?

Unless you mean that Manuscripts do not burn, I have no idea. --Ornil 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to search out archival guides for Russia/USSR, such as this one I found by Googling "Using soviet archives". I don't know about their general archival practices though I do know that doing research there now is notoriously difficult, though mostly for matters of lack of money (small staffs) than the old problem of secrecy. --Fastfission 19:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 7[edit]

Stone Age[edit]

What are the years of the Stone Age

That will depend on the location, as humans learned to use metals much earlier in some locations than in others. Some primitive tribes might even still be considered to be in the Stone Age. StuRat 01:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try the Stone Age article. Note that there isn't a fixed set of years, it varies from culture to culture. --BluePlatypus 01:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika, San Antonio, TX Thomas Jefferson High School[edit]

Howdy - I have in my possession a copy of the 1934 Monticello, the Annual for Thomas Jefferson High School. Many of the female students were members of the "Swastika" and wore that symbol on their "Uniform" caps. Apparentlly they were part of a Cadet Corp. I have been unable to find any information about them or the local history of the swastika symbol they use. It has been surpressed rather thoroughly by persons unknown. I would appreciate any information you can provide.Thanks in advance for your help. This is an awesome site!! Dave An addition - 1. By supressed I mean I can find no acknowledgement of the symbol anywhere in the history of the High School. 2. The females Uniforms were obviously designed in the early 1930's. The males uniforms seemed to be modeled on the Texas Aggies, Boots or leggings, high jacket collar and peaked hat. The school was segregated in that there were no African-Americans there. I did see at least one Chines person and a number of Hispanics.

The swastika was also used as a symbol by Native Americans and others but was bent the other way. Judging from the time frame, I am guessing they were supporters of German nationalism. Bear in mind, however, that the NAZIs had not committed genocide or invaded anything at that point, although their anti-semitism and military ambition was quite apparent, even then. Also note that many prominent Americans, such as Charles Lindberg, Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy, were pro-NAZI at that point. StuRat 02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccesarily the Swastika is a ancient symbol, this symbol was used by native americans up untill wwII that is likely who where copied. Furthermore Hitler had only been in power for a brief time in 1934, so he might not been identified with the symbol the way he is now.

I disagree. Hitler, the NAZIs, and the German swastika were big news worldwide, even before the War. StuRat 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May 1934 was only one year after the Nazis came into power. AnonMoos 18:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough time for something sufficiently new and different to be noticed around the world. Also note the other clues, the uniforms, and the name "Cadet Corp". These are military trappings, more likely to be associated with NAZIs than other uses of the symbol, such as religious meanings. Also, the fact that info on it has been supressed implies there was something to hide. If not, like, say, Oliver Hardy's "Hitler mustache", it would only need to be explained (in that case, as a typical man's facial hair pattern of the time), rather than supressed. StuRat 18:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to know without more information. The uniforms may have in all possibility been used for many years before the Nazis came to power for all we know, and did not have yet the negative stigma that they would soon get. And who knows if it has really been supressed or not, and what that really means. Often people use that to mean that they don't know anything about it. --Fastfission 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I lean toward believing the person who posted the question, lacking any evidence to the contrary. StuRat 04:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards using my brain no matter what. What you are doing is taking a few cryptic words and then drawing out very far-fetched conclusions from them. Furthermore the key question to ask is when the logos were adopted first, which the poster gives no information about. Also, is there a reason you capitalize Nazi? It is not an acronym, it is an abbreviation. --Fastfission 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio was known for its German settlers in the 19th century-- I would vote for the modern connection. Not much different from the "fighting Irish" is it? alteripse 12:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the new information: "By supressed I mean I can find no acknowledgement of the symbol anywhere in the history of the High School." OK -- well that doesn't necessarily mean it was suppressed, which indicates something purposely removed or silenced. It sounds like what you mean is omitted, which doesn't assume a nefarious reason. (Anyway that is what a historian would conclude on that point. A lack of mention often just means that they were not viewed as important at the time, which itself can be an interesting and important observation when looking back at the past.) "The females Uniforms were obviously designed in the early 1930's. The males uniforms seemed to be modeled on the Texas Aggies, Boots or leggings, high jacket collar and peaked hat." I'm not sure this clarifies anything. The question is whether or not the uniforms were used in that way before or after the swastika became chiefly associated with Nazi Germany. Could you describe in more detail the swastikas they used? In particular -- which direction did they "swirl" and were they rotated to be on a "tip" or if they lay flat on their sides. The information about the school's racial status doesn't put it in a different situation than what might be expected from that time in U.S. western education. The burden of proof is in showing that this usage was not as a "good luck symbol" as they were traditionally considered before World War II, when they became completely entwined with the Nazi party. 1934 is a little too early to say for sure it was in reference to the Germans. --Fastfission 18:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fastfission that it might not have been a Nazi connection. I used to live in Marietta, Ohio, where the county courthouse lobby had a tiled floor decorated with inlaid swastikas. I think it was built in the 1910s or 1920s. JamesMLane 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The swastika article states that the the insignia of the 45th Infantry Division (United States) had a swastika until the 1930s and that Arizona highway signs had a swastika until 1940. This was because in the American Southwest, Native Americans such as the Navajo and Hopi had long used swastika-like symbols in their art (I read a Navajo creation story a long time ago about how four crooked rivers came together at sort of a whirlpool of Creation, see this commercial site that sells antique Navajo rugs with swastika designs), and it was considered a regional symbol. (The 45th is based out of "Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma".) Because of this association, the Southwest was probably one of the last places to accept the exclusive association of the swastika with Nazis now common in the West. Texas is close enough that I would assume that it was an innocuous name chosen to show regional pride, which was probably changed soon thereafter as the Nazi association came to dominate. - BanyanTree 06:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Future Megapolises And how fast will they Grow and Come About[edit]

Today,our nation has adapted to this world.And keeps on adapting.One example is the gigantic metropolitan areas.Now some say that there will be megapolises in the future.Certain names for three have already been given,BosWash,ChiPitts,and SanSan.One is the megapolis of Northeast,one of the Far West and the other, Midwest where Illinois and the other states are.So what I'm basically asking is what are the possible Names for the future ones,because i know for sure eventually one will rise in the South.And i assume the several major ones would be Columbia,Atlanta,Charlotte, and several more. I'm Very curious about this. Maybe this will help hold the rapidly growing world population.

Andre' Ward

The population growth overall in the US is quite slow, but there is also a movement to suburbs and to the South at the same time, so growth of some Southern suburbs may be quite rapid. I would think this would make a Columbia, Atlanta, Charlotte megapolis much more likely than, say, Chicago to Pittsburg. StuRat 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. While population growth is not very fast in the North, the physical growth of urbanized areas in the North has continued at a rapid rate due to the spread of low-density exurbs. I read somewhere that the Cleveland area grew by one-third in terms of acreage in the 80s and 90s despite remaining steady in terms of population. There's very little countryside left between Lorain, Ohio and Youngstown.
According to the Census Bureau, it's now possible to go from Lorain to New Hampshire, then south to Petersburg, Virginia and back to Ohio via Pittsburgh without ever entering a rural county. Welcome to ClevErBufRochSyrAlbBosNYPhilBaltWashRichPitt Megalapolitan Area. -- Mwalcoff 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking outside the US, most of south-east England is now considered part of the London commuter belt, and Tokyo has absorbed every city within 50km. Namewise, I doubt the portmanteau names will stick; I'd much rather live in Chicago than ChiPitts. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mega-City One. Notinasnaid 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the naming process, of the metropolitan areas in England two got named Greater London and Greater Manchester after the central city. But in the other cases the new name had to be anything but "Greater X", in order to keep the residents of the smaller towns happy. So Merseyside not Greater Liverpool, West Yorkshire not Greater Leeds, the West Midlands not Greater Birmingham, etc. The names have stuck even those that seemed cumbersome initially. So maybe in America it'll be Pacific City or Lakeside or North Ohio, etc,etc. Jameswilson 23:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide[edit]

Is it true that Stalin killed approximately 20,000,000 people of different ethnic backgrounds? If this is so, it doesn't seem just that he does not get the deserved condemnation in our media; how can this be explained? Thanks. Butkus

I think it's more than that. Quite simply, no pictures means no media interest. Stalin didn't let many pics get out. We have many movies and pics from liberated German Death Camps, however. StuRat 02:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "killed" thing is a term you need to look very carefully at. First, did 20 million die during his years? No doubt many more. Did that many die due to a policy of his that would not have died otherwise? Probably. During collectivization, there were state sponsored killings. Further, there was a mass enslavement and labor camps that killed hundreds of thousands. However, the figures are all somewhat wild guesses, and the inherent comparison of Stalin with Hitler or Pol Pot is a bit bogus. Imagine if Hitler had not had the Final Solution, if, instead, only the numbers in the camps that starved and were worked to death counted. That would be a more accurate comparison. Stalin's "killing" of his people was more along the lines of forced labor and killing them that way than by genocide. As for the totals, no one can know. The total is very high. Geogre 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Stalin did arrange for the intentional murder of million who opposed him, or he thought had some chance of opposing him in the future. The movie Dr. Zhivago portrays this, but most American media does ignore it, that's quite true. StuRat 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to the Great Purge and the Gulag, there is no secret. The American media does portray Stalin as an authoritarian, paranoid killer. As to why he isn't thought of as specifically genocidal, it is because his campaigns did not have a "racial" bent to them; in fact, his most direct killings (that is, not the ones caused by famine) had almost nothing in common with each other at all except that for one reason or another they were swallowed into the Soviet security apparatus. To be genocidal one has to intentionally try to wipe out a people based on some sort of racial or genetic basis, which was never Stalin's approach to things, as horrible as he was. --Fastfission 03:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is just wrong. Stalin did indeed commit what amounts to genocide on purely ethnical grounds, by deporting and ethnically cleansing regions of certain groups, which lead to the death of many in the process. See this article, and I quote: nearly half of the entire Crimean Tatar population died of hunger in the first eighteen months after being banished from their homeland. If that isn't ethnically motivated genocide, what is? --BluePlatypus 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming in late here, but in addition to the above: The Nazis kept better records. The Stalinist purges were largely random, and a lot of them happened in very rural areas; combine that with the fact that it was a largely technology-free era, and the result is that most people there probably never had much in the way of "papers" to begin with. Not that this is a great comparison, but: Imagine if you lived alone on a farm somewhere off the Oregon Trail back in the 1850s, and one day you got into a fight with somebody else and he killed you. Who would know? And even if anyone did know, how would they document it? It's not like there was a county coroner to call and file a death certificate, or a Social Security Administration or an IRS or any other government agency that would notice or care. --Aaron 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship of Colonists[edit]

How did the people who were colonists when America became a nation become citizens? Was there an edict of some sort? In order to vote - for instance, for the first president - surely people had to prove they were citizens.--68.100.215.152 04:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did they become American citizens? Implicitly. That was considered as an automatic part of the U.S. becoming independent. Independence, of course, was claimed by the U.S. in the Declaration of Independence and recognized by the British in the Treaty of Paris. Each document uses the word "citizen" one or more times to refer to Americans without saying that this is a new status.
At that time the U.S. was more of a confederation than the federation it became under the later constitution -- see Articles of Confederation. People were citizens of the individual states; this is still true today, but today citizenship of the United States is much more important for most purposes. Back then I don't know if the latter concept even existed. The Treaty of Paris refers at one point to "the said States, or their Citizens", but it also refers to "Citizens of the United States". However, this could have been meant to be read as meaning citizens of any of the states.
As to voting, I very much doubt that the idea of "proof of citizenship" existed at the time. If you were a resident, you would have been assumed to be a citizen, at least if you said you were. But I'm guessing. Even if I'm right, I would be interested to know when that changed and the concept of a formal immigration system got started.
--Anonymous, 5:15 UTC, January 7, 2006
I suspect that one needed to be a citizen of the prior colony to be considered a citizen of the state at that time. There were some excluded people, like slaves and Native Americans, who were denied full citizenship despite living there. StuRat 05:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there some problem with Alexander Hamilton not being eligible for the Presidency because he was not born in what became the United States, even though he was living here at the time of the American Revolution? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Presidency doesn't just require that you be a citizen of the US, but that you be a natural born citizen. That was put in to prevent foreign leaders from moving to the US, gaining citzenship, then gaining the Presidency and making the US part of their empire. StuRat 20:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Arnold Schwarzenegger.
However, what it actually says is "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", i.e. in 1789. Hamilton had moved to New York in 1772. The Wikipedia article about him (linked above) says nothing about his being considered ineligible, and indeed, considering that he was one of the driving forces behind the constitution being written in the first place, it's hard to imagine anyone feeling that he wasn't a citizen. (Of course, his political opponents might have tried saying it whether they believed it or not.) --Anon, 20:35 UTC
Hamilton had served in the Continental Congress and New York State Legislature before the Constitution was adopted. This suggests that even if there was not a clear citizenship law, Hamilton was considered to be a citizen; it's hard to imagine an alien being allowed to serve in a legislature in the 1780s. --Metropolitan90 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is a state church?[edit]

An official national religion, like the Church of England. StuRat 05:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Established church would answer the question. Geogre 19:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First City with a million inhabitants[edit]

Which city was the first to have a million inhabitants? QM

Perhaps Rome ? It's hard to say, as ancient census takers were rare. StuRat 16:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
experts.about.com claims it was Rome in 250 CE. [9] No sources for that are cited but Emperial Rome kept a very accurate census compared to other ancient civilizations. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
usefultrivia.com claims it was Rome in 5 BCE. corsinet.com claims it was Rome in 133 BCE. In short, without a cited census source, none of the numbers mean anything. It is clear that Rome reached that mark very early on. The problem is how you define inhabitants (do slaves count?) and how you define city (are you only counting people who have a residence inside the walls or are you counting more?). I think you can safely say that Rome was the first, but it will be hard to get accurate information on when via the Internet. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, do slaves count? Where would YOU count slaves, together with domesticated animals? Thanks to all who answered! QM

Do slaves count? is a reasonable question. Under the unamended U.S. Constitution a slave only counted as three-fifths of a person. In other places censuses only counted males or only counted land owners or only citizens. Developing accurate and complete counts from these records can be difficult. Rmhermen 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the correct statement is "Slaves only bolstered a state's representation in the House of Representatives 3/5ths as much as free people did." If the three-fifths clause hadn't been in the constitution, the states with the most slaves would have had even more political power.
Not to be nit-picky, but if the three-fifths compromise hadn't been added slaves wouldn't have been counted at all. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 counted "the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed." This clearly doesn't include slaves as they were neither free nor indentured. The compromise gave more power to slave holding states than they had before as the status quo was that slaves were not counted in population totals as they legally had the rights of a mule. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 17:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the ancient Romans did conduct censuses of a sort, but they were a lot more concerned with ascertaining who should pay taxes and how much they should pay, than with thoroughly counting individuals. AnonMoos 04:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the above remark, especially for introducing a personal note which is not called for. QM

The history section of our City article backs up Ancient Rome as well, though with a wildly different date, challenged only by Alexandria until the Industrial Revolution. - BanyanTree 16:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down everyone. QM asked about inhabitants. Slaves are inhabitants; habitation does not require dignity or citizenship. I trust that historians have adjusted their readings of the Roman Census accordingly. Back to the question: Beijing and Shanghai were relatively small towns until c. 1000 AD. Based on the Ashoka the Great article's claim that he had a military battle with over 100,000 deaths, though, I would not rule out Delhi as having reached the 1 million mark at an early date. --Mareino 16:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pantheism[edit]

no question

See Pantheism WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Revolution[edit]

When did the French Revolution start

See French Revolution. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1983. --Tothebarricades 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1991[edit]

What was the price of a new car in 1991? Thanks. :]

In US dollars of that year, median was probably about $16,000. alteripse 01:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Borading Schools in the Victorian Age in England[edit]

Dear all,

I'm desperately looking for information about the daily routine/subjects in girls boarding schools in the Victorian Age (especially 1880+) as well as for any other information regarding boarding schools for girls in the a. m. time in England.

I, however, can find here and there something about boys boarding schools but nothing for girls at all. I wonder why? Can't be such a secret!

I would be glad for any hint you can give me (books, internet-addresses, etc.).

80.135.254.190 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow your question considerably. Do you mean Victorian? It looks like you mean Edwardian. Do you mean in England? In Scotland? In the United States or Canada? Secondly, you have to realize that boarding schools are private and therefore heterogenous. There is no single model. Rather, one school would have focused on "polish" and refinement and domestic arts, while another might well have been the mirror of a male private school. Finally, there is enormous discussion of this subject in the scholarly literature, although you would be better off looking at "education for girls" and "conduct books" and "hygiene" and "female body" as your search terms. As you have asked it, the question is sort of difficult to answer. You can also go to any particular contemporary girls' boarding school and look for its past curricula. Generally, by 1880 it was a rough echo of the general liberal arts curriculum, with exceptions. Geogre 15:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your answer. Well, I'll try to narrow: England (pref. London), 1880-1900 (should be late Victorian Age... 1837-1901), girls boarding schools for the gentry and higher social class, school subjects (just to get a rough impression what girls learned day after day). Okay, I understood that every boarding school specialises in specific subjects but I don't know even one exemplary subject for sure. I can imagine that etiquette or sewing could be such subjects... but I'm not even sure about that. 80.135.221.201 19:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, I'll try. The problem is still, I think, that private girls' schools could be wildly different from one another. However, the general subjects were taught (Classics, mathematics, foreign languages (French), writing, religion, history). I'm not, alas, versed in the feminist work being done these days, so I can't tell you anything particular. However, I did find this:
McDermid, Jane. The schooling of working-class girls in Victorian Scotland : gender, education and identity. London ; New York : Routledge, 2005.
Reeves, Marjorie. Pursuing the muses : female education and nonconformist culture, 1700-1900. London; Washington: Leicester University Press.
Then there are all the books by Ward, by Hannah More, etc., though those are earlier than you want and not descriptive. Note that the first one I have there is going to concentrate not on ladies, but on regular girls, and the second one is going to concentrate on non-conformists (i.e. Presbyterians and Independents). Geogre 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California's Strong Economy[edit]

California has a pretty good government and economy.My question to you is,Does California have one of the strongest economies in the world?I mean look at California,if you live there its like living in a totally different world.They have their own style of a lot of things.I believe if CA was to break off the U.S., it'll probably form a totally different country.It has a good economy,(last time i checked).Same for Texas,many definitely say that Texas is like living in a different country.But overall thats my question to you.

Andre' Ward

I don't know specifics about economics, but you might be interested in Nine Nations of North America, which some might feel constitutes a reasonable blueprint for the fission of America. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting fact for you, both California and Texas were independent countries, for a few years each, before being admitted to the US. StuRat 20:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More like a few weeks for the California Republic (24 days, to be precise.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please add that info to the California article. I read it before making my comment, and didn't see anything about it being only 24 days. StuRat 02:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According the Article on the topic, Cali has between the 4th and 10th largest economy in the world. So yes, its pretty clear that California has "one of the strongest economies in the world." Jasongetsdown 19:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French dance discipline[edit]

What is the name of that french dance discipline that consists of jumping off of walls, hanging from ledges, etc? Examples of this discipline can be seen in Madonna's "Hung Up" music video.

Parkour. Gdr 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would say it is not a dance discipline but free style artistic (and not only the French do it). You can find a lot of downloadable video clips with similar action in the i-net. 80.135.254.108 08:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual will[edit]

Say I really wanted my body to be cooked and served to the guests at my funeral, provided I had not died of something that would make my body unfit for consumption. Would it be legally possible to do this in the US? What about other countries? Has anyone actually done this? —Keenan Pepper 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's illegal in some jurisdictions to eat human flesh, so your will couldn't be enforced if you were there. Otherwise, I don't know of anything that would stop it. I admit that I haven't taken trusts and estates yet, though, so don't make your will until you hear further. :) --George 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than having laws which say how a body can't be disposed of, I believe there are quite specific laws of how it must be disposed of. Typically, the choices are:

1) Emballming and burial.

2) Cremation.

3) Donation of organs for medical use.

4) Donation to science for research and teaching.

Since cannabalism doesn't fit any of those categories, it would be illegal in most, perhaps all, states. StuRat 01:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Armin Meiwes, the cannibal from Germany. Although in this case the person being eaten, although willing, was killed by Meiwes and didn't die of natural causes. Thryduulf 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you would find much people who would eat at that funeral, and you certainly cannot force them to do it, so I don't think there would be much point even if it's legal. – b_jonas 21:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I considered, which *IS* legal, and considerably less gross (though still a bit), would be to have myself cremated and my ashes stirred into Guinness to be served at my wake. I'm almost sure I'd have to have this done covertly (and probably, by consequence, illegally), as my friends are faithless, but if you are considering trying to get your friends to eat your cooked flesh, I'm sure drinking your ashes would be a welcome compromise to them. Bethefawn 1521; 8.1.06

Interesting that you should mention that. I attended a Requiem Mass today--Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica [10], not Roman Catholic--for the twin daughters of some very good friends. The girls were premature. One lived only 14 days, the other 44. The communion wafers, or Cakes of Light, contained a small amount of their ashes and the mother's breast milk. It was optional, they also second generation cakes made normally. I chose the active ones and it was a very powerful experience. I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but it meant a lot to me.--◀Pucktalk▶ 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kant vs. Rand[edit]

hi! :), if Kant was a rationalist, how come Ayn Rand was so against him? ( I read that Kant was a rationalist in the continental philosopy article, but probably he was an idealist).--Cosmic girl 23:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the specifics, not having read extensively in Ayn Rand's oeuvre, but she is quite famous for being extremely doctrinaire. Frequently, if you disagreed with her on any little point you were simply wrong and presumably disagreeing only because you were too obtuse or stupid to see why you were wrong. (Though, in fairness, she was not as bad as some of her followers became.) Immanuel Kant disagreed with her on a number of topics - not least ethics - and so presumably she didn't like him. --George 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see... but aren't Kant's ethics too... subjective and mind puzzling? I can't understand them, besides, I don't want to sound like another Ayn, but I actually think that her ethics of self betterment, better all of humanity in the long run,I mean, selfishness may sound downright evil, but in the bigger picture it might be good for the progress of the collective, because it follows evolution's maxims. ps. you are cool George, haha.--Cosmic girl 03:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very kind. :) Well, each person has to make up their own mind, obviously. If you're interested, it's fairly easy to find introductions to Kant for non-experts. (It's especially necessary because his books are notoriously difficult to read.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online has several articles on Kant, though they're a little bit technical. A Google search will turn up other websites, or you can just drop by your local bookstore.
It's much harder to find good books on Rand. She's not taken seriously by most professional philosophers, and most of her followers have been people, particularly young people, who have no training in philosophy. That said, you might find the Objectivist Center FAQ useful as an intro, and her most famous book on ethics is The Virtue of Selfishness. --George 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you :), I knew that about Ayn, but I think they criticize her only on grounds that she didn't study philosophy and her philosophy was not complicated and that she wrote novels and not research papers...but I like her anyway.--Cosmic girl 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think those prejudices are certainly part of the bias, but plenty of people have perfectly serious objections to her philosophy. This, for example, is a long critique of Rand's case for libertarianism by a philosophy professor in Florida. This and this are two more critiques of Objectivism by a philosophy professor in Colorado. While Rand may or may not be right in the end, she makes many errors of reasoning (and errors of fact about the history of philosophy) that someone trained in philosophy would not make. That's why professional philosophers have a bias against non-professionals: Philosophy is a subtle art, and it's easy to make mistakes that aren't obvious to the non-professional. --George 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 8[edit]

music/art[edit]

Hi! I am currently wokring on a project for school. I am looking for some Russian art pieces or musical instruments to display for the project. Can anyone direct me to where I may be able to find such items in Canada?

Can you be more specific than "Canada" ? If you live in Toronto, I doubt if you would be willing to go to Yellowknife to see Russian art. Also, if it's in a museum, I doubt if they will check it out to you for a school project. You might want to try to obtain prints of Russian paintings, though, those might be available for a modest investment. Or, if you are as cheap as me, just print some copies you find on the Internet on your own printer. Note that the Russians did colonize what is now the West Coast of Canada and the Northern US, so you might do best in British Columbia or possibly the Yukon Territory. StuRat 01:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Nations of North America[edit]

With reference to Nine Nations of North America, what exactly are the features that differentiate these nine regions? Can one distinguish between people from these regions based on their accent or language or any such cultural traits? deeptrivia (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can distinguish between citizens of the United States based on accent, language, and cultural traits. Why would you think that there wouldn't be a difference when travelling from one country to the next? --Kainaw (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are "nations" roughly within the US. I want to know some particular examples of features that can be used to find, for example if a person is from Texas or California. deeptrivia (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from a quick reading of the Nine Nations article and its links, I wouldn't say its focus is on the individual personal level. I read some of the Dixie excerpt from his book, since that's where I live, and he did say you could generally recognize whether you were there or in one of the bordering areas by how often the subject of change from the old traditions crops up in conversation, which is sort of similar to what you're asking, but for the most part it seems to be broad societal differences, like race relations, economic growth, that kind of thing. --70.243.46.200 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, actually, that your question has nothing to do with the nine nations. If you're just asking how to tell what region people are from, there's loads of stuff on that, and I have no idea where to find most of it. Dialect has a link to List_of_dialects_of_the_English_language, which might be of some use. --70.243.46.200 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dialect and speech patterns are all that trained people need to pinpoint a persons origin. Obvious examples are keywords: Y'all for the south, wicked for the northeast, wersh (instead of wash) in the midwest, eh (at the end of a question) along the Canadian border. The central midwest has much faster speach rhythms than the the southern midwest. The northeast is more staccato. I studied it a bit because I am from the midwest and I know that there are stereotypes based on language patterns. For example, to make sure an audience knows a person is stupid without getting into any character development, a director will give the person a southern accent. To make sure the audience knows they are rude and obnoxious, the get either a New York or Boston accent. So, I studied enough to try and break my old habits. --Kainaw (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking specifically to the Nine nations thing, that is just one man's way of dividing up the pie. It has some valid generalizations, but in other ways it is terribly off. For ex Los Angeles is included in Mexamerica. While there are some connections and influences, suburban LA such as Orange county is about as far in many ways from Mexico as you can get. But if you're looking for a way to tell where someone is from, I would agree dialect (accent) is the most reliable. It only takes a couple seconds to tell between some of the strongest accents such as Boston, New York City, Southern, Yooper, Canadian, etc. Some can still fool you of course depending on your familiarity with an area. But accent wasn't the prime criteria that author used to delineate his areas. In some cases he prioritized economic similarities over accent ones. - Taxman Talk 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the accent thing - I wouldn't rely on it too heavily. Four reasons. The first is that, with the constant mixing up the people in America are getting (moving across the country just for college, new job, etc.), there are plenty of people in, say, deep Texas who grew up in, say, Ohio and Montana. If they raise children, the children will be born in Texas, raised in Texas, and still have a strong tendency towards a Northern accent. And that's just if they don't move while they're young, which a lot of people do. The second is that people can, as the guy above mentioned, intentionally change their accent to something significantly different and harder to trace. The third is that accent is a subtle thing at the best of times, and is constantly changing. The fourth is that some people just talk weird no matter what they've been raised to. I grew up with quite a few speech impediments, and that combined with my northern parents caused almost everyone I met to think I was British, including at least one person who'd been to England. 69.154.179.63 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend reading the book ;) Actually, having read the book, I can tell you two things.

1. As some people have suggested, the book, written in 1981, is stunningly predictive in many ways and stunningly obsolete in others. America churns and churns, and any one region is rarely left out of the mix. 2. The author's intent was to divide up America politically based not on parties, but on what people's actual desires from their government were. In this regard, this system of generalization is much more useful than the "red county"/"blue county" thing, which basically only tells you if you're living in a city or not. For example, the Rocky Mountain area is characterized by libertarianism, even the Canadian portion; Southern Florida really doesn't think or act like the rest of Dixie; and there is huge political tension generated by the fact that a huge portion of this nation's culture and history come from the Pittsburgh-DC-Boston crescent, even though this area underrepresents many of America's defining cultural traits, like pioneer spirit, jingoism, and religiosity. --Mareino 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Mythology[edit]

Who are the three Greek Goddesses that took a vow of chastity?

Is this a homework question? If so, you may find some information at Greek mythology and the associated articles linked from that one. Dismas|(talk) 05:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italy[edit]

Is Italy important in world affairs? How and how not? Is Italy declining, improving, or maintaining conditions in technology, economy, human rights, environment or infrastructure? What rights do teenagers have in Italy?

First thing that comes to mind... The Vatican is in Italy. I know, Vatican City is it's own country, but it is competely within Italy. The next thing that comes to mind is commerce. When I was in Bermuda looking for something to buy for my wife the week before she was going to spend a few months in Italy, everything I found (besides rum) said "made in Italy". --Kainaw (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this homework by any chance? - Akamad 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read Italy and economy of Italy for a start. As to the rights of teenagers, what do you mean? There's broad legal provisions, and then there's culture. Broad legal provisions tend to be a national issue, culture can vary greatly within a country. I'd imagine teenagers brought up in the trendier suburbs of Rome or Milan are allowed considerably more latitude than those brought up in rural villages in the more backward parts of southern Italy. --Robert Merkel 10:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need to find information on the communist uniforms of china.[edit]

I think you may be thinking of the Mao suit. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 10:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's the one that made them all look like janitors. StuRat 10:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

freedm[edit]

What does freedom mean to me?

...who are you? —Keenan Pepper 03:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your teacher asked you to respond to the question, "What does freedom mean to me?", it means you have to answer the question for yourself. Halcatalyst 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It means you are perfectly free to do your own homework. StuRat 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can absolutely guarantee that no one else but you can say what freedom means to you. - Akamad 09:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your freedom should mean to you what my freedom means to me,and yeah, it's good for you to do your own homework, you'll gain freedom by doing that. ;) --Cosmic girl 14:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, freedom means the right not to answer this question. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," according to Kris Kristofferson. Geogre 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also means that you are free to tell your teacher that he/she needs some more original essay prompts. --Tothebarricades 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect telling the teacher that will lead to the realization that school is a not democracy, and your teacher is a dictator. StuRat 08:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freedom is either wasted on, or dangerous in the hands of, all but the most intelligent people and I recommend you become institutionalised as rapidly as possible, like me. --bodnotbod 00:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is less of a school essay question and more of a Miss America question. --Mareino 16:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theeeeeereeee she isssssss.... Cernen Xanthine Katrena 08:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film credits on posters[edit]

These days, a poster for a movie will usually have a section at the bottom with a lot of credits, written in an elongated font that is very difficult to read. This seems almost pointless to me. What is this block of text called, and why is it there? Is it just to pay lip service to some legal obligation to have certain people credited? But it couldn't possibly contain the full list of credits, so who's in and who's out? What's this really all about? JackofOz 08:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know someone in the business of making movies. He's one of the guys whose name about which you wonder "What is this guy's name doing in the credits?" I asked him a very similar question once. I asked him why people like the costume designer or the assistant to Mr. Eastwood or the key grip were in the credits when the general public doesn't care about those people's names. The answer that he gave me was that along with the money for working on a film there are a number of other things that studios and the people in these jobs can barter with. Someone may even take a little less money to get their name in the credits or whatever. It's basically just a little perk that they can write into the agreement when they agree to work on a picture. Now my question to him was specifically about the credits at the beginning/end of the films. I didn't ask specifically about the movie posters but I thought this might shed some light on the subject. Dismas|(talk) 08:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be union contracts which require listing the unions which worked on the film. They usually only listed the main people otherwise. At the end of the actual movie, however, they seem to list entirely too many people, down to caterers, for example. TV stations get so sick of showing all that crap that they either cut the credits short or squish them to one side of the screen so you can't read them. Unfortunately, they do this so soon that you frequently can't see the names of the stars. These days you can go to the internet to look them up, provided you know the name of the movie. StuRat 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not to take issue with those being involved getting credit. I always sit thru the entire credits at the end of a movie at the cinema because (a) I really like the idea of people being acknowledged for whatever contribution they may have made and (b) the music is still going and the movie ain't over till it's over. (I agree that this is usually denied to us on TV). I was mainly intrigued about the choice of font for this material at the bottom of the film poster. It's always the same thin, tall, unreadable typeface, no matter which film company made the movie. Why? Is it to squash in as much information as possible in the space available? Is it some psychological/marketing thing about a quality movie having a certain look and feel? If it's effectively unreadable, that means it is not intended that people actually read it. There has to be some other significant agenda/purpose. JackofOz 10:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they occasional throw in some bonus material after the credits. I don't know the answer to the weird font question, but also notice how they tended to use roman numerals for dates, which can be quite difficult to read when they go flying by. This seems to be changing though, as more recent films tend to use standard arabic numerals for the year. StuRat 10:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere that various people insist for various reasons that their name in the credits be of certain size, but that "size" is interpreted as "height". So the obvious way to pack more names in to the billing box, while keeping them of the contractually-obligated "size", is to make them tall and thin. You can read much more about this topic in a column by the inimitable Cecil Adams. Steve Summit (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, "billing box", that's what it's called. That answers one of my questions. Thank you very much. Steve. JackofOz 11:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Petty squabbles about billing predate the movies and probably have existed as long as acting has been a profession. For a famous example of a solution to billing on Broadway, see the poster for "Red Hot and Blue!" here. In order to avoid having either Jimmy Durante's or Ethel Merman's name on top, a "criss-cross" pattern was devised. (I wonder if "tall and thin" isn't at least partially a function of the fact that posters are traditionally taller than they are wide?) - Nunh-huh 04:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does E B stand for in E B White's name?[edit]

There's a search box at the top left of the page. Typing E.B. White and clicking on go brings us to E.B. White, where you will find the answer to your question. Natgoo 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education 1934[edit]

What percent of U.S. high school graduates went on to post secondary education (college, trade school, nurses training) in 1934?

For theologians[edit]

Don't Agustine of hippo and the creator of the opus dei, Jose Maria something, extremly contradict each other? the first one says that we should basicly turn our backs on the world because every human effort is worthless and God is the only way out and that the world traps the soul and stuff like that, while the other one says that materialism is not bad and that the material world is to be cherrished and based on his theology came all those christian rock and rap bands... now I find a huge contradiction here... how can a religion have such a self contradicting theology? where is catholiscism heading? what's this pope going to do? I also read that benedict didn't accuse pedophile priests and what's more, he excused them somewhat...is this true? and also, a religion that is changing its views constantly... what authority does it have to say that it posseses the truth? I find this extremly silly, being from a really catholic environment myself. and also, how can the vatican have an astronomy observatory, what is it looking for if they are supposed to know it all?--Cosmic girl 20:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Even the Bible contradicts itself. For example, do you "turn the other cheek" when harmed, or do you demand "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" ? You can't do both. StuRat 20:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually had some knowledge of the Bible, you'd know the answer to this "contradiction". "Turn the other cheek" is the New Testament answer to the Old Testament "eye for an eye" approach. In legal terms, it overturns the previous precedent, if you buy into the whole Jesus thing (I personally do not). But don't take it from me:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39)
There are many better points to criticize the Bible on, but it helps to know what you are talking about before you do it. The Bible is two books, and finding something in the latter one which explicitly overturns something in the previous one does not make it a "contradiction". Which is not to say that the Bible is free from self-contradiction in a true sense (mostly on non theologically interesting issues), but this is about the worst example of that you could find. --Fastfission 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The contradiction is that it makes no sense that God would so competely change his rules for us when Jesus was born. What, did God change his mind ? "Forget all that stuff I said before, I don't know what I was thinking back then." I guess God must be a woman after all, LOL. StuRat 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Jesus did not overturn the law. He said so in Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17. --BluePlatypus 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are biblical scholars who take "an eye for an eye" mean "if you must exact retribution, it must be of a proportionate degree"; that is that it sets a maxiumum (not minimum) tariff. They contend it was meant to contradict the prevailing habit of manyfold-retaliation (where if I stole your goat, you'd burn my house down). With the "eye for an eye" method you'd only get to steal one of my goats, or a smallish cow at most. I'm inclined to beleive this rather more enlightened interpretation, not least because it sounds a lot more like a sage rabinnical saying this way. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that if it meant that, it would say that. If judges of the time had awarded less than equal compensation for any injury, this would cause the injured party to seek revenge outside the law, which would be a big problem for society. StuRat 22:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were no judges at the time. It was just Hammurabi. Babylon was very tribal. The example above doesn't begin to address the attitudes of the time. It was "you steal my goat, I burn your village, kill all your men, take all your women in as slaves, salt all your lands so no crops may ever grow there again." Hammurabi realized that this was self-destructive. Also, with people getting killed and crops being burned, he got a lot less in taxes. So, he set forth a code demanding and eye for an eye/a tooth for a tooth. To this day, people use those words to justify a village for an eye/a town for a tooth. --Kainaw (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess acording to religion only God (whatever that may be because even they don't seem to agreee themselves about what God is) only God can demand an eye 4 an eye, but we are supposed to turn the other cheek, and of course! never ever think for ourselves,and turn our backs on science and let the human race practically die out because it's heretical to fight for ourselves since that would mean we have faith in ourselves and in science and not in God the ghost. --Cosmic girl 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please! Remember that it is said about Jesus that he came to complete the old law (meaning the books of the Bible before his gospel). Only there can you find retaliation, and Jesus himself said 'give another cheek'.
This is one message that you must keep from him. I mean, do not follow a religion, try to improve it.

--Harvestman 21:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion doesn't want to be improved though, it wants to be followed, so to not follow religion and try to improve it, you are automatically un religious, but I didn't mean silly biblical contradictions, I meant theological relevant contradictions for example concerning the nature of God, how can there be contradictions there? there shouldn't be no religion at all in the world, and only philosophy in its place because it's so stupid to say you know it all and comand everyone to believe what you say and burn people at the stake ( people that made huge contributions to mankind) and then just be like I changed my mind, tehehe...c'mon!.--Cosmic girl 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually correct, of course. Firstly God does things in time, so he may choose to reveal bits of himself at different times. So mankind may know more about God at a later stage; hence religion would change and be improved. Secondly we are not perfect in interpreting anything God may communicate to us. As we understand God better religion is constantly changing. A simple look at the history of any religion will reveal that it does change, frequently changes from within, and in many cases is actively seeking to change. DJ Clayworth 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The whole "god changes to suit people" routine seems far-feached to me. The current proposal of morality of the bible is : "to love god beyond everything else, and people around you as yourself" ( this was a tranlation from Portuguese. If anyone can put the actual version in english of this in here, i'd apreciate it ) and clearly, people around us are not at that level =). How come God gave the ancient people a rule because it was the only one they could folllow, and , to us, gives such a rule ?

However , this nerly impossible goal is a clear sign of an commandment ( dare i say, culture ? ) that is essencially antropocentric. To god, love above anything else , AND JUST THAT. The rest, for the people around you ( this "commandment" in given by Jesus, with the intention of supperseed every previous one ). Also, it is clever enough not to set the means by which you should help the others. In here, there seams to be plenty room for reason. ... More room than most filosofies and ( this is going to far ... ) especialy, the dominant pragmatical and liberal ideas that seems to have taken on the world ( pragmatical with some twist, but let's keep them with the name they choose, and liberal as in economics, "the right of the merit" (!?) and such stuff )

As to "no to religion, let's just have filosophy" i steal a bit of Sartre ( do not QUOTE, just use the idea, for i do not know the phrase ). Men might use rational thinking to get to a goal, but not to set their goal. That choice , must be compleately arbitrary. With a bit more of logics, there has to be a premisse that is unprecedented. Pure belief...

After that big digression, and coming to the actual topic:

the religion, and even the bible are human creations . The church is human ( in it's worst, i'm afraid ) and the bible is a compilation, made by the church, in times where they where possibly the biggest power on the world. The powers that the bible gives to the apostolate seems farely absurd ( how could god give to a bunch of people the power to make something a sin ? ). The point is, contradicition us human, and religion too

Does it mean we should just get rid of it all ?

By the way, aren't there some major contradictions between Gravity ( General Relativity Theory ) and Quantum Mechanics ?

NOT SAYING let's get rid of science, just saying lets not get rid of everything that has contradiction. let's try to see, rationaly, what can be used ... what fits our belifs, and furthers them

my best to all

Cold Light

most recorded music albums[edit]

I would like to know who has the most recorded albums in the history of rock and roll music? 

                          thank you

                             Miliie Durden
Do you mean the artist with the most albums in that periiod ? StuRat 20:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i would like to know which artist, band, who has the most recorded albums of all time.

thank you millie

My first guess would be Slim Dusty, who was recording his 106th album when he died. Here is a link to his discography. Taiq 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 106? Blimey. The Fall (band) are often spoken of as unusually prolific here in England but it seems they've "only" had 25 studio albums out (one per year since their inception in 1979), albeit considerably more when you take into account live and compilation releases according to The Fall discography. --bodnotbod 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't rock, but certainly pop.. what about Lata Mangeshkar? She has the world record as a performer I believe, with over 30,000 songs recorded, mostly Bollywood soundtracks. Of course, she didn't write them. --BluePlatypus 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Analyes the impact of labor unions and immigration on the American worker between 1865 and 1900.

Please, do your own homework! Don't type a question verbatim from your assignment and expect people to answer it for you. I'll even give you a link to get you started: Labor unions in the United States. --Canley 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And another: Immigration to the United States. JamesMLane 01:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C. S. Lewis.[edit]

I believe that C. S. Lewis lived a part of his early life in Cork, Ireland. I would like to know if this can be verified.

Many thanks,

Peter Byrne.

I checked the C. S. Lewis article and it didn't mention it; a quick Google search seems to confirm that Lewis' mother was born outside Cork in Queenstown (in Cork county), and that his father was born in Cork, but it doesn't appear that he ever lived there. СПУТНИКССС Р 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lewis' parents were from Cork but he lived in Dundela, Belfast until age 6 and in Strandtown afterwards with some English boarding schools after age 9. Rmhermen 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

homosexuality[edit]

What is the historical background on homosexuals?

See Homosexuality and History of sexuality. СПУТНИКССС Р 20:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's resources are a little sketchy, in my opinion. If you're really interested, drop by your local library and read Homosexuality and Civilization by Louis Crompton (ISBN 067401197X). It is by far the best introduction to homosexuals in history that I've read. --George 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celts[edit]

Who are the Celts? Are, they Vikings? I just know that they have something to do with Northern Europe.

See Celt. —Keenan Pepper 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Celt article really does tell you everything you need to know, but I want to emphasize that Celts are certainly not Vikings. The two intermingled a bit and their descendants are of course quite peaceful with each other now, but they were serious rivals during the formative years of Northern Europe. --Mareino 17:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, in case it is not clear from the article: Celt can be used to describe a people, a language, et cetera. 'Viking', however, was an occupation, and only that. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Stockwell[edit]

[heading added]

CAN ANYONE GIVE ME MORE INFORMATION ON A JOHN STOCKWELL, PRIVATEER AND BUCCANEER WHO WAS COMMISSIONED BY WILLIAM III (WILLIAM OF ORANGE) TO TRACK DOWN AND CAPTURE CERTAIN PIRATES. HE FOUND PIRACY MORE PROFITABLE AND WISELY INVESTED HIS FORTUNE IN PROPERTY IN SOUTH LONDON INCLUDING PURLEY, STREATHAM, THE ANGEL ESTATE, AND OF COURSE STOCKWELL ITSELF.

THANK YOU, REGARDS DON LENNARDS--212.32.74.139 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI, a Google seach on

john stockwell pirate "WILLIAM OF ORANGE" "south london"

  • turned up 8 results, none useful. Halcatalyst 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather, Stockwell has been known as such since the creation of Stockwell Manor near the village of Stokewell in the 1200s [11] - the only info I can find about later years relates to Stockwell being the centre of tea smuggling [12]. The Stockwell Partnership (history org) and Lambeth Landmark (archives) may be able to help you find more specific information. Natgoo 10:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say: Please do not write your questions in all caps, all bold, or all bold-italic text. It is much harder to read than normal questions and frustrates the reference desk employees. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 08:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 9[edit]

Mughal empire in 1780[edit]

Maratha empire (Yellow)

If what is shown in yellow in this map is the Maratha empire, where's the Mughal empire? deeptrivia (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I believe that the Maratha empire and the Mughal empire existed in much the same place simultaneously. For much of its later existance, the Mughal rulers were just "overlords", with other rulers beneath them, and I think the Maratha empire was one of the places supposedly subject to Mughal rule. The warfare between the Marathas and the Mughals was, I think, basically a fight over this overlordship — I'm not sure whether the Marathas rejected all notion of Mughal overlordship, or whether they merely wanted the Mughals confined to a figurehead role, but I'm fairly certain that by this point, the Mughal Empire only really existed in theory, not as a "real" empire. It claimed supremacy over a large area, but in practice, the local rulers generally went their own way, and sometimes even fought the Mughals. (But as I say, I'm not an expert by any means — I could be completely wrong). -- Vardion 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think that makes sense. deeptrivia (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical/religious paradox[edit]

Is there a name for the idea that an omnipotent God would never have any needs and so therefore would never feel the desire to create something such as a universe? Glennh70 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would this fall under that same heading? Glennh70 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that sounds diferent to me, although related. As I uderstand it, the purpose for God creating the universe is to test the people He created, to determine which ones are good enough and which ones are "morally defective". The question then comes up as to why God can't just create all morally perfect people and skip this test entirely. StuRat 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know of my Jewish religion, God created people not out of "desire" but because it was metaphysically "good."--Urthogie 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a paradox, actually. Plato, in Timaeus, suggested that a perfect creator would be perfect, unmoving and unmoved, because perfection can lack nothing and therefore be without motive or motion. He therefore had to resort to a demiurge to account for creation: the slightly imperfect near-perfect-thing did all the creating. This has implications for Christian heresies, as a number of Gnostic sects would essentially follow this scheme, and several dualist heresies would resort to the demiurge creating the world and God creating only the spirit -- this could take the form of the world being created by Satan and therefore all flesh as evil. However, traditional Jewish and Christian theology has been totally untroubled by this "paradox," because their idea of perfection is dynamic. I.e. God is alive. As a living being, God moves, thinks, etc., and love is the nature of perfection. Love necessitates creation. In other words, they'd say that Plato's idea of perfection was mathematical and absurd, that he defined his terms illogically and immorally. Geogre 11:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, love is the key. In one interpretation of the Trinity I've heard, the love between Father and Son (the Holy Spirit) is so immense that it overflows the Godhead, both causing the universe to come into existence and sustaining that existence. Halcatalyst 15:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a paradox or conflict or anything like that? The creator is omnipotent. For example, if you create a web page, you know everything in the web page. If you create a painting, you know everything in the painting. If you create a universe, you know everything in the universe. --Kainaw (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's a paradox. It undercuts the rationale that StuRat mentioned, about God creating people so he could test them to determine whether they were good. An omniscient being would know the answer without running the test. That's in addition to StuRat's point that he (God, not StuRat) could have just made them all good to begin with. JamesMLane 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd say it's no paradox. It's a question of what you define as "perfect." Plato would have it be impossible, but Plato's perfection is static and dead. In Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thought, a thing is not perfect by being unmoving, but by being essentially one with God. Further, an all-wise creator could and would create humans who have the power to create, even to create evil by choosing not-God. This doesn't solve the problem of predestination and omniscience, but that's a separate issue and one that gets to the heart of theodicy. Would an all-knowing God know the outcome of all future choices and therefore be culpable in the evil created by unGodly choice/rebellion? Well, for some people that's a real snag. For others, it's not. (It's a lot easier, if you're existentialist, as there simply is no future. Futures cannot be known because they do not exist, and each choice is free.) However, the foreknowledge problem isn't really a perfection paradox. Geogre 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

isn't nothingness the only perfect unmoved mover thing? I can't cocinieve of a concious 'perfect' thing because no matter how perfect omnipotent and whatever God is, the 'nothingness' will always 'compare and compete' with him...correct me if my reasoning is wacky...maybe there's something beyond that absolute nothingness, I mean, maybe infinitness appears to us as if it's nothingness but then..I can't say anything abut that reality because I'd be lying, so therefore I think all religions lie somehow, because noone can claim to know THAT with our earthly brains.--Cosmic girl 13:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1853[edit]

I was wondering if anyone knows what was the biggest type of christianity in 1853 i.e protestent, Baptist

Without doing any research, I'd say that in England it was Church of England, and worldwide it was Catholic. This is a guess, not research. Notinasnaid 09:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure about that...someone should double check.--Urthogie 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would sort of have to be Roman Catholocism in the West. This is because "Protestant" breaks down into Lutheran, Church of England, Church of Sweden, Church of Scotland, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, etc. If all these new churches were added together, they probably would have massed to near the numbers of Roman Catholicism. Another factor is the Russian Orthodox Church, which, in 1853, had the population of Russia and most of the Romanov Empire. Greek and Syrian Orthodox Churches had very large numbers, of course, but, with Old and New World added together, it would be logical that Roman Catholicism was the most numerous church in 1853. Again, this is just a logic game. I don't know the actual numbers. Geogre 11:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a lot of it is based on where you draw the lines.--Urthogie 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. The question is to vauge to be answered, and it's also posed in a confusing way: "i.e. protestent, baptist".. since baptists are a protestant denomination it's a weird distinction to make. --BluePlatypus 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it really does have to be the Roman Catholic church. It has been the largest ever since the Great Schism, and it is truely one church, one heirarchy and one faith. It'd be pointless to lump all protestant denominations together: The theological differences between protestant denominations can be larger than the differences between certain protestant denominations and the Catholic church. Also, see Christianity. There are 1 billion Catholics, half a billion protestants, and a quarter-billion orthodox christians. In the last 150 years there really hasn't been any major religious upheavals. Most of the places that are catholic-majority now were then too, and most places that had a protestant majority then have it now as well. The only major change I can think of is the 'atheisation' of the Soviet Union, but even that would't be enough to bring the Orthodox into the largest. The only other significant factor that could change the Catholic domination would be the fact that the Catholic nations have had on average a higher birth-rate. But I doubt that has been a significant enough effect to give you a protestant majority in the mid-19th century. --BluePlatypus 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nineteen sixties pop music[edit]

What was the song, written or performed, by a popular group in the nineteen sixties. that had meaningless lyrics that were (supposedly) written as a result of a bet.

Could be "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" (1969) by Pink Floyd? --Canley 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only bet involved in that song was who could do the most acid and retain their sanity. I think Sid Barrett lost that bet.--◀Pucktalk▶ 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Syd" Barrett, not Sid. And that song was released after he had already left the band. Dismas|(talk) 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Webb said in an interview that I read a very long time ago that he wrote MacArthur Park on a bet. It was a very popular song - the most popular being by Donna Summer, though I am partial to the version by Richard Harris. --Kainaw (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard, but can't verify, that Manfred Mann had a bet about performing songs with meaningless titles (but not lyrics), resulting in Do Wah Diddy Diddy and 5-4-3-2-1. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest population[edit]

Which nation has the tallest population ?

See Average human height around the world. According to that, it's the Netherlands; that is, if you're referring to average height. СПУТНИКССС Р 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, I was assuming it was Danish people. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strange collar[edit]

Michel de Montaigne with a fashionable collar

What is the name of the collar worn here by Michel de Montaigne? Do we have an article about them, or does anybody know why they were worn, when they were in fashion and when they fell out of fashion, and if they were comfortable? I just curious about them, but I couldn't think what to look up. Perhaps we have an article on Rennessance fashion? Smmurphy(Talk) 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Ruff (clothing). Notinasnaid 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, so are the a collar at all? Also, does anyone happen to know the french term for these? Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK for ruff. In french : fraise, or collerette. Very uncomfortable with the starch, but the ruchés give such a distinctive look ...--Harvestman 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of relationships between husbands and wifes in Saudi Arabia[edit]

I am trying to research the history of relationships between men and women in Saudi Arabia. I was told that men basicaly rule over woman as the head of the household. I was also told that if a woman cheated on a man, that the woman could be put to death. In the USA we handle marital disputes within the Family and Probate Courts.

My question would be, How or where could I find more information regarding the manner in which marital disputes are resolved in Saudi Arabia?

Thank you in advance for helping me with this topic. Brian Meuse

For a start you should see, Human rights in Saudi Arabia. Dismas|(talk) 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the plural of wife is wives, not wifes. StuRat 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

What was the first world wide rock & roll hit song? I would like song and artist if possible. This is just a question I had so any help would be greatfull Jeff

IMO there haven't been any yet. There are still a number of places in the world that do not appreciate, or haven't had exposure to, rock & roll. You're question is going to be hard to answer until you more clearly define "world wide." Would being a hit in most English speaking nations count, Western nations, nations involved in World War II? Seriously though, if you narrow down that definiton it will be easier to get you an answer. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by 'world wide' you meant the important parts of the world, i.e. the U.S, Europe, Australia and so on (ie, the 'Western' world), then maybe something like Great Balls of Fire or Rock Around the Clock. India, Africa, Asia and so on generally have shitty (and often government-imposed) tastes in music, and thus do not count. Japan is not so bad, but when those songs came out in the 1950s they hadn't caught up with the West (and then subsequently overtaken the West in everything except music taste and penis size). Proto t c 15:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's quite a rant, Proto. Anyway, Rock_and_roll answers both the question of what's the first hit song anywhere in the world, and what's the first worldwide hit. Short answer: because rock & roll emerged gradually from other forms of music, it's hard to say, but Ike Turner's Rocket 88 (or Bill Haley's cover of it) is as good a nomination as any for the first rock song, while Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock lead to a worldwide tour, and finally, Heartbreak Hotel hit #1 on the US charts and #2 on the UK charts. --Mareino 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Schmitz[edit]

Lately I've been looking for information about an artist called Adolf Schmitz, and my grandparents have an original painting by him. So I was trying to find out who he was and find out how much the painting might be worth. What I know about him is that he wasn't well-known from what I've found. I would like to know if his paintings might be rare. Can someone help me?

Well if he wasn't well known then it doesn't seem unlikely his paintings would be rare. But rare doesn't necessarily mean valuable, unless there happens to be a group of Adolf Schmitz collectors out there prepared to pay for it. In general, for lesser-known artists (who aren't likely to be collected) the price will depend almost completely on the qualities of the painting itself. Either you can go out yourself and make an estimate from what paintings of similar age, size, style and quality sell for. Or you can have it appraised by an expert, which is what I would recommend. Check with local auction houses and art dealers. --BluePlatypus 00:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly too late for the OP, but the could be this one: de:Adolf Schmitz --Maresa63 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Music[edit]

I was wondering where surf music orginated from. Are Link Wray, The Ventures, and Dick Dale the founding fathers of insturmental surf music?

Sorry if this gets put in twice but I'm not sure if my question went in the first time.

See surf music. --Kainaw (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dick Dale is the most universally credited originator of Surf Music. Dale used the double picking that he had learned as a child for mandolin on his electric guitar, and he chose the Fender Deluxe reverb because it sounded "wet" to him. That said, Dale played a circuit around the surfing communities, so that implies that there were other people already doing something akin to what he was doing and that they all worked out their sound together. However, Dick Dale got recorded, and the other fellows, whoever they were, didn't really get the records. After Dick Dale, the "fun and sun" lyrical content owes most of its origin to Jan and Dean. The wildcard in all of this is The Ventures, who were not a California band. They were a guitar group that had been doing popular song who then, apparently, changed their sound in response to Dick Dale and pushed things along considerably. The Ventures go back as far as anyone, just about, and, while others came and went, they kept producing reverb-drenched Stratocaster-based guitar music. Geogre 20:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nettekoven's in history[edit]

I have a history textbook that has multiple references to people with the surname "Nettekoven". I'm wondering what the importance of these people are in the textbook. The textbook is about the history of Europe. These references only tell the last name of those who are referenced. Can someone help me find out the importance of this surname in history, and possibly how they are all related?

My last name is Nettekoven, but I don't know how my ancestry could actually get a footnote in a history text book...
What makes you think there's any connection at all? I mean, I can find any number of historical people named "Johnson", but it doesn't mean they're all related. --BluePlatypus 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trenton[edit]

How did the Battle of Trenton in 1776 begin??? What caused it. I need this info for a history project!

As the top of the page states you must do your own homework. You should read the article Battle of Trenton. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that what caused it was an extreme difference of opinion about who should govern the British colonies in America. --Mareino 17:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Building[edit]

How many people work at the Chrysler Building on a weekday?

--163.153.132.5 19:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. No responses yet so I'll do a highly approximate estimate (keep in mind that a better figure might be available from a google search, which I haven't done). All the info I have used is from Wikipedia articles. Take the World Trade Center. Building 1 had a floor area of 400,000m² and 25,000 people working there on a weekday. The Chrysler Building has a floor area of 111,201 m². Assume that both World Trade Center Building 1 and the Chrysler Building use floor space in the same way. The Chrysler Building has 30% of the floor space. 30% of 25,000 people is 8000. Maybe 8000 is a general ballpark figure. But that's a very rough estimate!--Commander Keane 11:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could use that as a "maximum" value, I suppose, since the more modern design of the WTC allowed more efficient use of floor space. --BluePlatypus 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Bromine In Swimming Pools, and Spas[edit]

I wrote an essay on the usage of bromine in swimming pools, and spas. I hvae indentified all the benefits and limitations, I have also explained the process of adding bromien to the pools and what happens one it's inside the water. But now I find myself looking for links between bromine and one of the following factors: economics, ethics, political, environmental, etc. and I can't! Please help it would mean a lot!

Thank you for your time!

Ludovica

  • The article Bromine has a short discussion of economic uses under "Appications." You might also try Googling bromine applications. Halcatalyst 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Commonwealth[edit]

I know there are four Commonwealths (VA, MA, PA and KY) On the Virginia Department of State Website they declare they are not a state only a Commonwealth. Does the Federal Government recoginze these four as states or Commonwealths?

MAV

From a legal standpoint and federal perspective, they are states, and the U.S. Constitution refers to them (and they assume implicit identification) as such. As far as I know, "commonwealth" is not an accepted term in this regard; see Political divisions of the United States. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commonwealth" dictionary.com is the word officially used by the states, but that in no way is binding on the federal government. Halcatalyst 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Commonwealth and State naming debate. -- Mwalcoff 23:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the best rave song ever[edit]

That is a subjective question. Please listen and decide for yourself.--Urthogie 21:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't listen to him. It was We Call It Acieed by D Mob. --bodnotbod 01:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades[edit]

how were the british involved in the crusades?

See Crusades and do a page search on England. Halcatalyst 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should also do a page search on Scotland, Wales and Ireland; all of which are or have been, with England, part of Britain. AllanHainey 13:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Complaint Dept" vs "Customer Service"[edit]

The diff is much like that between the old US War Department and the newer US Department of Defense. By pretending that customers don't have complaints and countries don't make war, they make it sound like we live in a fairy land filled with care bears who give strangers flowers all the time. StuRat 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's part of a trend of business euphemisms. Complaint Dept -> customer service -> customer support -> customer care. Employees -> team members. Customers -> guests (at a department store?) Halcatalyst 14:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Question ???[edit]

Which buildings,monuments, structures, and types of homes symbolize this culture?

  • Which culture? --Mareino 17:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danish laws[edit]

Are the laws in Denmark the same as they are in the U.S.? Like what are some sites that I could find the taboos of the Danish culture?

You might try directly asking user talk:fyslee, who can tell you first-hand. alteripse 23:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fyslee here. It took some hunting to find this reference to me. I got a comment elsewhere [13] that must refer to this spot. Now what specific questions do you (whoever you are, please sign your comments!) have for me? -- Fyslee 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by 'the same'? They're not exactly the same as in the US, but US laws vary a bit from state to state as well. But the US and Danish laws are more or less the same contrasted to say, the laws of Saudi Arabia. There aren't any differences which would be significant for your average visitor. Remember to keep your headlights on while driving even in the daytime, and turning right on a red light is not generally legal. (but that varies within the US as well). Don't try and bring your handgun with you. The Danes don't really have any taboos the Americans don't have. In certain areas they have less taboos (e.g. more tolerant of nudity, pornography.. but that's also something which varies widely in the US). Oh, and Danes like most Europeans, hold their knives in their left hands while eating. (See: Zigzag method). All in all, there really isn't anything an American could do at home but which would be considered offensive in Denmark. For good or evil, Americans aren't really expected to know local custom in Europe (See: Ugly American). So at worst you'd just be confirming the stereotype. So if you're going there, be polite, humble, pick up some Danish phrases and help destroy that stereotype. Asking questions is a good way to start. :) --BluePlatypus 00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean the other way around: Europeans (including Danes) hold their knife in their right hand when eating. -- Fyslee 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and another thing, if you want to act like a True Scandinavian, you should avoid taking the last of anything offered to eat or drink. (like the last cookie from a tray) And if you do, make sure to ask the others first. Emptying your plate at a meal is fine though. (as opposed to some cultures where that indicates you want more food). Not emptying your plate isn't any more offensive than in the US either. --BluePlatypus 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legal system is much different US Common law Denmark civil law

India's culture[edit]

Which buildings, monuments, structures,and types of homes sumbolize India's culture?


How do people communicate with each other? How is information spread in India?


What images (religious or secular) cause an immediate response in every person of India?


How does the average person get around in India?


What people, places and things spark feelings of loyalty ant patriotism in India?

Have you considered doing your own homework, starting with reading our India and Culture of India article? And here's a big hint: Sachin Tendulkar. --Robert Merkel 01:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, do your homework. Hints in random order: Vande Mataram, Mass media in India, Indian architecture, Arts and entertainment in India, Transport in India, Rail transport in India, Flag of India, Ashoka Chakra.

Civil Court[edit]

What are the advantages and disadvantages of accepting an offer in a dispute rather than referring to court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.133.74 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm not a lawyer and I suspect there will be some knowledgeable people along to help you out, and I suggest you wait for them. However, I can;t resist the temptation to try an answer and see if I can be in any way right:
    • I suspect the advantages in taking a settlement are:
      • Opportunity to avoid legal costs.
      • Avoid stress.
      • Avoid necessity to take time off work (or whatever) to go through the proceedings.
      • If the court does not find in your favour you would have done better to have accepted a settlement.
    • Disadvantages
      • Perhaps you would have done better if you'd gone through the court (eg, got a higher settlement).
You did very well at hitting the most common reasons, although your fourth one should've been listed first. The importance of guaranteeing against the worst outcomes is seen from the existence of a limited settlement called a "High-Low". The parties might agree before trial that the defendant will pay the plaintiff at least $200,000 and at most $800,000. A verdict somewhere in that range will stand. If there's a verdict for defendant, or for plaintiff but in a small amount, the defendant must still pay $200,000. If there's a big verdict for plaintiff, the defendant has to pay only $800,000. The parties still have the expense of trial but reduce their exposure to variance.
Other (less common) reasons for settling would include: going ahead with the trial might entail divulging some information you'd rather keep confidential, or giving greater publicity to an embarrassing matter; pressing this case might set an unfavorable precedent that could work against you in other matters, so you settle this one on unfavorable terms while waiting for a better test case to come along. JamesMLane 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well now I feel smug ;o) That matter of "precedent" you outline at the end; I understand what you're saying, but can you think of an illustrative example of it? Just out of idle interest. --bodnotbod 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An organization wanted to challenge the use by the police of dum-dum bullets. In the case that was litigated through the appellate courts, a guy had been jumping a subway turnstile to beat a fare of a couple dollars; the police shot him, and the dum-dum bullet left him a paraplegic. I'm sure they had earlier opportunities to bring a test case, but they waited for one that combined minor criminality with major injury. This is an example of wanting the best fact pattern possible when the courts consider a new legal issue. There'd be similar considerations if you have cases pending in two different states, but based on the same legal theory. You might settle the one in the state that you regard as hostile to you (more liberal, more conservative, more dependent on a particular industry, etc.), so that the first widely reported decision will be the one from the state where you expect to do better.
I should have added that it can work the other way. One party might oppose settlement because of the possible effect on other cases. For example, an early lawsuit by a lung cancer patient against one of the cigarette companies wasn't going well for the plaintiff. He offered to settle the case if the company would just reimburse him for his filing fee (something like $75). The company refused. It preferred to keep litigating, spending thousands of dollars on lawyers' fees, rather than agree to any resolution that might give the slightest support (even psychological support) to the idea that the tobacco industry was liable for smokers' health problems. JamesMLane 08:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 10[edit]

Chinua Achebe[edit]

What kind of writer was Chinua Achebe?

A. post-colonial B. African C. fiction D. often found on college reading lists

If you want his shoe size, favor dessert, mother's maiden name, or favorite football team, you will have to do your own research. Dalembert 01:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Safest Big Cities to Live In[edit]

When it comes to big cities,we all automatically think of high crime.Well,doing some research on New York City,they say New York City is one of the safest big cities of the world.Los Angeles is big and well known also,but we all know that LA is home to many gangs of the U.S.So my question to you is "What are the best safest and biggest cities to live in the United States?And why?

What are the best safest assumptions and biggest giveaways about homework questions?And why? WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The safest U.S. cities are ranked yearly by different publications. CNN.com usually has an article about the rankings every year. So searching CNN.com and searching the rest of the net with Google should give you a pretty good amount of material to go through. Just search for something like "safest cities in the U.S." or whatever. Dismas|(talk) 03:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may get bonus points for noting how the "safe" is qualified. For example, does it include accidental death? Disease? Does it go with raw numbers, or does it calculate per capita? If per capita, what is the bottom limit on "large city?" Does it apply only to the United States, or is it global? Does it include wounding, or just death? Is it meaningless as a ranking, or is it totally meaningless as a ranking? Geogre 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't reply purely on statistics ... you need to understand how come so many people dying of cancer in a city that has the best cancer hospitals in a region ... look at their life expectancy and whether they came from some other city to be at those hospitals, or if you discount the impact on death rate because people coming to a city with lots of hospitals and consider the pollution situation. We can have several cities with same amount of pollultion, but depending on the surrounding terrain, it can get more concentrated in some valleys.

There's safety from crime where they steal your car or break into your home. Some cities have lots of that, while others have almost none. Then there is who is targeted. If you drive your personal car into Canada from USA, it is almost certainly going to be stolen and the police do nothing, but if you rent a car in Canada with Canadian license plates, it almost not get stolen. This is because the car thieves know they not gonna get away with stealing a Canadian car. If you drive a car into Detroit that was not made by the big 3 auto manufacturers, good chance you will get mugged, because a lot of unemployed people there attribute sales of foreign cars to cost their jobs. So many places are safe for some people and not for others, based on sociological patterns of their behavior. User:AlMac|(talk) 13:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

still taboos[edit]

Thank you, so what are some American taboos that the Danish might have in common, and how do you use that User talk:Fyslee thing.I think that's what it was called. Sorry if I called it the wrong name, I would have to close out of this question to see if I spelled it right. Thanks for your time! You guys are great!

All you had to do was click on the link supplied to you and you could leave a message on his user page. Dalembert 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use your head. What things do you find rude, vulgar or ugly? What do you do you consider bad behaviour? Now, subtract those things which all humans find rude/vulgar/ugly/bad and you'll have your cultural taboos. You probably wouldn't go to have dinner with your neighbor without a shirt on. A tribesman in the jungle of New Guinea probably wouldn't have the same inhibition. See also Culture of Denmark. --BluePlatypus 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't have had to close the question window if you had Mozilla FireFox! :) --Ali K 08:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I use IE with several Windoz open at same time when I visit Wikipedia. User:AlMac|(talk)
It seems to me that there are a few humongous differences between Danish and US culture and society, as represented in the US news media.
  1. The Danish criminal justice system consists of locking up Suspects and interrogating them 24x7 until some limit is reached that a Judge imposes, like 30 days. The US criminal investigation system consists of collecting evidence at a crime scene, placing it in little baggies labeled as to where it was found, then looking at it all through microscopes and other very expensive scientific instruments then testifying as to what the technicians thought they saw to some humongous number of decimal places of accuracy.
  2. The USA is largely governed by some prudish attitudes dating back to the Puritan colonists who came from Denmark for reasons lost in antiquity, while the stay at home Danes culture evolved in a different direction. In the USA, while rules vary from state to state, it is generally a no no for people to go unclothed, view other unclothed persons, engage in sex with persons of same gender, wildly differing ages, such as children, or view pictures of this. While in Scandinavia this is perfectly acceptable behaviro.
  3. The USA has a wild west history involving heavy use of violence to solve problems that could have been solved diplomatically, such as honoring treaties with native indians. One of the top rights in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, is the right of the citizentry to bear arms, although there is some controversy over what kinds of arms, such as WW II surplus, explosives, and so forth. Denmark, and lots of Europe, find an armed populace to be anathema, and in fact this is probably wy the movie ET was banned in parts of Europe. User:AlMac|(talk) 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I don't think it's acceptable to sleep with children or view child pornography in Scandinavia. The minimum legal ages may be off a year or two, but I'm sure you can't legally have sex with a 7-year-old in Denmark. I also have trouble believing ET was banned in any European countries (except perhaps those in the old Soviet Bloc). And many Americans also disagree with widespread firearms ownership. -- Mwalcoff 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

status[edit]

how are people generalized into classes in a specific culture. I'm comparing and contrasting Japan and Denmark to see the different status. Please write back with help on this topic!

It sounds like you are wanting us to compare and contrast for you. You should start by clicking on those links and reading up on the cultures you are writing your essay about. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how would I find the status of the people. I really don't get that part. What does status mean? Is it like how many groups they are classified in or what? I'm confused. Please write back. I don't want you to do the homework for me, I just need your help please. It will be greatly appreciated!

I'm not really sure what your teacher meant either. Maybe they are referring to caste system-like stuff. Some questions to consider: How are poor people treated in each of these cultures? Are classes even divided by wealth or are they divided by family heritage or job? What have the historical classes been in Japan and Denmark and how are they different now? WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! so, do you know of an available site where I can find if religion plays a part in the way the Danish people are treated?

Try the search box and follow links on Wikipedia rather than just asking questions here, it will help your research skills immensely. Sigh... see Religion in Denmark and Church of Denmark. Also Social class to get an understanding of the basis of the question and follow the links. --Canley 04:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and effort! I think I can handle it from here. Thanks so much!!!!!

India's Taboos[edit]

What behaviors are considered totally unacceptable in India?

Maybe you would find what your looking for at Culture of India. I know that there are a great number of Hindus in India. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blowing your nose in public is an example of behavior acceptable in the West but not in India. deeptrivia (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then what do they do when their noses fill with snot ? StuRat 04:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, excuse yourself and go somewhere else to do it :) deeptrivia (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you had a cold, they would think you have severe diarrhea because of the number of times you go to the bathroom, LOL. StuRat 04:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Public displays of affection; holding hands in public before marriage for example, although less now than in the past. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hand contact is another in my experience. Indian shopkeepers prefer to put your change down on the counter rather than hand it to you for example. Jameswilson 00:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Jameswilson 00:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eating with your left hand can be considered bad because it's traditionally used to wash oneself after using the restroom. Depending on the ruralness of the location lots of other things can be taboo. Rural areas tend to be more conservative so things like revealing clothing would be looked down upon there more than in some cities. Someone should probably do some research and add all this into Culture of India. - Taxman Talk 15:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, none of this can be generalized for the whole of India, or even a major part of it. deeptrivia (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who wrote "tumhari amrita"?[edit]

Javed Siddiqi WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 11:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Acres: Surreal or Postmodern[edit]

Settle a debate: Is the television show Green Acres a better example of Surrealism or Postmodernism?

I always just thought it was funny. If I had to choose I guess I would say it was more Surreal than Postmodern, but I'd have to add that you and whomever you are having this debate with need to get out more often.--◀Pucktalk▶ 07:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the show, but the two terms need not be mutually exclusive. --Nick Boalch ?!? 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be the spoilsport, but it's not really either one very much. There are parts of it that were surreal (Arnold the Pig), but most of it was the comfortable "country bumpkin" humor that goes back to Horace's version of country mouse and city mouse, at least. Basically, you put a sophisticate in a place where he or she doesn't know the customs, and then hilarity results as the rubes prove cleverer than the smarty. Further, the show used quite a few standard folk lore types, such as Mr. Haney the huckster. It was still funny -- especially Mr. Haney. Geogre 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a "fish out of water story" would be the way to classify it ? As in when Mr. Douglas plowed his field wearing a full suit and tie ? StuRat 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it has some of the rural sports thing going, too. The Madcap and the Bumpkin are classic types, and, in particular, the Bumpkin who outfoxes the clever lads is a classic plot device (compare Tony Lumpkin in She Stoops to Conquer), and American folk humor, in particular, loved the story of the city slicker who lost his way. Still, I have to admit that there was surrealism in the show, although I think it came from tall tales and folk lore rather than from the art movement of that name. (Yeah, I know: I'm taking the question seriously, when that's not how it was intended.) It's just that postmodernism would kind of be right out. I can't see any postmodern elements to it at all. Geogre 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Magic realism? Or even a Fable of sorts? --BluePlatypus 03:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Id, ego, superego[edit]

WHAT IS ID ? VERSES EGO ,FREUD CONCEPT??

Read the articles on Id, Ego, and Superego.--Urthogie 10:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona was taken over by the English for 10 years??[edit]

Good day,

I have got a question and was hoping that the forum might have an answer for me. I am looking for the time period that barcelona was taken over by the english, it should be a period of 10 years.

But I can not seem to find this information on the internet. Would you happen to know what time-frame this is? Or could you re-direct me where I would be able to find this information?

Best Regards, Wouter Vroegop

I looked at History of Barcelona and it didn't mention it. It did say that Barcelona was taken over by Napoleon and his brother Joseph; is that what you meant? Sorry... СПУТНИКССС Р 13:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the effort, this is already what I found too. But Napoleon was French not English. Wouter 194.109.22.148 14:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the English (or British forces of any kind) occupying Barcelona, but if it was for a period of ten years I'm sure it would be mentioned somewhere on the internet, as the details of Anglo-Spanish relations and conflict over the centuries have been well-documented. How did you come to ask this question? What was the source of the information that England took over Barcelona? --Canley 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read about the War of Spanish Succession, and by process of elimination this would be the only time period that the English could occupy Barcelona. On the other hand what made me doubt again is the fact that Philip V was king of spain, and although born in France, was trying to get the french out of Spain... I have not been able to find a reference stating that the English actually occupied barcelona in this time period. I did find that the English and Dutch were were opposed to the union of French and Spanish dominions. On top of this, archduke Charles VI, the Holy Roman Emperor entered barcelona. He was from Austria..... Wouter 194.109.22.148 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed Barcelona was captured by the Allies in 1705 by the Earl of Peterborough, october 9th 1705 the Govener surrenders. In 1714 surrendered to the bourbon army.

Chalta Purza (1932)[edit]

I was wondering if anyone knew anything about this obscure silent zombie film from india. The most I've been able to hunt down so far is that it was directed by Balwant Bhatt.

Thanks.

--67.76.164.21 15:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Neosamurai85[reply]

ariel sharone[edit]

Try Ariel Sharon. Chuck 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icon[edit]

What is Nepals Icon for tourists?

Have you read our articles on Nepal and the economy of Nepal? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed these two articles, but failed to find the answer. Pissant 17:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Township Somerset Co PA[edit]

I live in the UK and have an interest in tracking down the sites of old land documents from any part of the world

I recently aquired three 1848 onwards land sale deeds for the same piece, or parts of, land in Somerset Township SomersetCo PA. The boundaries where spelled out on the documents in compass bearings distance so I know exactly what the shape of the land was.

Unfortunately the markers where things like "a pile of stones" " a stump" etc giving no real indication of location. I have an ownership and neighbour history from 1848 to 1929. I know that the 1858 document for instance was recorded in Vol 29 pages 280,281 but I don't know in what book or where they would be kept today.

I am looking for help and or advise as to how I could track this tract down from 3500 miles away.

Thanks very in advance for any help. David Orchard

See Somerset County, Pennsylvania, which will give you links to the county seat website and phone numbers. Somerset is a small town in a rural county. You could call one of the courthouse clerks and ask for the title office, and someone there could help you with your next step and the questions above. If things are slow and you have a good story, and your accent is charming, she might exert some effort in checking the records in her office and give you all the answers for free. At a minimum she could give you contact info for someone in town who frequently does title searches for real estate transfers. If this is so important it would be worth spending money on, she could recommend an agent or attorney. To visit, Pittsburgh would be the nearest airport and it would be about a 1.5-2 hour drive from there to Somerset. alteripse 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can also look through the contacts at the county's Rootsweb genealogy page. -- Mwalcoff 00:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golda Meir's Health[edit]

Did Golda Meir ever have shingles? I thought she had shingles in her eyes, and am trying to confirm/deny. Many thanks. Robin Kessler--69.254.36.3 17:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find one reference to Golda Meir having Shingles, the first link in this page.[14] Unfortunately, the site requires membership to read the article, so there's no way to learn more. Shingles does affect the eyes, so it's possible that she did. Sorry I can't be of more help. -- Vary | Talk 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler[edit]

Did hitler only have one testical?

That's the rumor, there's even a song the soldiers sang which has a line about "Hitler's got one ball" but I've never seen anything authoritative about this. User:PedanticallySpeaking
Adolf Hitler's medical health#Autopsy comment on anatomy suggests it was probably Soviet propaganda. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Hitler has only got one ball. --BluePlatypus 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Cecil's answer. Steve Summit (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Purchase[edit]

Hi I need to find out facts about the Louisiana Purchase. Like when was it first created? Or when was it bought by the United States? For how much? How much land was in the Louisiana Purchase? Who fist established the Louisiana Purchase? How many people owned and fought over the Louisiana Purchase?

At first I thought the people here were just mean, but I'm beginning to see the logic of just shrugging and doing this: -->Louisiana Purchase<--. What part of Encyclopedia do you not understand? I mean, gosh, we're writing it for you; do we have to read it for you as well?--◀Pucktalk▶ 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sad part is that the person who asked the question will most likely never return to read your answer and click on the link. --Kainaw (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, should they return, they are likely to post the same question again, but several days later, so that the question must be answered again ad infinitum. Perhaps I should devote some user subpage space to chronicling the social phenomena of the reference desk. :-) Jwrosenzweig 07:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long is the US Constitution?[edit]

How many words are in the Constitution before the amendments? How many with all the amendments?

It is an example to the world : it begins with words like "We the people of the States, &c." and is quite short.
Another example is the EC constitution which begins with "The Queen of (say, Belgium, followed by her colleagues kings and presidents and primes [15])" and is so long that few refer to it anymore. --Harvestman 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ 2^30402457 − 1 is prime.
While our article on the United States Constitution lacks a "Trivia" section, it does contain links to the full text of the original document as well as the amendments. You should be able to copy the text into any word processor and answer your question. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY THE HOTEL PUT THE BIBLE IN THE DRAWER[edit]

They don't. See Gideons International and turn off your capslock. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because everytime they used a driver they knocked it all the way across the room? --◀Pucktalk▶ 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To get to the other side? Proto t c 10:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal, Moderate, Conservative: Classifying Members of Congress[edit]

I would appreciate it if you could advise me on searching this subject. I would like to find sites that, on a comparative basis, attempt to classify current members of the house and senate.

Thanks!

69.86.17.205 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the United States Congress? WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 20:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's far, far, far too subjective a thing to get. The Nation won't list people as progressives ("liberal") that The National Review would. However, if you simply must have something like this, go to one of the political magazine websites that you like, and I'm sure they'll have a map of the House of Representatives and Senate for you. Really, though, it's somewhat pointless. Geogre 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the those terms are very fluid and can't come close to describing a politican like Ron Paul, nominally a very staunch conservative, who has been opposed to the war in Iraq from the very beginning and supports the legalization of marijuana.--◀Pucktalk▶ 22:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the ratings of the American Conservative Union and the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action. If a member of Congress has a 0 from the ACU and a 95 from ADA, you can bet he's left of center (by the standards of Congress). -- Mwalcoff 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professions - Any occupations merging Dietetics (R.D.), Art, & Music?[edit]

Older students sometimes need Career Counseling as well ... this topic concerns merging a Medical Arts career with that of Performing Arts. Has anyone had any experience - or know anyone who has had experience - in merging the professions of Dietetics (as in Registered Dietitian), Art, and Performance Music? (No, I'm not joking.) I am an R.D. who uses Hypnotherapy for diagnostic help. I also a background in performance music, as well as being a very talented artist. My long-term boyfriend is a bass-player in a Metal band. I would love to have my own career, but to also be a little closer to flowing with that of my boyfriend. I have even thought of taking up Music Management courses. As I've had 6 years toward a career in Dietetics and have a gift for being nurturing, I question beginning another career at this point. Obviously ... these are not your average mix of priorities, but rather than just choosing one and ignoring the rest, I thought I would take a chance on posing the question. Thanks for any input. ---- Loraine

Well, there is music therapy, but it's not really dietary at all. There is a fair amount being done with psychoaccoustics as well, but that's pretty much bench science. The other option, and this is the most likely, would be to work as an illustrator or media supplier for dietetic education. Health teachers around the English speaking world need, and pay well for, visual and musical materials to help them get their point across. If you had some web authoring skills, combining dietary advice and instruction with music and art would be very helpful, although getting paid for web design is tricky. Geogre 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a talented artist, then as well as Geogre's suugestion, why not look into writing/illustrating a dietetics and nutrition book? Perhaps for children, where colorful and well drawn pictures always help to get he message across, and healthy child nutrition is becoming a major issue. Proto t c 10:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

antinonmium movement[edit]

Try Antinomianism. Halcatalyst 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 11[edit]

John Muir[edit]

Why did John Muir immigrate to the United States?

Other family members already immigrated and started a farm in Wisconsin. He followed them. --Kainaw (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations[edit]

What are the most improtant organizations in the Danish culture? Would like a chess club be one? I've been trying to see if boy scouts was, but was unable to find any information on it. Please help me!

Most major cities, in most nations, have embassies of foreign nations, such as Denmark. If you visit them, and be extremely polite, I am sure they would be happy to get you access to a wide range of reference materials. User:AlMac|(talk) 15:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ways of everyday life in the Danish culture[edit]

how do people spend their days in the Danish culture, and how do they take care of things such as shopping, cooking, washing clothes etc..........

Take a look at this. And then, have a read at this. If you want more stuff, try the Denmark article and follow the many WP and external links there. I'm sure that your question will be answered. hydnjo talk 03:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the same person posting lots of questions about Denmark and not posting your identity, it sounds to me like a trip to Denmark would be extremely helpful for you. User:AlMac|(talk) 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemics[edit]

How many deaths have been attributed to bird flu thus far; and how many people died from the Ebola virus? Thank you.

  • According to this Australian news source, it is up to almost 80 human deaths from the Bird Flu.
  • I saw an article in USA Today newspaper saying that Swedish researchers, in Vietnam, concluded a lot more people had got it than earlier reported, many more recover, so it not as bad as we had thought. However, I also see quotes where WHO saying we are on the verge of it mutating again, so that it can go human to human, like SARS. I also see that two cities in Turkey have had to be quarantined, with no one allowed out.
  • Seems to me, the death toll to birds, killed by humans, to try to stop the spread of the disease, is astronomical.
    • When you said deaths due to Bird Flu, your question was not limited to people deaths.
  • You might want to visit the official web site of the World Health Organization, which keeps track of this as best they can (some nations have bad habit of trying to cover up stuff, until it is totally out of control, instead of getting help when it could be stopped.)
    • Here's the official WHO page on the Bird Flu. I suggest you save the link and check back regularly because they have like daily updates.
    • Here's a WHO fact sheet on Ebola.
      • About 1,800 people caught it, of whom 1,200 died. Of course Ebola has existed in the world a bit longer than the latest Bird Flu.
  • Last but not least, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with articles on all sorts of topics: Epidemics; Ebola; Bird flu.

User:AlMac|(talk) 15:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the title of "Mein Kampf" never translated?[edit]

I'm not sure if this is exactly the right place to put this; but I've often wondered why Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in English translations still retains it's native German name, rather than being translated as "My Struggle". Has this always been the case? I've noticed that among Mein Kampf's links to corresponding articles in other wikipedias (ignoring those written in languages that use a script I can't read...) only the Spanish, Russian, Latvian, Finnish and Turkish wikipedias seem to have the book under a translated title, wheras the 15 other Wikipedias (obviously excluding German) all use the original title. How widespread is this practice? The article also mentions the various other meanings and connotations "kampf" has in German that the English word "struggle" does not. Is this also a factor in not translating the title? And finally, are there many other books who's titles are as consistently not translated? thanks. --86.135.217.213 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Das Kapital" by Karl Marx is another example. JackofOz 02:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotterdamerung, both as a musical and literary work, is untranslated as well, and some works by philosophers (Alsach Spraken Zarathustra) will be untranslated. It depends, more or less, on whether the work gets famous before it is translated or not. If the translation gets famous, the translated title gets famous. If people are talking up the work before there is a translation, they will talk of the [Foreign-Language-Name], because they have no translated title to refer to. Once a work is famous, publishers will want, by all means, to print it under the title that will sell. Hitler was famous in the English speaking world and then his book was talked up -- no one cared to translate it before he rose to power. Marx was famous from Communist Manifesto before Das Kapital. It's a question of marketing. Geogre 03:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an opera, "Götterdamerung" is often translated as "Twilight of the Gods". However there are lots of operas that are not - La Traviata, Il Trovatore and La Boheme are 3 that come to mind. Nietzsche's "Also Sprach Zarathustra" is also usually translated, as "Thus Spake Zarathustra". JackofOz 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One guess is that the title didn't get translated because the book didn't get translated much, and to the extent it did, it simply didn't garner a significant readership outside of Germany. It wasn't really relevant to people there. To make a modern-day comparison, I doubt Pat Buchanan's (just an example..) political diatribes get much readership outside the USA, and in the cases they are mentioned it's most likely by their English titles. --BluePlatypus 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a pattern of leaving German terms untranslated in English when referring to them in association with the Nazi era. For example: Führer, Luftwaffe, and Panzer, which just mean "leader", "air force", and "tank" or "armor" respectively: people today might speak of the German Air Force as it exists today, but use Luftwaffe when referring to WW2. Perhaps calling the book Mein Kampf is one more example of this pattern. --Anonymous, 05:30 UTC, January 11
"Heil, Hitler" is also much more famous than its English counterpart "Hail, Hitler". JackofOz 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that's entirely Nazi-era related though (though the word for the Nazi era: "Third Reich" is itself a quite bizarre 'germanglish' phrase!). In WWI they were instead fighting the "Kaiser" and not the "Emperor". "U-Boat" is also from that era, and "Panzer" might be a continuation of that naming trend. --BluePlatypus 05:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note incidentally that U-boat is another German-English hybrid; the German spelling is U-Boot. --Anonymous, 00:23 UTC, January 12, 2006.

America's Founding Fathers and copyright[edit]

Hi. I've been wondering what, exactly, America's Founding Fathers thought about copyright. I did a little research and it seems that they wanted to keep copyright under the control of the federal government, as they didn't think the states should control it. Is this accurate? Was there any major debate over this during the Constitutional Convention? Did any of the Founders have strong feelings one way or another? Was there any sort of consensus about whether strict or lenient copyright was a good idea? Thanks a lot. Stilgar135 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wagner[edit]

Can you direct me to books that contain the german and scandinavian mythologies that the Ring Cycle is based upon so that I can undertand the 4 operas of the Ring Cycle. Thank you. Phyllis Mate

The sources of the Ring cycle include the Nibelungenlied, the Volsunga Saga, and arguably Thiðrekssaga and possibly others. And some bits Wagner just made up. If your goal is understanding the Ring Cycle, you should read/listen to it rather than its sources, I would think. - Nunh-huh 05:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Volsunga Saga, in particular, gives the background on the cursed gold, Sigurd, etc., but that tale existed in several forms. Wagner used the German form of it (Nibelungenlied) more than Volsunga Saga, but there is also material presented and explained in the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda of Snorri Sturlusson. Snorri's explanation is very compressed, however, I agree with Nunh-huh, though: you're better off not chasing the sources much, as they're pretty disjointed in the originals. Geogre 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't tell you a book off the top of my head, Decoding Wagner: An Invitation to His World of Music Drama by Thomas May (ISBN 1574670972) contains an astonishingly comprehensive bibliography which will surely be able to point you in the right direction. Your local library may have a copy. --George 19:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overthrowing the US Government[edit]

What would be the most feasible route to a revolution that would overthrow the U.S. government and force a new constitution? Mysteriousinventors 06:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as forcing a new Constitution, that can be done by Amendment, there could be one stating "The former Constitution and all Amendments are hereby repealed, and replaced with the following..."
It would require 3/4 of the state legislatures to force such a change. StuRat 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently only one more state needed to call for a Constitutional convention to write a Balanced Budget Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution as it is now written would force that new convention to focus on only that issue. The delegates at the convention could write up any changes to the US government as they saw fit, and if 3/4 of the states approved them, that would be the new US government. Remember that the original Constitutional Convention was called to "fix" the Articles of Confederation. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Campaign for your cause and vote for change at the next election. Or run yourself. - Akamad 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make a movie full of half-truths and misrepresented sound bytes. --Kainaw (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Travel backwards in time and help the Soviet Union to develop a nuclear bomb and drop it on Berlin, ending World War II early and leading to Soviet dominance of the Cold War. If video games and science fiction have taught me anything, revolution is guaranteed to follow. --Maxamegalon2000 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. military is incredibly powerful. If the joint chiefs of staff decided on a military coup, and they were able to hold sway over the ranks, they could hold everyone hostage with the threat of nuclear bombs. —James S. 23:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Military coups are unlikely to produce a new stable constitution as they usually have to be enforced by marshal law. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 23:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Marshal Law has plans to be out of town that weekend. It'll have to be martial law instead. - Nunh-huh 08:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they could hold sway over the ranks. Which is a big 'if'. Soldiers have political sympathies like everyone else, which is why the 1991 Soviet coup failed and why the 1956 Hungarian revolution wasn't struck down at once. And they had nukes as well. Face it: nuking your own population is simply not on the menu.. the threat itself would cause a loss of all support). Most successful military coups have been in countries with highly polarized political situations. The military, conservative by nature, has then favored a facist solution against the 'danger' facing the nation, be it socialism (e.g. Spain, Chile) or what they simply percived as a weak and corrupt government (e.g. Portugal, Argentina, Pakistan). And in all those cases they did have a certain level of popular support. --BluePlatypus 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rig the e-voting machines so that your political party wins a big victory. Oh wait, that already been done, the entrenched victors might give you a hard time. User:AlMac|(talk) 13:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fund a bunch of terrorists to do lots of chaos, then use that to excuse a bunch of new laws that take away what is America. Well that has not been done, but start conspiracy theories about it. User:AlMac|(talk) 13:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find a charismatic foreigner sympathetic to the current administration and work him up the cursus honorum unitl he's President, setting a precedent for your foreign takeover. Wait, crap. I'm scaring myself. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The military coup route is infeasible. I don't know the citation, but in the US, a solider would actually be required by the military code to refuse such orders. More importantly, American soldiers, and soldiers in just about any nation that has been a free-speech democracy since before WWII, would be more than happy to revolt against their commanding officer if he gave them an obviously treasonous order. Now, 3/4 of the state legislatures, that's possible, because it seems so innocuous. --Mareino 19:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an oversimplification to me. The soldiers in a coup situation don't consider it treason, or at least justifiable treason, since they consider their opponents in power to be far worse criminals. It's simply large-scale vigilantism. The ends justifying the means. But strong democratic traditions are of course important, since respecting the opinions of others no matter how much you disagree with them, is a fundamental tenet of democracy. Still, military coups have occured in democracies. Even democracies that had been so since before WWII, see History of Chile. --BluePlatypus 06:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, if you think that you can convince the US Armed Forces to invade their own nation because "the ends justify the means," then you are wasting your time sitting in front of your computer. :) --Mareino 22:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "It can't happen here" when it's happened elsewhere is always a recipe for disaster. And since when is a military coup an "invasion"? An invasion of the White House perhaps. --BluePlatypus 07:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of independent states by year[edit]

Can't find information on number of independent states by year. Could you help please?--Nixer 06:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean independent nations worldwide ? StuRat 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by date of nationhood will sort of answer your question, but this page doesn't account for extinct/dormant nations. Sorry. --Mareino 19:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

begining of the year[edit]

Why does the western calander begin in January? Seasonally it doesn't make any sense as it is just at the beginning of the northern winter. Is it linked to the birth of Christ? Virginia --220.235.233.157 06:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who invaided spain in teh 8th century[edit]

Napoleon ? --Harvestman 08:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this homework by any chance? - Akamad 10:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading up on Spain. If you learn the answer on your own, Moors the better. :-) StuRat 10:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Who invaided spain in teh 8th century? Napolean ?"
Lol, that's the most hilarious thing I've read all day. thanx for that. :p --86.135.217.213 17:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He can however spell Napoleon's name. – b_jonas 16:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was lolling out plain. A reference to the above question (1O January) : "Barcelona was taken over by the English for 10 years??" Which was not so bad either. There are plenty more to come, as "Is it true that Napoleon was born in Geebraltar" ... --Harvestman 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Numbers of Mohd. Rafi's song?[edit]

In the Wikipedia reference shows that Indian playback singer Mohammad Rafi had been sung 26000 songs from 1940 to 1980 and less than 5000 can be verified songs. What are the sources of the figures because lot of gap between 26000 and 5000.

What is Mohd. Rafi's discography record shows from the sound recording companies of different labels?

Mohd. Rafi was a legend playback singer of Indian film industry and in his 40 years singer career he sing all type of moods, filmi/non-filmi, geet, ghazal, devotional, patriotic, qawwali, bhajans, cancel records, rejected films records, other languages.

Thank you

This is speculation, but one explanation could be the fact that he sang in different languages. He could've sung 5000 distinct songs and recorded each in about 5 languages, which would account for both figures. --BluePlatypus 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he didn't sing in 5 languages. Maybe he didn't commercially release all his songs. deeptrivia (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This site with a database of Rafi songs, lists songs in Punjabi, Marathi, Sindhi, Bengali, Gujarati, Telugu, Kannada and English.. So five doesn't seem like an exaggeration to me. --BluePlatypus 09:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now that's a surprise! deeptrivia (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK monarchy[edit]

Why does the United Kingdom only have a queen, and not a king? Why isn't the queen's husband considered King of Great Britain?

Because King is a higher rank than Queen so the Queens husband can't be called King (unless he is the Monarch & has the kingship in his own right) as he would outrank her. Generally the Queen's husband (when the Queen is the monarch) gets a title (EG Duke of Edinburgh) but he wouldn't ever be considered as King because he doesn't have a claim to the throne through blood/heredity. AllanHainey 12:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's plain old sexism: a king's wife is a queen consort but a queen's husband is a prince consort. Gdr 13:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, it's a feature of the way British titles work: a woman can get a title by marrying, but a man doesn't ordinarily get a title simply by marrying a woman. The same way that (generally) when Phil Smith marries Elizabeth Jones, she becomes Elizabeth Smith and he doesn't become Phil Jones. - Nunh-huh 18:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been "Kings matrimonial" in the past (the husband of Mary I of England was arguably such), but it was avoided for the husbands of Queen Anne and Queen Victoria, because it might have carried the implication that their foreign husbands were the ones who were really running the country. AnonMoos 18:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it would be quite outrageous for England to be ruled by a bally foreign monarchy, it's absolutely inconceivable that such a thing could happen. So hurrah for Great British common sense! Pip-pip: Hurrah! Pip-pip: Hurrah! Pip-pip: Hurrah! --bodnotbod 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election Symols of different parties in india[edit]

(unsigned)

Some political parties are mentioned in that article : India. Follow their links and find this nice symbol for example, File:BJP logo.png.
Symbols are of widespread use when people can't read, there must be plenty of them. Even where there are readers, symbols are still in use because of tradition and quicker appeal to the brain through the omnipotent visual system (see our userboxes quarrel). --Harvestman 21:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of recognised political parties in India deeptrivia (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-science[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if there is any religion, sect, or philosophy that opposes scientific inquiry and the scientific method as its core belief, I mean, they have to take everything on faith acording to their religion, and science is to them like a sin. --201.230.146.101 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are none of significance. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are none, quite. Some groups, such as the Amish, will not use anything not mentioned in the Bible, but they don't consider science a sin at all. It's just not something they believe in employing. Further, the term Luddite is often used to denote someone who is "anti-progress]], but the Luddites were not against either science or progress: they were against the displacement of workers by machines, and they destroyed agricultural machinery as a working class revolt rather than any anti-intellectualism or anti-scientism. However, no significant religions are against scientific inquiry. Geogre 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A serious misunderstanding of the Amish there. That's not their criterion for technology acceptance, and they certainly use things not mentioned in the Bible. See Amish. DJ Clayworth 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common misconception but is false. The Amish were an Anabaptist sect in Europe that formed during the late Reformation around theological ideas having nothing to do with modernism or rejection of it. Many migrated to Pennsylvania because of available farmland and religious freedom. Those who stayed in Europe became amalgamated and assimilated and are no longer distinctive communities. Those in America discovered, like many religious sects, that there was survival value in keeping distinct from their neighbors. Their society and decision-making is quite communal, and there were few other daily life differences between the Amish and their neighbors until the early 18th century, when many social and technological changes began to occur in American life. At this point the Amish began to consciously abstain from rapid adoption of technological advances for a variety of reasons, and through the 19th century this slowly became more and more of a defining characteristic (at least to non-Amish). So the strictest Old Order Amish have adopted few technical advances beyond 18th century clothing and farming methods, though there have been many exceptions, relaxations, schisms, defections, and split-offs over the years. Howevere, 18th century European and American rural life was certainly not "Biblical" and the Amish have not attempted to recreate that. Dalembert 01:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for correcting my mistake. I apologize and should have done more research of it. There were a few "not in the Bible" groups, but they had fallen out of my memory and still aren't back. Geogre 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could argue that any sect, until the quite recent past, who eschewed anything not found in the bible, would quickly have been wiped out by their rivals, who allowed themselves guns and the like. At the level of nations, such fundamentalism is still likely to lead to the same result (would the Taliban's [reported] insistence on only teaching Islam have led that way in the long term? Possibly). Notinasnaid 18:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a religion, but a common term for anti-technology people is Luddites. --Kainaw (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Communists and other revolutionaries, though not really a religion, have certain traits in common with religions, like blind faith in a leader. Some of those leaders have led their countries down an anti-intellectual path. When the uneducated common people gain control of the government, they have a natural hatred for the intelligencia of the old system, and sometimes have intentionally killed off all educated people. This leaves a country ruled by idiots, like Mao Tse Tung, and his "great leap forward", which was so poorly planned it caused millions to starve. StuRat 03:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreee StuRat! finally I hear that from someone other that myself! :D .. oh , another thing, don't the amish use the internet? or have computers or cable tv? or are they allowed to have that. --Cosmic girl 03:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Sputnik Geogre 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that u r so anoyed by me george...--Cosmic girl 23:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(It was more StuRat's. The point is that a grand statement about "communism" and science or even "dictatorship" and science is just too darn big. The Soviet Union was frightening to us in the West for having a cold, scientific approach. They were regarded as forcing infants into scientific pursuits and devoting their whole energy into evil, nefarious scientific advancement. The American psychosis over Sputnik is an example of that perception. Cuba is not credited in the US, but other nations note that it is a tiny nation that has devoted enormous resources into medical science. China sees scientific advancement as vital for its national interests -- hence its long time commitment to sending its students to whichever nation has the best science education. Now, Robert Mugabe might turn his back on science, but it has less to do with his form of government or economics than his personal interest and political needs. Geogre 11:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

ok, Russia had a cold SCIENTIFIC aproach, but they shamefully lacked a cold ECONOMICAL aproach... they got carried away by their feelings in that aspect. i bet that if they had been a capitalist and radically scientific nation they'd be the number one country by now.--Cosmic girl 13:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Butler[edit]

Could someone verify the information at Talk:Larry Butler, please? Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly looks like this Larry Butler, but there could be 20 country singers named Larry Butler for all I know.--◀Pucktalk▶ 17:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I think the article is about this Larry Butler.. Although I'm no expert either. --BluePlatypus 02:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Dollar Bill[edit]

In the last few years, all the bills in circulation in the United States have undergone a design change - except the one dollar bill. Why is this?

--163.153.132.5 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall they were going to do it in stages starting with the higher bills first. That would put the dollar bill at the lowest priority. Secondly, the modifications were done mostly to detract from the bills being counterfited. Since it costs counterfitters so much money to do what they do, they tend to only counterfit higher denominations of bills. They simply wouldn't get that much of a return on their investment if they counterfitted $1 bills. Dismas|(talk) 17:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dismas is correct; the government has no plans to redesign the $1 or $2 bills because nobody wants to counterfeit them anyway. See the press release at [16]. For the record, New $10 bills will be issued starting March 2. --Aaron 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there has repeatedly been a push to drop the $1 bill in favor of the $1 coin. It has never worked. Most people blame habit (who wants some newfangled dollar coin!?) I blame strippers. They just don't seem to like it when you chuck dollar coins at them while they are dancing. --Kainaw (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually prefer it if we (I'm in the U.S.) got rid of the dollar bill. I much prefer the coins since they don't get mangled to the point that you can't use them in vending machines, along with other benefits... But yeah, the strippers I've known would have found them to be bothersome. Although, if the standard tip became a five dollar bill, I doubt they'd mind then.  :-P Dismas|(talk) 21:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also been the occasional push to elimiate the penny altogether, replacing it with nothing. Those proposals never really go anywhere either. Personally, I'm against either replacing the $1 bill with a coin or eliminating the penny, both because the public at large is against both ideas and because the government actually makes money from pennies (see seigniorage). I am, however, pro-stripper. --Aaron 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seigniorage isn't significant on pennies though. According to the 2004 Annual Report from the US Mint, the margin was 6.5% on pennies and 8.8% on nickels (year ended Sept 30 2004), which is drastically lower than for the other coins (68.6% for the dime and 70.6% on the quarter), and very close to breaking even. I'd say the days of pennies and nickels are limited. --BluePlatypus 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I was in Norway, there was some issue with the ore (equivalent to our penny). The people wanted it dropped, but the businesses wanted it kept so they could charge a few extra ore on each bill. In protest the people were throwing the ore they got in change on the floor in front of the register. I found this out because I started picking some up at a store and a lady started yelling at me in Norwegian. Luckily, another guy was there to explain to me what was going on. I don't know if the protest spread through the country or if the ore was every dropped. It does remind me of our "need a penny/take a penny" bowls. --Kainaw (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason they still have the penny is because polls show people like it, and because the zinc lobby (yes, there is one) doesn't want to lose the business. Similarly, the people who make money from printing dollar bills, including Bureau of Printing employees, don't want to get rid of it. -- Mwalcoff 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The smallest value Norwegian coin currently in circulation is the 50 ore. The 1 and 2 ore coins were last minted in 1972, the 5 and 25 ore were last minted in 1982, and all were removed from circulation by 1998 when they ceased to be valid. The 10 ore coin was last minted in 1991 and invalidated in 2003. Countries routinely retire small coins when their value becomes too insignificant - Finland and the Netherlands do not use the 1 and 2 eurocent coins, but this does not mean that odd values aren't used in prices - the total price is simply rounded up or down to the nearest 5 cents. -- Arwel (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that another reason for the endurance of the dollar bill is Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who happens to sit on the committee that would make the decision. It also happens that there's only one factory that makes the paper used in U.S. bills, and it's in... Massachusetts. Steve Summit (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have $2 bills now? Were these recently introduced as when I was in the USA about 8 years ago I don't remember them.
We've had $2 bills since our bicentennial in 1976. They are uncommon, however, as the few that get printed are snapped up bby collectors. Hardly any are in general circulation. The reason is because the $2 bill is the most beautifully illustrated of all U.S. money; it has a picture of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on the reverse. Check out U.S. two-dollar bill for more info. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 16:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were $2 bills before 1976, it's just that the current design dates from then. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was when the $2 paper currency was reissued and changed from a United States Note to a Federal Reserve Note. "Federal Reserve notes (FRNs, "ferns") is the official name for the type of banknote used in the United States, more commonly known as dollar bills," U.S. notes are/were not known as dollar bills. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On scrapping $1 notes & replacing them with coins try to avoid letting them do this as in the UK they have de facto phased out £1 notes & replaced them with coins (I think they're still legal currency but you never see them anymore & I don't think they're printing new ones, even in Scotland) and its just an increased hassle as your pocket is filled with even more change and the pictures on the coins don't compare to artwork on notes. AllanHainey 09:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Bank of England one pound note was withdrawn from circulation in the late 1980s (see British banknotes). This means it is no longer legal tender: people are not obliged to accept it in settlement of debt. But if you have any under the mattress the Bank of England with exchange them for pound coins.
OK, I didn't realise it was so long ago - Scottish £1 notes only stopped being seen commonly a few years ago. I was basing my above comments on my own experience, primarily with Scottish money. AllanHainey 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is an advantage to the British public of the switch to coins which perhaps outweigh the extra weight and less exciting artwork: coins last much longer in circulation, so cost less for the government (and thus the taxpayer) to issue. Gdr 23:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing one explanation as to why there is so much resistance to doing away with the $1 bill in the US is because the change drawers in already-existing cash registers already have all of the slots allocated, and there would have to be a removal of one of the other coins to make room for a $1 coin, so the business lobby is generally opposed, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that hard to believe since all the cash drawers I've ever worked with have 5 small slots for coins. Right now they are taken up predominantly by four coins (penny, nickel, dime, quarter). The fifth slot is often just a place to put random objects such as rubber bands from stacks of bills, a paper clip or two, some dust and crumbs, and maybe a Canadian coin or two that found their way into circulation in the States. So there is a slot that is available if this stuff is cleaned out and put in better places. It's like the junk drawer (that many people have in their kitchens for random object that don't really fit anywhere else) of the cash register. Dismas|(talk) 02:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that the U.S. Government has already tried twice to convince Americans to switch to dollar coins. The first time was in 1979 with the Susan B. Anthony coin. That bombed, partially because it was almost exactly the same size as a quarter, which confused lots of people, and partially because people just like dollar bills. (Ironically, this coin was reissued in 1999 because so many vending machines used them to provide change for $5 and $10 bills.) Then, in 2000, the Goverment went well out of their way to promote the new Sacagawea Dollar, including a multi-million dollar ad campaign trying to convince people to use them. It didn't work, and they all disappeared not long after they were released into circulation. (I personally have never received a Sacagawea dollar as change anywhere, ever.) --Aaron 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Post Office uses Sacagawea coins when providing change from their vending machines. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember the Sacagawea dollar was received quite positively by the public, as opposed to the Susan B. Anthony coin. The problem was just that there's tremendous negative inertia toward doing things the old way. I liked the dollar coins because they went into vending machines easily. (My co-workers thought I was crazy to put the pretty gold coins in the machine.) I think the Sacagawea would have been more successful had the Mint emphasized this advantage of the coin. -- 70.27.57.22 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gladiators[edit]

who was the most favored gladiator to ever compete?

That's a little like asking who is the most famous baseball player to have ever played. Different people will give you different answers. They used to have riots in Rome and Constantinople over who was the the best gladiator.--◀Pucktalk▶ 17:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few gladiators are now known by name, though many achieved fame in their day. The names Verus and Priscus are preserved in a poem by Martial. The most notable gladiator is undoubtedly Spartacus. Gdr 18:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franz von Papen[edit]

Do you think it was Franz von Papen who actually abolised democracy from germany? Evidence stating the opposite would be great!

Franz von Papen--◀Pucktalk▶ 17:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toquville[edit]

What is the Toquville connection between France and th USA

Do you mean de Tocqueville? AnonMoos 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHITE & BLACK[edit]

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE WAS A WHITE LEAGUE THAT PLAYED AGAINST THE BLACK LEAGUE? WHO WON? WHAT WAS THE SCORE? WHAT WAS THE DATE? WHAT WHERE THE NAMES OF THE TEAMS?

What country and what sport?- Akamad 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I read the post below - Akamad 19:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article on Negro league baseball may be what you're looking for. As far as I know, there were no games between the Negro League teams and and major league teams. But read the articles to find out for sure. Halcatalyst 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligize for caps[edit]

I recentky posted a few questions on whites and blacks playing baseball. I would like to apoligize for using all caps it was not done purposely or with the intent to defend anyone. I work on computers all day and it is always in caps. It is simply a habit.

Thank you

Article 9 and the threat of force[edit]

Military may defend Japanese whalers

11.01.06 By Ainsley Thomson

Japan has warned it may send armed aircraft to defend its whaling ships in the Southern Ocean if clashes with protest boats escalate.

But hang on a moment?

RENUNCIATION OF WAR

Article 9:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

ie. The Japanese people forever renounce the threat of force as means of settling international disputes.

So what gives? Ohanian 20:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protest boats are not a nation. It is not an international dispute. It is a police action to defend Japanese citizens. --Kainaw (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Junichiro Koizumi, the current Prime Minister of Japan, has been testing the boundaries of the Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. See Japan Self-Defense Forces#Article 9 for some of the recent movement on this. - BanyanTree 05:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why columbus set sail[edit]

(no question)

See Christopher Columbus. Dismas|(talk) 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He owed back rent? Geogre 13:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, but the temptation was too great.)[reply]
The correct answer is, in fact, "To get to the other side." WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows the answer to that question: one of his mistresses was pregnant, had a craving for 'something sweet, darn it!', and, being a good gent, he wanted the best thing in the world for her, so he took a jaunt over to the Americas, picked up a few tons of chocolate (nothing better, after all), and lived happily ever after. The End. :P
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about pearl harbor[edit]

what was the order of the the battleships that were hit by japeneses air crafts?

Boston Massacre[edit]

We are doing a mock trial in school about the boston massacre. I am to be a lawyer the procutor. (Is that spelt right?) anyways i need information that will help prove the soldiers are guilty! Hope you can help!

Thanks

--24.236.147.8 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article on the Boston massacre? Dismas|(talk) 23:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will also want to read this site. —James S. 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling is prosecutor. AllanHainey 09:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that there were real world Category:Lawyer Wikipedians here? A bunch of them hang out at WikiProject Law. You might post something at the talk page there, inviting suggestions to help you out. Plus, the event was in Boston right? Guess what, there are like 50 law students from Harvard participating through the Wikiproject Cyberlaw, altough they are very busy with real contemporary events like what will happen if Wikipedia gets sued. User:AlMac|(talk) 11:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theme tune to Friends: earnings? (I don't know why I'm asking, the answer will surely make me puke).[edit]

For some reason I'm wondering if anyone can give me an indication of how much money The Rembrandts have earned from creating I'll Be There For You (Theme From "Friends"). Figures for any particular year or a total or any revealing snippet is good. It must be a fortune as they'll presumably get some cash any time the theme is played on any showing of Friends throughout the world, the jammy swines. --bodnotbod 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"To this day, we only get performance royalties, not publishing splits for the TV version of the song." -- Danny Wilde
Bet you didn't think you would puke for that reason. —James S. 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't quite sure how to interpret that quote until I read the whole article you linked to (thank you!). They are still recieving money for every time the song goes out with the programme, just not as much as they would have done had they been the billed writers of the song. Must be a pretty penny. --bodnotbod 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessarily that much money. Remember, they would get paid performance royalties bsaed on the number of times the song is played, not based on the number of people watching TV who heard it. --Mareino 19:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The River medina on the Isle of Wight[edit]

Dear Experts,

I have searched in vain for an answer to the question; from where did the Isle of Wight's River Medina get its name?

Some have suggested it was named after the Admiral of the Spanish armada, but I suspect it is much older.

Many thanks,

Darryl Fry

The IOW Tourist Board say its derived from the Anglo-Saxon word for 'middle', because it divides the island straight down the middle. Jameswilson 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer the question, but I can share your skepticism with the tourism board's explanation. That's not a regular formation for a derivative of Anglo-Saxon. The /i/ would very, very rarely go to /e/, and the only way it would have picked up the distinctly Romance -ina is if it were a contraction of "in hem" or "in" with some monosyllable ending in -a. It's a very unlikely explanation, although, as always, possible. The problem is that there are several Medina's that it could have been named after, as well as noble titles. Geogre 13:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a further look round and the Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names says this:- Medina - 'Medine' 1196 - 'the middle one', from OE 'medume'. So thats the consensus although not necessarily 100% certain. They're saying the final consonant had already changed by then. As regards the vowels, maybe it's just that the "The Island is Different", and the general rules on vowel-shifts, etc, dont work well there. One thing that did occur to me is that at some stage of its evolution the name may have sounded too similar to 'midden' (waste-dump} and it was deliberately "re-branded" by some local magnate (like Shitterton to Sitterton and Piddletown to Puddletown). That might explain the romantic-sounding final 'a'. The noble titles came afterwards, I'm sure. BTW, it's interesting how many English rivers lost their ancient name and instead have more recent back-formations from a town, eg R. Chelmer from Chelmsford, R. Chelt from Cheltenham, and many others. Not in this case though. Jameswilson 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! "Medume" works, although it's still very, very weird to pick up that -a. Honestly, I haven't seen that before. Med-ane is ok (ane = one) and that to ume is the schwa that English does. The -a, though..... I think you're right. It got rebranded. This just confirms the rule, though: English is a strange language, and even when you know the rules, there are no rules. Geogre 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue,Boulevard, and Garage[edit]

Were the words avenue, boulevard and garage were around before the invention of cars? And did all three of those words originate in France?

Well and truly in the case of avenue and boulevard, not so much garage. And yes. (There's a language reference desk where it's probably more appropriate to post questions such as these.) Natgoo 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
Avenue as a type of roadway dates to the 17th century, when it meant something like "tree-lined driveway." Its use meaning "wide street" dates at least to 1858.
Boulevard comes from the French word for "bulwark," because the original "boulevards" were wide streets built on former fortifications. It's been used in English since at least 1769.
Garage dates only to 1902 and from its first use in English meant a place to store cars.
All three words are of French origin. -- Mwalcoff 01:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 12[edit]

sai baba[edit]

is he for real at all? I've read the article and cheked some links, but there seems to be 'evidence' for both sides. has he ever been debunked beyond doubt? is there any link with that information? --Cosmic girl 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's bogus, clear and simple. You are asking the wrong questions. He can't be 'debunked without doubt' unless he allows his claims to be properly tested, which he hasn't. James Randi has a million dollars waiting for anyone who can prove any paranormal claim in controlled circumstances. The question you should ask is why you should believe an extraordinary claim without proof? And why hasn't he 'materialized' anything larger than what can be accomplished with slight-of-hand? And why would you believe a paranormal explanation when other people can achive the same effect by purely normal means? Simply because he says so? --BluePlatypus 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I doubt a lot, but there's a lot of supposedly educated people that believe in him ...so, and I don't say that is a proof or a reason to believe, but I was just wondering, because I'm a skeptic, but an open minded one, I mean, I believe in the possibility that stuff like that may actually happen,I don't have a fixed opinion about everything because I don't know it all, and stuff changes.-Cosmic girl 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the comments of BluePlatypus. There is even a quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." StuRat 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five Largest Cities[edit]

What are the five largest cities in the US, by land size (rather than population)?

A friend who lives there told me Jacksonville, Florida was the largest, although the article adds the qualifier "in the contiguous 48 states of the United States".. So maybe there's a larger one in Alaska? --BluePlatypus 00:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the National League of Cities:
  1. Sitka, Alaska (2874 square miles)
  2. Juneau, Alaska (2717 m2)
  3. Anchorage, Alaska (1697 m2)
  4. Jacksonville, Florida (758 m2)
  5. Anaconda-Deer Lodge, Montana (737 m2)
All of those places are combined city-county governments (in Alaska, they call counties "boroughs"). The biggest city that is not a combined government is Oklahoma City at 607 m2. (Jacksonville's situation is complicated; see its article.)
The smallest municipality? Lithium, Missouri, 0.001924 m2 (1.23 acres), population zero. -- Mwalcoff 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must have meant 0.00192 mi², that is, 0.00192 square miles. – b_jonas 15:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an extremely anti-manic place.--Joel 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you! Bethefawn 01:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Instrument[edit]

I have a lovely old piece but I am not sure what instrument it is, I am hoping you may be able to help me. It has the shape of the viola campaniça with the fan top of the guitarra portuguesa. It has 10-strings and 14 frets. The information I can see shows Da Silva and Funchal everything else is in Portuguese.

I have had this piece for over 20 years and it came from a friend of my Grandmother. I am guessing the piece is anywhere from sixty years and older. Can you help me identify this piece and it's possible worth?

I can send pictures through email to anyone that may be able to help me.

I have had one person identify this as:

"According to a little book on tunings by my friend Jose Lucio entitled Os Sons e os Tons da Música Popular Portuguesa there is a 9 string instrument from Madeira Island (Funchal) which he calls "Viola de Arame da Madeira". It typically has 9 strings, 14 frets, total instrument length 87cm, body length 42.5cm and lower bout of 27cm (1 inch = 2.54 cm).. It has 9 strings distributed in 5 courses-- 4 courses have double strings and one course has a single string. The tuning is dd, b, gg, dd, Gg."

Thank You,

email deleted

--198.69.66.3 01:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you come back and read this, please know that Wiki policy is against email exchanges -- everything happens right here on the pages. Here's what I suggest.

1. Sign up for a (free, anonymous) account.

2. Click on "upload file", in the toolbox on the left side of your screen, and upload your picture.

3. Read the instructions on how to post a picture into a page.

4. Edit this page to put in your picture.

If you do that, I'm sure that you'll get some responses. --Mareino 19:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion(Muslim/Islam)[edit]

1.) Who are four Islamic leaders over the past 100 years who have been major influences in the Islamic faith?

2.) Who brought Cassius Marcellus Clay into the world of Islamic beliefs?

3.) What did Cassius Marcellus Clay do to strive to achieve outside of the sport he participated in?


Thank you.:)

69.159.39.23 03:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do your own homework, and search first, particularly for questions 2 and 3. If you type "Cassius Marcellus Clay" into the search box on the left of this page, and click search, an article with a great deal of information about the man will turn up. As to question 1, that's a lot tougher; defining who exactly is an "Islamic leader" is a bit confusing of the conflation between religion and politics in the Islamic world. --Robert Merkel 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. King Hussein of Jordan, King Feisal of Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad 2. No one, the Nation of Islam doesn't represent Islamic beliefs (see the stuff on Yakub his genetically engineered followers & their spaceship and its bombs). 3.He made sure he didn't end up being shot at in Vietnam. AllanHainey 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movies that start with "The Big"[edit]

I would like a list of the movies that start with "The Big". I have some listed such as "The Big Chill", "The Big Sleep", "The Big Heat", "The Big Sky", etc. Thanks. Deedee

67.40.179.34 04:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching IMDB. --Robert Merkel 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Lebowski is another one. Zafiroblue05 08:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you need is an alphabetical list of movies. Old fashioned, I know, but five minutes in a bookstore looking through the very largest movie guide book should sort this out. Notinasnaid 08:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People always underestimate Wikipedia. Click here and go nuts. Proto t c 09:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the proper term[edit]

Some friends and I were wondering what the proper term of orientation for hermaphrodites is. We don't know whether it is gay or straight. Please help us. Thank you.

This is a semantic conundrum created by fuzzy and overlapping meanings of social labels for social categories. It is not a question about biological phenomena. Here are the problems with your questions:

  1. Hermaphrodite was a 19th century medical term for a person with any type of intersex condition. In the 20th century the term was narrowed to refer to a single very rare intersex condition. In recent decades it has completely fallen out of medical use as a noun because it became used as a pejorative term in American vernacular speech (much as the term cretin was discarded by doctors when it became a vernacular term of abuse). So at this point your use of the term as a noun has two meanings, probably both different from what you think.
  2. If I take your intended meaning as "person with an intersex disorder", the answer to the question is that it is still a matter of social convention. If a person who identifies himself as a man in our society is attracted primarily to other men he is generally considered gay, regardless of any discordances or ambiguities at biological levels of sexual differentiation. If a person who identifies herself as a woman in our society is attracted primarily to other women she is generally considered gay, regardless of any discordances or ambiguities at biological levels of sexual differentiation. There are plenty of people in both categories, but there are even more people with various intesex conditions who consider themselves male and are attracted to females, and vice versa.

In summary, the usual criteria for defining "gayness" or "straightness" are mainly behavioral and subjective, and attempting to map the definition against all levels of sexual differentiation in the presence of discordance simply generates misunderstanding and confusion. If you have not had all aspects of your chromosomes and anatomy thoroughly investigated and operated to the point of reproduction you may have a degree of discordance yourself. alteripse 05:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, a gay hermaphrodite would be attracted only to other hermaphrodites, would it not? Perhaps a straight hermaphrodite would be attracted to extremely gendered individuals. This inanely depicts the silliness of the question. Bethefawn 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hermaphrodites and transsexuals often think of themselves as being a certain gender. Since sexual orientation is a psychological phenomenon in many respects, most people will say that if a hermaphrodite chooses to live life as, say, a woman, it's best to respect her choice (and please try to avoid using it; use they or just buck up your courage and ask politely which pronoun to use. I know you mean no harm, but they generally find that term de-humanizing, because it is almost never used to indicate a human.) If she finds men attractive, but not women, then she'll probably call herself straight. In general, though, this is probably one of those cases where the old saying that everyone is bisexual is the simplest answer to your question. --Mareino 20:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court dissents[edit]

Someone with access to West/Lexis: Who's written more solo dissents per year (on 7-1 or 8-1 cases—i.e., where he's the only one coming down on one side of the issue), Stevens or Scalia? --zenohockey 04:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Lexis, but I can't think of a simple way to search for solo dissents. --Mareino 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class Action Lawsuit question[edit]

I am eligible to join in on a class action lawsuit but if all other class action law suits are any indication the lawyers would get $2 million while I got five bucks. Does anything prevent me from just waiting for the class action to end and using that case as precedence in a small claims case?

Depends on the law operating in your particular country which, as it isn't stated, I assume to be the U.S.A. I am not a lawyer but providing that the class action wins and you are still alive and no statute of limitations for the case has expired by that time I don't think there is anything to prevent you. That said it would be a good idea to ask a lawyer. AllanHainey 09:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer either, but read the information available on the specific class action. It will include whether you can exclude yourself from it and how. In the US I've read a few, and if I recall they required you to do something to exclude yourself from the class if you wanted to sue separately. It could vary by the specific case and what the judge rules I suppose. Read our article that I linked above for you too as it seems to confirm my hunch. - Taxman Talk 23:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and read precedent. The class action case won't likely result in precedent, but it would be taken into account I'd assume. - Taxman Talk 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur -- you'll need a lawyer to be 100% sure, but try reading the fine print of that class action form you got. They are supposed to be worded so that laypeople can understand them. By the way, the reason the lawyers get millions of dollars in class actions is:
    • They usually don't; you just hear about the lucrative ones
    • They put in a tremendous amount of work. If a lawyer screws up a class action through incompetence, he can inadvertently give away the rights of everyone in his class, which in most states leaves him vulnerable to malpractice suits and disbarment.
    • Paying one law firm a lot of money is still much cheaper than having everyone who could have filed a claim file it separately.

--Mareino 20:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your claim is worth more than five bucks, it would have to be worth quite a bit more before it would make sense for you to pursue it as a stand-alone case. Would your solo claim be large enough to interest a lawyer in representing you on a contingency fee? If not, do you want to pay the lawyer's hourly rate out of your pocket, gambling on a big recovery that will leave you with a net gain? Without a lawyer, you can represent yourself, and probably spend many hours on the project. You might screw it up and get nothing, or you might find that you had to spend so much time to make sure you didn't screw it up that you would've done better financially if you'd been flipping burgers somewhere. JamesMLane 09:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah Winfrey promo[edit]

I have a question concerning a television commercial for the Oprah television program. It was aired to promote the show and it freatured a song where the lyrics "Oprah's on" were sung. It was broadcast in the early-mid 1990's or maybe late 1980's. The commercial featured women telling one another that "Oprah's on." I am very interested in finding out where the best place to find this commercial and view it would be. Thank you very much.

-Edith

A quotation about Ben Franklin and King of UK[edit]

I heard a story in Chinese about Benjamin Franklin and the King of UK. It said that after Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, the King of UK rejected this new thing because he didn't like Franklin. A advisor of the king wanted to persuade him and said "The sword of satan is still a sword"(Sorry, I can only show the meaning of this quotation. I don't know the exact words). I'm interested in this story, but it's only in Chinese. Could anyone show me the original version of this story and the quotation? Thank you very much!--Addition 11:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this story before & doubt it is true. Going by memory Ben Franklin wasn't in the UK after his lightning rod work.
The King at the time would have been George III of the United Kingdom & as far as I know he had no animosity or dislikeof Franklin, at least before he started supporting the American rebellion. AllanHainey 15:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, another source I'm looking at says that George III had his palace equipped with a blunt lightning rod -- the debate was whether to use Franklin's favored sharp rod instead. The debate continues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I check the Chinese story again. It's about the choice between sharp rod and blunt rod. Here's another source, but it's a pity that there is no hint about that quotation.--Addition 16:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship or nationality[edit]

We're looking for examples where autonomous populations or identity groups are recognized by some label or designation other than 'nationality' or 'citizenship'. Nationality is, of course, used in most passports and identity documents, but there must be other phrases or words, in english, or another language, that can be applied to minorities or ethnic groups to allow their identity to be differentiated from the majority or dominant nationality. Of particular help would be examples of any passports that specificy alternative identities. Thanks if you can help.

You're confusing the term "nationality" as in citizenship with "nationality" as in ethnicity. Most passports and identity documents do not include ethnicity (except some which include 'race', which is however a much broader term). There's good reason not to: Ethnicity has no legal relevance except for in countries which have laws which distinguish and/or discriminate between ethnical groups. So what reason would a democracy (where we're all equal in the eyes of the law) have in keeping official records of the ethnical identity of individuals? Nazi Germany marked the passports of their Jewish citizens as such. -I doubt any democratic countries are interested in following that example. At least I can't think of any which have. --BluePlatypus 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think most democratic countries distinguish between ethnicities, but I'm unaware of any that mark it in passports (some countries note religion). Most official government forms, etc have a section for ethnicity; in Australia they ask specifically if you are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and here in the UK they make you tick a box out of about 30 options. This is to ensure that departments are providing programs to the people they were funded for, or that employment practices aren't disciminatory, or just for the collection of demographic data. It sounds to me like the word the original poster was looking for is ethnicity. Natgoo 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right: They ask you because they don't keep records of it, but rather get that information on a case-to-case basis where it's relevant. My point was that it's not relevant in the legal context of what passports are for. They exist to identify you as a citizen of a particular state for entry into a different one. Including ethnical information there has no purpose except for those who wish to discriminate against letting certain ethnic groups into their country. --BluePlatypus 12:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far. Maybe I can be more clear. There is legislation that identifies people living in Zanzibar as 'Zanzibaris', which is additional to their identity as Tanzanian citizens. I haven't been able to find on the internet whether or not the recognition of Zanzibari status is indicated in the Tanzanian passport. I don't think Zanzibari is ethnicity, nor nationality, though it might be 'citizen of Zanzibar'. I'd like to know if there is another term for it, or other examples where a sub-group wants to be formally identified as distinct from the state, and that distinction is accommodated formally somehow, especially in a passport. The Aland Island autonomy in Finland issues separate passports for Aland Islanders. How does it work in Quebec? Is the Quebecois identity, recognized in the Canadian passport, or other official documents? Is that identity 'nationality', 'ethnicity', or what?

Don't know about the Quebecois but in the UK the Scots, Welsh andNorthern Irish are legally recognised (through the fact that they have devolved Parliaments and seperate laws applicable only in their territories), on the passport though it says citizen of the UK. This isn't surprising as the body which issues passports (central government) is not usually interested in reinforcing identification with 'national sub-groups' or providing justification & encouragement for competing national identities, they'd rather encourage identification with the state as the UK so wouldn't want passports saying citizen of Scotland, etc. AllanHainey 15:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Åland is more than just an autonomous region within Finland, since unlike most such regions they have their own foreign relations. It is a demilitarized zone outside the EU customs union. Finland cannot force Åland to enter international treaties. (E.g. they could have stayed outside the EU had they wished) So there is a practical reason other than pride for their passports to be marked as such. Although de facto there is currently no reason since Finland and Åland have entered into the same treaties which are relevant for passports. (read:Schengen). --BluePlatypus 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of U.S. voters by Party[edit]

I am trying to compile information on the demographic of our two major political parties. I am looking for the percent of each educational level (from not finishing high school to Phd.)in both the Republican and Democratic parties. I would also like to get the income spread over the span.

Thank you for your help,

David

This looks like the closest you can get. --BluePlatypus 18:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

occupied territories[edit]

occupied territories? — Lomn Talk 18:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It always amazes me that they can find their way here, but can't use a search box. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we get to make fun of the stupid ones; it's kind of like leading a mouse to cheese, only hiding the mouse trap so cleverly that the first bite equals maximum neck breakification. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 23:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

divorce[edit]

Is it a proven fact that women with carreers and families cause families to "break up?" If so, what would be the percentage?

No, it isn't. You don't need to do a census, either. What is the divorce rate? Now, what is the percentage of "working women?" They don't match, do they? Further, if they did, what would it mean? Check out post hoc ergo propter hoc. Geogre 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that among those women whose career is with their local government's Child Services agency, a subset is ideologically or otherwise inclined to prefer separation over preservative or unifying measures. Those women would cause families to break up. --Mareino 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complete and utter nonsense. Have you ever even met a social worker? They are honest people doing a very, very difficult job. They are not out there to split up families. Their only 'ideological inclination' if you can call it that, is to do what is best for the child and nothing else. If that means protective custody, so be it. Most of the time it does not. Also, Child Services are not the ones that decide on custody in a neglect case, only a court can do that in a hearing where the interests of both child and parent are represented. You are libelling an entire group of professionals who have more integrity, honesty and compassion than any other I know, and in the most trying of circumstances. No matter how professional you are, only a person devoid of human compassion could do that job without stress and anguish, and people who don't care for others have no business in social work. Talk to a social worker some time, and you'll see this. Those people are heroes, doing the job they do. I know I couldn't do it. It takes a special kind of person to cope with those situations. --BluePlatypus 04:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BluePlatypus: My only apology is for forgetting the axiom, "sarcasm does not work on the internet." --Mareino 22:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sarcasm doesn't work because I've just met far too many people who actually hold that view. Few people would say "Doctors want people to get sick", but somehow they don't see fit to treat other professions with the same respect. --BluePlatypus 12:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I owe you an explanation of my beliefs. I do believe that the vast majority of social workers want to make the world a better place and succeed. Certainly, the time that I spent as a (part-time) social worker, I found that to be true of my companions, especially the full-time ones. I also believe that there are some sickos in every walk of life. I happen to know a few doctors that I suspect do want people to get sick, for example. In the future, I promise to use stronger words than "subset" to indicate that I am pointing out exceptions. --Mareino 18:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek poet that inspired the latin lyric poetry[edit]

I think that it can be Alcman but can you confirm this for me.

Thanks

Raymonde Cyrenne Ottawa, Ontario Canada

  • I guess you've looked at Alcman. Sappho was the first great Greek lyric poet. The Romans adopted (stole?) Greek culture in toto, but not until much later than either of these poets. Halcatalyst 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceaser[edit]

Why did Brutus kill Ceaser ?

Have you checked our articles on Marcus Junius Brutus and Julius Caesar (note spelling)? — Lomn Talk 20:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...with the correct answer being: 'bad breath'. :)
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did people in the 16th and 17th centuries identify witches?[edit]

People determined that, since witches burned, they must be composed of otherwise identifyable burnable materials, e.g. wood. The problem then becomes one of determining if a prospective witch is, in fact, wooden. One cannot build a bridge of witches, as bridges can also be composed of stone. However, while stone sinks in water, wood floats. Since ducks also float, a simple test of witchery is to see if the prospective witch weighs the same as a duck.
Another theory is that witch identification was often arbitrary and politically motivated; such explanations lie at the heart of the Salem witch trials. — Lomn Talk 21:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know what they did, check out Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay. Otherwise, look for Matthew Hutchison. Witch finders had various theories about their prey. Normally, they'd look for extra nipples (male or female) and numb spots that indicated giving suck to demons. See witch and witch trial for more. The methods changed with the times and the locale, and the folks I'm referring to are only the English. Geogre 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't remember the source on this one, but I heard somewhere that witches were actually more often hanged than burned. Seems to be worth looking into. Also the device that dunked them into water wasn't meant to kill them; just to torture them. - 131.211.210.17 08:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maleus Malefactorum would be the ultimate source. Yes, they were hanged, not burned, in England. Burning was for heretics. Witches were not heretics. Also, the dunking was a trial by ordeal: it was supposed to get them to confess, and dunking was used as an interrogation technique and torture in other cases as well. As with the question far above, though, one must not accept Hollywood versions of witch trials. In England and America, they were only prevalent in a very narrow historical window. Other areas had them more commonly and for longer. Geogre 12:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That last statement is misleading: England and America aren't uncommon in that respect. E.g. in Norway and Sweden the phenomenon was almost entirely limited to the 1670-1690 period. --BluePlatypus 12:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. Scandinavia had a short witch mania. I was mainly thinking of the various states of Germany, though, and a slightly longer prevalence in France. Geogre 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very effective method was this. The suspect was thrown into a river. If he or she would float, he was definitely a witch: no-one at that time could swim. If he sunk and died of suffocation, that proved he wasn't a witch. A less cruel method was to hurt his hands with a hot iron bar, and see if the wound heals easily. – b_jonas 15:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Witch trials#The Process confirms me. – b_jonas 15:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOte that that article has been flagged as unsourced, POV and in need of cleanup. Not a great source, then. Rmhermen 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, indeed. I didn't originally get the idea there though. I've read it in some book. – b_jonas 10:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1847 defintion of life and person. Why not the whole dictionary.[edit]

I am looking for and online dictionary that would have definitions from Meriam Webster (started in 1847) or other dictionaries that would included defintions of life and person at the time or even four years before 1847.

Thanks, Ken

This question has been asked repeatedly (assumably by the same person). Online dictionaries are current. They may contain older references, but will certainly contain new definitions. Also, if you are looking for definitions of the words "life" and "person", adding quotes around them makes your question clearer. Otherwise, it looks like a nonsense sentence. For what it is worth, there is:
  • www.dictionary.com
  • www.m-w.com
  • dictionary.cambridge.org
Just to name a few. --Kainaw (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I was referred from the Science reference desk. This is only the second time I have asked. I have looked at the sites listed. They are generic. I have found more in law dictionaries. Thank you for your time though I am sorry that I wasted it.

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. 2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.' Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, Revised 6th Edition http://www.worldnewsstand.net/EdLewis/16.htm This is part from a site that I found when researching.

Salvador Dali[edit]

what was the mental state of salvador Dali at the time when he painted 'the red orchasta'(1944)? was he happy? depressed? going through hard times? or enjoying his success? and what caused his mental state?

Francis Bellamy and the Pledge of Allegiance[edit]

I searched your website and could not find an answer my question. Was Francis Bellamy instructed by anybody to write the Pledge of Allegiance. Was it a government official, friend or anybody eles?

  • If you take a look at Pledge_of_Allegiance#History, you will see that the pledge was written as part of a marketing campaign. Bellamy took his orders from the publishers of Youth's Companion. The government got involved later. Halcatalyst 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 13[edit]

american history 1800's[edit]

was daniel and noah webster related? thanks, bonnie

Legal Working Age In BC, Canada[edit]

Hey, I was wondering what the legal working age in BC, Canada, more specifically, Vancouver(if that makes any difference)

According to right-to-education.org, the minimum age for part-time, full-time or hazardous work in British Columbia is 15 years. - Akamad 06:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Prices[edit]

What is the most expensive piece of art in the world?

202.37.229.19 01:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most expensive piece of artwork ever sold is Picasso's Garçon à la pipe. However, most of the world's most famous artworks have not been sold for many, many years, so we have no estimate of their true value at sale. I suspect the Mona Lisa, probably the most famous artwork of all, would be worth a gargantuan sum were it ever to come to market. This would be the case even purely on the basis of its attraction to tourists (how many people visit the Louvre each year?). --Robert Merkel 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See List of most expensive paintings. Lupo 08:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about sculptures? Those are art too. - 131.211.210.17 09:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we had implicitly narrowed the field to paintings because these achieve the highest prices, AFAIK. If we consider other categories of art, here are a few examples:
    I'm sure others can provide you with figures for other categories, including ancient/modern sculpture auctions; or you could just google for it. I've found the above links googling for "+auction +"record price" -painting +art". Lupo 09:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, architecture is a form of art. In that case, I'd bet that there are buildings that have sold for more. Notinasnaid 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go there, you can continue and argue that the world is a work of art created by (fill in your favorite creator deity here). I bet it is worth a lot. --Kainaw (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know...who would want a property with so many trespassers? Superm401 | Talk 04:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama[edit]

Officially, which country is he a citizen of? deeptrivia (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He considers himself a Tibetan in exile. Others likely disagree. --Kainaw (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is he then a man without a country? Halcatalyst 02:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which passport does he travel on? deeptrivia (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is stateless. Most likely he has an Indian passport, but not necessarily an Indian citizenship. Many countries offer "alien passports" which work as a passport of that nation for the sake of travel, but do not imply citizenship. My father was himself stateless a good part of his life, but he travelled with US (where he was resident) documents. --BluePlatypus 04:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such passports are known as Nansen passports, after Fridtjof Nansen, the Norwegian humanitarian who set them up as a result of the Russian Civil War in 1920. David | Talk 12:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Dan Tucker[edit]

There are songs about "Old Dan Tucker", but I have also seen an old grave that supposedly was "Old Dan Tucker" in Elberton, Georgia. Is there a real man to go with the legend and the song?---------

  • As indicated at the top of this page, it is always best to do a search yourself before posting a question here. If you had done so, you would have been taken directly to our article on Old Dan Tucker, which addresses the question, and not have had to wait for an answer to be posted here. Ground Zero | t 15:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that article (which I mostly wrote) doesn't address the Old Dan Tucker gravestone. This site does. I'm researching this song for a future expansion of the "Old Dan Tucker" article, though, so I must caution that no print source supports the Georgia story. There was evidently someone named "Dan Tucker" who lived in Georgia, but he was not the inspiration for the American folk song. Instead, the character in the song is a rough-and-tumble sort of character in the same mold as Paul Bunyan, Jim Crow, and other early American folklore types. He's probably not based on any real person, though he may be named for Dan Emmett and his dog. Then again, Emmett made up a bunch of wild stories in his old age, so even that's not certain. — BrianSmithson 21:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah[edit]

I can find better info by doing my own research.

The tone of the message I received was that my question was a waste of time.

I found my own info instead of the generic crap that I received for feedback.

Goodoh. I didn't understand your question - if you had phrased it more clearly perhaps you would have received clearer answers. And the reference desk shouldn't be a substitute for google. Natgoo 03:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're not perfect, but we do try our best considering none of us are paid to answer questions here. Like Natgoo says, we're not a substitute for Google, let alone a visit to a good research library. --Robert Merkel 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would have had a more useful experience if you had mentioned that you were looking for legal definitions of the words, as your own research implies. In retrospect, your question makes a lot more sense if you are interested in legal definitions of "life" and "person" vis a vis slavery, instead of only historical definitions. Heck, you could even have potentially been pointed to Wikipedia articles or external links on the subject. The Reference Desk is only as good as your question. --Maxamegalon2000 04:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a defintion of any type and found what I did. I did not google it. I would not have found it had I. I am sorry that you have to get into a pssing match because of your own shortcomings.

I asked for a defintion of the time. It is easy to understand that it could have come from the bottom of a well if it needed to be. BTW, law is history when it comes from 1847.

I answered the way I did based on the answer I received. I felt as though I was told I was not worth your time. I bow.

- I'm just trying to lighten the mood on this post. Let's all be courteous. :-) Akamad 06:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really know what this is all about... I read from the bottom up and maybe it's new, or maybe I just missed the fight. If so, good. But I do have a thought. Some people might see terseness and think it is curtness and consider that rude. I don't know what any of us could do about that, other than to contribute more free time here. Halcatalyst 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Halcatalyst- No. Follow the links.
Akamad- Smiley faces are not the answer.
Ken- I remember seeing your post. Sorry I passed it up, but I didn't have an answer for it. I've done what research I can (including reading the responses to your question), and here's what I see:
  • Although I can see why you were irritated when someone cut out your e-mail address, especially with such an insulting message, try to understand. This desk is not just Q&A. We don't just give answers, we discuss. By trying to send all the answers straight to your inbox, you rob us of the chance to learn something we'd never thought to wonder about, and of the chance to add questions of our own. The instructions at the top don't say this, and I doubt that's why they deleted it, but it's true nevertheless. Also, try to respect the power of mass communication. Deleting a few dozen e-mails a day is nothing. Read the hate mail section at maddox.xmission.com to see what can happen to people whose contact information winds up in the wrong place.
  • The first response you recieved on the humanities board was, though not quite rude, certainly terse, unhelpful and uninformed. I apologize on behalf of Wikipedians everywhere. However, if you have time, take a gander at some other posts. Part of the problem is that
  • You didn't wait. Unless I'm severely misreading our filing system, you gave up the day after you posted. Most posts receive quite a few responses, with a range of tones, scattered over the next few days. How many arrive each day depends mostly on what the people passing by are in the mood to talk about. The response you got was not in the least representative of the Reference Desk as a whole.
  • Your question could have been a bit clearer, but it's plenty clear enough to be answered if the answer is available.
If you're still looking for answers, here's the result of my search:
This is a very hard question to find an answer to, because it runs counter to what almost anyone ever wants to know, so most of the mass answer sites don't have it. So, if you're still reading, there's two things I'd like to know: Why do you want it? How the hell did you answer it? --Black Carrot 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and sign your messages with four tildes. Black Carrot 07:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of my answer was that any person that is inept with a computer could have answered the answer I received. That is out of the way. I am sorry but we are not perfect is not really another answer that I was looking for. I appreciate the answers that I have received and again sincerely apologize. I found the definition that worked for me at http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_p.htm. I went to bartelby.com. I don't really remember how I got further. When I research I do not go to generic sites. The answer that I wanted came after I read many definitions. Which is what my initial question implied.

Thanks for your time, Sorry I got huffy, Ken68.112.132.180 06:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did you want them for? Black Carrot 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

total area of U.S. and Europe[edit]

Which Country is larger The United States or Europe?

Europe is a country?? —Keenan Pepper 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair: United States and European Union. I can see where they are coming from, given how clueless we all seem to be about the rest of the world here in the U.S. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 09:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See USA and Continent. Europe is larger. (but not larger than the North American subcontinent) --BluePlatypus 04:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The continent of Europe is larger than (the country) of the United States, both in terms of land area and population. StuRat 08:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking about the European Union, then the US is larger in area (9.6 million square kilometres to 3.9 million square kilometres) but smaller in population (459.5 million to 299.6 million). If you're asking about the continent of Europe then the US is smaller on both counts (10.8 million square kilometres, over 700 million population). -- Arwel (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of Saudi oil production[edit]

Could anyone point me to a page that might contain information on how Saudi Arabia first came to exploit its petroleum resources? --Impaciente 06:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This short article from Time might interest you. David Sneek 09:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Impaciente 01:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock/Dum Dum Boys[edit]

The Norwegian Rock group the Dum Dum Boys has got its name from the song by the same name, sung by Iggy Pop on the album "The Idiot", and the lyrics probably written by David Bowie. The song refers to an original American group The Dum Dum Boys: "They just stood in front of the old drug store". I know for a fact that they produced at least one album, probably back in the 50's. Can anyone please furnish me with informations about this original Dum Dum Boys?

We have an article on DumDum Boys. Halcatalyst 02:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the norwegian one though. --BluePlatypus 04:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in languages[edit]

I need to know more about "speaking in languages" according to the Bible. Where in the Bible can you find script relating to this issue? Observer

See the second chapter of Acts for the original Pentecostal event. It is alluded to more briefly in a couple of the epistles as well. alteripse 11:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See if we have an article on glossolalia (glossalalia?) or speaking in tongues. Geogre 12:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

da vinci[edit]

what is da vinci code

I'm tempted to say "you've got to be joking". Try Google first. JackofOz 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not read The Da Vinci Code? Dismas|(talk) 15:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Da Vinci code iz dat soffware dat Vinci guy 'rote. --BluePlatypus 16:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Software? I thought it was:
  1. Talk softly.
  2. Be professional.
  3. Don't be a wiseguy.
  4. Always make sure the cement shoes harden before throwing him in.
WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Vinci Code is a 2003 novel by Dan Brown. See our article on it for more information or try searching for it on Google or another preferred search engine. Rob Church (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Vinci Code is a cheatcode for Sonic the Hedgehog 3 that allows you to play as Leonardo da Vinci. Tails becomes the Vitruvian Man and you can roll on him like a ball. --Tothebarricades 02:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious german youth[edit]

This is kind of a vague question.

I remember several years I was reading a book about strange occurences and such. In this book there was a story about a German youth who was discovered in a town in the 1800s. No one knew where he had come from. He didn't know where he came from either. He was kind of a strange and aloof fellow, if I remember correctly. In the end he was murdered in his jail cell.

My question is - can anyone tell me the name of this youth? Because I can't for the life of me remember.

Thanks.

--163.153.132.5 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love the reference desk. Bethefawn 06:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I have around eleven Mozilla Firefox tabs opened up just from seeing interesting articles linked here. This is much better than doing the same task at a brick-and-mortar library.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

self-portrait: identify artist[edit]

Myself and friends are working on a display on the theme of "Walls".

I saw an intriguing TV documentary a few months ago about an artist: one painting shown was of a rock pillar standing solidly beside the sea, waves splashing around it.

Now the twist: the artist gave it a title something like "Self portrait".

I can't find anywhere who the artist was. I thought it was Edward Hopper but I've checked the internet and my local reference library but no sign ...

81.174.253.146 19:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(No Title)[edit]

where can i find a timeline on R&B

You can try looking at R&B --Kainaw (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion of a lesbian porn scene[edit]

Hi there. While heterosexual/bisexual porn scenes usually conclude with the male ejaculating on the females' faces, what is the traditional conclusion of a lesbian porn scene?

--Reperire 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still orgasm, but usually not quite as ejaculatory. Natgoo 21:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, the orgasm's the thing. As mentioned above, female orgasms are just usually not so visually dramatic. A newish trend in adult movies, however, is female ejaculation - the expulsion of some sort of fluid from the female genitals during orgasm. The adult actress Cytherea is noted for her skill in this area, and the adult director Seymore Butts is perhaps the best-known exponent. --George 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to define what "lesbian porn" means. Seymore Butts type porn, whether featuring lesbianism or not, is intended for the heterosexual male market. The girl-girl couplings shown follow much the same format as their girl-boy counterparts. Real lesbian porn (that is, porn made by lesbians for lesbians) is often entirely different. One might argue that the whole idea that a scene should build to a climax (and that the climax should be visually eventful) is a male-sexuality way of doing things, and indeed pornograpy truly intended for women doesn't tend to be so monomanicially driven by the "money shot". -- Middenface 01:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Depictions of lesbian sex in pornography has a fairly good explanation of the situation. Natgoo 11:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

calories Vs kilo calories[edit]

Is a kilo calorie always equal to 1000 calorie? I saw the packet of TANG juice made by kraft foods in which it is said that one glass provides 100 Kilo calories whereas it is a fact that wheat has just 100 calories per 20 gm.

Our calorie article explains - "...where the term "calorie" is used in nutrition and food labeling, it commonly refers to the kilocalorie." Sometimes food labels will say "kCal" or "kilocalories", but usually they'll say "cal" or "calorie" and mean kilocalorie. Stupid, huh? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why?[edit]

Not too long ago I read a WP article about why people contribute, but can't find it now. So why do you contribute? Halcatalyst 23:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially inspired to contribute by irritation, of all things. I sing opera (mostly), and I found a lot of the articles on vocal music in what I considered poor shape. They were obviously edited by people who didn't have much technical knowledge of singing and often weighed down with fancruft - Mariah Carey's high notes are impressive, but they hardly merit extended discussion in an encyclopedia entry on the whistle register.
Nowadays editing is a minor hobby and, more rewardingly, educational. Most often I find that composing a short overview of a topic is a great way to organize my scattered knowledge of it, but sometimes I find that there's no article on something I want to learn more about anyway. It's a great excuse when your friends ask why you're reading about biopoetics instead of your boring corporate taxation class. --George 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally something that I can do in small chunks while I'm at work plus I can read (at least the shorter articles) while I'm working as well. I'm also rather anal about details so when I see film/magazine/album titles that aren't in italics or United States abbreviated as US instead of U.S., I can just correct it and make the project better. I basically believe that it's a good cause which I get a lot of knowledge from so I feel good giving back to it in my small ways. Dismas|(talk) 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do it for the greater glory of God (amongst other things). Seriously, I do it because I enjoy it, it is intellectually stimulating, I feel I am contributing something of lasting value to the sum total of human knowledge, and it's very, very absorbing and addictive. JackofOz 11:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because who doesn't want to be engaged in the unfolding of humanity's Greatest Working? --Fangz 20:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this kind of endeavour is the closest thing I can think of that qualifies as a "holy work" in my as-of-yet-uninvented religion. But I mostly participate out of pickiness. Pickiness is next to godliness? Bethefawn 06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 14[edit]

French palimentry longevity[edit]

Who is longest serving current member of the French Parliment?

biggest budget of any movie ever[edit]

What was the largest budget of any film in history?

See List of most expensive films. Dismas|(talk) 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to Muslim women in the afterlife?[edit]

I've just been reading about the houris who "await devout Muslims" in paradise, but that's not much of an inducement for devout female Muslims, is it? Is there a comparable reward for them? (Let's restrict this discussion to heterosexual women, just to keep it simple ;-) ). --Heron 11:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing that happens to christian women-godisgreat
The Qur'an simply says that the faithful will be attended in paradise by "WakawaAAiba", which is translated as either "companions" or "full-breasted maidens". The trouble is, that word has meant different things in different times (before Muhammed), so it's difficult to know which meaning Muhammed had in mind. The Qur'an doesn't specifically promise 72 virgins, but the Hadith does. It's the same promise for women as for men. Presumably women would simply enjoy the companionship. More information is here. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I enjoyed reading the 'Straight Dope' reference. If it's true, then most muslims don't take the scriptural description of paradise too literally. --Heron 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many Christians ACT like they believe that heaven is better than Earth and you get there by dying (as opposed to how many ACT like they believe money is good and will pick it up off the ground if they see it just lying there)? WAS 4.250 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be possible that in the Straight dope text, Cecil, who wants and deserves a fatwa, missed a single word, which is 'esoteric' ?
One can tempt immature people with promises of pleasures. Following average pleasures in an average life, you get responsabilities too : a family, children to raise, roof leaks to fix and so on. Would there be a future with only pleasures : then your responsability remains, to understand those pleasures as a metaphore. Because, partaking of a communion with the ineffable, you have to partake some of it with other people.
Now, it is too bad if what's only left of established religions is untruth. --Harvestman 09:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, only one category of religions is based on such promises. deeptrivia (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions about India[edit]

Is having sex with opposite sex legal in India? (I am not talking about prostitution, but just casual sex). Is living without marriage (a sexual relationship) legal in India? Is having a child without marriage legal in India? Is having two wives legal in India if both wives agree for that?

  • Given that prostitution is legal in India, it'd be rather odd if casual sex was outlawed.
  • Various districts in India dont even require marriages to be registered< so it would be fairly difficult to make co-habitation illegal
  • Polygamy is illegal in India

GeeJo15:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On that note.. Is sex outside of wedlock actually illegal anywhere? Certainly it's frowned upon in conservative cultures like the Arab world and the USA, but where is it actually illegal? --BluePlatypus 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See fornication. Superm401 | Talk 22:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of January 2005, 14 states still had rarely enforced laws against "fornication" [20]. I remember there was a case recently in which a mother successfully had her daughter's boyfriend prosecuted for sleeping with the daughter, but the appeals court threw out the verdict in light of the Lawrence v. Texas decision. -- Mwalcoff 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that seems to confirm what I suspected. De facto not illegal anywhere. --BluePlatypus 09:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like in America or Britain, though, if you have casual sex in such a way that offends the locals, you can expect to be run out of town regardless of its legality. --Mareino 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answers
  • Prostitution: "The Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956 ("ITPA"), the main statute dealing with sex work in India, does not criminalise prostitution or prostitutes per se, but mostly punishes acts by third parties facilitating prostitution like brothel keeping, living off earnings and procuring, even where sex work is not coerced." [21]
  • Is having sex with opposite sex legal in India? Yes. Sex with same sex might be illegal.
  • Is living without marriage (a sexual relationship) legal in India? Yes.
  • Is having a child without marriage legal in India? Yes.
  • Is having two wives legal in India if both wives agree for that? Legal for Muslims for religious reasons, illegal for others. See Uniform civil code.

Paromita Chatterjee of CNBC India[edit]

I just want to know where did Paromita Chatterjee, an anchor with 'CNBC India' all these days, go? Is she appearing in some other television? Has she left her career since marriage? Or what happened to Paromita Chatterjee?

Pinochet[edit]

I red he was relased this week,is this true,since i aint believe they let that monster go... Do is it true that hes free?

A quick scan of the article for Augusto Pinochet seems to suggest that he is not free. And with such a high profile figure I would think that his article would be updated with recent news if any major change such as that happened. Dismas|(talk) 14:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was released on bail from his house arrest. That doesn't mean he's free. He still has to stand trial. It just means the court doesn't think it's likely he's going to try to run away before the trial. I don't think so either, the guy is 90 years old.. --BluePlatypus 16:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norway[edit]

Why is "Norway" called "Norway"? thankyou

See History_of_Norway#Etymology. --Heron 13:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lactating women[edit]

Can a women be able to produce milk for life (either even without giving birth) or years after giving birth) by doing something? What should women do for that?

A wet nurse commonly provides milk long after having children. --Kainaw (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In rare cases women have been able to produce milk without having given birth. The quantity is normally very low though. Dismas|(talk) 21:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Also, in extremely rare cases, men with breast cancer have produced small amounts of milk. --Kainaw (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POint: both of those conditions are disease states, usually caused by an adrenal or pituitary microadenoma causing increased levels of prolactin. Surgery may be required for treatment of the condition, and they can be associated with brain cancer. However, yes, wet nurses lactated during their pre-menopausal careers and made a living at it. The survival of a previous child was evidence that her breast milk was sound. Geogre 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start over and get it right. We assume that you are referring to enough milk to support an infant, not single drops. Second, over 99% of this type of lactation follows delivery of a baby. If nursing, especially suckling throughout the day, is continued, milk production continues for many years in both breasts. As mentioned above, in the past some women made it a profession (they were called wet nurses). All other forms of lactation are unusual or pathological.

  1. Lactation can sometimes be induced in a woman who has not just delivered so that she can nurse an infant. This can be done with hormone injections and breast stimulation and is occasionally sought in the US by women who are adopting an infant. If an adequate milk supply is established it becomes like natural nursing.
  2. There have been rare accounts of pubertal or post-pubertal but virgin women, or older post-menopausal women who just by suckling an infant for several days to weeks developed a milk supply.
  3. There have been far rarer accounts of men developing enough of a milk supply after suckling an infant for days to nurse the child. These accounts generally date before the last century and many were recorded as hearsay, but some seem convincing. The largest collection of these accounts is in Gould and Pyle's Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine, originally published in 1896 by Saunders, but reprinted many times since.
  4. Galactorrhea is the medical term for milk secretion in women who have not delivered a baby, and in children or males. It is often but not always bilateral, but the milk flow is far less than lactation (a few cc or drops a day, or enough to make a few cm spot on a shirt or bra), and sometimes must be squeezed out drop by drop. The most common cause of galactorrhea is hyperprolactinemia, which can be due to a pituitary macroadenoma, microadenoma, idiopathic hyperfunction, or anti-dopaminergic drugs (especially phenothiazines and metoclopramide (Reglan)). This type of galactorrhea can occasionally occur in males, nearly always with very small volume output. Pituitary adenomas are not cancer. Galactorrhea is not lactation.
    True. I was just outlining another instance when galactorrhea might occur. In some brain cancers, pituitary function is altered, resulting in hyperprolactinemia. Galactorrhea is not lactation. Sorry for the sloppiness. Geogre 13:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Galactorrhea can occasionally occur without hyperprolactinemia. Many single cases of repeated breast stimulation or trauma causing galactorrhea have been reported, even resulting from herpes zoster of the chest wall. Some cases are idiopathic, meaning a cause cannot be found. As above the amount of milk produced is minimal (typically only drops). This type of galactorrhea is often unilateral. This kind of galactorrhea has been very rarely reported in males, also with very small volume output.
  6. Transient galactorrhea is relatively common in newborn infants (usually in first days of life, ending by two weeks), usually in very small amounts. An old term for this is "witch's milk". It is not pathologic. There have been very rare cases of more profuse milk secretion in infants.
  7. Finally a number of other breast conditions can result in very small amounts of fluid leaking or expressible from one nipple, only in drops or tiny amounts, usually only with squeezing. The fluid is not milk but interstitial fluid from inflammation, local cyst, infection (mastitis), or some types of breast cancer. It is unilateral, from only the affected breast. This is certainly not lactation and most doctors don't even call it galactorrhea. alteripse 04:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy keeping abreast on this titilating subject, but I think we've milked it for all it's worth, including the tit-for-tat replies. 09:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If a woman has an abortion or miscarriage, does she start producing milk or not? Black Carrot 16:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1991 car[edit]

In 1991, what was the price of a new car? Thank you

In the United States, you could get a new Yugo for as little as $4,000 or a Ferrari Testarossa for as little as $94,000. What kind of car are you thinking about? --Kainaw (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We answered that a couple of weeks ago. alteripse 03:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individualism and loneliness[edit]

Ayn rand claims that the plight of the individualist is loneliness. Ayn rand was wrong about a ton of sh*t, but I'm finding in my own life that she was somewhat correct on this point. Are there any philosophers that describe how to harmonize individualism with happiness, and not being lonely and seperated from most of mankind on an intellectual level? I feel like the entire intellectual world is mainly a bunch of stupid sportslike arguments over things without any epistemelogical, ethical, or logical grounding. Take democrats vs. conservatives-- in their debates they only try to attack each other, instead of arguing how the nature of truth is closer to their way of seeing things. If someone could point me to a philosopher that could rekindle my spirits that would be nice. Thank you.--Urthogie 20:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read any of Ayn Rand's books, so I apologize if I'm off target, but why would there be a correlation between individualism and intellectual loneliness? More to the point, why would there be a connection between the philosophy of individualism and a dislike of 'stupid sportslike arguments over things without any epistemelogical, ethical, or logical grounding'? I myself dislike all those things, and see no reason to put up with them when I come across them, but that's not based on individualism, that's based on common sense, self respect, and a scientific education. What am I missing? Also - What makes you think the vicious arguments of dyed in the wool political partisans should bear any resemblance at all to reasoned discourse? If that's where you've been looking for intellectual stimulation, I'm not surprised you've been disappointed. Last - Which spirits do you want rekindled? I myself consider Silverstein an inspiration, but that may not be the side of philosophy you're looking for. --Black Carrot 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Individualism, for example, may lead someone to tell to disputing groups of people that their argument has lost logical grounding-- therefore alienating oneself with both collectives. Those dyed in the wool political partisans are supported by surprisingly large amounts of people, who rally for them. And when you disagree with these people, pointing out that theyre supporting dyed in the wall partisans, they'll begin to dislike you for pointing out that they view politics as sport. I'll check out Silverstein.--Urthogie 21:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't meant Silverstein seriously, but if you want, you can get his books in most any library, and here's a example of some of his more famous poems: http://cspeech.ucd.ie/~gina/gj/silverstein.html I can see how not following the herd could make the herd hate you, but once again, that just means you're wandering around in the wrong field. Try another valley, with fewer sheep and more humans. talkorigins.org might get you in the ballpark, but I haven't talked to most of the people there so I'm not sure. If you're feeling lonely, though, community is definitely the thing, not isolated philosophers. Try wandering around on forums. You generally have to wade through a lot of crap to find anything good on the Internet, but it's worth it if you have the time. --Black Carrot 22:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about real life, and I don't want to seperate myself from hypocrites. They're human too, so I wan't to be around them being happy without sacrificing individualism.--Urthogie 22:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I understand your goal. You want to stay around the same people, and continue to point out when they're wrong, but you don't want them to get mad at you? That's certainly better, if you can manage it. At the risk of offending, how tactful are you when you point out people's mental failings? Do they have good reason to get pissed off? For instance, calling their heated arguments about the relative evils of infanticide versus teenage pregnancy 'sport' might be taken the wrong way. Also, people hate to be embarassed, and if you try to point out that they spent the past half hour defending something any monkey could tell was wrong, they still probably won't back down, and as an added bonus they'll be mad at you for making them look bad. Sometimes a soft half-truth that lets them keep their pride is more effective at leading people away from their mistakes. --Black Carrot 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is more, how does one reconcile that one's individualism has led to such a gulf between one's mind and those of others that even if one pretends to fit in so as not to offend anyone, they will still have to bear the burden of knowing that they are "dumbing themselves down." One the other hand, I'd say that you needn't worry too much. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is that unique. It'll just take that much longer to find a person that you can connect with. The wait between such meetings is what constitutes character-building. It's worth it. Bethefawn 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. I think self-control is necessary in the meantime.--82.35.67.33 15:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it isn't the other way around. If you're lonely, it's a lot easier to accept the idea "It's because I'm a special individual" than it is to accept "It's because I'm a jerk". If you can't socialize with and respect people who have different opinions, even ones you consider stupid, that is not being "individualist", it's being intolerant. And then the problems is with you, not them. If you don't want to discuss politics or whatever, then don't (and say so). Talk or do something you have in common then. Everyone has something in common. You should never need to "dumb yourself down" to get along with someone. People do respect people who are different, but you have to treat them with the same respect. --BluePlatypus 19:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Criticism of Silverstein[edit]

I've been trying to find scholarly criticisms of Shel Silverstein's poem 'Where the Sidewalk Ends' (not the entire book, which makes it even harder to search for), but I've had no luck so far. I know they must exist. The book made NYTimes Best-seller. The poem is awesome. Somebody has to have written about it. I have yet, however, to track down anything I can use. I welcome any suggestions, except ones that require I be enrolled in a college. --Black Carrot 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try Google Print [22] or Google Scholar [23]. It's a lot to sort through, but you might hit pay dirt. Good luck. — BrianSmithson 23:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I've tried both, and neither helped. Any other ideas? --Black Carrot 01:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

questions for a class assignment[edit]

Hi there!

I am doing an assignment for a humanities class and could use some help with a few questions I am having trouble with. The first question I have is was woman created to serve man. The second question I have to answer is what is original sin? I have come up with some information but I am having trouble answering them completely.

Any help with these would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, --Mjs101283 23:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Mjs101283[reply]

  • For the second, see original sin. For the first, that's a matter of opinion and/or religious beliefs, and presupposes that woman or man were created for any purpose. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no particularly meaningful answer to these questions unless you also answer "according to who". One could say, "no, woman wasn't 'created' at all, let alone for serving man". But I suspect from the second question that "according to biblical exegetes (or "according to (some particular) religious sect), "was woman created to serve man" and "what is Original Sin?" So the best approach would be to look up the doctrine of that particular sect, or start from our general overview of Original Sin. Probablyl the first question arisies from interpretations of and generalizations about "an help meet for him" in the King James translation of Genesis 2:18 in one of the two conflicting stories of creation found in Genesis (specifically the one in which an omnscient and omnipotent god tries several times to create Adam's helper, screwing each one up until on his final try he gets it "just right"). - Nunh-huh 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any religion created by men (which is pretty much all of them) is likely to say women exist to serve men. Similarly, any religion created by women would be likely to say men are just created to serve women (there were a few such religions, like that of Sapho, but they are pretty much extinct now). Quite a coincidence how that works, isn't it ? Now, while we are off the subject, what do you think the chances are that any group of people will create a religion where the "chosen people" are somebody other than themselves ? StuRat 03:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? The religion of Sapho??? Do you mean Sappho, the poet? She had no such religion. In fact, I think we're hard pressed to name any religion that say that "men are just created to serve women", while we would have no trouble naming religions that say that "women are just created to serve men", which should tell you something. I don't think even birth-death-rebirth mystery cults like that of Attis/Cybele, with eunuchized priests maintained that. - Nunh-huh 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sappho is the one. What does it tell me that most modern religions started out by saying women are inferior ? It says that men were more able to kill anyone who disagreed with them than women were, and thus were able to dominate the interpretation of religion. What does it tell you ? StuRat 07:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pectorals are more powerful than breasts? Me big, Me make rules? Men make religion while women make dinner? Any number of morals are possible! - Nunh-huh 07:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for Sappho's beliefs, here is an example of her elevating women above men:
   Helen, surpassing all men
   in beauty, forsaking
   the best of men
   left and sailed away to Troy.

StuRat 07:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but: it's not religion, and it doen't claim men were made to serve women. - Nunh-huh 08:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The status of women in any religion tends to just be a mirror of the status of women in the culture where the religion was developed. And vice versa. For example, in Norse mythology and society, women had a relatively high status. This was also reflected in Scandinavian christian wedding customs. (E.g. no "giving the bride away"). --BluePlatypus 12:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. StuRat 12:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, women were created To Serve Man. Please see our fine article on that topic. Ground Zero | t 15:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of school are you in, that this kind of question is asked in a humanities class?! User:Zoe|(talk) 00:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 15[edit]

Last interview or picture of Pablo Escobar[edit]

Can you help me about it? Thanks a lot

This site is graphic and distasteful, however it does have two pictures of Pablo Escobar after he died. I would assume that they would be among the last taken of him. http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/criminals/pablo-escobar/ --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 03:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the war in Iraq[edit]

why did the United stattes go to war with Iraq when it was obvious( via the documentary evidence his government had provided,and the ongoing at the time, inspections), Saddam had no WMD's and if he did he was pretty much contained behind his borders

Unfortunately, it wasn't as obvious as you seem to believe, nor was Saddam's government so forthcoming with documents as you depict. - Nunh-huh 02:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The WMD reason was jumped on by Bush as the one which would generate the most international support. The real reasons for the war went far beyond WMD:
  • The assassination attempt on the first President Bush by Iraq's intelligence service.
  • The continual flaunting of UN resolutions adopted after the First Gulf War and exclusion/expulsion of UN weapons inspectors.
  • The requirement that US troops stay in the Gulf indefinitely to discourage any future invasions by Iraq, following their invasions of Iran and Kuwait, and to patrol the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones imposed after the First Gulf War to stop the genocide of Kurds and Shia.
  • Support for terrorism by Iraq. Their support for terrorism against Israel is public and well documented. Their support for other terrorism is less certain.
  • The ability of Iraq to cause significant disruptions in the world oil supply by cutting off production.
StuRat 03:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add to this the belief by people described as "neoconservatives" that by installing a democratic, pro-Israeli, and secular regime in Iraq the political stability, economic progress of the whole Middle East, and especially the security of Israel would be enhanced.
However, this is all speculation to a large degree. It's hard to know what was really going on behind the scenes in the White House (and also in discussions with allies such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair). Eventually they'll all write their memoirs, and in another few decades cabinet records will be released, the historians will pore over them and the real story will out. --Robert Merkel 06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Pore" over ? Does that mean to sweat over them ? LOL. The idea of "installing a pro-Israeli government in Iraq" is pretty far-fetched. I think one that doesn't actively support suicide bombers against Israel is all that can be hoped for. StuRat 07:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er... that's the correct spelling of "pore" in this meaning, "attentively studied".- Nunh-huh 07:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's also the spelling for sweat pores, hence the alternate interpretation. StuRat 08:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's an interpretation. For a moment it seemed someone was mocking a spelling he didn't understand. Unfortunately, replacing a verb with a noun doesn't get you to an alternate interpretation so much as a misinterpretation. - Nunh-huh 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere I read a satirical version of a Bush campaign platform. It included the line: "We must find an enemy and defeat him." A major reason for the invasion of Iraq was probably the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, and Bush's desire to be perceived as having taken out some international villain. JamesMLane 09:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the time line supports this. The failure to find bin Laden was due to the lack of US troops there because they were being positioned in Kuwait and elsewhere for the Iraq invasion. Had it been as you suggested, Bush would have waited until it was clear bin Laden had escaped before redirecting troops from Afghanistan. StuRat 12:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because United States Of America is WW2 Germany and oil for Americans is more imortant then life of Iraqi people.This is why Bush is saw worldwide as reincarnation or clon of Adolf Hitler.

The preceeding anonymous comment was left by User:194.106.189.186, whose other posting (on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous) asks how to get around a ban on posting to a forum. -- Mwalcoff 10:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that's pretty inflamatory stuff there. I see why he was banned. StuRat 12:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mwalcoff,do you really feel that you need to snitch on me,i dont see have will that help this user...212.200.135.248 17:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanhoe and Ramsey[edit]

I put my horse "Ramsey" up for sale and got a call from a woman who was very interested in him because her horse "Ivanhoe" was just put down. I tried to find the connection between the two but couldn't. Was Ramsey a landowner or a place in Ivanhoe? Thanks, Dee Ann

  • Our article on Walter Scott is pretty awful, I'm afraid. However, I believe the connection is not in Ivanhoe but in Rob Roy. I'm not entirely sure. Ramsey was, I think, a traditional Scottish baronal power. I'm sure someone from the border region can answer that better than I, but Scott's novels tend to center on the border area. Geogre 13:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly something to do with Allan Ramsay. MeltBanana 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India's population vs. China's population.The U.S.'s pop. vs. Each[edit]

Right now,India and China have monstrous populations.The U.S.A is far behind in terms of population.My question is will the U.S. pop. ever get to the size of these two countries?

Not until something dramatic happens. deeptrivia (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Future population estimates are notoriously difficult but at least in theory the United States might overtake China within a century as it has a more dynamic birth rate and is still accepting an enormous amount of migrants. The U.S. census bureau has a rather wide estimate of anywhere from 283 million people come 2100 up to 1.2 billion with just under 600 million taken as most likely (about double today's figure) [24]. The higher estimates dictate the birth rate remaining close to 2.1 (as it is now) and continued, massive Hispanic immigration to the U.S. China, by contrast, has a birth rate of 1.7 and dropping and a negative migration figure. According to the CIA factbook (always the best place to start for business like this) the U.S. and China have growth rates of 0.92% and 0.58%, respectively. How accurate the data for China is another question, of course, but assuming it's population plateaus and eventually starts to decline the U.S. could catch up. If I had to bet though, I'd bet on a gap of a few hundred million remaining in 2100.
As for India, still booming with 2.78 fertility rate. Barring disaster, there's no chance the U.S. will catch it any time soon and indeed it's expected to overtake China itself by mid-century. Marskell 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want it to? It's not a contest! Overpopulation is a problem. --BluePlatypus 17:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want it to. There's enough Americans out there already :). Marskell 17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted Marskell's comment as meaning that for us (the U.S.) to overtake India would be a disaster... for us. JamesMLane 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffragettes[edit]

no question

There's something glaringly wrong with your question: you didn't bother posting a question in the first place. You should check the list of things to do before you post at the very top of this page before posting a question. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening. СПУТНИКССС Р 19:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking at suffragette, however. СПУТНИКССС Р 19:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I fully supported women's suffrage...until I found out it just meant the right to vote." StuRat 09:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1924 winter Olympics[edit]

no question

There's something glaringly wrong with your question: you didn't bother posting a question in the first place. You should check the list of things to do before you post at the very top of this page before posting a question. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening. СПУТНИКССС Р 19:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking at 1924_Winter_Olympics, however. СПУТНИКССС Р 20:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey СПУТНИК, what's the name of that template? —Keenan Pepper 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cernen/Reference desk no-nos --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of China[edit]

what is the difference between the chinese nationalists with the chinese communists...? why did the people syphatize more with the communists than with the nationalists of china..? what changes had happened under the communist rules..?

Please do your own homework. Most of us are already in school or have already been through school and have done our homework; it's your turn to do yours. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try China#History WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More, please give a detailed context for that question. To what kind of people do you refer as sympathizing more with the communists ? Hippies ? Albanese ? ~Vietnamese ? Sixties generation in developed countries ? Me ? I'm not sure. --82.227.17.30 08:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the period of time from 1000-1800 AD know as?[edit]

I would just call it "the period of time from 1000–1800 AD". —Keenan Pepper 00:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there is a better answer in a text book some where... WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I looked at 1000 to see if there were any notable things that started and 1800 to see if anything significant came to an end, but the best I could come up with was the Age of Seven Hundred Million Births or maybe, since Leif Ericson is supposed to have landed in North America in 1000 and the first North American smallpox vaccination was in 1800, it could be the Age of Opportunity for the Distribution of Blankets. Other than that, I got nuthin'--◀Pucktalk▶ 02:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would call it the Middle ages, Renaissance and Industrial Revolution. AllanHainey 13:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'd find a phrase to link them, because they have very little in common apart from having happened in the past. Unless you worked on the land, life in 1800 in Western Europe was probably much more like life today, than it was like life in 1000. Don't be misled by the lack of sanitation, iPods etc. Notinasnaid 19:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some folks are really, really, really stretching and calling it all "early Modern." I find it odious, unhelpful, and useless critically, but I've encountered it far too many times for it to be simply one person being a chowder head. Geogre 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This period roughly corresponds to Medieval period in India. deeptrivia (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 16[edit]

ethics[edit]

What is the difference between ethics and morality? -Leah.

You should start your research by reading our articles on ethics and morality. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics have more to do with how civilized people think we should behave to one another, while morality has more to do with a set of standards imposed by relgious leaders. Many of them agree on content ... same rules, different sources of those rules. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think ethics is a set of more definable rules and customs, for example, the custom that you don't touch most foods with your bare hands, don't lean your knee on the table when you eat, and hold the glass or mug with one hand only. Morality is something more abstract, something that tells you what is right and wrong in general, but not the actual concrete rules. (Here I disagree with AlMac.) So ethics is the set of customs that are based on moralty, and can more easily differ from country to country. – b_jonas 16:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temples in Germany[edit]

Okay, the Swastika article doesn't clarify this. Since the symbol is taboo in Germany, is the construction of Hindu and Jain temples (that necessarily have the Swastika) allowed in Germany? deeptrivia (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that it'd be illegal. First off, it's a ban against Nazi symbols, which by any reasonable interpretation means that the swastika is banned only in Nazi/Neo-Nazi contexts. Secondly, even if it was a ban on any and all swastikas, their right to freedom of religion (as per the German constitution) should take precedence. Third, if, despite all this it'd turn out to be an issue, the law would be changed to accomodate it. Germans have no quarrels with Hindus or Jainaists. --BluePlatypus 06:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Based on your user page, it looks like you're Indian, so you'd know better than me, but do you really need a swastika in order for a temple to be complete? I was tempted to find you a list of Hindu temples in Germany, but it occurred to me that they could all be constructed without swastikas. Maybe that would be just as odd as a Christian church without a cross, I don't know. --Mareino 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little that is compulsary or prohibited in Hinduism, but Swastika is considered an important symbol. I've never seen a temple without one. deeptrivia (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

economics/monopoly[edit]

What are the evils of monopoly?

Playing Monopoly all night long can deprive one of needed slep. this proves the game is evil. StuRat 09:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try clicking on the link above for more information on monopolies. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 05:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing (at least I think it is funny...) Monopoly was created to explain to people that capitalism leads to a monopoly and everyone by the monopoly holder loses. Now it is just a very long game. --Kainaw (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background on German Artist - Sigfried Ziegler[edit]

Is the Artist on file - Adolf Ziegler, Munich 1934 the Same as Sigfried Ziegler whose art hung near the bust of HItler (1934) and who left the country shortly thereafter?

By way of background, Sigfried Ziegler I refer to came to public attention when he won a "Grand Prix de Rome" at the age of 18 for an unfinished oil of his mother in a chair.

Sigfried Ziegler subsequently left Germany and later painted works in "oil on canvas" charcoal while in the New York are in the 1950's.

His works include "Sunny Country Lane" Color Series from Zinc Plates and "Fruit in Bowl" a Still Life painted while he resided in Eastchester New York. He also accepted commissions during that period.

I have access to each of the works mentioned above.

Also, in the 1960's he had known relatives in the New York area.

Can't be the same person as Adolf Ziegler. Besides the obvious (different name), it seems Adolf didn't leave Germany. Also, "Ziegler" is a fairly common surname. --BluePlatypus 06:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bassarids[edit]

Hans Werner Henze has an opera (Die Bassariden).... What are the Bassarids? Where could I find any explanation on that? Thank you very much in advance

"Bassarids" is another word for Maenads. --BluePlatypus 10:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France 1868[edit]

I'm working on a profile assignment for the country of France during the time period of 1868.

I have found the majority of the facts, but I need some assistance in locating some general stats on France for the year 1868 for my comparison chart.

The specific data needed from the year 1868: Population, Language, Religion, Currency, System of goverment, Ethnic groups, and Date of independence or consolidation.

Any assistance that would lead me in the right direction to find this information would be greatly sppreciated.

Thank you very much. Tony

Do you really need us to tell you the language spoken in France in 1868? You will find other useful information in History of France, Demographics of France and France in the nineteenth century. This doesn't seem to cover religion very well, however. Notinasnaid 13:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican immagrants[edit]

How many from the Mexican immagrants, imigrate to Los Angeles?

Do you mean legal or illegal immigrants or both ? StuRat 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What religion should i choose[edit]

I suggest Buddhism. They are the least likely to tell you to kill someobody because he disagrees with your religion. StuRat 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a koan that goes, "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him"? =P —Keenan Pepper 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to come across a religion that allows killing people who disagree with you. - Mgm|(talk) 08:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but just because it isn't allowed doesn't mean you won't be told to do it: the Jews at Jericho (with the added bonus that they didn't get anything out of it); the Christians in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition; Muslims in the early spread of Islam. --대조 | Talk 18:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Choose the real one. Finding out which one that is is left as an exercise for the reader.
No that's actually serious advice. Don't choose one because it's teachings are convenient for you. Choose one because it's description of the world corresponds with reality. Then stick with the teachings, even if they are inconvenient. Also do your research, What are these religions really about. That may be seriously different from popular perception. DJ Clayworth 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're more concerned with the here and now than with a personal afterlife, you might also take a look at Humanism. Humanists would of course say that their beliefs do not constitute a religion, but then so would a lot of Buddhists. --Shantavira 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not confuse religion with a personal belief in a creator, an afterlife, a meaning to life, and so on. Religion is a collection of humans trying to teach others what they believe (and usually killing those who disagree). As an example, I was raised a Southern Baptist. I still feel, religiosly, like a Southern Baptist. However, I do not believe much of the Bible: the Old Testament is a bunch of campfire stories to make Jewish kids feel more Jewy about themselves. The New Testament is mostly about Paul hijacking Christianity from Jesus and the Disciples. Boiling it down, I feel that true faith is shown by accepting the teachings of Jesus without believing in Adam and Eve, Noah, a virgin birth, curing sickness and death, or rising from the dead three days later. So, I clearly have one personal view and a religion that isn't very similar. It is, in my opinion, like being a believer of capitalism in China or a socialist believer in the U.S. --Kainaw (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a policy of not providing any comment whatsoever on questions like this, other than "no comment". Perhaps there should also be some disclaimer at the top of the page that such questions are not what we're here for. Religion is all about belief. Nobody can tell another person what to believe or not to believe. It's a bit like answering a question about which political party to vote for. To provide any answer at all other than "no comment" is doing the questioner, and ultimately us, a disservice. Even a fun statement like "Choose the real one. Finding out which one that is is left as an exercise for the reader." assumes that there is only one real religion. Best not to get into it at all. JackofOz 03:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Religion is not entirely about belief. I've asked my religious friends occasionally about what they think, with an eye towards joining them if they ever say something convincing, and it's come up that there are quite a few people (I believe CS Lewis was on the list) who were converted from atheism by careful study of the facts.
  • There is already a policy (somewhere, I can't find it) against giving medical or legal advice. You could suggest there that that be extended to religion and philosophy.
  • I don't see anything wrong, though, with suggesting guidelines for an effective search for a good religion. --Black Carrot 13:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend Unitarian Universalism. I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned them. They are the only major religion that encourages its members to not only study other religions, but to convert to them if they decide that they like that religion better. And they have even less of a history of violence than Buddhists, which is saying a lot. --Mareino 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can choose a car in the street or a can on beer in a supermarket. Religions normally act differently. Your encounter with a religion may take some of these forms :
  • One that has been taught to you while young. These can do harm sometimes, but rarely : they are a built-in strength in your personality. Changing for another is as difficult as changing your mother tongue, but you can find it a true experience to live as an expatriate.
  • One that is amongst the main religions of your environment (country, township). If you have not been raised in intimate contact with one, you have bathed inside it, meeting people educated with it and other people.
  • One that advertises and sends you proselytes. They tell you how it is great and you can follow them and find it is great. This can do harm too, depending upon your own strength and beliefs.
  • Those who avow no religion have also a word to say.
When you decide to choose, what do you expect from a religion ? Friendship with others, specialized prayers and rites, comfort for the times present and afterlife, or a way to be more intimate with yourself and the world you live in ? Take your time to ponder. Create your way of thinking, of feeling, and partake of something greater. Then the choice is still the same but the risks are lighter. --Harvestman 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two approaches to religion, and it really depends what you're looking for. If you're looking for a good simple way to live your life, and would prefer a safe, simple relationship with God/Goddess/Gods/Universe, I would suggest one of the mainstream religions, such as Theravada Buddhism, Christianity or Islam. These religions provide good workable answers that you can apply to daily life and you don't have to lie awake all night thinking about. Please (for everyone else's sake) don't choose a sect that incites hatred toward any groups of people - love and respect are found at the heart of all decent religions. If, on the other hand, you really want to know what's going on, if you are deeply curious about God, the Universe and your place in this world, then I believe you will eventually find yourself following all religions, and none. By this I mean that you will find a mystical approach to religion; you will study many philosophies and learn as much as you can from others, but believe none of it until it has been tested through your own experience and found to be correct. Starting down this path is simple: just start practicing complete honesty, and try to always do good. It is a very long road (some say endless), but travelling along it is also an end in itself. This approach is vastly transformative - there is great joy, great sorrow, and constant learning. Strangely enough, there are schools of mysticism within all the mainstream religions: Sufiism, Esoteric Christianity, Kabbalah, Mahayana Buddhism; it is my belief that most of the power and inspiration driving the mainstream religions originates within their mystical hearts. Finally, and this is important(!), whichever way you turn in your quest, have fun! Fuzzypeg 10:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

virginity[edit]

what is virginity ?

See virginity. I never understood how people could find the Reference Desk but not the search...very strange. Neutralitytalk 15:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the first and I'm guessing not the last either. :-P Dismas|(talk) 16:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, try looking at the Main Page. The Ask a question link is displayed relatively prominently, in the middle of the screen at the top, right under the introduction to what the site is. It says, Welcome to Wikipedia, click here if there's something you want to know. The search box, on the other hand, is smallish and off to the left, where eyes don't often go at first, and there is no hint that you can look things up that way. --Black Carrot 17:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also states we're an encyclopedia with over 900,000 articles. Call me crazy, but wouldn't be logical to be able to search them all? People just need to look past the length of their nose (as they say here in the Netherlands). - Mgm|(talk) 08:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be a re-design that moves the search box. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A more traditional and encyclopedic wording than 'search for _____' would be 'look _____ up'. And yeah, now that I'm thinking about it it does seem really odd to have all the functions of the site in the introduction, except one. Black Carrot 13:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edited : Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask_and_answer and Wikipedia:Where_to_ask_a_question too, putting "search first" more prominent. --Harvestman 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Black Carrot 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's not forget Black Carrot's good comment above. We offer the "Ask a question" link much more prominently than the "Search" box - well, duh: No wonder new readers use it! We need a "Search" (or "Look up") box right under the Welcome line before we can even think about blaming others. This is more important and helpful than most of the other links in that prime place. It would also help if we added a search box to the top of this (helpdesk) page. Common Man 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need "did you search yet?" twice at the top of the same page, within five lines of each other. I think that should be reverted, and the problem should be solved elsewhere.
I'm moving this discussion to the talk page. Black Carrot 23:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing agnostic[edit]

Hi...I don't know if it is logical to be a right wing agnostic, because everyone in the right seems to be a christian and the left wing people seem to be agnostics, atheists and most non-crhistians. and I also think capitalism is way more rational than socialism but I'm not a religious conservative. I have never known of anyone with my views except for Ayn Rand and I feel really confused becsause whenever I say I'm an agnostic, people immediately asume I'm a socialist or a comunist, is this their mistake and close mindedness? or am I illogical by thinking this way?.

I think your classification of people into left=agnostic right=religious is a modern US phenomenon, not one valid historically or in other countries. Notinasnaid 14:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Western conservatism in its 18th century beginnings emphasized tradition, custom, and respect for vested institutions, which included Christianity (both Catholicism and Protestantism, depending on country). That's the very broad answer as to how "the right" and religiousity became interwined. Note the reductionism involved in contemporary application however: one is deemed conservative by virtue of religion often without consideration of mitigating characteristics. Thus, for instance, the Supreme Leader in Iran is a "conservative cleric". "Socialist cleric" might be just as appropriate if you consider the Iranian economic model but the labels rarely work that way.
There are definitely non-religious movements that can be considered conservative. The military establishment in Turkey has traditionally enforced a kind of militant securalism in the country. I'm quite certain amongst "once Communist now ultra-nationalist" Russians you'll find more than a few atheists. And, as you note, Objectivism is decidedly conservative and also anti-religious. Marskell 14:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting how the US Republican Party has succesfully convinced the public it's the "party of God", despite the fact that many traditional Christian values (like assistance to the poor, quality education for all, and equal treatment for all of "God's children") are not particularly part of the Republican Party platform, but more of a Democratic ideal. Somehow the Democrats have lost the image war and are viewed as the "party of Godless homosexuals and criminals". StuRat 14:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the left. Marx was an atheist and highly critical of religion. Although I wouldn't say he was 'anti-religion' as much as 'anti-church' or 'anti-organized-religion'. (He criticized religion for being a tool of the ruling classes. I can't see how that applies to personal spirituality.) In any case, the Soviet Union identified itself as an 'atheist state'. During the Cold War, this also helped fuel the religious right in the US (see how 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance). So while the left has in general been critical of religion, saying left = atheist is as much an overgeneralisation as saying right = religious. Just about anyone closer to the center than Marxist-Leninists tend to be in favor of religious freedom. All Social Democrat parties for instance. And even the more totalitarian Arab Socialism for instance, was certainly not overtly atheist or anti-religion, although anti-fundamentalist. (Religious fundamentalists tend however to be exclusively extreme-right). --BluePlatypus 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so, given there is such an ideological diversity, the people that say I'm a comunist or a socialist just because I'm an agnostic are just plain silly and rigid minded? I for example, most of the time agree with right wing economic and political issues, but I dispise religion because I think rationality and capitalism go hand in hand, and comunism and religion go hand in hand too because they demand blind faith and equality for all and all that.

IMO, implying that you are a communist because you're an agnostic isn't rigid-minded, it's fundamentalist. Or at least diametrically opposed to the ideas of the Enlightenment and the principles the USA was founded on; namely that religion is a personal matter and not a political one. But in my opinion you're being silly and rigid-minded if you think that capitalism is somehow more "rational" than communism. Communism is a highly rational ideology. Marx would not be considered a great thinker if it hadn't been. Das Kapital is not two volumes consisting of thousands of pages of propaganda which requires "blind faith". It is a logical and well-argumented social and economic analysis. Regardless if you agree with that analysis or not, saying that there isn't one is simply ignorant. In case someone is wondering, no I am not a communist nor Marxist. That doesn't mean I can't respect Marx as a philosopher, and others should as well. --BluePlatypus 17:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just as an aside, I've met many, many conservative atheists and agnostics over the years in philosophy groups. They are out there but they generally don't advertise their religious views since currently in the U.S. so much of the political strength of the right is vested in appearing "more religious" than the left. --Fastfission 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are hundreds of millions of non-religious right-wingers (and religious left-wingers) all over the world. What is happening with the religious right in the US is just one place in one moment of time. Inconvenient for you though if you never get to meet anybody with other views! Do you live in the Bible Belt or something? My advice would be to get out of there, unless you want to spend your whole life like that! Jameswilson 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the bible belt? and why should I get out if I lived there? (which I don't)haha --Cosmic girl 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might not be a bible belt in South America. Black Carrot 02:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Legislators Pensions[edit]

I would like to know what the current rules are regarding our US Senators and Congressmen receiving pensions and when the last major change in these rules took place? A summary of this will be acceptable.

Thank you

David

  • There is a factsheet explaining Congressional pensions on the homepage of Congressman Mark Green of Wisconsin. It is here. PedanticallySpeaking 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author is probably concerned about a email that goes around now and then that claims congressmen continue to get millions of dollars every year until they die - even after office. Sometimes it claims their families continue to rake in millions after they die. There is no truth to the email. It is very easy to tell that if it was true, nobody would continue putting up with Congress if they got millions of dollars to party the rest of their life. --Kainaw (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[edit]

Who are all the men with white hats on standing behind MLK during his famous "I have a dream" speech?

Viagra[edit]

Is the use of Viagra injurious to health?. Please reply in detail. Thank You.

  • Yes, it's a blood preasure effector that is grossly misprescribed, will almost certianly cause severe cardiovascular trauma if used by someone with any sort of blood preasure related problems--64.12.116.72 17:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Viagra article would be something that you should read. Dismas|(talk) 17:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural appropriation" vs. "Acculturation"[edit]

Is the term "Cultural appropriation" actually used by anthropologists as a subset of acculturation? Or is it only used in polemics and speeches? The article as written is horribly POV, and I've managed to clean up the introduction some, but I'm hindered by not actually knowing anything about the subject. What's the difference between the two terms? Is a merge appropriate? Any information would be appreciated. -- Creidieki 17:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a few articles whose unusual POV is actively defended by someone wielding a powerful American social taboo like a verbal truncheon. There are many other articles where your efforts might be more amicably received. alteripse 18:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really understand your comment (what taboo?), but no one's been impolite so far. I'm just trying to gather the information I need to fix this. I mostly need to know whether the term "cultural appropriation" is used in an academic setting. -- Creidieki 18:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acculturation usually refers to the process of a person or group adopting some of the behaviors of a culture which they are joining as new members. Cultural appropriation refers to adoption by one culture of items or behaviors from another culture. In these broad senses both are value-free descriptions of universal human cultural behaviors. alteripse 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet read your intro, but 'cultural appropriation' is anything but a value-free description. It's almost always used negatively, referring to the misuse of aspects of cultural life by dominant groups (consider the use of Native American symbols by new-agers, or Wiggers, for eg). There are plenty of academic pieces in the google link for reference. Natgoo 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're looking for a cite. This book of essays[25] from Rutger's University Press examines the topic with a working definition as "the taking - from a culture that is not one's own - of intellectual property, cultural expressions or artifacts, history and ways of knowing" for eg. Natgoo 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that with Natgoo that this has unfortunately become a common academic and popular usage. It has always struck me as a particularly nasty and bigoted PC usage, as if some cultural groups should not be privileged to borrow from others, or as if borrowing is a rare and sinisterly exploitative phenomenon instead of a universally human one. It is one of those terms that makes me silently think, "a__h__e", when I hear it used that way. alteripse 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sometimes it's done in nasty and sinister ways. I've added more at the article's talk page. Natgoo 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (re-signing)[reply]

I am sure you are aware of the irony of an entry on wikipedia (you don't own anything you contribute here) that takes seriously the racist philosophy that certain ethnic groups deserve exclusive ownership of a style of art, ideas, clothing style, way of talking, or other cultural meme. Western culture dominates the earth because it is human culture and its strength is that humani nil a me alienum; it has borrowed and gained from numberless sources and all ethnic groups it has come in contact with. How can anyone who subscribes to this idea condescend to the pernicious idea that certain cultural memes should be off-limits to people who are not "members of the tribe"? alteripse 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your or my opinion on the matter, it's a topic of study in the social sciences and should be included in Wikipedia in this context. Natgoo 00:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where this goes[edit]

How many people have died while playing the sport they invented? Vitriol 19:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. They didn't survive to propagate their great new sports, like crocodile riding or volcano surfing. alteripse 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, evolution at work. hydnjo talk 02:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"think of it as evolution in action" — Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle, Oath of Fealty, 1983. Lupo 09:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Volcano surfing : Plinius. He just got choked. Or was it a disguised suicide ? DLL

On a more serious note, Jim Fixx did die jogging. He didn't invent it, though, AFAIK - he was a chief protagonist in it gaining popularity. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From marathon: "The name "marathon" comes from the legend of Pheidippides, a Greek soldier who, according to legend, ran from the town of Marathon to Athens to announce that the Persians had been defeated in the Battle of Marathon, and died shortly after. There is no evidence that any such event took place; ..." – b_jonas 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies.........is it possible Due to technology and Discoveries Today[edit]

After Hurricane Katrina hit like that, for some reason everyone thinks anythings possible.Is it possible that zombies and other creatures can come about?

Dre

I hear that lots of rats and water muskrats "came about" but I think the zombies were evacuated to Baton Rouge so they could be recruited into the Republican party. alteripse 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even give it a thought till you mentioned the other vermin, but I bet there's a big nutria population explosion in New Orleans.... - Nunh-huh 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the critter I was trying to remember! Thanks. alteripse 11:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See zombie for info on medications that are believed to put a person in a zombie-like state. --Kainaw (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take "zombie" to mean someone who's capable of movement and obeying orders, but otherwise unconscious, then it's been possible for a very long time. But if you mean a soulless immortal corpse that feasts on the living, I think we're still a few more major disasters away from the Christian Apocalypse. --Mareino 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. Zombies are one imaginary disaster you can't hang on the Christians! Just because they might vote republican doesn't mean Christians invented them. alteripse 01:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And in all fairness, in Democratic strongholds, there's a long tradition of the dead voting Democratic. - Nunh-huh 01:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what Mareino? how come is someone or something unconscious going to be capable of movement and of processing orders and executing them? I don't get it.--Cosmic girl 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think hypnosis Jasongetsdown 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is voodoo for real? :S --Cosmic girl 14:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. There are poisons which will cause a form of brain damage that makes the victims highly susceptible to suggestions. These "zombies" were never dead, however, although some versions of the potion may cause them to go into a deep coma for several days. In northern climates it would be easy to tell they weren't dead, due to their warm body temp. However, in tropical climates with temps around body temp, there is no apparent temp change after death, so telling a comatose victim from a dead one takes more effort. Also, anyone who believes in the power of voodoo will be somewhat susceptible to curses, due to a negative version of the placebo effect. StuRat 12:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I'm a practitioner, though, so I would say that. However Vodou is not quite what Hollywood might lead you to expect. Malign magic such as making zombis is rare and much frowned upon in Haiti. Vodou is primarily about serving the l'wa (spirits/gods) and developing good character. Now the Hollywood concept of a zombi is wrong in other ways too: a zombi is someone who's been 'killed' (or seemingly killed, see tetrodotoxin) and raised again, their soul held captive by a black magician. They are generally forced to work on plantations like slaves. They don't attack people, and their 'zombi-ism' isn't contagious. This practice is as I've said very rare, but does exist, just as within Christianity Satanism is rare but it does exist. Fuzzypeg 11:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Prussia War[edit]

I am doing an extensive family research project and am hoping to find an ancestor that was killed the the Franco Prussia War. His name was Adam Wuerttemberger, killed sometime between 1870-1871. He was born in Germany around 1848. Any idea where I can locate soldier deaths?

Respectfully,

Brian Cusick

social studies[edit]

PLEASE: Describe the cultural diversity of New Orleans in the early 1800s, and explain how this community became the focal point of an international struggle for power during the War of 1812. THANK-YOU, faithanne

Smells an awful lot like homework, but here's a couple hints:

  1. Indians, French, Cajuns (former Acadians), Spanish, Americans from the US, pirates with cultural diversity. The British navy was the strongest in the Caribbean and was eager to acquire another port.
  2. New Orleans is one of the largests ports of North America and controls the entrance to one of the largest internal continental waterways in the world. New Orleans was the water gateway to everything in North America between the Appalachian Mountains and the Rocky Mountains and south of the Great Lakes.
  3. France claimed ownership of New Orleans and everything in North America between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains but was fighting the rest of the world in Europe at the time and was going to have trouble holding it if anyone invaded.
  4. The new US was trying to stay out of it but was having one confrontation after another with the French navy, with the British navy, with the Spanish in Florida, and the Indians lots of places.

You can take it from there... Good luck. alteripse 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Indians[edit]

Which is the oldest American Indian tribe still in existance today?

Impossible to say. Pre-literate peoples don't tell us when they are founded as a tribal entity, and cultural anthropology can't tell whether a pre-literate people is X or Y band. Material anthropology can show similarities in crafts, but that's all. No one is going to be able to say that one tribal division is older than another. That is, unless a DNA analysis is done on many people of native ancestry. This is all complicated by the fact that there was a massive migration of groups after the depopulation of North America after the first European contact and the smallpox outbreak. Geogre 22:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid DNA isn't going to provide the answer, as tribal identity has little to do with genetics. - Nunh-huh 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Clovis culture and Paleo Indians for info on the earliest settlement of the Americas. Marskell 09:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Moive Industry[edit]

To whom it may concern,

I'm a graduate student doing a research on the India Movie Industry. I was wondering if you could provide me some info or direction as to where I can find the following information. I would like to know how many full length motion pictures were produced in India in the past six or sevenyears, where they were produced and in what language/languages. Also, where wouside of India, were these movies sold and how much income they generated abroad, and how many viewers they attracted.

Thanks so much for your help

You could do worse than to start with our articles on cinema of India and Bollywood. --George 23:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Games[edit]

Hi,

Could anyone help me to find out the exact date the games's name changed to the 'Commonwealth Games'? I know it happened in 1978 however am after exact dates. Thank you for your help.

Tess

The name was changed to the Commonwealth Games for the 1978 Edmonton games, but the actual date the change was made was 27 January 1974, when a meeting of the General Assembly of the British & Commonwealth Games Federation voted to change the name to reflect the growth in Commonwealth membership, and the equality of member nations within the organisation.[26]. --Canley 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 17[edit]

Child Safety[edit]

We all probably agree that pedophiles and sex offenders are not the best people. However, usually every story has two sides, so, how would I, or anybody for that matter, consider opposing oppinions and contradictory evidence? Thanks for your help: Laureen

Try some of the external links in the Pedophilia article. hydnjo talk 02:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, if you haven't seen the excellent The Woodsman I'd recommend it. Even reviews of the film may give you food for thought on the topic. Marskell 09:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Other side?" What on earth do you mean? There isn't an "other side," as in "sex with children is good." There is another side in that clinical psychology can describe some of the conditions that may or may not be relevant to the development of the pathology of pedophilia, but every society in the west defines children as legally and psychologically inappropriate for sexual contact. Therefore, anyone who defies his society's social, legal, and cultural prohibitions is doing so out of some pathology or other. One cannot say, "We know cancer is bad, but what's the other side of the story?" The fact that this is an affective and sexual pathology means that the victims are convinced that they either must or should do what they do, but that's not germane: the society's voice sets the rules for being within its membership, whether there is an absolute value or not. Geogre 14:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why the concept of pedophilia is inherently evil, and there most definatelyis an 'other side'. There are those in this world who hope that they will some day find a child that loves them as they love it. Hardly inherently evil, and not even necessarily moraly reprehensible.
As for cancer, it may have redeeming qualities too. Perhaps benign tumours are delicious. My point is that there are very few absolutes, and responding to a question with nothing but emotive rethoric is useless. -- Ec5618 11:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The closest to an "other side" you'd see today is in certain very marginal advocacy groups. You could start by reading our article on pedophile activism. You might also want to read the articles on child sexuality or pederasty in ancient Greece. --George 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many cultures around the world have had, and some still have, child brides. StuRat 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The pederasty in ancient Greece is definitely your best bet. The major distinction there is that, in ancient Greece, there was at least a feeling that the children were not being exploited, forced to act against their will, stigmatized, made to feel pain, or otherwise put through social/phsyical/emotional trauma. We can look back on from our modern view and say they were deluded or sick, of course, but let's focus on modern-day. What is beyond dispute is that a modern-day pederast WOULD put a child through some sort of trauma. I would submit that putting someone through trauma without seeking social consent is always wrong, regardless of what culture or time one lives in. --Mareino 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "other side" here was not "can it be justified?" but "what other issues attend to the topic?", e.g. reintegration and rehabilitation for sex offenders (hence my Woodsman post) or psychological scarring that leads to pedophilic desire. Note too, that pedophilia (and to a lesser extent psychopathy) are generally treated in the vernacular as denoting acts when they are actually medical diagnoses. A large majority of psychopaths don't wind up serial killers and I'd guess a majority of pedophiles never molest children. Repression has it uses. Marskell 08:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Media and popular culture[edit]

I am trying to find concise summaries, with examples, of the nature of the relationship between the British media and popular culture. Has the media's influence on pop. culture increased with the advent of sattelite/cable TV and deregulation? Is the media influenced by pop. culture, or the other way round. Any ideas would be most welcome. GM 195.188.141.162 08:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at how BBC programs have changed over the years with pop culture. StuRat 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a strange question to me. Media is the means (medium) that culture is expressed through. You can't distinguish between the two. It's like asking "What effect have pipes had on the water system?" --BluePlatypus 20:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Media could reflect popular culture, create it, or a bit of both. StuRat 11:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pencils[edit]

Why are pencils yellow?

An overwhelmingly successful pioneer company made it a tradition (the same answer as for why New York taxis are yellow). alteripse 13:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not yellow everywhere, why, i don't think i have even seen a yellow pencil!--Ali K 14:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like the taxis, yellow pencils may be mainly a US phenomenon. But take a look at any American office supply or stationery store and you will see that yellow is the predominant color for old-fashioned wooden pencils. An engineer named Petrovski wrote a book about the history of pencils in 1992, which I suspect provides further details about the original company and the yellow tradition (which I think may date back to the late 19th century).
File:Nat marble 12.jpg

I just found this link, [27], which has this explanation: Pencils have been painted yellow ever since the 1890s. And that bright color isn't just so you can find them on your desk more easily! During the 1800s, the best graphite in the world came from China. American pencil makers wanted a special way to tell people that their pencils contained Chinese graphite. In China, the color yellow is associated with royalty and respect. American pencil manufacturers began painting their pencils bright yellow to communicate this "regal" feeling and association with China. The rest, as they say, is history. Today, 75% of the pencils sold in the United States are painted yellow! alteripse 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International sidenote: in Germany, pencils are predominantly green. Apparently, this is because Alexander Count Castell, who became owner of the Faber pencil company through marriage in 1898 (from then on called Faber-Castell), had served in the military before and his regimental color was green [28]. You learn something new every day :) -- Ferkelparade π 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to plug a book I enjoyed: Henry Petrowski, The Pencil (ISBN 0679734155). Full of lovely details for the fact fanatics. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me, then, to plug the rest of Henry Petroski's books, and especially To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design. By the way, pencils in Canada are also commonly yellow. --Anonymous, 00:45 UTC, January 18, 2006.
International sidenote 2: Few pencils in India are yellow. deeptrivia (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what color are they?? -Nunh-huh 07:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of colors depending on brandname. See for example, this. deeptrivia (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen these ones in reality, but these multicolored pencils on the right are funny. deeptrivia (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, pencils tend to yellow-orange or red on three sides, and black on the other three (So they go Yellow, Black, Yellow, Black etc.) smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
national pencil colors
United States
Canada
Germany
India
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Now that is a nice descriptive table. I'd suggest including it (along with the facts of this discussion) in Pencil. If I check in a few days and it's not done, I'll do it myself! GeeJo (t) (c) • 00:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the table and tried to summarise the dicussion. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Sex and mastrubation result in loss of energy?[edit]

Does production of sperm in human body take huge amounts of energy? Does regular mastrubation (and sperm outgo) result in a very weak body? If yes, then how do men, after marriage become more fat, chubbier and get belley? If both are true, does that mean that mastrubation will weaken the body while sex will make us fatter?

Those are myths. From Aristotle, who said (in Latin translation), "Omne animalia post coitum triste" ("all animals feel sad after sex") to the various hygiene movements of the 19th century, people have told stories about masturbation. In the humour theory, it was believed that there was a finite amount of "vital essence" in the human body and that any orgasm was "le petite morte." However, it's all nonsense based solely upon natural blood pressure, respiration, and adrenal responses to the refractory phase. People are neither weakened nor strengthened by emissions of that sort. However, sperm count on average, it appears, is increased by frequent male masturbation, as the testicles grow to anticipate the duty they're serving and ramp up production, at the same time that individual emissive sperm count lowers to some degree (i.e. if you're trying to induce pregnancy or get paid for a sperm bank donation, one should try to be three days or so from an onanistic act). The human body was not meant to crumple into feebleness when it does its reproductive duty. Geogre 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding a broader sense, sex DOES result in loss of energy! You can burn quite a few calories with this activity (if it is intense enough, of course). This website lets you calculate the calories burnt during several activities, including moderate and vigorous sex. A google serch would probably find a similar thing for masturbation. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 16:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
La petite mort : the little death. La petite morte : the little dead one (a female). DLL.
Oops. I suppose not everyone has my luck in dating. Geogre 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Masturbation involves relatively little physical movement, and so should be irrelevant to chubbiness. The men who get fat after marriage are a) getting less sex than before marriage, and b) eating more in an attempt to comfort themselves. Mark1 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is an absurd over-generalisation. JackofOz 04:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And of course c) letting themselves go because they are no longer on the pull. Mark1 11:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as people hit middle age their metabolism changes. 69.154.179.63 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And depression has been well documented to add to weight gain. --Kainaw (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of masturbating to very graphic porn can affect your experience of sex with a partner, because it conditions you to require that imagery to become aroused. It's interesting - violence and pornography are the two types of image that seem to stick in your head most insidiously (and you can see how this is exploited in marketing). I have nothing against porn per se, but I'd caution against going overboard with it. Fuzzypeg 11:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ratification of the constitution[edit]

North Carolinians ratified the Constitution in what city?

Fayetteville, North Carolina, 21 November 1789. "By legislative enactment, a Constitutional Convention was called to meet at Hillsboro, on July the 25th, 1788, “For the purpose of deliberating and determining on the proposed plan of Federal Government, and fixing the unalterable seat of government for this state." This convention rejected the Constitution. "The General Assembly, after having rejected a bill providing for the calling of another Convention, reconsidered its action, and a second Convention was called to meet at Fayetteville on November the 16th, 1789". " Public sentiment had undergone a complete change and the advocates of ratification had an easy victory, winning by a majority of 118." [29]. "Resolved, that this Convention in behalf of the freemen, citizens and inhabitants of the State of North Carolina, do adopt and ratify the said Constitution and form of Government. Done in Convention this 21 day of November 1789." [30]- Nunh-huh 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

movies[edit]

What was the first full length movie to be made in Color. What year was it made. Thanks. WSC

It appears to be The Toll of the Sea released in 1922. - Akamad 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, that article claims it was the second technicolor feature. It should be noted, however, that even before technicolor, films were not necessarily black and white, but used a variety of systems to color the images, such as hand-painting of individual frames, stencil coloring, tinting, toning etc. David Sneek 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kinemacolor preceded Technicolor. There were many shorts in Kinemacolor. In 1912, a full-length documentary, "The Durbar at Delhi", was released. "The World, the Flesh, and the Devil" (full length fiction movie) followed in 1914. Technicaolor was then invented in 1915 to compete with Kinemacolor. --Kainaw (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A late response, but perhaps someone is still reading. According to The Guinness Book of Movie Facts & Feats, 5th edition, 1993, by Patrick Robertson (ISBN 0-85112-706-1):
  • The first full-length feature film in color was The World, the Flesh, and the Devil (1914), in Kinemacolor, as mentioned above. This was a two-color process and could not reproduce the full range of colors that the human eye can distinguish.
  • The first full-length feature film in color produced in the US, the first in Technicolor, and the third in the world, was The Gulf Between Us (1917). However, this early version of Technicolor was also a two-color process.
  • The first full-length talking feature film in color was On with the Show (1929), a musical in two-color Technicolor starring Betty Compson and Joe E. Brown.
  • The first full-length feature film in three-color color, the kind we know today, was Becky Sharp (1935), starring Cedric Hardwicke and Miriam Hopkins. This was the three-color version of Technicolor and was used thereafter for almost all color films until Kodak's Eastmancolor appeared in the 1950s.
--Anonymous, 06:45 UTC, January 19, 2006.

Movie[edit]

What year was the movie "Gone With the Wind" released. What year did Margaret Mitchel die?

We do recommend searching before you ask questions. For the answers, see Gone With The Wind which has links to information about the film and the author. Notinasnaid 17:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party and Members of Congress in USA[edit]

Can members of the United States Congress be members of the communist party? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.13 (talk • contribs) .

  • It's competely lawful now. I'm not sure about whether there once was a legal ban, or whether there was just the perception of a legal ban. Red Scare is a good article to start on. --Mareino 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there has ever been a ban. Qualifications for election to Congress are set out by Article One of the United States Constitution and existed well before communism was invented. It is true that former members of a Communist Party have more than a bit of trouble naturalizing in the US, so a Communist immigrant would have trouble getting elected to Congress. --George 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what democracy is all about. What would the point in having a political party be if their members weren't allowed to run for office? --BluePlatypus 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the Mann Act had forbidden and outlawed the Communist Party USA. Membership in that party was illegal. Hence, members of that organization could not be members of Congress. I believe that, while several provisions of the act have been revoked, it is still largely in force. When it was passed, the actual Communist Party split up. Most changed their name, since that immunized them, believe it or not. However, people could be and were arrested for remaining members of the CPUSA. The logic of the Act, for what it's worth, is that the Party had an overt goal of the violent overthrow of the United States Constitution, which is treason. Geogre 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean the Smith Act, which prohibited organizing to overthrow the government by violent means. The Mann Act deals with something else entirely. -- Mwalcoff 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that I was incorrect about the Mann Act, but I don't think the Smith Act is the target, either. My apologies for not being more precise. The Act that has now slipped my memory was invoked most recently around the time of the Helms-Burton Act and was used to deny travel visas to "dangerous" radicals like Carlos Fuentes. It was an Act that had been largely dormant in it's "political undesirables are criminal" provisions and was being reawakened. It wasn't the editor's question, though, quite, but I appreciate the correction. Geogre 01:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Powell v. McCormick, decided by the Supreme Court in 1969, Congress cannot refuse to seat any member who was duly elected by his/her constituency, unless he/she does not meet the requirements set out in the Constitution. (Basically the only rules are that the person be a citizen for at least seven years to serve in the House (nine in the Senate), actually live in the place they were elected to serve, and be at least 25 years old to serve in the House and 30 years old to serve in the Senate.) Now, once seated, either house can vote to expel any member for pretty much any reason, as long as two-thirds of the members vote to do so. But they can't be stopped from taking office in the first place. --Aaron 06:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Americans view Communism as much of a threat anymore, but rather something to be left alone to die on it's own. This was different in the 1920's and 1930's, following the Communist Revolution in Russia and during the Great Depression, then again during the 1950's and 1960's following the Communist victory in China and the start of the Cold War. During those times there was significant fear of Communists "infiltrating" government and American society in general, so some actions were taken against them, such as the House Unamerican Activities Committee. However, these days whatever few remaining dyed-in-the-wool communists remain are viewed as pathetic, not dangerous. StuRat 14:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a Degree[edit]

What is a degree in law called? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.224.96.244 (talk • contribs) .

  • In the USA, a Juris Doctor. I can't recall the answer for any other nations off the top of my head, but it's definitely a differently titled degree in most other countries. --Mareino 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a few U.S. law schools still award the Bachelor of Laws although the course of study isn't significantly different from what the Juris Doctor schools offer. The trend in the U.S. has been for law schools to move from the LL.B. to the J.D. JamesMLane 05:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, it is usually a Bachelor of Laws, or LL.B. See that article for more info. Ground Zero | t 19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my case (UK) a BA in Jurisprudence. Mark1 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Licenciatura en derecho" (Spanish), "Licence en droit" (French), Juristisches Staatsexamen (German). --BluePlatypus 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1952 republican convention at chicago international amphitheatre[edit]

who handed pres. elect eisenhower his acceptance speach? it was on july 11th thanks in advance jack gallagher jacjoey at aol dot com

Please no plain email ; and let us answer for the community.
Now no Insert formula here no more. As for Mr Eisenhower : dunno. Searching ... ... ... ... back in some time. --Harvestman 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean who introduced him? --Cam 06:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identity[edit]

Hello, the subject of particular interest is identity in the architecture, but before approaching it I need it to start from a state of the question of the word and to analyze the different definitions and the connotations that it acquires. I would appreciate that you recommend me bibliography referred to the general and specific subject.

Identity is a disambiguation page that gives links to quite a few articles, each using the word in a different way. David Sneek 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best starting point for gaining a full understanting of any word would be the OED. Most major libraries will have a copy.
Identity in Architecture has certianly be written about. I don't know any particular authors to recommend though. Jasongetsdown 15:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an analogy between a person and his home, even when it is a rent flat. There is also the name, e.g. "Mon repos" seaside villa or St Petersburg (must be Peter the Great's town). Also, the place you live in identifies you : a suburb with trees and far for the smoke of the city, a little country cottage ... Is this pertinent to your question ? --DLL 14:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 18[edit]

Buckingham Palace dimensions[edit]

What is the square footage of Buckingham Palace? --24.184.40.229 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could measure the outline from satellite photos, then count the number of floors from a pic of Buckingham Palace... Ojw 12:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China Beach[edit]

How does My Khe, a beach in Cental Vietnam come to be called China Beach?™

According to my map of Vietnam, My Khe and China Beach are side-by-side. There is also a note that many people assume they are one beach and refer to both beaches as either My Khe or China Beach. They are not the same beach. Since it is on the South China Sea, it may have easily been called "The Beach on the South China Sea" and then shortened to "China Beach". --Kainaw (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger[edit]

What did Heidegger say about technology? I didn't understand the article, sometimes it seems he is against it and others he cherrishes it...--Cosmic girl 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he ever makes any conclusive statement about technology. I've only read Building Dwelling Thinking (its a beautiful read) which is where his thoughs on "Dwelling" are really laid out. Basically in order to be humans must dwell. Dwelling entails projecting an order into that which we see. We measure the land in order to make a relationship with it and then we build in order to sort of centralize our concept of that place. In the Heideggerian view, buildings are markers that we use to create our relationship with places. We manifest our relationship with what he called "the fourfold" (earth, sky, divinities, and mortals) through building, which allows us to dwell authentically.
As I see it, technology is the instrument by which all this occures. A distinction could be drawn between "modern" technology and traditional technologies but I don't think its very meaningful. Building can be interpreted many ways. You could interpret the Internet as the product of our attempts to dwell in a fast moving modern world. But building is also things like decorating your office cubicle, or lanscaping your yard, or painting your apartment when you move in. We use technologies to make all these things happen.
Hope that answered your question ;) And if you're interested, Building Dwelling Thinking can be seen here, but I much prefer it in physical book form (which has all sorts of Heideggerian implications of course). Jasongetsdown 15:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) --Cosmic girl 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popol Vuh in the original Mayan?[edit]

I'm wondering if anyone knows of a freely available online version of the Popol Vuh in the original classical Mayan, preferably in both the original script and a transliteration into Latin. All I seem to be able to find are Spanish and English translations, not the original text. --86.135.217.213 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC) EDIT: OK... having actually read the article on the Popul Vuh properly (ahem) I now change the above to a request for the original version in Quiché Mayan and drop the request for it in the original script (which apparently doesn't exist). --86.135.217.213 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Dickinson[edit]

This book says that when Emily Dickinson was nine years old, her father commissioned a painter named Otis Bullard to paint portraits of each member of his family, including the future poet, who is the "most fully characterized" of the children. The only images I've ever seen of Emily Dickinson - at any age - are the two on WP's article on her. Where can one see this painting of Dickinson at age 9? Zafiroblue05 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson[edit]

What is Andrew Jackson's nickname other than old hickory. It is Old blank Face. I dont know what the blank is but I know it is 4 letters. What is it? anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.100.114 (talk • contribs)

And you know that it's four letters (it may be of some help to a Ref Desker) because? hydnjo talk 03:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crossword puzzle clue? AnonMoos 06:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was also known as the "Hero of New Orleans" or "King Andy"
I don't know if it could be "duel," but he participated in over two hundred of them and never lost. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American woman president[edit]

The article Michelle Bachelet#Political life states that she is "the first woman who was not the wife of a previous head of state or political leader to reach the presidency of a Latin American nation in a direct election." Why the circumlocution? Which women were president before her? Common Man 05:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was thinking of Isabel Peron - depending on how one defines "Latin America". JackofOz 07:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a definition of Latin America that doesn't include Argentina? --BluePlatypus 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Thanks, though, JackofOz - that's probably it. I'll simplify that sentence accordingly. Common Man 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote is correct, even if a little contrived:

—Cantus…☎ 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough reply! I'm sorry that I changed the sentence. Common Man 08:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic and Protestant[edit]

--BluePlatypus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Is it roughly true that in Europe Germanic people are Protestant and Romance people are Catholic? deeptrivia (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Bavaria or Austria... AnonMoos 06:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly yes. Luther was German of course and the country is broadly considered Protestant though the number of Catholics has always been quite high. Scandinavia went decidely Protestant after the Reformation (bear in mind the geographic remove b/w Rome and the Germanic-speaking countries) while England adopted Anglicanism. Marskell 07:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland and Poland aren't much closer to Rome, nor do they speak romance languages, and they've always been devoutly Catholic. It was more about politics. --BluePlatypus 10:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is an exception, yes. Polish, however, is NOT a germanic language, it's slavic IIRC. The bigger germanic languages are german, dutch, english, afrikaans and the scandinavian languages (not including finnish, which is finno-ugric). To further complicate the issue, we have lots of descendants to italians etc in the USA. Most of them speak English today even if their ancestors spoke italian. It is more unusal that they have lost their religion, however... TERdON 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a pointless "correction". Who said Polish was Germanic? Irish isn't Germanic either. That wasn't the point adressed. --BluePlatypus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the main question (far above) didn't mention slavic languages at all, but merely romance and germanic ones, I thought it would be appropiate to point out that Polish is neither to avoid misunderstandings. By the way, what are the common types of Christianity in other eastern Europe countries? Most of them have slavic languages, and I don't really think all of them have orthodox churches. And actually the main language in Ireland isn't really irish anymore, it would be English. Which indeed is germanic. Otherwise that argument works perfectly well for Sweden and Norway as well (neither sami or finnish are germanic languages, and are languages of (some) native Swedes and Norwegians...). TERdON 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though to say that Anglicanism is entirely Protestant is to ignore how Catholic it is in some areas, both geographical and religious. However, I guess the original question was phrased with the typical and incorrect belief that all Catholics are members of the Church of Rome. [[Sam Korn]] 12:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, the Church of England comes along before Martin Luther. It is the first Reformed Church. Also, other national churches are frequently non-Lutheran and non-Roman Catholic as well. In particular, while Calvinism dominates the noisy side of the Protestant movement these days, it has historically been the smallest portion of the pie. (I'm not sure to whom to credit the origins of Baptist thought, as Congregationalist churches, which are now numerous, lack a defined theological dogma.) Geogre 14:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to nitpick (no that's not true I love to nitpick), but Luther's protestant movement broke with Rome before Henry VIII's Church of England did. Both of course claimed continuity with the earliest Christian church. Luther nailed the 95 theses in 1517 and the break with Rome was complete by 1519. If I recall, Henry VIII in his younger days was awarded the title defensor fidei precisely because he argued against Luther. He didn't force the C of E to break with Rome until 1532. So what are your grounds for claiming the C of E preceded Martin Luther (unless you are using disparate starting points, in which case foul!)? alteripse 01:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians, a Romance people, are Orthodox, like their Slav neighbours. Ireland's own language, Gaelic, is not a romance language. Dutch-speaking people, who speak a Germanic language, are divided between the predominantly Protestant people of the Netherlands, and the predominantly Catholics Flemings in Belgium. Ground Zero | t 16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is freedom acquire or inborn[edit]

Depends where you live. AllanHainey 12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also depends upon whether you're an existentialist or empiricist. Geogre 12:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or a cat. I think it was Heidigger who said that. Or maybe I just made it up. --George 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously acquired, although to those living in a the "free world" it's an easy mistake to make to assume it's inborn. --86.135.217.213 19:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so obvious. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that people are born free, and have lack of freedom imposed, while John Locke argued the converse. GeeJo (t) (c) • 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom in animals or babies is beautiful and not learned. That's what we seek the rest of our lifes. Then, as is the same for everything, beauty, love ... freedom has to be learnt unrelentlessly ; it must be something different in the very concept, because it is associated with will and desire and mind, an can somethimes come back to expression and gesture. --DLL 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take the converse view to your own: no being is naturally "free", and animals and babies are even less so than adult sapients. We are enslaved to Nature by our very design, through evolution. The freedom of which is most often spoken of today is artificial; it is a trick of a modern system of decentralized governance known as "capitalism" (aka "democracy") that gives us the illusion of freedom in the form of the ability to communicate more effectively. However, it is not the natural state of the human being to seek this artificial freedom - this is an alien goal imposed on it by the dogma of our society. Real freedom is in knowing that you can never "free yourself" in the fashion that society expects and be true to the form of your natural self - a slave to nature. In reality, we must either master the self and be at peace with our place in true nature (not that offered by society), or abandon all hope of ever being free. Put simply: Most humans are naturally slaves, some pretend to be servants, but very fewer are truly masters. :) I'm pretty sure I believe something like that. --86.135.217.213 14:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you babbling about? If I understand your position correctly (and I do) you believe people can't truly be 'free' within the bounds of government, and should instead be 'free' within the bounds of 'nature'. I would be very interested to know, however, in exactly what ways you follow this doctrine to its logical conclusion, since you are apparently well enough connected to the grid to have internet access. To move on to your senseless slaughter of basic knowledge: You claim that capitalism is Also Known As democracy, and that both mean either representative or confederate government, depending on what you mean by 'decentralized'. Capitalism is an economic system, however, involved with freedom of trade (rather than, for instance, communism, which said, you get this much and be grateful for it) and democracy is a system of government, involved with freedom from autocratic rule. You claim the freedom most talked of today is an artificial freedom and a trick of the modern system of decentralized government, yet I get the impression that the most common forms of freedom talked about today are freedom from oppression, persecution and genocide, which people were doing long before the 'modern' governments you're talking about even existed. By mentioning communicating more effectively, I assume you're referring to freedom of speech, freedom of the press or mass communication. What makes you think free and easy communication creates illusory freedom? Most totalitarian governments would disagree. They know from bitter experience that, if you let the people talk to each other, they'll soon be fighting for real freedom. More important than those things, though, is your apparent claim that it is better to break the bonds of continental community, and strike out on our own, free to survive in the wilderness by our wits unaided. Even apart from the problems that would cause in modern times (what with a population unsupportable by streams and farmland, and without skill or guidance), do you have any idea how hard it could be to live like that back when it was the thing to do? My family and I went to a zoo a little while ago, and had an interesting talk with the experts in the Australian section. They had some fascinating stories about the megafauna of Australia, about people disappearing in the night, swollowed by alligators and the like. Of course, being the pwnsrs we are, any time we're faced with a giant monster we hunt it down and kill it, so those kinds of animals are less common now. You might also be interested in Before Cows Were Giant Hamsters, which provides another example of what 'nature' could dish out before we tamed it. There's also the fact that outhouses didn't exist back then, flush toilets are a pretty recent invention, and paper for them is even more recent than that. You want to be that free, punk? Bitch. Black Carrot 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London[edit]

Why do attractive people only come out after 0830 in the morning on londons transport system ?

Because they're getting their beauty sleep before then :) Natgoo 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the industries in which a beautiful face is required, such as modelling, advertising or say theatre, they tend to have jobs which have laxer regulations over starting times (perhaps worth looking into the etymology of the phrase "fashionably late"). Other industries such as Banking or IT tend to have clearly defined start times. Of a similar note, it was a source of continuing envy for me at University that Science Faculty classes, which are typically male dominated, always seemed to be in the morning, whereas the Arts faculty, which was similary female dominated, had the majority of their classes in the afternoon. Gallaghp 12:53, 18 January 2006 (GMT)
They do come out earlier; the tube trains are so late and crowded they don't get on until 8:30 :-). On a serious note, it's possible they needed the time to apply make-up etc. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the author's eyes don't focus properly until after 8:30, so everyone looks ugly until then. --Kainaw (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full name of Hugh Gaitskell's father-in-law[edit]

I would be very grateful if you could please tell me the full name of Hugh Gaitskell's father-in-law. With thanks.

He was Guy Lawrence Charteris (1886-1967), second son of Hugo Richard Charteris (1857-1937), 11th Earl of Wemyss & March, fourth son of Francis Richard Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas (1818-1914), 8th Earl of Wemyss & March. - Nunh-huh 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. However it seems to be incorrect. The surname of Hugh Gaitskell's father-in-law was Creditor. Hugh's wife, i.e. Creditor's daughter, was called Dora and she was born on 25 April 1901. Can you please let me know what was Creditor's first name? Thank you.

That last answer is a bit odd as Guy Lawrence Charteris is the grandfather of Cynthia Asquith. I don't know if the families are related or if it was simply a mix up of prime ministers' wives. Dora Gaitskell's father was Leon Creditor, her mother Tessa Jaffé and Dora was born near Riga. Source ODNB MeltBanana 14:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer.

Sorry for the confusion. There's a family connection, but it's not the one you wanted, so I've stricken out my wrong answer above so it doesn't mislead. - Nunh-huh 01:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images[edit]

I wrote and submitted an article on Uqair, an ancient fort in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I would like to submit and image as well. How do I do this?

[Question moved from the top] basically just click on Upload file (should be on the left of your browser window), also see Wikipedia:Uploading images. MeltBanana 15:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you will need to have an account and be logged in to upload images. Also, this type of question belongs at the help desk, not here. -- AJR | Talk 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that when uploading an image, you'll need to provide a source and a license. for a list of the latter, see WP:ICT. GeeJo (t) (c) • 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Bachelet[edit]

I've read in the Washington Post that Michelle Bachelet went to middle school in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. (See [31]). I've searched on google and in wikipedia and I haven't been able to find which middle school it was. If anyone knows, can figure out or can point me to a better place to look for more information, I'd greatly appreciate it. NoIdeaNick 15:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth and Oldness[edit]

Youth is a good asset but unfortunately it is given only to young ones. Give me your views please.

Youth is given to old people too, but it was so long ago that they forgot where they put it. AllanHainey 16:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a little bit like a homework essay. Nevertheless, it seems to be impossible: Youth (n):The quality or state of being young (Wiktionary). If the old could be given youth, it would hardly be youth, would it? Vitality, maybe, but not youth. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the lunatic president of Turkmenistan has officially decreed that youth lasts until 37 [32]. Marskell 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cumaean Sibyl (or Sibyl of Cumae) was granted a wish by Apollo. She asked for eternal life, and he granted it. She did not ask for eternal youth. Thus, she grew older and older, more and more withered, until, according to Trimalchio in Satyricon, by the salacious "Petronius," she was kept in an ampula, or terra cotta jar. Trimalchio says that her attendants asked "Sibulla tis theleis;" and she replied "apokthein thelo" ("Sibyl, what do you want?" "I want to die"). This was used as the epigram to The Wasteland by T. S. Eliot. He seemed to think that Western Civilization was in the Sibyl's state. Geogre 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be pedantic, but the words reported by Trimalchio/Petronius cannot have been quite as transliterated here. I'm afraid I don't know how to write the Greek characters (can anyone guide me on this?) but the words must have been 'Sibulla, ti theleis? Apothanein thelo' or (less likely) 'Apothneskein thelo'. And ampulla has a double 'l'. Maid Marion 09:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working from memory, but I believe it is "apokthein." You're probably right about the tis/ti, as I never could get that rule right when I took the class. (I thought Latin was hard until I took Attic Greek. I thought that was hard until I tried to take Irish. I then thought I was bad at languages, until I took French and realized that not everything was as hard as Latin and Greek and Irish. Then I began rapidly forgetting ancient languages.) (Is the kappa missing in "apothanein/apokthanein?" I'll check later.) There used to be a limited Greek alphabet visible by default on the editing screen. One can display it by choosing "special characters" at the bottom of the editing box. Geogre 12:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice about Greek characters - I'll experiment later. As for the quotation, apokthein is not a Greek word (or not Classical Greek at any rate). The present infinitive is apothneskein (the middle e has an iota subscript, but that is beyond transliteration!), and the aorist infinitive is apothanein, which I imagine is what was intended. Maid Marion 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth is a gift for every living entity. It allows it to spawn seed and then prepare to die. After it can be fun too, you still can love, play, make fun, think ; and maybe run slower. --DLL 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Existance is a good asset, but unfortunately it is given only to existant ones. Hmm, that reminds me to Smullyan's book. Life is a good asset, but ... – b_jonas 16:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 19[edit]

Israel and The Law of Return[edit]

Is it ture that a Jewish person can claim Israeli citizenship by returning to Israel and applying? What are the requirements to become a citizen of Israel? What documents are needed and where can I obtain more information? --00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)~~

Why don't you try:
  • a) moving to Israel

or

Or better yet; try both! СПУТНИКССС Р 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very helpful. Law of Return is fairly long-winded, and goes into more depth about ten controversies than the actual application of the law. Ultimately you need to go to Who_is_a_Jew#Definitions_in_the_State_of_Israel for a succinct answer. Anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent, or spouses of Jews can apply for citizenship. Proof of identity/lineage along with a statement from a rabbi should be enough in this case. If you're a convert, you'd need a statement from a Beth din confirming your status. GeeJo (t) (c)• 00:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goethe's Faust Pt II[edit]

At the end of Goethe's Faust Pt II, Faust ascends into heaven. However, I've read various interpretations that contest whether this is because (1) Mephistopheles loses the bet so the Angels claim what is rightly theirs (Booknotes), or (2) Mephistopheles wins the bet, but does not get Faust merely because of the Angels' trickery (Wikipedia). Which is correct? --JianLi 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It depends entirely on who you were rooting for, doesn't it? Dalembert 00:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Wikipedia link is correct. The angels don't really make the case that Mephistopheles lost the bet, and he believes he has been cheated:
Mir ist ein großer, einziger Schatz entwendet:
Die hohe Seele, die sich mir verpfändet,
Die haben sie mir pfiffig weggepascht.
Bei wem soll ich mich nun beklagen?
David Sneek 10:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --JianLi 03:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alarm clocks[edit]

What sort of alarm mechanism (like an alarm clock), could a functionally deaf person use in order to wake up on time? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are vibrating/bed-shaker alarm clocks that for the deaf and hard of hearing. —Wayward Talk 11:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds complicated and non-portable. I should clarify I'm just asking out of interest. Any further information about such devices? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are portable ones which just sit inside the user's pillow case, the RNID has some examples shown in their online shop[33] which (they say) are suitable for people with profound hearing impairment. -- AJR | Talk 16:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mobile phones and certain watches can also be used to set alarms and vibrate when they go off, though I'm not certain how effective they'd be at waking someone up. GeeJo (t) (c) • 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The solution for ringing telephones is to have a light flash. It would be easy enough to have a slightly brighter light flash to indicate a wake up time. It would certainly work, require very little voltage, and be quite practical. Geogre 12:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A colleague of mine has an alarm clock which is best described as a lamp with a dimmer switch. When the alarm goes off, instead of a buzzer the light turns on. It starts off dim and then gets increasingly brighter. He considers it to be the most natural way of waking up, as it mimics the sunrise in the morning. Gallaghp 13:26, 19 January 2006 (GMT)
A very nice idea for a present. Try (googled for it) : alarm lamp. --DLL 13:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also [34] on vibrating alarms. – b_jonas

Proof of the existence of Jesus[edit]

Without wanting to offend anyone's religious beliefs, I'm curious to know whether there is any evidence of Jesus's existence outside of the Bible. Regards, Gallaghp 13:10, 19 January (GMT)

Depends on whether or not you believe the texts of Josephus are accurate and genuine. There are several references that the historical person of "Jesus" existed, was born around 6-4BCE, and was a Jewish leader. They do not, however, prove that he was the Son of God - which is ultimately a matter of faith. See Historicity of Jesus#Non-Christian writings and Historical Jesus for more information. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember that there is a reference in Tacitus to a disturbance among the Jews associated with a personage called Chrestus, which people have interpreted as a reference to Christ. (On this interpretation, Tacitus would have misunderstood the Greek term Christos, anointed, as Chrestos, the sort of name one might give to a slave, 'useful'. The two Greek words would have been pronounced identically at this era.) And I'm pretty sure that Josephus refers to him quite extensively - someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Maid Marion 13:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're not wrong, though the main criticism about his use of Christos isnt that he may have mistaken it with Chrestos, but rather that he should have referred to the person in question by his proper name. See Tacitus on Jesus for the paragraphs in question, along with a translation and commentary. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please, the french Academie of science declined to look upon every resarch concerning squaring the circle, trissecting an angle and so on, one century ago. Why cant't our Desk do the same concerning subjects unrelated to proofs ? This is an opinion, I expect that it is not felt as too rude.
We can discuss about every great things Christ "said" because this is something that really moves people. That subject is practical and interesting and all. Did not he say "If you have only a seed of faith, it is enough" ? For such subjects, proofs are made for rough and heavy minds. --DLL 13:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Why cant't our Desk do the same concerning subjects unrelated to proofs ?" - mostly because we all (or maybe it's just me) like to hear the sound of our own typing, and are usually quite happy to waffle on about any old subject regardless of whether anyone's paying attention or not. :) GeeJo (t) (c) • 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And he's not asking us to provide proof, he's asking whether or not people think there is proof. The short answer is, "If there is any, there isn't very much, and it's not very equivocal." --Fastfission 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if one rejects the existence of Jesus (rather than the divinity of Jesus), then one must come up with an alternate explanation for how Christianity started without it's founder. StuRat 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul could have made it all up. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or he could be cobbled together from a variety of messiah-types who were running around at the time. --Fastfission 04:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is more controversy about Jesus' existence and status than about any other great soul of the past. Muhammad certainly lived, but did not pretend to divinity for himself. No one can say if Lao_Tze lived, but his teachings are taken into account without questions. Some church[men] might be responsible for that situation. --DLL 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Jesus, but I've got an autographed copy of the Bible, so I can confirm that God definitely exists. ;) Fuzzypeg 11:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. StuRat 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post modernism[edit]

What are the positive aspects of post modernism/modernity for society or the individual?--195.93.21.72 13:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds suspiciously like a homework question, but see Postmodernism and the daughter articles relating to it for details and come back here with any specific questions you have regarding the text. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Eager quest of questions![edit]

I want to know who is the first prime minister & president of the world.please reply back at (Do you really want to get spammed?).

There is no President or Prime Minister of the world (and unlikely to be any in the forseeable future), so I'm afraid your question makes about as much sense as "who is greatest mountainclimbing trout ever?" — QuantumEleven | (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See President of Earth and note the seventh word in the article. GeeJo (t) (c) • 15:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user might mean "which person was the first to be prime minister in history" and "which person in world history was the first to be a president." Both of those questions are also likely to be unhelpful chases. In English, the English term "prime minister" is used long after the first person performed the function of prime minister. As for "president," that's even worse, because there might have been a president of an Elk's lodge before there was a president of a town council before there was a president of a nation. Geogre 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they are asking who is the first recorded elected leader of any nation, as opposed to a hereditary king or military conquerer ? StuRat 19:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is even more ridiculous. Most stone-age tribes probably had elected (in some form) chiefs. My guess is that even some animals can be described as electing a herd leader. --Ornil 20:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be why I said first recorded elected leader, now wouldn't it ? Also, I doubt if many stone-age tribes, or any animals, ever held elections. StuRat 23:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, let's be reasonable. Everyone know the only one that matters is George Washington. Black Carrot 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, everyone loves a president who both grows cannabis and loves cricket. GeeJo (t) (c) • 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeppers. That's what I look for in a president :) Natgoo 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible that what is wanted is the President of a world corporation. The questioner perhaps could use time travel into the future to help answer this question, unless it is about some other planet than Earth. User:AlMac|(talk) 04:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell[edit]

I've been reading the problems of philosphy by Russell, and I really don't know why is he regarded as the most or one of the most brilliant philosphers of this time, since I already thought all that before I read his book, or before I read anything, for that matter, and also well... all he says seems pretty obvious to me... and also I think descartes was wrong in assuming with such faith that he did in fact exist, because we can not be THAAAT sure even of that, I mean we can be sure, but not like descartes was... so I don't think that taking I think therefore I am as a pillar for modern philosophy is any good...seriously.( not that Russell isn't cool, he is one of my favourites in fact). --Cosmic girl 15:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one to think that Bertrand Russell wasn't much as a philosopher. His work was mostly in mathematics and then in materialist skepticism. His Why I Am Not a Christian is petulant and simple-minded, IMO, but the reason for the centrality of Descartes is that he is establishing the law of identity. How do you know? How do you know anything? How do you know that you exist? So, Descartes starts off with a principle that cannot be denied: "I" exist because "I" ask the question. It's A=A. It came in part of his Discourse on the Method, and it was supposed to be a way of beginning with the most certain thing and moving on to less certain things. This was related to the 17th and 18th c. view of probability: one begins with the least unlikely and then admits more doubt as one goes along. The Method is very important as the foundation for Western rationalism, although plenty of folks quarrel with propositions later in Descartes, and it's possible to quarrel even with cogito ergo sum. Geogre 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, because we aren't even sure if 'I' exists... well I exist but I'm inpermanent so I don't think its a very good start. --Cosmic girl 19:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you're judging him rather harshly. Problems of Philosophy is a book for a popular audience, so if you're already familiar with philosophy it's not for you. As Geogre (who is not me - I'm George! :) ) pointed out, Russell's best work was in highly technical fields, not the sort of thing you can buy copies of at your local Books-a-Million. The online (slowly expanding) edition of Principles of Mathematics is closer to that sort of thing.
Point is, if you're not interested in fairly technical arguments about the philosophy of mathematics and language, then people like Russell, Wittgenstein, and Quine are not for you. You'd better read either older, big name folks - Hume, Kant, and so on - or more recent Continental philosophers like Heidigger and Sartre. Analytic philosophy may just not be your thing. --George 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, (assuming I recall correctly) Russell, by his own account, largely 'abandoned' theoretical philosophy to focus more on politics, peace and practical philosophy. And I also recall reading an account which attributed this to him being intimidated by Wittgenstein's brilliance. No doubt Gödel's massacre on Principia Mathematica had something to do with it as well. I wouldn't rank him as one of the most brilliant of all time, (I would put Wittgenstein in that category though), but certainly he was more than the equal of, say, Frege. --BluePlatypus 23:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Later on, he did get into practical matters, and particularly activism, and that's why he's an important social figure. In philosophy, the Summa Mathematica attempt is hugely important, but, as George says, it's very technical. (Is he an Analytical? I'd never consider him one.) (I also think Wittgenstein is more accessible than all that, although he's certainly not an appetizer.) In particular, though, I'd recomment Hume. He's very readable, and he has, to some degree, remained unsurpassed. He's a skeptic as well as an empiricist, but he asks the questions that other empiricists wouldn't. He'll ask questions that you won't be able to answer, probably, and demonstrate an acuity of insight that's truly impressive. Sartre is accessible without three years of college Philosophy, and so is Immanuel Kant, but I don't think you'd enjoy reading the one book you'll be able to find by him (Critique of Pure Reason). His shorter essays are much more approachable. Geogre 02:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmic girl, you say "I already thought all that before I read his book". Isn't that a quality for a philosopher to assess true ideas (assuming they were not printed before - see Copyright). Ideas and concepts have their own life of course in our brains -our background, ideal world, human egregore -, and putting them down on paper is a nice hobby.
Then your own impermanence is real compared to that of the ideas you carry and promote or reject (see Meme), but it is a good start to state that there is something – an idea, false or not, permanent or not – perceived here and now : the - I - that exists and asks questions is just another child of the cosmos. --DLL 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Russell was trying to popularize philosophy. To criticize him because you already knew what you found in a book he wrote in 1912 is somewhat like the person who reads Hamlet and comments, "I don't see why people make such a big deal about this play. All he's done is to take a bunch of familiar quotations and string them together." JamesMLane 21:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish newspapres published in England[edit]

What are the names of the Yiddish newspapers which have been published in England and in which years was each one published? Thank you

HealthCare system in canada[edit]

Can i have your opinion on canada'a health care system? I've read that canada's federal and provincial government has no longer effective control over its healthcare system. what are the doctors reaction over this system? Are they satisfied with their income plannings? Can you throw some light on this issue and let me have some information about it. thanks! i am stll waiting for an answer!

January 20[edit]

The Queen's nationality[edit]

My question is simply: Is Queen Elizabeth II a New Zealander?

I know she's the Queen of New Zealand, but is she a New Zealand national?

Does this answer apply to all her realms? I really hope she's Jamaican. Dmn 00:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliamentary Research Service of Australia studied this question in 1995 [35], and concluded that the Queen was not an Australian citizen under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (or other applicable laws) by birth, adoption, descent or grant. There is a certain conflict between the notion of citizenship and the notion of monarchy, in that a citizen of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. is a subject of the Queen, but the Queen cannot be her own subject. See the article Monarchy for more on this. --Canley 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stars inside or out side of the P on Playboy mag.[edit]

Can you answer me this what is the meaning of the stars inside or out side of the P on the cover of Playboy Mag. I'm very intrested. Thanks

From [36]: "Urban legend has it that the stars represent either the number of times Hef had slept with the Playmate of the Month or his rating of how good she was in bed. The actual explanation is less titillating. Except for a six-month period in 1976, the stars appeared on Playboy covers from 1955 until 1979. The star system changed over the years, but it ranged from zero to 12 at its peak. The number of stars indicated the domestic or international advertising region for that edition of the magazine. The regions included a military edition, Canada, the United Kingdom, Chicago, Los Angeles metro, New York metro, eastern United States, southwestern United States, etc. " - Nunh-huh 01:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the real meaning of the stars is a let-down, but you can still hunt for the bunny on each cover. --Kainaw (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Victory" by Tonchi Hulijic[edit]

I am looking for the sheet music and orchestra accompaniment trax for my daughter to play the violin piece "Victory". I heard this on tv one time so I know it exists. Thanks to anyone who knows where I can find this. Desperate Mom ````

Hmm. Well, the sheet music for piano can be found here or here (requires a fee for more than the first page), I can't seem to find any for the violin part. GeeJo (t) (c) • 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth trying to contact the store at the Bond website, I'm sure they'd be willing to sell a copy to you/find someone who will. GeeJo (t) (c) • 15:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Partnerships, inheritance in the UK[edit]

Now in the UK we have civil partnerships, as an attempt to create equality between different and same sex relationships, giving both the same rights.. Does that apply to artistocratic titles acquired by marriage? My knowledge of the peerdom is a bit vague, and there's no clear wiki article I can find, but I assumed that if the daughter of a Duke marries, her husband becomes a Lord (if he wasn't one already). If she entered a civil partnership, what would her female partner become? Lord or Lady? Neither? Henriksdal 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt if British titles will ever reflect homosexual partnerships...the two things are from such different worlds, the titles are from the medieval period and the partnerships are quite modern. StuRat 16:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, a man doesn't acquire any title by virtue of marrying a duke's daughter. Generally, a wife takes her husband's titles, with occasional exceptions when the wife outranks the husband and takes appropriate action. A husband does not take his wife's titles (again, sometimes. exceptionally, a title is granted to a husband because of the importance of his wife, or because she is a peeress in her own right, but this is a new grant of a title and not an acquistion by marriage). It might also be pointed out that [1] any title acquired through marriage is a "courtesy" title rather than a substantive one, and [2] that "civil partnerships" are not "marriages", no matter how they're advertised.... - Nunh-huh 01:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, regardless of what happens in a marriage; a civil partnership isn't a marriage, and doesn't convey the same rights regarding titles. David Furnish didn't become Lady John upon civil partnership, did he? Natgoo 03:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all that should be taken with some knowledge of homosexual partners of the past who have gotten titles. The most famous is Piers Gaveston, but James I's George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham was also given elaborate titles for, basically, being his paramour. Further, the objections raised by the nobility at both times was not to the king's dalliance with another man, but with his diluting the peerage with commoners (e.g. Christopher Marlowe, himself highly involved in homosexual relationships, writing near the time of James I Edward II (play) and having his barons complain about the unnaturalness of the king's love and the baseness of Gaveston). That's not the same thing, of course, but it points to the fact that homosexual peers can create positions for their lovers that will grant pensions and/or annuities, even if they're not the king. Geogre 04:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, that has happened in the past. You can hand someone a title now only if you're in government. Natgoo 04:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion I have heard from various sources is that, as the wife of a knight is addressed as Lady (her first name), the male civil partner of a knight should be Laddy (his own first name).BrainyBabe 16:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

school[edit]

who are some African Americans who have contributed to computers?

You could browse the articles at Category:Computer professionals and its subcategories. Common Man 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I write and publish a book called "The Bible"?[edit]

I just noticed that apparently the title The Confessions of Nat Turner has been reused. Is there any limit on reusing existing book titles? Would it be permitted to call a book "The Bible"? Common Man 21:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is trademarked, you can't use it. (Names, titles, slogans are to short to be copyrighted) Noone has a trademark on "The Bible", so go ahead. --BluePlatypus 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the basic answer, but as with most legal questions, there probably are variations by country. For one thing, you may find that something is a trademark violation if it's only similar to an existing trademark, but on the other hand, it can be exactly the same and still no violation if it is in a different field of business. (See e.g. the Apple cases.) In practice most book titles are not trademarked anyway, although commercially important series titles might be. Just for fun I did a search for trademarks using the phrase "The Bible" on the US Patent and Trademark Office web site. There are 63 current trademarks containing the phrase, although none of them is just "The Bible". (They include "1-800-THE-BIBLE", "Vote the Bible", and "The Bible for the Next Generation".) --Anonymous, 22:50 UTC, January 20, 2006.
Also keep in mind that people don't appreciate the holy words in their religion being taken lightly. If you do that in the wrong place(the deep south, for instance) or with the wrong religion(the Qu'ran, for instance), you could end up getting hurt, and it'd be nobody's fault but your own. Black Carrot 00:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, to summarise - no, there would be no legal reason against it, but it'd be a pretty stupid move. Natgoo 03:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's someone's fault! You can never put the entire blame for a crime on the victim. And for something as basic as freedom of speech, there's no justification whatsoever for violence. Words are only words. It's as ridiculous and repulsive to me as those who blame rape on the victims clothing. --BluePlatypus 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting hurt includes getting killed. In some faiths, only a true messenger from God is permitted to write the word of God, so if they try to kill you and by some miracle you are saved, that might be the proof they need. User:AlMac|(talk) 04:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that as it'd be a stupid move not only from you (the author) but also from the publisher, I think you might find it hard to find someone who is willing to publish such a book.
The difficulties apply especially if the book not only has that title, but it is similar in apperience to the Bible or claims inside that it is the Bible. It would probably be much easier to publish a short article whose content clearly doesn't resemble to the Bible with such a name, although "On the Bible" or "My Bible" or something similar might be a better title.
Just one more thing. There are a few books called Exodus. – b_jonas 15:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Era Nobles[edit]

What did the Victorian Era Noblemen live, on, I mean, they do not seem to have work or jobs, where did their money came from?

I assume you mean true nobles in England, as in people with a title (dukes, earls, etc.) Most simply, they inherited their wealth. Along with titles, they inherited real estate and other assets which drew them revenue, the details of which would be administered by a staff. In truth, many were far less wealthy than their lifestyle would lead you to guess; the maintenance of their lifestyle at any cost was of primary importance, which is how their huge lands have been whittled down to the relatively small hereditary holdings in England today, as they sold off pieces for cash. With a few exceptions, the truly wealthy in the Victorian age were not so different than today; businessmen, investors, traders, etc. - Dharmabum420 23:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree mostly. But it's worth pointing out that by the Victorian age, I believe most nobles did actually work, if not "for a living" but for the sake of having something to do all day and because not working was (and is) considered bad for character. --BluePlatypus 23:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true. It should be pointed out it was often different work than the non-titled were doing, not dissimilar to today's nobility; military service, charity work, philanthropism, etc. - Dharmabum420 23:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside those who were looking after their estates, they were running the Empire, either in the military, politics or administrative posts: then there were the Church of England and liberal professions such as the law for younger sons/poorer nobles. But not trade which was unsuitable for a gentleman and left to the middle-classes. BTW their hereditary holdings havent been whittled down that much. A recent BBC documentary showed the aristocracy still own 30% of the land in Britain (compared with 50% in the 1870's). Jameswilson 00:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I was under the impression that most of the aristocracy clung blindly onto their titles with little else (okay, the House of Lords seat would be pretty cool) - if the 30% figure is true it's a minority shareholding (as in, a very few people own that 30%, and not every titleholder owns land). Class in England (today, and in the Victorian era) really has very little to do with assets, liquid or otherwise - it's possible to be poorer than a dog's dinner and still be a nobleman. Lady Isabella Hervey is a perfect example - she professes to be dog poor and she is really only famous for being on Big Brother (UK TV series), yet she is the titleholder of the family; and the richest people in England are far removed from the nobility (excepting the royals of course - I'm thinking about people like Lakshmi Nivas Mittal and Bernie Ecclestone for eg.) I'm from Australia - 30% of England is not much at all, really, maybe a sixteenth of the size of the state I left - it might be worth a lot due to the inflated pound, but it's not really much land. Natgoo 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Lady Isabella Hervey is the title holder of the family; the title would belong to her grandfather, father, or eldest brother. Lady Hervey holds a courtesy title, a title that will not pass to her offspring. —Wayward Talk 06:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "title holder" in her family is her youngest (but only surviving) brother, the 8th Marquess of Bristol. She's "Lady Isabella" because her father was a Marquess (and, incidentally, she's not "Lady Hervey", which would normally indicate her husband was a peer or a knight). Proteus (Talk) 20:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest single holding is that owned by the Duke of Westminster - 250,000 acres, which is nothing in Australian terms I imagine. Alright it includes large parts of central London so its very valuable. I think the difference between now and the Victorian period is that if you became super-rich through industry or commerce back then, you would have almost certainly been ennobled so "new money" gradually became "noble money" as you sold your industrial company and bought a country estate befitting your new status. But since the 1960,s thats stopped happening (new hereditary titles scarcely ever being created I mean). The rich of today might still buy land (I think their share of the total according to that programme was 4% of Britain) but they dont get the hereditary title. Jameswilson 05:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 21[edit]

English county ≈ which US designation?[edit]

Is there a US designation of any sort (that the average American is likely to be familiar with) that is approximately the same scale (in terms of area and/or population) as the English county? My understanding is that the US county is much smaller than the English designation of the same name. Thryduulf 00:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to our own article, the average American county is 2/3 the size of an English "ceremonial" county. And counties vary greatly in size (so "average" doesn't mean much), and there's no expectation that an American county "should be" this or that size: the expectation is only that it should be the governmental subdivision smaller than the state. I'd use "county" for "county". - Nunh-huh 01:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Geographically, in terms of area, county = county. But in terms of powers, the US has an extra layer of government (the 50 states) which Britain traditionally doesnt have, so the things that State Governments do in the US are done by other bodies (higher or lower) in the UK.

Arguably, the new Scottish and Welsh administrations are like US states, but there is still no equivalent of that level in England. Jameswilson 02:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. There is no US equivalent to the English county, just as there is no English equivalent to the US state. See Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England and Counties of England for some more info. Natgoo 04:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US counties range in size from 34 square kilometers to 52,073 square kilometers and from 67 people to 10.2 million people. San Bernadino County, California is 2.5 times the size of Wales. -- Mwalcoff 03:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one should say eastern USA, I suppose, to avoid that problem - deserts, mountains, etc. Jameswilson 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One shouldn't forget that many of the counties in the eastern US were English counties and retain their old borders. Of course the average size of counties increases as one goes westwards...--Pharos 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I was unable to edit the Wikipedia help desk because of some Spam Filter notice. I am not allerting you of this. I tried to contact the meta wikimedia people but when i tried, it did the same thing. Please help. 5aret 02:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having the same problem. JackofOz 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the right spot to mention this, as it's not really a reference question, but as a concerned admin, I've got to ask: was this notice on your side (your system blocked Wikipedia) or ours (we rejected you for being a "spammer")? If the former, your filtering software may be blacklisting Wikipedia for any number of reasons or blacklisting the reference desk. (Bess, one of the most popular filters in the US, blocks anything with question and answer sections as being a "web forum," and it will clear Wikipedia and block just this section.) If we're kicking you out as a spammer, then that's something you both need to mention on wp:an. Geogre 04:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly wasn't on my side. I was just trying to tell a questioner they had posted their question in the wrong place (although I noticed somebody else was able to respond to it). JackofOz 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it was your side. Its got nothing to do with my system because the message said that wikipedia had blocked it because of the words "auto, height, overflow" in that topic. Also, I did not use any of these words. Also, Geogre, I cannot get into the wikipedia help desk, that it why I had to post here, obviously. So what do I do? 5aret 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my fault. I added the text to a reply to a question about spamming. After I replied, the text was added to the spam filters. I have now removed the text. It should only have affected users trying to edit the whole page. --GraemeL (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your favorite poem?[edit]

What is your favorite poem? My favorites are "Concord Hymn," "Happy the Man," "When I have Fears that I may Cease to Be," "I'm Nobody! Who are you?" (Dickenson's #288) and "The Tyger."

--Neutralitytalk 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Road Not Taken, by Robert Frost. StuRat 06:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Death of a Naturalist, by Seamus Heaney [37]. --Commander Keane 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
next to of course god america i by e. e. cummings. —Keenan Pepper 07:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hadrien's address to his soul
animula vagula blandula
hospes comesque corporis
quae nunc abibis in loca
pallidula rigida nudula
nec ut soles dabis iocos! - Nunh-huh 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crossing the Bar by Tennyson. JackofOz 08:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This side of the truth, Dylan Thomas. Marskell 08:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mmm. some good choices (good question, BTW). I'd go for "Alicante" by Jacques Prévert. Grutness...wha? 09:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Waste Land, all the way -- Ferkelparade π 11:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sonnet 29 by Shakespeare, or Do not go gentle into that good night by Dylan Thomas. GeeJo (t) (c) • 12:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is "Második házasság" from Ranschburg Jenő in the book Gyerekségek. – b_jonas 15:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spring View by Du Fu. Mark1 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Old Vicarage, Grantchester by Rupert Brooke, for its comedy value, and The Sign of the Cross by John Henry Newman. [[Sam Korn]] 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easily The Face on the Barroom Floor by H. A. D'Arcy. (Bad country music MIDI plays when you open the site - o noes!11) Cernen Xanthine Katrena 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Sonnets, Spelt from Sybil's Leaves, Piggy on the railroad and On Passing the New Menin Gate for starters. MeltBanana 20:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and, in a lighter verse, Testament and numerous other poems by Dorothy Parker. (Which should tell you a lot about my outlook on life.) --George 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sunday Morning" by Wallace Stevens. The text for this poem is online. It's all about imagination. Halcatalyst 02:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The great one by Stevens on imagination is "Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction." It's quite long and seemingly difficult, but if you put some effort (and imagination) into it, it's crystal clear. Part headings: It Must be Abstract. It Must Change. It Must Give Pleasure. Halcatalyst 03:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fire and Ice by Robert Frost. It's sweet and short:
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Highwayman, by Alfred Noyes. I love the rhythms of it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 103, Prufrock, Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird, all of the Holy Sonnets of John Donne, all of the terrible sonnets of Gerard Manley Hopkins, Gawain and the Green Knight, Essay on Man, Essay on Criticism, Dunciad, Rape of the Lock, Vanity of Human Wishes, Paradise Lost, Beowulf, Odyssey, Aeneid, To His Coy Mistress, Juvenal Satire 3, Metamorphoses, Easter Wings, John Donne's 2nd Anniversary, Portrait of a Lady by Eliot, Wasteland, Dreamsong #14, Dreamsong #366, Station Island #3 by Heaney, "Away from It All" by Heaney, those are the ones that come to mind as favorite single poem. Geogre 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw c'mon, Geogre, can't you choose just one? Halcatalyst 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I offer more? the most despairing poem I know:
In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said: "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter-bitter," he answered;
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."
And the most skeptical:
A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Both by Stephen Crane. Halcatalyst 16:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I have to add the minimalist sonnet I saw somewhere on a WP user page (I think Geogre's, but it's not there now):




Halcatalyst 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Aeneid, especially Book VI. Or The Rime of the Ancient Mariner - Coleridge's one perfect effort (silver medals for the uncompleted Christabel and Kubla Khan). Maid Marion 16:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first five that pop into my head: Whitman's Song of Myself, Ginsberg's Howl, E.E. Cummings's i like my body when it is with your, Michael Palmer's Sun, and everything by Pablo Picasso. --Tothebarricades 06:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since others here have actually presented the poems they suggested - and since the one I suggested is just six lines long, here is Jacques Prévert's Alicante:

Une orange sur la table
Ta robe sur le tapis
Et toi dans mon lit.
Doux présent du présent
Fraîcheur de la nuit
Chaleur de ma vie

(An orangle on the table, your dress on the rug, and you in my bed. Soft gift of the now, coolness of the night, warmth of my life). Grutness...wha? 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the great wartime poem of Prévert, "Barbara," with the wistful lines:

Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Je dis tu à tous ceux qui s'aiment

(Don't be angry if I "tutoie" you; I say "tu" to all those I love; I say "tu" to all those who love each other) -- "tu" is "thou," reserved for familar use, friends, family, etc. Halcatalyst 14:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly title question[edit]

A silly question I know, but... a woman married to a KBE or other Knight (British honours system) is called "Lady X". But what about the new civil unions? What, if anything, is David Furnish's title? He can hadly be called "Lady John", can he? Grutness...wha? 09:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is here, but I can't find anything about the honours system. Nor does the honours system review have anything to say on the matter. So, by default, my guess is that David Furnish wouldn't have a title at all. Interestingly, one of the recommendations the UK government didn't accept was the suggestion to phase out knighthoods, which would make the question moot; however, it raises the interesting question of what happens when a hereditary peer wants to form a civil union (what an awkward turn of phrase) with his or her gay partner? --Robert Merkel 10:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which I note has been speculated upon above.. --Robert Merkel 10:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the peer is a woman, then it's relatively easy - Baroness and Lady X. For a man, um. Um indeed. There was a letter in the Times suggesting "Laddie", but that isn't likely to come into use... Shimgray | talk | 15:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Men can't gain titles by marrying ennobled women. Men can't gain titles by marriage; women can't bestow (for want of a better word) titles by marriage. Nothing changes. [[Sam Korn]] 18:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that any of that really matters, since Civil Partnerships aren't marriage (legally, at any rate). Proteus (Talk) 22:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State Shootings[edit]

We are a 7th grade research team studying the Kent State Shootings for the National History Day program. Can you help us find this national study? See below.

In 1970, the Urban Institute conducted a national study that concluded the Kent State shootings was the single factor causing the only nationwide student strike in history - over 4 million students protested and over 900 American colleges and universities closed during the student strikes.

At a guess, I'd think that passage refers to "The Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest", which is the only 1970 source included in the reference section of our article on the Kent State shootings. You can get a reprint of the report from Amazon. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would include the lyrics (or possibly the music in a multimedia presentation) for this song, which was popular at the time:
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Crosby-Stills-Nash-Young/Four-Dead-In-Ohio.html
StuRat 15:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the students across the US who participated in the strikes and sit-ins and "people's parks" and anti-war marches did not consider them a response primarily to the Kent State shootings. Rather civil unrest was arising in a hundred places across the US that spring. The degree of disorder, the destructiveness, the percentage of students participating, the response of the authorities, and any local lasting effects varied from site to site. Kent State was perhaps the worst (or best remembered) event, but not the only place where at least one fatality occurred-- there were two students killed by police during rioting at Jackson State University in Mississippi [38] but the students were black rather than white and circumstances and the public responses differed substantially. Didn't another death of a graduate student happen at the University of Wisconsin as a result of a bomb or some sort of attack? The President's Commission was interested in interpreting the widespread unrest as either a response to a single event or to communist agitation, rather than a pervasive loss of confidence by the university communities in the government policies of the day, especially the vietnam war. Much idealism and much destructive stupidity. alteripse 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the famous photograph of the Kent State shooting. Ironically, the dead student was on his way to ROTC class (military officer training). A mathematics grad student died at the University of Wisconsin as a result of a bomb planted in a building where research for the Department of Defense took place. Halcatalyst 14:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical demographics[edit]

When did the peoples who now populate northern Europe begin to live there and where did they migrate from?

--Inquirealot 14:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they came from the Caucasia region in Southwest Russia and Georgia, hence the term caucasoid. I'm not sure on the time frame, perhaps 50,000 years ago ? StuRat 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "caucasian" is based on the 19th century pseudoscience. There is no real evidence the so-called Caucasian race emerged there. --BluePlatypus 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend very much on what you mean by "the peoples". There were people of some sort in Italy at Monte Poggiolo around 800,000 years ago. On the other hand, the Proto-Indo-Europeans seem to have migrated to Europe around 1000 BC- see especially the map half-way down that second page. So some time between 800,000 BC and 1000 BC is the most likely answer, though of course people have continued to migrate into and out of northern Europe to the present day. ;) Mark1 17:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noone knows exactly, it's way before recorded history in those parts. See Germanic peoples. It's believed that the Germanic peoples at least first lived in Scandinavia, before going south due to climate change. (See Fimbulwinter and Nordic Bronze Age). The Goths, by their own accounts originated in Scandinavia. As for the Sami, see Sami history. Wherever they came from it wasn't the same place as the Germanic peoples. The Finns, although closest in language to the Sami, are believed to have arrived later. The arrival of the proto-Germanic peoples to Scandinavia is usually regarded to be in about 2800 BC, with the Battle Axe culture. --BluePlatypus 19:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways to tell what happened and when, without written records. Art which depicts various ethnic groups would help, except that art from that period is so crude it's difficult to determine the ethnicity of the people. Skeletal remains can be examined for racial features. Genetic studies are even more promising. StuRat 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably say "proto-proto-Germanic", since the Battle axe culture is far before the proto-Germanic culture. --BluePlatypus 19:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely 800,000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. is the "most likely answer" only because it is an answer that can't be wrong. Homo sapien sapien didn't exist 200,000 years ago (maybe even 100,000 years ago or less). The great ice age ended less than 12,000 years ago and probably much more recently in Scandanavia. I suspect (pure speculation and intuition, i.e. I barely know what I am talking about) that the people we call Scandanavians have lived in Scandanavia for less than 5,000 years. This does not seem like a long time to me. It seems curious to me that no where on the planet are there indigenous people that look anything like Scandanavians other than in the geographical area extending from Ireland across northwestern Russia. This seems to me both curious and odd and is why I inquired about this subject in the first place.

The question can't be answered. The peoples in Europe are different peoples, ethnically. Some are from northern Africa and got there 20 years ago, some are Germanic tribes that took part in the great migration of approximately 1,000 BC. Some are Celtic peoples who took part in the migration before the Germanic one. Some are from the Italian penninsula originally. Some are from a northern Indian source and arrived at the same time as the Celtic migration. Some are aboriginal peoples who may have been there for 30,000 years. Some are.... The point is that there is no "peoples" of Europe. Europe is currently a mix. Europe formerly was a mix. Europe was a mix before that, too. Before that, it was also a mix. You're talking about a very large area that has been heavily travelled. Geogre 02:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You can't accurately speak of "the people of" a continent. For instance, when you talk about North America, the majority of the people are Caucasian but its original inhabitants (ie Native Americans) are Mongoloid. So who do you count as "the people of North America"? Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed formatting - — QuantumEleven | (talk))

  • Although almost every inch of Europe had been visited by some form of homo sapiens sapiens long before 100 BC, it was around then that a handful of interesting clans that spoke a simple Germanic language began to show up in the history books written by Romans and Greeks. Since they could not possibly have come from the south or west without having been spotted earlier, and since the north was rather cold, it stands to reason that they came from the east, from the enormous plains stretching from Ukraine through Siberia to India, just barely far enough away from the local empires that groups of a couple thousand could form and develop a culture. The land that they settled in was by no means empty, but they did a very good job of kicking the Celts and Romans out, along with other tribes who never made it into the history books. Slavs, Huns, Magyar, Vandals, Goths, and others came quickly on their heels. There is some evidence, though, that the Lapps were there the entire time.--Mareino 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use Sami, most of them consider "Lapp" to be very derogatory. --BluePlatypus 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are asking about the initial arrival of modern humans in Northern Europe, replacing the earlier Neanderthals ? StuRat 03:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tracing abdinasir... asap[edit]

where does the name come from? --MaoJin 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

asap

Arabic, literal meaning basically "slave of the one who gives victory" عبد الناصر AnonMoos 09:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should ask at the Language Desk? Halcatalyst 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the *other* Saint Cecilia?[edit]

Hi, I quote the article on Saint Cecilia:

>>Another St Cecilia, who suffered in Africa in the persecution >>of Diocletian, is commemorated on February 11.

I have never heard of her. Can anyone elaborate on this *other* saint. I'm planning a party for the 11th February and I could easily turn this fascinating discovery into a theme, but I will need more information. Thanks so much, Cecilia

This mention is taken directly from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.[39] I have done a quick google, and can't immediately find any other mentions of an "other" Cecilia - the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions a theory that the "usual" Saint Cecilia was martyred during the persecution of Diocletian[40] which suggests they may be the same person, but then the different feast days suggest they are not. Good luck with finding anything out, and I hope the party's good. AJR | Talk 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Oxford dictionary of Saints (D.H.Farmer, Clarendon Press, 1978) only lists one St. Cecilia. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FWIW, The Book of Saints (Victor Hoagland, C.P., The Regina Press, 1986) only lists the one St. Cecilla as well. Her day is Nov. 22 according to this. Dismas|(talk) 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are two. However, the reason there is very little mentioned is that the other Cecilia is virtually unknown. My source, Omelbert, mentions her to the same degree as the 1911. This is a pretty sure sign that she's a legendary saint. I doubt she's been demoted, but it's possible. Geogre 02:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Rocker[edit]

What folk-rocker said he'd like Billy Dee Williams or Mickey Rooney to play him if his life story is filmed?

Google has failed me. =(

I don't know but I'd have to say that those two are a fascinating pair to choose. Not only because of their race but their ages as well. Dismas|(talk) 22:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system of Belgian Senate[edit]

Hey, I'm working on filling out table of voting systems by nation, and I came across the Belgian Senate. As far as I can tell, a portion of members are "directly elected", but I can't tell by which voting system they are. Is it single winner or multiple winner at the district level? What are the rules for winning? Thanks! Scott Ritchie 22:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Belgian Parliament's website:
"Federal Members of Parliament are elected for a four year term using proportional representation (the so-called D’Hondt system). ...
"The Senate has 71 Members, divided into three categories.
"40 Senators are directly elected in three constituencies, those being the Flanders constituency, the Walloon constituency and the bilingual Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde constituency.
"The French-speaking voters elect 15 Senators. The Dutch-speaking voters elect 25 Senators. The residents of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde constituency can choose whether they want to vote for the election of 15 French-speaking Senators or for the election of 25 Dutch-speaking Senators.
"21 Senators are appointed by and from the assemblies of the three Communities: ten by the Parliament of the Flemish Community, 10 by the Parliament of the French-speaking Community and one by the Parliament of the German-speaking Community. Since they remain Members of the Parliament which appoints them, these Senators hold two offices (sometimes even three), sitting both at the federal and at a federated level.
"10 Senators are chosen by the two above-mentioned categories of Senators. Six of them are appointed by all of the other Dutch-speaking Senators, and four by the French-speaking Senators.
"The Constitution guarantees a minimum representation of Brussels’ residents in the Senate.
"Finally, the children of the King or, if there are none, the Belgian descendants of the branch of the Royal Family called on to reign, are Senators by right at the age of 18. They can only vote at the age of 21. They are, however, not taken into account for the quorum.
"This category of Senators was created to give the heir to the throne the opportunity to acquire political experience and to stay in touch with society. At this moment, all three children of the King, i.e. Crown Prince Philippe, Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent, have taken the oath as Senator and sit in that capacity in the Senate." -- Mwalcoff 16:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

virginia woolf quote[edit]

Can anyone identify the source, and exact wording, of a quote from Virginia Woolf along the following approximate lines: "Happiness is weeding in the garden, looking toward the house, and knowing that someone in there loves me."

"Happiness is a warm puppy." - Charlie Brown StuRat 16:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Earthly Delights[edit]

I asked about this on the articles talk page, but it can take weeks to get an answer.

In the lower-right corner of the center panel, there is a naked European man standing next to a naked African man, with his arm around him. Was Bosch trying to imply something with this? Captain Jackson 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the answer is "probably". But that only begs the further question "what?" And that one's far harder. It is possible, as I suspect that you're really asking, that it was a suggestion that homosexuality was permitted in the garden, but it could just as easily be symbolic of equality and friendship of race - that all people can share the garden peacefully. I don't know whether any definite answer is known, but this is one of the most analysed works of art, so it's possible that someone will know... Grutness...wha? 22:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The center panel is supposed to be showing humanity having fun through sin, so I was wondering if Bosch was trying to imply that Europeans and Africans mating was sinful. Captain Jackson 00:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Bosch wouldn't do anything that crude, even if that was his opinion. Such a question constitutes unconscious backreading (reading our own ideas into the past), a natural enough impulse. Halcatalyst 23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 22[edit]

nazi propaganda[edit]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwzp16 (talk • contribs) 21:29, January 21, 2006

no question

There's something glaringly wrong with your question: you didn't bother posting a question in the first place. You should check the list of things to do before you post at the very top of this page before posting a question. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening. --Aaron 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one of my favorites: Image:Liberators-Kultur-Terror-Anti-Americanism-1944-Nazi-Propaganda-Poster.jpg AnonMoos 10:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of finnish author[edit]

If a finnish author, who died less than 70 years ago, published texts before 1917 (in the Grand Duchy of Finland). Are those texts still copyrighed by the finnish copyright law? --82.212.68.237 10:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming Finnish copyright law is similar to US copyright law, the moment he died is an essential part of the rule. Regardless of when the piece was written, the author must've died at least 70 years ago. If he didn't all his works (including the earlier ones) are protected. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not entirely true for U.S. copyrights. All works published before 1923 are out of copyright regardless of the date of the authors death, many others are out of copyright because of non-renewal. Rmhermen 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the 43 § of the Finnish copyright law, the copyright doesn't expire until the author has been dead for 70 years. The legal entity in which the text was written doesn't matter. - ulayiti (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour blind politics.[edit]

This is just my curiosity asking this; I've never heard a really good answer. Why do we associate the colour red with communists, and, less so, the colour blue with capitalists? I've heard people answer "Because the Russian army wore red", or some such, but that just leads to another question, so it's not really an answer, is it? Why did the Russian army wear red?

Thank'ee,

Zzt.

  • Because it was the color of most of their national flag? - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe red, being the color of blood, is often used as the color to represent danger and revolutions, especially bloody revolutions, as was the case in the Russian Revolution. StuRat 12:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see here.

Communism -- no mention of red
Marxism -- no mention of red
Leninism -- no mention of red

Hmmmmmm... let's try Red (disambiguation). It says red is slang term for a communist. Yes, but I already knew that.

How about Red flag? Eureka! First sentence: "Historically, and most generally, the red flag is an international symbol for the 'blood of angry workers.'" Halcatalyst 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It also happened to be Marx' favorite color (although yes, it predates him). Also, in Russian the words "red" (красный) and "beautiful" (красивый) are related. So "Red is beautiful" makes a good Soviet slogan. :) --BluePlatypus 14:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.ukraine-observer.com/articles/215/781. The Russian word krasny, which means red, also has subtle meanings like "masculine" as well as "beautiful". Red Square in Moscow got that name long before the Russian Revolution. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, the red and blue of the French tri-colour originally represented blood and sky, respectively. Given that "Left" and "Right" as we presently understand them are rooted in the French revolution, researching where the appropriation of the two colours arose might begin with that topic. Not an answer, just a thought! (a real stumper BTW). Marskell 21:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice guess, but the red and blue come from the colors of Paris. See Flag of France.--Pharos 17:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red was the colour of the flags of the Soviet union because it used flags based on that of the Paris Commune. Prior to that time they were often used for rebellion and mutiny, and also piracy, and - as ponted out above - they (in Socialist and communist usage) refer to the blood of the workers. There's a fair amount about that at red flag. Unfortunately the page on communism at Flags of the World - which is the best other site to look for information on national symbols and flags - is under construction, otherwise that could probably have helped further. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a mention in the red flag article of its use at the Merthyr riots of 1831. This was probably its first association with workers' struggles. Warofdreams talk 12:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also The Red Flag which was written in 1889 & which, at least in the UK, has associated the colour red with Socialism & communism. AllanHainey 13:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are these old news report films that were taken in black-and-white but the red flags were coloured by hand on it, so I think they took the red color very seriously. – b_jonas 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

artist query[edit]

Could anybody tell me the name of the artist who paints faces where each element is made up of vegetables (e.g. a tomato for a nose)? thankyou in advance.

Giuseppe Arcimboldo was one such. I believe there are others. --Shantavira 13:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pow officer derny (french forces)[edit]

hi i am trying to research a french officer capt derny (commandant) who was a prisoner of war from 1941 to 1945. he was held at oflag iv.d Elsterhorst. i wish to know what unit he served in & what happened to him. hope to get a reply from you soon, thank you. george.

I hardly thing anyone is walking around with that information in their heads. You should probably try the French and German war archives. --BluePlatypus 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a first name for Captain Derny ? StuRat 20:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polavision technical specs[edit]

Hi, I'm working on a big table of film formats for a future Wikipedia article. I was wondering if anyone might be able to help direct me to some technical details regarding Polavision, which was Polaroid's briefly-lived 8mm camera system. Specifically, I wanted to know the dimensions of the frame for filming and projection (the latter are usually a bit smaller), or at the least, an aspect ratio for either. Many thanks in advance! Girolamo Savonarola 16:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'll get a better answer on the Science (science and technology) reference desk. Halcatalyst 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiopea,the pentagon, reptiles and whatever[edit]

What's the dealio with Laura Knight-Jadczyk??? any skeptical criticism? (or any non-biased information since everything is on her side) because I can't find any.--Cosmic girl 18:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question you are asking. Who is that, and what are you asking about her ? StuRat 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google on "Laura Knight-Jadczyk" turns up all kinds of hits that set my woo-woo meter screaming involving chanelling aliens and strengthening your aura to combat dark forces. Essentially though with any claim that requires skeptical inquiry the two essential questions to ask are.. 1: What claims is this person making, and 2: What evidence are they providing to back those claims up. Juding by my (admittedly very brief) research the answers to those appear to be 1: Just about everything, and 2: None.

Also, it appears she's one of the current breeds of peddlers of "quantum flapdoodle", which is the art of trying to make all kinds of supernatural nonsense sound reasonable by connecting it with quantum mechanics. Basically the logic is that quantum mechanics is weird and complicated, and therefore it must explain everything from ghosts to psychic transdimensional dolphin-hive-minds in dimension X (because they're 'weird' and 'complex' too, you see)

Perhaps she'd be interested in trying for James Randi's million dollar challenge. --Noodhoog 20:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank u guys, yeah I agree totally ..and I know about Randy, he rules... but the thing is that there's this book by laura k-j that talks about the pentagon and how it wasn't a plane that hit it but a misil, and there's even a video and all and so...http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon_sp.htm#Main here it is... but it's in spanish, I'm sorry...but by seeing the images you'll get the point. what amazes me here is that I'd have dismissed all her nonsense right away but the subject of that book seems a liiiiitle more down to earth compared to her channeled stuff or whatever and since she has this self confidence in believing all she says well it makes me doubt a little.--Cosmic girl 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't a plane that hit you would need to explain the missing plane and passengers, along with the plane engines and other debris that somebody apparently "planted" at the Pentagon (if we are to believe this conspracy theory). And then you need to explain why the US gov is willing to engage in a massive conspiracy to make it look like a plane hit instead of a missile. StuRat 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but from what I understood, noone was able to find the plane, and the government supossedly confiscated recordings from nearby stores or whomever had been filming. but then again, I find it really hard to believe because you are right, why would the government do that? I think conspiracy theories are as dangerous to the overall world culture as the new age and all that stuff.--Cosmic girl 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a plane hits at those velocities, not much is left, most of it is vaporized or torn into tiny peices. The engines, wheels, and black boxes may be the only large peices left. I hardly find it surprising that the authorities would want all video tapes of the incident, do you ? StuRat 22:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanx a lot! :) --Cosmic girl 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also :
9/11: The Big Lie (Surprisingly, the Google calculator does not answer : I had to try 90/11.) --DLL 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand! was it a lie?--Cosmic girl 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the book a big lie ? Yes. Was 9-11 a big lie ? No. StuRat 19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha!!! well I tend to think like StuRat, but I always keep room for doubt ...u know, just in case.--Cosmic girl 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Crockett[edit]

What were the last few moments like for Davy Crockett when the Spanish sent be Santa Anna finally broke into the Alamo?

  • They have been imagined by several authors and in a couple of movies, but we have no first-hand account from anyone who saw what Crockett himself did or experienced in the last hours of the assault. New fictional and non-fictional accounts are published every decade. The controversy about Crockett is briefly described in our article Battle of the Alamo. alteripse 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unplanned Pregnancies[edit]

I've heard that half or 50% of all the pregnancies in the world are unplanned.There's such thing as a planning or not planning to have a pregnancy?When people grow up, they usually get married,(or their wives)become pregnant, and then have children.So what do people mean when they say that a pregnancy is unplanned?And why is the rate of unplanned pregnancies in the world so high?Has it always been so high in the past?

Media:user:bowei

A planned pregnancy is when a couple (usually married) want to have a baby and stop using any birth control intentionally. An unplanned pregnancy is when no birth control is used out of negligence or when the birth control method fails. StuRat 22:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism[edit]

Has there always been atheists in the past, long before the theory of evolution was made? Media:user:bowei

Yes. Atheism isn't based on the theory of evolution. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well there goes my theory that atheists are a higher form of life that evolved from believers. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See History of atheism for more information. Atheism has existed pretty much always, and it has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. - ulayiti (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As atheism is simply the lack of belief in god/gods then yes, it has always been around - indeed, we are all born atheist. It is not possible to believe in a concept until you are aware of it's existence. If I say to you that there is a god named Frozzwibble, then you may believe me, or you may not. However, you certainly were atheist regarding Frozzwibble until you first heard about him. --Noodhoog 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blasphemy! Don't use His name in vain. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how you define Athiesm; as a lack of belief or as a belief in the non-existance of a god. As far as I understand it, Athiesm is the belief that a god DOESN'T exist, thus being born not knowing anything doesn't qualify you as an Athiest. You'd just be ignorant.   freshgavin TALK    01:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe not knowing (and possibly not caring) if God exists is called agnosticism. They don't consider admitting they don't know something to be a shortcoming, but rather consider claiming you know the absolute Truth, when you do not, to be a fault. StuRat 07:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'standard' atheism is the position of saying "I do not believe in god as I do not have sufficient evidence to prove he exists." not the position of saying "I know for absolute fact there is no god." The latter is sometimes referred to as 'hard' or 'explicit' atheism and is actually a flawed position as it requires proving a negative, which is impossible. You cannot prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist - just because you haven't found him yet doesn't mean he isn't somewhere else you haven't looked (perhaps on the moon? or mars? or maybe he's invisible, and so on). The only time you can prove a negative is by having a positive which is mutually exclusive to the claim to be disproven. If I say that the Earth is square, and it's quite clearly round instead, then I can be proven wrong, but you cannot disprove the existence of any thing. --Noodhoog 12:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me again.. just thought i'd throw in a quick clarification about agnosticism vs atheism. Agnosticism is a "maybe, maybe not" position, or even "don't know, don't care". Atheism is a "I'll believe it when I get sufficient proof, but until then I don't" position, or in other words, the skeptical approach. Hard atheism is the position "I know for a fact there is no god." --Noodhoog 12:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is hardly knowledge or fact. Anybody can say "I know for a fact" about anything. If you say that when you're taking about God, positively or negatively, you're just making a fool of yourself. Halcatalyst 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I know for a fact that God is a clump of spaghetti with meatballs for eyes ! I also know he is covered by parmesan cheese and we are preparing a Holy War against those infidels who say he is covered with romano cheese. Who could allow such blasphemy to stand ? StuRat 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people know for a fact things that aren't true! And I can make that statement absolutely!!! Halcatalyst 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
470 BC :
"Enter Socrates, who was perceived as questioning the gods, and in light of the recent war, it was all too easy to ascribe defeat to impiety rather than incompetence." --DLL 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that only Abrahamic religions (among major religions) dislike Evolution. deeptrivia (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Is there, or has there ever been, a religion which says that there are many gods and the Universe is divided into many parts?And that each section of the universe, consisting of a group of stars, is controlled by one god, who has created planets,life and people there.If there's not, then I wonder why?

there are some new age religions that say that there is one group consciousness or something like that, which is 'in charge' of each galaxy and/or created it.--Cosmic girl 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't about galaxies being controled by different gods, but animism states that every object in the universe has a spirit. The ancient Greeks and Romans would probably have believed that different gods controlled different galaxies had they known that there are many galaxies in the universe.

Are you a Star Wars fan, wondering about the Force? Captain Jackson 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a religion that thought that groups of stars were gods. Thats how our constellations got organized and named. Black Carrot 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, though not explicitly stated in any Mormon scriptures, one can infer by scriptural reference and religious teachings, as I have, that this is the case. It is explained that God created us in His image. In the LDS religion, we believe that people can become gods in the afterlife, assuming they lived righteously and were judged accordingly by...uh...the people who judge us (I've forgotten who, exactly, but I think it might be Jesus and Jesus alone). If this is actually the case, then we can assume that God was once human, and lived on a planet similar to Earth, and his God was a human once, and so was his God...brings a little trouble to intelligent design theories, eh? Raises the question, "So, if God was human once, and he had a God that was human once, who's the original?" Hard to say, really. (After all, although I try my darndest to portray it, I don't know everything.) Cernen Xanthine Katrena 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of like the picture of the world held up by an elephant, which stands on the back of another elephant, which stands on the back of another, and so on all the way down.... If I'm not mistaken, this is part of Hindu philosophy. (Don't test me on the article, I haven't read it.)
Never heard about this! Just noticed though that someone has hopelessly screwed up the Hindu cosmology article. deeptrivia (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, it's time to fix it. How about you do it? (Don't ask me, I've already confessed my total ignorance.) Halcatalyst 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's another version with turtles all the way down. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In turn, this reminds me of the cosmologists who have now calculated that there must be some 500 million universes out there. See The Cosmic Landscape : String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design by Leonard Susskind. Susskind, at least, is very sure of himself (and sure that God is ruled out). I'm not so sure. Halcatalyst 03:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dating question[edit]

I don't know if anyone has an answer, this seemed like the best place to ask, but I want to know what's the Best way for a girl to tell a guy she likes him? Thanx in advance. --anon

Different methods would be appropriate for church or spring break in Mexico, but "smile at him, laugh at his jokes, and touch him when you get the chance" works about everywhere. StuRat 23:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~djb/shelley/1880onlove.html
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends of the person. Everyone reacts to certain things differently, and some people are particularly unaware of what may seem like "obvious cues" to others, so indirectly showing affection might not be perceived at all. Knowing the guy enough will give you a good idea of how he'd react to certain things, and you could start from there. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be easiest just to tell him you like him, if you think he'll like you in return. He probably will, guys are easy. If you think he won't, try googling seduction. Most of the information is for guys who want girls, but I'm sure you could turn it around. Black Carrot 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found that, among North American youth, the direct method ("hey, we should hang out more"; "why haven't you asked me out yet?") works pretty well. You have a pretty high success rate, and if the guy does say no, then the other guys in your social group at least know that you're a fairly confident girl, which makes you seem more attractive to them. Romantic advice tends to translate very poorly across cultures, though. There is one trick that works in every culture, though: get a friend who's about three years older than you and who's very socially comfortable, and ask that friend for advice. --Mareino 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 23[edit]

What is the greatest distance from east to west in Canada?[edit]

First, that article gives the positions of Canada's extreme points, but not the distances between them.

Second, the phrase "greatest distance from east to west" is not very well defined. Are we being asked for (1) the great-circle distance between the country's two most widely separated points, on the assumption that the path connecting them is something like east-west? Or (2) the length of the longest due east-west path (parallel of latitude) with its west end at the country's west side and its east end at the country's east side? Or (3) the length of the great circle joining the ends of that path? Or something else?

It appears to me that the two points for (1) will be the southwest corner of the Yukon Territory (near Mt. St. Elias), and Cape Race in Newfoundland. (Not Cape Spear, because the great circle path comes into Newfoundland from the northwest, and the coast from Cape Race to Cape Spear is fairly close to north-south in alignment.) Mt. St. Elias is at 60°18'N according to my atlas, and the north-south border is at 141°W, so the combination of those coordinates should be close to the border angle; and for Cape Race the atlas gives 46°40'N, 53°10'W. Then this distance calculator makes the distance 3,456 miles or 5,561 km.

For (2), the longest parallel in degrees is just near the Arctic Circle, from 61°18'W (Cape Dyer) to the 141°W Yukon border, for a length of 79°42', but as you go south the degrees get longer, essentially in proportion to the cosine of the latitude, so that's not going to be the right answer. There are three latitudes farther south that look like candidates: 53°25'N, with the parallel from 55°50'W in southeastern Labrador to 132°45'W in the Queen Charlotte Islands, or 76°55' long; 49°15'N, from Cape Freels in Newfoundland at 53°28'W to 126°1'W on Vancouver Island near Tofino, or 72°33'; and 48°39'N, from near Cape Bonavista in Newfoundland at 53°W to 124°49'W on Vancouver Island, or 71°49', traversing a long section of the US. Correcting for the latitude, I make it that the last of these is the longest, equivalent to 47.446° at the equator. That's about 3,275 miles or 5,272 km. But these figures will be somewhat inaccurate, even if I measured and calculated correctly, as I did not attempt to take into account the non-spherical shape of the earth.

For (3), using the same endpoints as the last calculation above and the distance calculature linked in (1), I get a great-circle distance of 3,160 miles or 5,085 km.

That was fun! --Anonymous, 10:32 UTC, January 23.

  • Glad you enjoyed it. We'll send you a bill at the end of the month. :o) Halcatalyst 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grin! --Anon.

Wouldn't the "greatest distance" go around the far side of the Earth, say 21,000 miles ? LOL. StuRat 16:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nah, the question specified from east to west. hydnjo talk 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be taken as the distance from the East Coast to the West Coast, with no direction specified. StuRat 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question also specified "in Canada". And my interpretations used words like "with its west end on the west coast" in order to cover the "far side of the Earth" objection. --Anonymous, 04:10 UTC, January 24.

Ex-patriot Figures[edit]

I was wondering if anyone had any statistics on the number of Americans currently living abroad, preferrably ordered from the country with the greatest number of Americans to the least. Even a top 10 or 20 list would be useful. Thanks for the help.

can't help, but you'll get further if you look for expatriates. A lot of them are still probably patriotic Americans. I hate to recommend (gasp!) a book, but this sort of fact can probably be found in an up-to-date "Information Please Almanac" or "World Almanac and Book of Facts". There may also be online versions...? Grutness...wha? 04:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're writing a report, you need to spell the word "expatriate". (Might help you look for figures, too). - Nunh-huh 05:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also check relevant U.S. gov departments such as Immigration and Naturalization or State. Marskell 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience of medici[edit]

what is the patience of medici and how it works?

Here's some URL I found:

www.aworld.ru LD4All

and an old one which isn't accessible anymore:

ezboard's forum

referenced in this google's cache:

google's cache

and a part of the last one maybe:

"His magic studies caused lively interest the kingly persons, and Mary Medici was one of the admirers. To the experts of card games is known the patience of Medici - surprising magic patience,whose secret passed to it from the Di. There is nothing surprising in the..."

(retrieved from various metasearch)

thanks for any answer. greg. 83.214.15.209 02:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an answer as such, but it may give some clues... patience (known in some countries as solitaire) is a form of card game played by one person. So far so good, but... there are numerous connections between the Medicis and the use of the Tarot deck, so I suspect that that is used rather than the standard 52-card deck used today (and which at least partly developed from it). Grutness...wha? 05:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan[edit]

Hi, This is my first time so I'm not sure how this works. I had surgery so it's been very hard for me to find the answers to these three questions that are needed on 01/23/06. Can you please help? The questions are as follows: 1. Khan's empire at the time of his death extended across Asia, from the Pacific Ocean to the Caspian Sea - Name one civilization conqered by the Khan as an example of that empire. 2. His descendants extended the empire and maintained power in the region for several hundred years - This period is called the Pax Mongolica by modern historians. Describe that period. 3. His grandson, Kubilai Khan - Name one event in his reign beyond having lots of descendants and establishing the Yuan Dynasty. *I hope you will respond and thanks for your help. Sonja Sharpe

Look at our Ghengis Khan, Kublai Khan, and Pax Mongolica articles. StuRat 05:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't help, Homework might. -- Chuq 13:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'habits of inquiry' mean ?[edit]

"Habits of inquiry" till the patterns of behavior you develop to learn things, especially in school. They might include asking questions and praticipating in class discussion, using the library, and even performing experiments. Halcatalyst 13:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 83.214.15.209 05:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!!!
THIS IS NOT exactly WHAT I WROTE. Some kid with time on his hands is doing custom editing here. No skin off my teeth, but if some administrator knows how to spank 83.214.15.209, I won't consider it child abuse. Halcatalyst 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian female philosophers[edit]

I would like to know more about particular Asian female philosophers - sort of the Asian versions of Simone Weil and Simone de Beauvoir - leading figures in their fields who created fields of enquiry or wrote interesting books and completely dedicated themselves to their work. Tahnk you very much, --EuropracBHIT 09:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps not quite what you're looking for but Murasaki Shikibu is at least partly credited with inventing the novel. Marskell 14:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the question about literature in general, look at Mirabai, Arundhati Roy, Mahadevi Varma, Shobha De, Jhumpa Lahiri, Amrita Pritam, Anita Desai, Kamala Das, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction[edit]

Was there any direct effect upon Reconstruction Period with the impeachment of Andrew Johnson?

See Andrew Johnson, specifically the section on his impeachment. --Kainaw (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining copies of British naturalisation papers[edit]

Can you please tell me how one can get copies of British naturalisation papers of people who arrived in England during the 1890s. Thank you.

It tells you here. Lots of other info too. --BluePlatypus 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic expansionism[edit]

Was economic expansionism an ideology of sorts, similar to imperialism? Or was it merely a historical process that was, ideologically, just a subset of manifest destiny. Lastly, can economic expansionism ever be considered imperialistic in any way? Thank you--Urthogie 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Marxism maintains that capitalism has an inherent difference between wage and cost that can only be satisfied, without revolution, by continual economic expansion, and such expansion requires territorial control and subjugation. Therefore, according to Marxists, all capitalism is inherently imperialist and economic expansion is an ideology. Even without Marxist theory, economic expansionism inevitably seems to enunciate a set of ideological principles as a second order of business, and generally these are imperialist, whether we're talking about Manifest Destiny or the great Southern Empire that the Confederate States of America anticipated or, arguably, the Monroe Doctrine (which was purportedly a denial of colonialism but has been alledged to be a colonialist contesting of another colonialism, substituting economic imperialism for state imperialism). However, economic expansion is not knowingly imperial. It is the need to grow and is an impulse. The ideology comes later. Geogre 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix trilogy[edit]

What is the significance of the sunglasses? It seems like most of the main characters are wearing them, even when fighting, and they rarely come off accidentally.

On a side note, how do Morpheus's sunglasses stay on? They have no arms to loop around the ears.

For the most part, they simply increase the mystery around the main characters, the agents etc. They also help viewers distinguish bluepills from redpills and in the Agents' cases, they also make the agents look like the men in black. Agent Smith's sunglasses also gradually change in form as he becomes more of a rogue program to look less like those of other agents and more like Neo. (Why do I know loads about sunglasses in the Matrix and nothing about useful stuff? :) )smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morpheus's sunglasses are "pince-nez" (French for "pinch nose") glasses, meaning they stay on by pinching the bridge of the nose. The good guys (Neo, Morpheus, etc.) wear round or curved sunglasses. The baddies (Agents, Cypher, The Twins) wear sunglasses with corners. When Smith returns in Reloaded his sunglasses are the same shape as Neo's, but with sharp corners like an Agent's. --Canley 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're also good product placement. --Robert Merkel 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be good product placement, the brand name must be clearly visible. StuRat 14:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus they help to hide Keanu Reeves' perpetually glazed, mindless and expressionless eyes. And sunglasses look cool. Proto t c 11:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said this quote?[edit]

I know that in the song "Your Ex-Lover is Dead," the Stars use the following quote: "When there's nothing left to burn, you have to set yourself on fire." Who originally said this quote? I know it's been around for years, and it's one of my favorite quotes, but I would very much like to know who said it first.

I thought it was the singer's father? At least I'm pretty sure he read the line. --Tothebarricades 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, Torquil Campbell's father uttered these famous words. http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/whatson/aotd/aotd_stars_fire.shtml --195.194.74.92 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend Advice[edit]

I don't have any older brothers or sisters, so I figured I should ask here, so I have something to tell my little sisters. How can I tell if the guy I like likes me back? We always say hi to each other, and we talk all during the classes I have with him. He doesn't have a girlfriend, and we are friends. We flirt casually, but our lockers are right next to each other. I don't want to ask him out and have him say no, because that would be so awkward. Should I or shouldn't I ask him? If this helps at all, I live in the southwest. Are guys different around the country?

It's impossible to tell from a description like that how somebody feels about you - remember, you're hardly an unbiased observer. He *might* be interested in going out with you (and be too awkward to figure out how to ask himself, which is a relatively common phenomenon amongst teenage boys) but then again he might be happy to flirt with you because he think there's no chance of a relationship.
In any case, relationships are always awkward, and rejection is always unpleasant, but unless you ask you'll never know. Only you can make a decision as to whether you want to ask this specific boy out, but, tell me, are you never going to ask *anyone* out because it would be "too awkward"?
If you do decide to ask him out, put a little bit of thought into doing so; for instance, have some thought as to where you might like to ask him out on a date (what kind of movies does he like, for instance?), and whatever you do ask him in private; don't ask a male about *anything* related to their emotions in front of their friends, particularly their male friends (and, yes, this applies to the "sensitive" ones too...). And finally, though it may be hard, have a bit of a think about what you'll do if he says "no"; you may feel like it, but running off with tears running down your cheeks is probably going to make reestablishing a friendship much harder than remaining calm. If you want to have a cry, don't do so in front of him!
Oh, and teenage boys are essentially the same everywhere - they have hormones running like crazy through their bodies and their brains are trying and failing to catch up...
Good luck and I hope it works out for you whatever you decide to do. And please note, my only qualifications for giving this advice is that I was a teenage boy once... --Robert Merkel 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sure sounds to me like he likes you. StuRat 06:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might also make a difference what type of guy is he. Is he outgoing with lots of friends who invite him to all the parties and play on the football team with him? Has he had lots of girlfriends in the past? If this is the case, he would ask you out by now if he were interested, and all you can do is turn up the flirting a notch or two and hope for the best. On the other hand, is he shy? More inclined toward writing for the school paper or writing songs on his guitar? Has he had very few (or no) girlfriends? Then it might be best for you to just ask him out, as Robert outlined above. Good luck! — BrianSmithson 19:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in a question called Dating question above. Black Carrot 13:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalized Epistemology[edit]

Hi, Can someone explain to me what exaclty is the 'anti-psychologism' of Kant Frege and Hegel? and what does the whole naturalized epistemology vs. the other epistemology which I don't know what is called, is about? because I don't udnerstand really what each says and how it contradicts the other one.--Cosmic girl 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you've seen our article on anti-psychologism, perhaps I can paraphrase it. The theory says that logical truth does not depend on the content of human ideas. So a proponent of anti-psychologism would expect an alien with no knowledge of human culture to agree with the logic of a statement such as "All crows are either black, or they are not black". The opposing viewpoint is that these truths are partly human constructs.
[41] has a useful introduction to epistemology, which discusses various theories. Warofdreams talk 12:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Anti-psychologism sounds pretty rational to me ...so why then is Kant considered an idealist? and how come Ayn Rand despised him so much when by that I can see he was pretty rational? at least in his epystemology. so I assume that naturalized epistemology says that logic is a human construct? since NE is supposed to be the opposite of anti-psychologism...but to me it sounds by their names like they should be the opposite, I mean, NE should mean that logic has a basis in reality and not culture, and anti-ps. should be the opposite of that, just judging by their names, but I'm wrong and now even more conffused.--Cosmic girl 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on naturalized epistemology says, it covers a range of viewpoints, but all essentially say that logic is derived in part from empirical science and is not something with which people are born with an understanding of. So it is a counterpart to anti-psychologism, if not exactly its opposite. Kant is an idealist in the sense given at the top of the idealism article, that "Epistemological idealists might insist that the only things which can be directly known for certain are ideas." I'm not familiar with Rand's views on the subject, but it seems they were expressed in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and there's a substantial article at objectivist epistemology dealing with Rand's views. Warofdreams talk 15:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what would be my philosophy if I thought that in fact we can only know ideas but still think that that isn't a useful position practically? I mean, I think we work best under the Naturalized Epistemology supposition, but the other one might as well be true. is there any name for that?--Cosmic girl 18:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Creationism and Deism[edit]

Because of the debate between creation and evolution, some people say that God first created the earliest and simplest life forms, and then, he slowly allowed or influenced them to evolve into more complex ones like us.This is called evolutionary creationism.But the problem with this belief is that then, you have explain why if God(or a god) decided to create life, he would create it that way.I wonder, is there a possible reason why God would do that?If so, can somebody tell me? Another strange belief is deism.Deism is a philosophy wich says that God created the world, but after he created that, he left it strictly alone.It says that God exists, but he doesn't do anything to change,influence or intervene in the world.Deists compare God to a watchmaker, who after he creates it, lets it function by itself.But the problem with deism, again, is why.Why would God(or a god) create a universe and then just leave it alone?In Wikipedia, it said that deists believe that it's because the best of all possible worlds has been created.Is that saying that deists believe that the world is perfect?Of course, it's obviously not!Also, that doesn't explain why God decided to create the world in the first place.So would God(if he exists) really create the world and leave it alone?

Media:User Bowei

Well, for the first bit: that's the conundrum religious people get into if they claim to be able to explain the actions of their God. Since they will always end up with things they can't explain, they always end up with the contradiction of seeming to know exactly what God was thinking in one case, while shrugging and saying "The lord works in mysterious ways" in another. So you really need to adress a more fundamental theological question first: What makes you think humans are capable of fathoming the will of god/the gods? I don't see how Deism is either better or worse than other faiths in that respect. --BluePlatypus 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BluePlatypus , and I also think that the best way we have to aproach or guess truth is science, and I also think that we have to be brave and dare to think and reason and never give up, no matter how irrational some things seem sometimes. --Cosmic girl 19:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You're both being terribly dismissive of some very intelligent folks. The Deism under discussion is the late form, with the "clockmaker God." The answer to the "problem" is that such a Creator is not the Abrahamic one; it is a disengaged deity that merely enjoyed the engineering. The other answer, if one did wish to have an Abrahamic vision of the deity and try to force it into this Deism, is that God turned from the natural to the spiritual creation when it was done. The article is, I think, terribly wrong, and I do plan to fix it, eventually. "Deism" refers to several different things. This sort is the Voltaire version, and the idea is that another created world would be worse. It isn't that this is a wonderful world, but rather that no world could be made better, that every evil is a balance with a good. Geogre 22:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. The kind of deism Geogre is talking about is strictly the 18th century kind: of the Enlightenment and heavily influenced by Newtonian science and therefore both empirical and rational (the universe [and we] are no more than machines). Let's just say that any deism (intelligent design???) of the 21st century ought to recognize it cannot be Abrahamic (i.e., Jewish, Christian, or Islamic) and that deism fundamentally implies NOT theism = "there is no god interested in you". Halcatalyst 22:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been a little ticked that the Deism article doesn't take in the Lord Herbert of Cherbury sort or the earlier 18th c. "natural religion" sort. One strand of the thought wanted to survey all world religions, found out what was in common to them all, and then assume that such was the "primitive" and universally true religion (the founding assumption being that the true God communicates to the innate soul and that society and education pervert this and all established churches try to deny it). Another sort wanted to find that religion that could be deduced from the empirical world. Voltaire's version is of that sort, and it's related to some other post-Newtonian religions innovations (like the form of hylozoism that took life from all sense of privilege and saw it as just another natural phenomenon). These late 18th c. deists were fairly profoundly trying not to be Christian. Geogre 11:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything against Deism guys, I just said I find science a better tool than aimless speculation, speculation is great, but let's just not make it irrational or aimless even if the univrese turns out to be that way (which I doubt) because we get nothing out of that but a confussed mind... maybe Deism turns out to be true, but like Halcatalyst said, even deism has evolved, so we can expect it to evolve even more I guess... and yes, I suspect good and evil are balanced but does that mean we can't work for the betterment of our world? it seems to me that you are saying that as the world is already the best it can be let's do nothing, actually I think that our human condition can be improved and a belief in God is to ignore our own strengths...--Cosmic girl 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. StuRat 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the question... You can't second guess god. That's pretty much the point. But one good reason is that God cares about process over destinations. If god just wanted some folk to worship him, why didn't he just toss people in directly to heaven, without all that silly life business? If all living things eventually die, why not just start them off dead? Why have history, when He could have just painstakingly assembled the world and started it off at a timescale of 5 minutes ago? Because, plausibly, there is some meaning to the idea of experience, choice, and change, and creativity exhibited in life existing outside of God. God wants to be a teacher, perhaps, instead of an operator, a lawmaker instead of a tyrant, a trainer instead of a straitjacket. And besides, why not? God is surely patient enough to wait for evolution to happen.</theological soundbite of the day>--Fangz 02:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely valid position. Intelligent Design goes not to Deism but to orthodoxy. The idea that the creation of the world's 7 days in Genesis might be 7 billion years goes to orthodox, non-Deist, thinkers. However, this is not really what Voltaire and his deists were going on about. They specifically wanted a rational and non-interventionist and dispassionate God, which is not a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic God. Geogre 11:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another belief similar to the "watchmaker" idea is that "God is dead". That is, God created the universe but at some point ceased to exist. A variation might just have him being "elsewhere" and not concerned with Earth at the moment. Both of these beliefs require God not be omnipotent, of course. They have the advantage of explaining the apparent lack of strong evidence for current direct intervention by God, despite having references in many holy books to frequent direct intervention in people's affairs by God in the past. Skeptics, of course, would just say that those "miracles" were tricks which couldn't hold up to modern scientific scrutiny. One biblical story in particular seems to support this view. Moses supposedly confronted the Pharaoh's priest and both had their staffs turn into snakes, with Moses's snake consuming the others. Now, if one supposes that Moses was able to change his staff into a snake by direct action of God, this brings up the question of how the Pharaoh's priest changed his staff into snakes. Either his god did it (which contradicts the monotheism presented by the Bible) or it was just a "magic trick" (say with hidden snakes up his sleeve). If his was a magic trick, then why couldn't Moses's snake be the same ? StuRat 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, it could be. But maybe it wasn't. Maybe there is one god, and he/she/it intervenes whenever he/she/it wills it. Whether we like it or not, and whether we notice it or not. Halcatalyst 15:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that God , to be God (the ultimate, because the watchmaker god may also need a ground of being)has to exist and not exist at the same time, thus have a complete diferent and unfathomable kind of existence...so that means we shouldn't bother about metaphysics too much anyway, I mean it's cool to bother about it and try to understand God, but I really think humanity needs to mature and not kill each other because they have a slightly diferent conception of God!, we should just be mature and thank our oldest brothers which are scientists and try to be like them and contribute to the betterment of life and just be tolerant because we can't claim to know anything, we can only claim to be brave enough to investigate.--Cosmic girl 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with "a complete diferent and unfathomable kind of existence." One could say that God... no, let's not say God... THAT WHICH IS, or maybe just IS, or maybe no-name, whatever... is (what is the meaning of is?) not only nothing (via negativa) but beyond nothing. Ganz andere (totally other) and also Ground of Being (GOB). Halcatalyst 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris County[edit]

Can you(or anybody) please give me a map of Harris County in Texas, with all the city limits and city borders shown on it?(Post it on Wikipedia)

Go to www.google.com, pick Images, and type:
"Harris county, Texas" map
and you will find many maps. StuRat 05:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

Do anyone know when ariyan A. johnson was born. she played on the steve heavry shoe

What? Sir/Madam, can you please write more clearly? Let's see, did you say, "Does anyone know when Ariyan A. Johnson was born? She played on The Steve Harvey Show."? If so, the best I can figure is that she was born about 1976. Why? Because, in the film Just Another Girl on the I.R.T. (1993), she plays a 17-year-old. Of course, knowing the film industry a little too well, the fact that she played a 17-year-old isn't saying much.
  • The visitor would do well to go to IMDB and looking up the television show. He can then go to the cast list and check the biographies of the actresses. The birthday should be listed there. I don't think Wikipedia has an article on that actress, and her presence may be a little small for a biography at this point. Geogre 15:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 24[edit]

Time[edit]

Is there any evidence that time exists and is not just a misconception that our minds have created for us?

--24.29.92.197 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Time. Halcatalyst 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I remember things that I believe to have occured in the past, and my present sensory experiences seem to agree with them, but really there's no way I can be certain that the past actually existed, because I have no way of experiencing it directly. I highly recommend Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy for a deeper look at this issue. —Keenan Pepper 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't know it from the article on memory (written from a psychologist's point of view), but most brain scientists hold that memory is reconstructed through neural associations. Neurons give "hints" to one another to fire or not. The foundation of human memory is not discrete, like bits in a computer. That's the real reason we can't experience the past directly: It no longer exists for us. The brain operates only in the present. Halcatalyst 03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The movie What the Bleep Do We Know!? had an interesting section related to this, namely that the human brain doesn't distinguish between memories of things and visually seeing them. You'll have to watch the movie for a better explanation, as I any explanation I give wouldn't do it justice. {{subst:WAvegetarian/sig}} 04:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I hated that movie so much. The quacks and pseudoscience were endurable, but the worst part was when they chopped up the interviews of real physicists to misrepresent their views. It was just awful. —Keenan Pepper 05:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quacks? Psuedoscience? Are you perchance suggesting that housewife wasn't really channelling a 35,000 year old warrior spirit who came from the continent of Lemuria and conquered the city of Atlantis? Pfft. I suppose you think it was more likely that she was just, I dunno, making it all up for fame and money or something. As if! ;) --Noodhoog 12:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you question the existence of time, why not question the existence of the universe ? Perhaps it's all just somebody's dream. Still, even a dream implies that things are changing during the course of the dream, which, of course, requires time. 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Is there no change of death in paradise?" Wallace Stevens wanted to know.
Does ripe fruit never fall? Or do the boughs
Hang always heavy in that perfect sky,
Unchanging, yet so like our perishing earth,
With rivers like our own that seek for seas
They never find, the same receding shores
That never touch with inarticulate pang?
Halcatalyst 14:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That gave me goosebumps! I need to read more Wallace Stevens. —Keenan Pepper 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hey, nobody's stopping you! ;P In the combination of language and ideas I've found no peer to Stevens. He wanted to... not find... not just believe in... not create, exactly... but by means of words to co-create reality, what he called the "supreme fiction." He knew it had to be ordered, somehow.
Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon,
The maker's rage to order words of the sea,
Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and of our origins,
In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.
From "The Idea of Order at Key West," found at [42]
A few of his best-known poems, including "Sunday Morning" (quoted in the next-to-last passage above), "Anecdote of the Jar,""The Emperor of Ice-Cream," Peter Quince at the Clavier, "The Snow Man," and "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird" are found at web-books.com.
Halcatalyst 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stevens is absolutely sui generis, and none of the people who imitated him have even succeeded in aping him, IMO. (I once had a student write of "The Anecdote of the Jar," "The white man had not yet settled east Tennessee in 1924.") Stevens was quite hostile to Christianity, and I've always thought that was strange, and he himself had a bit of an inferiority complex according to some anecdotes from Donald Hall. Magnificent poet, though, and the only methadone for the morphine of Stevens that I've found has been A. R. Ammons. Geogre 11:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was hostile to Christianity, but he
  • often heavily uses its major symbols, e.g., the day is
Stilled for the passing of her dreaming feet
Over the seas, to silent Palestine,
Dominion of the blood and sepulchre.
("Sunday Morning")
  • retells and interprets stories from the Bible ("Peter Quince at the Clavier"),
  • and even alludes to patristic fathers (Jerome), "Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction," III.1),
  • always asking, "What am I to believe?" (ibid., III.viii).
To me, his quest was always religious, never atheistic; he was always a pilgrim, a seeker, skeptical though he may have been. Halcatalyst 12:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, those between the wars (i.e. Modernism) were constantly seeking Order, whether in Marxism or Fascism, and those immediately after the war rejected the quest for Order in favor of the individual (from the early Sartre and Camus on to the 1950's and Beat poetry and its desire for a mystical persona to the 1960's retreat to Confessional poetry).
However, on the subject of the question, the reader could consider Henri Bergson in addition to the usual run of names (Augustine of Hippo et al.). Geogre 13:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freud and Lenau[edit]

In The Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freud makes a reference to a poem by Nikolaus Lenau "which puts infanticide and the prevention of children on the same plane." What is this work? And, what other figures have put forward the same argument? --Tothebarricades 05:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an extensive list of the texts of Lenau's lyrics and other works (in German) on the Web. --Halcatalyst 20:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Joyce Crick translation of Dreams, the most likely poem Freud was referring to is "Das tote Glück" ("Dead Happiness"), though, as the footnote says, "seems to be about infanticide; it could imply abortion, but not contraception." --Fastfission 03:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Highway Patrol Jurisdiction[edit]

Can the CHP pull me over on a side street? They did.... Was it legal? What is their jurisdiction?

The agency has specific jurisdiction over all California state routes, U.S. Highways and Interstate highways, and also serves as a statewide patrol force, especially in unincorporated and lightly populated areas of the state. --from California Highway Patrol#Highway Patrol Duties --jh51681 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Was the place that you got pulled over anything like what is described in the first sentence of the "Highway patrol duties" section of the California Highway Patrol article? If so, I'd say, yes, they were more than likely within their jurisdiction. And think about it from their point of view. If they weren't in their jurisdiction then why waste their time giving you a ticket that they know will be thrown out of court when the judge finds out that they were overstepping their bounds? I'd consult a lawyer if I were you though since I'm just some idiot on the internet. Dismas|(talk) 06:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Joe Torres dead?[edit]

Given that the article says he is, but doesn't give a source, is he? Alphax τεχ 14:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google... [43] --Kainaw (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but is there are citable source which confirms this, eg. Social Security or an obituary? Alphax τεχ 09:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

life slave[edit]

a realitive of mine save the life of a young chinese woamen during ww1 she was cut and bleeding he patched her and saved her life. i often heard her call him master when they thought they were alone so one of the last times i saw them i asked her she was much easier to talk to then he was he saved my life he is my master. when you save some ones life there life is yours he saved my life when i was seven he was seventeen he would not take me then though i wanted to prove my worth he finaly consented to me being his mate after i had blosemed the first time. but i have always done my best to keep master happy. just how popular was this life slave and how deeply imbeded was it and was it like she said till her master dies and beyound. for she killed her self once her master was buried and all things taken care of

Your writing is very hard to read. You need to learn to use capitalization properly and learn proper sentence structure so we can understand you. StuRat 14:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a question mark in that whole block of text, so I'm assuming there's no question. —Keenan Pepper 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the idea of a "Life Slave" that this person has encountered personally have antecedents anywhere? I guess that would be the question. Marskell 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of this concept before, but thought it was fictional, not real. StuRat 12:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take a shot at rewriting it in actual English:

A relative of mine saved the life of a young Chinese girl during WW1. She was cut and bleeding and he patched her up and saved her life. I often heard her call him "master" when she thought they were alone. Then, one of the last times I saw them, I asked her about this. She was much easier to talk to then and said "He saved my life so he is my master. When you save someone's life their life is yours. He saved my life when I was seven and he was seventeen. He would not take me then, even though I wanted to prove my worth. He finally consented to me being his mate after I had blossomed the first time. But I have always done my best to keep master happy."

Just how common was this life-slave practice and how deeply imbedded was it ? And was it like she said: "'til her master dies and beyond" ? (She killed herself once her master was buried and all his affairs were taken care of.)

StuRat 19:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tha Stu! I think the condition of that woman was not slavery nor sexploitation, as she thought it was mere justice to stay with the guy that saved her life when she was 7. Also, devotion from a woman to her husband is not uncommon.
Think of the way of life amongst chinese people and of the lack of good translation for a chinese word (dharma, obligation, and also, why not, slavery) "Slavery is a condition in which one person, known as a Slave, is under the control of another" (Slave trade). --DLL 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it obvious that if you look at things chronologically the earliest occurrence of this was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Confusing Manifestation 13:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada elections[edit]

How come the Conservative Party is in charge? I am an American and slightly confused, it seems to me that the NDP and the Liberals together have more seats than the Conservatives so why don't they work together? arent they both left parties?

See Canadian federal election, 2006. It has plenty of info on the issues and parties involved. --Kainaw (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While a Liberal/NDP coalition or deal would be possible, it is parliamentary tradition that the party that gets the largest number of seats gets the first crack at forming a government. The Conservatives will have to deal with the other three parties to get legisaltion passed. If the Liberals and NDP formed a coalition or made an agreement for the NDP to support the Liberals, they still would not have enough votes for a majority, so the Liberals would have to make deals with the Conservatives (who would be very pissed off) or the Bloc Quebecois (who are very opposed to the Liberals), which would be very unlikely. Ground Zero | t 15:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the poster infra notes in passing, the Bloc is generally a left-of-center entity, and, so whilst there is surely tension betwixt the LP and BQ as parties, there is less tension on an ideological level, and, so, an LP-BQ-NDP coalition, although surely impractical and wholly unlikely, would not be entirely unrealistic. One observes, for example, that the BQ platform for the recent election lends support to, inter al., the expansion of federal funding of university education, the imposition of a surfeit tax on oil company profits, and the implementation of any anti-terror laws carefully, in view of civil liberties concerns; in broad terms, each of these planks may well be found in the platforms of the NDP and LP. Joe 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's parliament has three parts: the Crown (currently Queen Elizabeth II), represented by the Governor General, an appointed Senate and an elected House of Commons.

Canada's branches of government relate to each other by an unwritten constitutional convention that differs from the US where the powers of the various branches of government are written in to a consitution.

By convention, the Governor General is able to exercise the reserve powers of the Queen, but does so within the context of a strict set of traditions. One of the main jobs of the Governor General is to ensure that the country always has a Prime Minister. By tradition the Governor General asks the leader of the party winning the most seats in the election to try and form a government. The leader then becomes the Prime Minister (once he is sworn in) and the party starts to govern. If the ruling party is defeated in the House of Commons on a confidence vote, the Prime Minister by tradition asks the Governor General to dissolve the House and a general election is called.

In 1925 the Governor General ignored tradition and the Prime Minister and asked the party with the next highest number of seats to form a government after the first party was defeated in a confidence vote. Although this was technically within the Governor General's reserve powers, it was outside of tradition and created a constitutional crisis. This second Prime Minister and his government lasted only a few days.

So, the Governor General, in theory could by-pass the Conservatives and ask the Liberals to form a government with the NDP and Bloc (who are both leftest), but this would cause a constitutional crisis and most likely the Liberals would not accept as the Canadian public would punish them severely in any ensuing election for not following tradition. The Queen would also most likely be asked in this case to fire the Governor General (whether she would or not is uncertain, however she would be quite annoyed no doubt by the situation). In the worst-case, it would potentially cause civil war.

As an interesting side note, the Governor General is also the commander in chief of the Canadian military.

The above is rather misleading. The important point is that the parliamentary system was not designed to require political parties in the first place. The Governor General (GG) selects as prime minister (PM) a person likely to be able to form a government (i.e. a cabinet) that will to command the support of a majority of the Commons. If there are parties, then that's going to be a party leader, but it doesn't have to be the leader of the party with the most seats. However, by tradition they do get the first try.
In 1926, PM King lost a confidence vote, showing that his government was no longer able to command majority support, and asked for a general election. The GG, Byng, was doing his job when he refused this. The PM serves at the convenience of Parliament, not the other way around; and if Parliament was ready to accept a Meighen government, then it was Byng's job to make Meighen PM. As it turned out, Meighen wasn't able to make a lasting government either; but that doesn't prove it was wrong for him to have the chance. What would have been a real constitutional crisis would have been if he hadn't been allowed to.
In Ontario, a similar situation played out in the provincial legislature in 1985. At the provincial level we say Lieutenant Governor (LG) instead of GG and Premier instead of PM, but the system is the same. In the 1985 election the provincial Progressive Conservatives (PC), Liberals, and New Democrats (NDP) finished with 52, 48, and 25 seats respectively. The premier going into the election was Frank Miller of the PCs, and he tried to form a government, but was defeated on a vote of no confidence at the first opportunity. The Liberals made a deal with the NDP for support; the LG named the Liberal leader, David Peterson, as premier; and Peterson's government lasted. No civil wars, no crises, just a government that could command the support of a majority of the legislature. Of course, Miller didn't make the mistake of asking for a new election.
So returning to the new federal Parliament, Paul Martin could have tried to stay on as Prime Minister if he thought he could command the support of a majority of the Commons -- but the Liberals and NDP would not make up a majority. He'd need the firm backing of the BQ or the Conservatives, neither of which is imaginable. The other parties will be more willing to support the Conservatives, since they do have the most seats and someone has to govern, so Harper becomes PM.
--Anonymous, 11:52 UTC, January 25.
As a side-note the most famous example of a Prime Minister being appointed who didn't lead the largest party, in fact didn't lead any party, was Winston Churchill. DJ Clayworth 19:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Politics - The President's Cabinet.[edit]

Is there any information available on whether or not an American President has been less successful or more successful in relation to whether or not his appointed cabinet members are his friends/associates?

  • Yes, and the current President Bush has been criticised for filling his cabinet with "yes men" (and women). Perhaps the only voice of reason in his first term was Colin Powell, and now he's gone, too. StuRat 23:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China's population 2004[edit]

I cannot seem to find China's or France's Population in 2004. Also, in January 17th, 2005 what was the Japanese exchange rate to American dollars? --12.215.176.30 20:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much![reply]

Try the following link [44]. It is from the US Census Bureau. Type in a year and get a list of country populations. It also lets you get projected future populations. --Kainaw (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try the following link [45]. Enter the date range and currencies and you will get a table of historical exchange rates. --Kainaw (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 25[edit]

19th Century Eton College[edit]

I have a rather strange question, I believe. I would like as much information on the King’s Colledge of Our Lady of Eton beside Windsor (as the Wikipedia puts it) as it was about 150 to 200 years ago (1800’s, 19th century). That is, what it looked like, how it was run, what the rules were, what the classes were, what the decor was, what the uniforms were, what the the prevalent ideas of the time at the school were, etc., etc., etc. I am not British, nor have I been to Eton. In fact, I have only been to England once. But I am writing a book in which one of the characters goes to Eton in that time period. Believe me, I wouldn’t have that in the book if I could help it, but it is unavoidable. If you are a historian, an old student (obviously not 200 years old, but still...), a staff member, know others like those, or what have you, I am sure that any and all information you could give me would land me far ahead of where I am now. -24.17.154.203 06:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Assistance would be deeply appreciated. Deeply.[reply]

As a starting point, have you read Tom Brown's Schooldays? it may be about Rugby rather than Eton, but it's a very famous novel written by a public school alumnus in the period you seek. Beyond that, there must be innumerable written accounts of Eton (seeing the prominence of its alumni). Have you considered contact the college itself with your request? They must have a historian who could point you in the right direction. --Robert Merkel 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't have a historian (I have no agent, either...). I could contact the college, but goodness! that takes guts I don't have. I guess I could ask someone else to, but, you know, I just am not that forward. Isn't it easier to float in anonymity, here on the Wikipedia, with no one knowing or caring who you are? I know, that's a — uh — "lily-livered" thing to say, but anyway, no, I haven't read Tom Brown's Schooldays. I'll look into other books too. Any other help would, well, help. Anyone?

Ford Focus Commercial -- Music[edit]

Does anyone know the instrumental music playing on a current U.S. Ford Focus commercial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.170.73 (talk • contribs) 22:00, January 24, 2006

Minor question on Saudi royalty[edit]

I have a minor question on Saudi royalty. Abdullah is king and, should he die, the crown prince what-his name becomes king. Is this right? I wasn't really clear on this point. --Blue387 07:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what "crown prince" means. Abdullah's half brother Sultan is the current crown prince. See King of Saudi Arabia for info on how the crown prince is selected. StuRat 11:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between newly married couples[edit]

How many hours per day would a newly married couple have sex between them on an average? (Why I am asking this is that, all these days I was thinking that on an average couples would have sex for half an hour to one hour. But my friend told me that most couples have sex for 3 to 4 hours a day on average). Is is true? I would also like to know how many hours would satisfy a woman.

Everyone is different. But your friend is lying. And as for how many hours would satisfy a woman ... no woman is ever satisfied. Poisonous she-devils that they are. Proto t c 09:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, maybe they just want to cuddle ? I believe the frequency of sex will reduce in any relationship over time, both as the newness of the relationship wears off and due to age. That 3 to 4 hours figure might only last for the "honeymoon period". If they live long enough, sex may stop entirely at some point. This isn't necesarily the end of the relationship, just the end of it's sexual phase. StuRat 11:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any good research on this topic - it is rather specific, after all. I'd guess, however, that newly married couples may have sex anywhere from once a day to a couple of times a week. (People have a lot less sex than we tend to think, you see.) Translating that to hours a day: From 1 hour a day to .3 hours a day, say.
Satisfying a woman is not a general question. Every woman, like every man, is different. Talk to the woman you're having sex with and find out what she likes. Nothing like communication and compromise to solve just about every problem in a relationship. --George 16:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great scene in the movie "Annie Hall" - the couple (Allen and Keaton) are shown in split screen, each of them visiting their own therapist. You see her saying "He's insatiable! He just wants sex all the time! Twice a week!". Then you see him saying "I think she's frigid! We hardly ever have sex - only twice a week!" Everyone is different, there is no standard. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ratio of entrepreneurs to working population of USA[edit]

What is the ratio of entrepreneurs to working population of USA and the world. Is there any website where the figure for various countries are available?

"Entrepreneur" is a rather vague word, which could mean the founders of Google but could also extend down to a sidewalk hot-dog vendor who owns his own cart. Without a clear definition, coming up with stats would be difficult. Also, I disagree with your characterization of entrepreneurs as nonworkers. Most of them work very hard. StuRat 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read any such characterization in the question. Entrepreneurs are a subset of all working people. He/she was asking what proportion they are to the whole set. JackofOz 11:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could read it that way. StuRat 12:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, your retraction does not go far enough, StuRat. I think it is the only reasonable way to read it. If I asked "What is the ratio of children to human beings", could one infer I thought children were not humans? Of course not. The question was not about the ratio of entrepreneurs to the entire population of the USA, but only to the working population of the USA. Entrepreneurs are a subset of both populations. Any characterizations were your own invention. JackofOz 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a retraction. And no, it could have been meant either way. The terms "managers" and "workers" are sometimes used in a mutually exclusive way, for example. Only the author can clarify what they meant. I also notice you seem to delight in attacking people, for, in this case, at worst a minor misunderstanding of the question. StuRat 01:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You told the author they had characterized entrepreneurs as nonworkers, when they did no such thing. If you had asked the author whether this was in their mind, I would have had no problem with that. But you didn't ask, you asserted, and you took exception to what you could only have assumed they were thinking. That's why I challenged you. You now admit that only the author can clarify what they meant - but your original answer to the question took the position of knowing what they meant without ever bothering to check with them. It's one thing to read between the lines, it's quite another to assume that as a fact and then criticise the writer for that interpretation, which may have been a million miles from what they were thinking. Your words or anybody else's are not immune from query, and if your statements have merit, they will be able to withstand challenges and queries. I don't resile from the statement that "Any characterizations were your own invention". That was a challenge to your words, not a personal attack on you. I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked; that was certainly not my intention. I reject the claim that I "delight in attacking people". I have no qualms in challenging statements that I disagree with, and I expect the same in return (and get it). Cheers JackofOz 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If my interpretation was incorrect, that's up to the author to say, as you have no more insight into what they meant than I do. And you do seem to spend far more time criticizing other people's responses than actually responding to questions. StuRat 04:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take the position of claiming to know what was in the questioner's mind; you did that, and in so doing, attributed to them words they never used. That was what I objected to. And I'd do it again, willingly. You'd do the same to me, I'm sure.
A lot of WP editors do nothing but correct the spelling and grammar of other people's work, and nobody has a problem with that. Contrary to appearances, I don't trawl around looking for the next thing to criticise. I'm far too busy elsewhere for that. But lately, there have been a lot of people saying things on the ref desk that I just happen to disagree with, so I'm monitoring it a bit more closely than usual. Maybe my planets of communication are retrograde at the moment, or whatever. WP is all about debate, disagreement, discussion, negotiation, to arrive at something we can all agree on. These principles apply just as much in the ref desk as they apply to our articles. People come here seeking answers, and we have a duty not to mislead them, or even be discourteous to them. We can all play our part in ensuring such an outcome, and I play mine in my unique way. Can my approach be improved? Of course. Is this true of just about everybody else? Of course.
Anyway, thanks for toning down your earlier accusation that I "delighted in atacking people" (which was objectionable and inaccurate) to "criticising other people's responses" (which I can live with). JackofOz 06:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I toned it down too much. I meant to say you engage in overwhelmingly negative criticism, with very little positive to say to anyone. This is what I object to. Specifically, in addition to your widespread negative criticism of me, you also had negative comments for BluePlatypus under Science, Language and Miscellaneous, causing him to accuse you of making personal attacks against him. You also had negative comments for Kainaw and Freshgavin in Science, Zafirofbloe05 in Language, and both DirkvdM and Yeltensic in Miscellaneous. This seems to be going a bit overboard to me. StuRat 11:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were about 23 million businesses in the US in 2002, and presumably about that number of business owners. That's I think something more than 10% of the working population.--Pharos 16:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that a lot of people do both - i.e. they run a business and also do unrelated paid work. DJ Clayworth 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie about college grads[edit]

A few years ago I saw a movie about a group of friends who were graduating from college and feeling lost trying to figure out what to do with their lives. I'm trying to figure out what movie it was. It seemed like it was made in the 80s or early 90s. I remember it having John Cusack in it, but I've searched his filmography and can't find it so maybe I'm wrong. I know it had this other actor whose name I don't know but who looks like Craig Kilborn and was in quite a few cheesy 80s movies. In this movie he played a guy who had been in college for something like 7 years. So...any ideas? Thanks, Adam Konner 07:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elmo's Fire? If that wasn't it, you may want to look over the films that the Brat pack filmed. If it came out in the 80's then there's a fairly good chance that it had one of the members of the pack in it. Dismas|(talk) 09:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be thinking about The Big Chill (1983)? --Halcatalyst 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Dutch culture[edit]

Is it okay in the Netherlands to gift someone a DVD after watching it (i.e., after taking off its plastic cover) ? deeptrivia (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. David Sneek 11:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say: depends. If it's a DVD I really like, but is really hard to obtain, and you have it, and you give it to me (even though you like it), I would say: okay. If it's a DVD you received as a gift, watched one time and really didn't like, then I would say I would not find that especially. Merely giving someone something because you're too stingy (Yeah, I know the Dutch are the ones who are supposed to be stingy) to buy a real present and hence give something away that you don't care about anyway is not so cool. I rarely, if ever, give people used stuff, or re-give presents. Berteun 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably in as bad taste in the Netherlands as it is anywhere else on the planet Earth. You can certainly give a used DVD to a friend, but to call it a gift (Christmas, birthday, etc.) seems quite gauche. --Nelson Ricardo 11:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it would be more acceptable for a DVD than other items, since the quality of the movie should not be reduced by playing it. Also, assuming it's in excellent condition, the fact that it's "used" may not be apparent. They might think you just removed the wrapper to make it easier for them. For some new gifts, I intentionally open them beforehand; to check for missing parts, assemble them, test them, or burn off that horrid residue that fills a house with a burning smell the first time a new cooking appliance is used (why can't they eliminate that at the factory ?). StuRat 12:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, if I got a DVD with the shrinkwrap removed as a present, I'd just assume they'd removed the shrinkwrap to get rid of the price-sticker or something. As long as there's no visible wear, I wouldn't notice or mind. --BluePlatypus 16:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I guess I'll watch it before gifting. deeptrivia (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of an Islamic story.[edit]

I heard the following Islamic anecdote, or legend perhaps. A man goes travelling, but knowing his wife is pregnant, he says to God (or Allah): please take care of the baby. After he returns he finds out that his wife died and has been buried. He goes to the burial ground and digs her up, and finds the baby alive and the mother only partially. He then hears a voice that tells him that that which he trusted to God, God gave him back. But as he only asked for the baby and not the mother, the mother died.

After some Googling, I've found a German article [46], a review of the book ‘Der Schrecken Gottes’ (The terror of God) which mentions that it is ascribed to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Umar is a prominent Islamic figure, yet, I could not find the legend in other places (the review says it's in the reviewed book, but as I'm not living in Germany German bookstores and/or libraries do not abound, so I cannot check it). The story intrigues me though, so, if someone knows it, or knows the details, it's origin, or is able to find a webpage, I would be thankful.

Maybe that explains why Muslims must pray 5 times a day...if they fail to ask Allah to protect anyone they know Allah will punish them by killing that person. Also, note the male bias in this story. There is no mention that his wife needed to pray to Allah to preserve his life. The subtle implication is that a man's prayers to Allah are more important than a woman's prayers. StuRat 12:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that implication. Please try and keep away from expressing personal opinions about the shortcomings of a religion. Proto t c 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I provide balance by expressing comments about the shortcomings of all religions equally, LOL. StuRat 12:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make your comments less inflammatory. Let's avoid stirring up people's irrational sides, especially when this is not in a response to a direct question, shall we? --Ornil 17:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The baby is more important in every culture and religion and animal species too. Do not try to find faults - in our acception of the term - where the story only talks about faith and life. --DLL 18:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sooooo... is anyone actually going to answer the posted question? =/ —Keenan Pepper 01:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Derbyshire in England in the 1900s and 1910s[edit]

Can anyone please tell me what was the total population of Derbyshire in England in the 1900s and the 1910s? Thank you.

That should be available via the census. Wikipedia does not assemble census data, but the UK government has most of its historical census data online and certainly in print form. If you are in the UK, any central library should be able to get you the census from 1900 or 1910, and then you need to merely look at the various county populations. Geogre 20:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try [[47]]. Jameswilson 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. It was most helpful.

The 1901 population was 620,322, according to an old Encyclopedia Britannica. Grutness...wha? 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roosma, Märt[edit]

I am seeking any information available on the artist Mart Roosma. I believe he worked mainly in watercolor. I have located one piece done by him in the mid 40s. I believe he was Estonian, but I'm not certain. Any and all information available would be greatly apprecaited. Also, I would need for it to be presented in English.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Mary M. Hunsicker Valley Center, CA USA

Google doesn't seem to be a great help in this case. The first link found [48] contains a passing mention of the man, and suggests he did portraits. The second link is the third link [49] and is a shop, offering one of his paintings (this painting) for 350 euro's.
Other than that, Google is silent. Sorry. -- Ec5618 09:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whats the difference between nirvana & moksha in hinduism ?[edit]

thats it Hhnnrr 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See nirvana and moksha. --Kainaw (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have , but they seem very similar to me and i was wondering if someone who has a good understanding of hinduism could give me the differnce in a summarized manner .. thank you , but i still need help

Sure. Moksha is a relase/separation from the cycle of life-death-reincarnation-life-death... In other words, an immortal. To my knowledge, all of the gods in Hinduism have achieved Moksha and are immortal. Of course, there has to be stories about some god who did something wrong and was sent back into the cycle of life. Nirvana on the other hand is one step further to nothingness. People who try to relate it to Heaven have trouble understanding this. It is not Heaven - that would be Moksha. It is beyond that. It is a state of non-existence. So, it is an escape from everything. --Kainaw (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think nirvana is realization of non-dual reality, or in other words absorbtion into everything, rather than escape from everything.
It literally means to extinguish, as in to extinguish one's existence. Some have claimed that it means to extinguish one's existence in our current realm of being and move on one's true self - so it isn't like you won't exist at all. Others claim it means not existing anywhere, which is the true self. In the heavily Christian influenced western culture the new age meaning has been reduced to being like really in touch with the whole world and everything, man. --Kainaw (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament in the UK[edit]

What is the class/social background of current British MPs? The only data I can find is ancient.

"Class" is a bit of a wishy-washy term, but to give you some idea, a third of MPs went to private schools. Astonishingly, Tories are more likely to be toffs. Mark1 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a Torie is a British Conservative Party member (named after Quenn Victoria), but could you help a poor American out with "toffs", please ? StuRat 23:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a slang term meaning "A member of the upper classes, especially one who is elegantly dressed". And it's Tory, not Torie. Cheers JackofOz 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Toffs just means the upper classes (by birth and schooling) (as I think you guessed!}. They call the rest of us 'oiks'. BTW, I think the word Tory comes from somewhere else - something Irish? Jameswilson 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See British Whig Party#Name and Tory#History - basically, both are outlaws. Accurate! Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]
...and neither name has anything to do with Victoria! Grutness...wha? 06:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the article referenced by Mark1 is "The Educational Backgrounds of Members of the House of Commons and House of Lords" (PDF) by the Sutton Trust, 2005. According to this, about 18% of New Labourers and 59% of Tories went to private schools. --Heron 22:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 26[edit]

Opera performances in December 1938 in Paris France.[edit]

How can I find if there were any performances in the Paris Opera house in late December of 1938? Also, if there was, how can I find the dates, and the primary performer's names? I am not looking for a specific opera at that time, any will do, as long as it was performed in the Paris Opera House. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

  • Looking around the best I could find is the Henri Tomasi ballet Les Santons which premiered there November 18, 1938. If you want any more detail, you should probably just go to your local library and see if it has a history of the Paris Opera.--Pharos 04:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A standard method would be to go to a research library and peruse the microfiche archives of a Paris newspaper, such as Le Figaro. This would of course require you to understand French. Good luck with your novel or script :) --Robert Merkel 04:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vatican[edit]

I heard about a conection of the vatican and the masons in the History channel...does anyone know anything? --Cosmic girl 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • [In 1984], the pope imposed excommunication on Catholics who were Masons. An anti-Mason web site which quotes from the New Catholic Enclyclopedia is vitriolic against them. I warn you that this site represents extreme right-wing political and religious views. Our article on the Vatican doesn't say anything about the Masons, but if you follow up, the links from both places might lead you somewhere. But be careful they don't lead you where you don't want to go :P. Freemasonry is another product of the 18th century Enlightenment. Many Catholics, including Mozart, were members. One of the popes shortly after Mozart's time condemned the... what shall we call it... movement. Halcatalyst 03:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Masonic movement has its own religious rites (Scottish rite masonry) and it is a secret society. The Catholic Church has been hostile to both secret religious rites (for obvious reasons) and secret societies (as they purportedly sought to infiltrate the avenues of power). Masons have been under excommunication in Catholic nations for centuries. In the 19th century, the Masonic movement was at its greatest power, probably, with virtually all of the highest politicians in Protestant nations belonging. Any other connection, such as the Masons being inheritors of the Templars and the like, is speculative and fodder for febrile conspiracy theorists. Geogre 13:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :D , but what I actually heard at the end of the documentary which I would've wanted to see, was that this guy ( he was bald and had a mustache and was about in his late 40's) got killed because he knew too much about the nexus of the vatican and the masons that's quite literally what I heard.and it made me really curious haha.(like everything basically :|) --Cosmic girl 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The show was probably about Roberto Calvi's strange death in 1982. You can read all about Vatican implication in the article and follow up on the Masonic connections all you like. There are plenty, because it's about big money and, supposedly, conspiracies to take over the world. Halcatalyst 17:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also have a look at our article on Lucian Pulvermacher. He masquerades as "Pope Pius XIII", but is considered an anti-pope. He claims that John XXIII (reigned 1958-63) was a freemason, therefore his election was invalid, and therefore all subsequent popes including Benedict XVI are invalidly elected popes. He was reported as having died a few weeks ago, but that claim is disputed. JackofOz 00:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming elections in nigeria[edit]

Dear sir/madam, I need to know exactly when is the date for the upcoming elections in nigeria. And is the PDP going to put candidates to be elected? Please have you answer sent to <email removed> Respectfully Amr Saad --84.18.72.186 06:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elections ae scheduled for 2007. Information about the Politics of Nigeria is easily available. Whether the PDP puts up candidates remains to be seen, of course. Halcatalyst 14:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nato Doctrine[edit]

What is the current NATO doctrine since 1991 I believe? It's not in the article, would be good to list the evolution of its doctrines, however. 83.5.226.238 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think NATO has a clear post-cold war doctrine. Some possible uses are intervetion in countries which have invaded others, are engaging in genocide, or are supporting terrorism. I also think it may need to take action against Iran when the UN refuses to act to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons (due to Russian and/or Chinese vetos in the Security Council). The US is stretched too thin right now to invade Iran on it's own, and bombing alone may not be effective, as Iran is building their uranium and/or plutonium refining capacity deep underground to make it bomb-proof.
In my opinion, a military alliance of the "good countries" is needed. The UN is not effective due to the veto power given to countries which don't much care about genocide, etc. China, for example, has oil interests in Sudan so would veto any attempt to stop the genocide in the Darfur region. Russia has business interests in Iran and might veto any attempt at sanctions against Iran and would almost certainly veto any military action that could be taken against Iran.
I also think NATO should be broadly expanded to go beyond the "North Atlantic" (countries like Turkey are already a stretch under that definition). Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and many new countries in the Americas could be included. I would avoid including any which support terrorism (which pretty much leaves out most of the Middle East) and any ruled by dictators (China, Cuba, many in Africa, etc.). StuRat 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not trying to imply that there are countries with right of veto on the Security Council that might overlook a country's human rights abuses because it favour them politically, or worse, supply them with oil are you? Horror of horrors! </sarcasm> DJ Clayworth 19:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We shall see soon. I suspect that Iran will be referred to the UN Security Council within a few weeks, at which time it will cut oil production to "punish" the world. The US, England, and France will most likely support sanctions against Iran, despite this, but perhaps not Russia and/or China. Iran certainly has a long record of human rights abuses, but the issue at this time is their nuclear ambitions. StuRat 20:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are referring to an annoucement of policy made by Bill Clinton and supported by NATO at its general meeting in 1993-4 or thereabouts. I believe the policy regarded military interventions in Europe being NATO's sphere of influence and was applied both in the Bosniac and Kosovar conflicts. See our article on Bill Clinton, Foreign Policy section, and see if that helps. Geogre 16:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of Counties with City Limits[edit]

Can you(or anybody) please give me the links to websites which contains maps of these following counties, WHICH SHOW the borders and limits of the incorporated cities and towns in them:

Harris County, Texas Fairfax County, Virginia Prince Georges County, Maryland Montgomery County, Maryland Loudoun County, Virginia

(Post them on Wikipedia.)

When I was asked about Harris County, Texas I replied by showing you how to do the search yourself using Google. We aren't your slaves here, you know. You should be able to do this type of search for yourself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Harris_County for a reminder on how to do the search. StuRat 11:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Census Bureau's [factfinder.census.gov FactFinder] is good for this. You can do a reference-map search for the counties, then use the "boundaries" tap to make the map show "places." Unfortunately, the maps won't disciminate between incorporated municipalities and census designated places, so you'll have to look up each "place" mentioned on the map to see whether it has its own government. -- Mwalcoff 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Townships in the USA[edit]

In the USA, what is a civil township?Is the township the same kind of political entity as incorporated cities,town,villages, and boroughs?Are townships political entities that only exist within counties? (Let's just talk about townships in the Midwest and Southeast.)

See civil township. -- AJR | Talk 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Townships differ among the states. Some states don't have townships. In some states, townships have similar powers to cities and villages. In other states, townships have few powers. States differ as to whether cities and villages are parts of townships (as in Indiana), separate from townships (as in Pennsylvania) or either-or as the case may be (as in Ohio).
I've never heard of a township in any state crossing county lines or existing outside of a county. That's presumably because townships are created as subdivisions of counties.
In Ohio, townships have fewer powers than cities and villages. They generally cannot pass their own ordinances, and they cannot enact an income tax. They can have a police department, but it ranks below the county sheriff's office. They can adopt zoning, but the county must approve any plans or changes. Now, townships can adopt "limited home rule," so some of the above may not be applicable everywhere. -- Mwalcoff 22:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Casualties in World War II[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

Where can I find information about the distribution of German casualties in the WWII by front: How many people/arms did they loose in Russia, in North Africa, in Europe, etc. ...

Thank you very much, Alex L.

See WWII, and in specific, World War II casualties might be helpful. tiZom(the man) 14:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman torture and persecution[edit]

Is there any historical evidence for the torture and persecution of early Christians by the Romans? I have heard accounts of Nero feeding Christians to lions and other such disturbing acts, but i cannot find any historical proof behind this. Was the feeding of criminals to lions and tigers a common spectacle in roman provinces?

The little information I have found refers to Christians being persecuted because they believed in one God, and that they were fed to lions in the circus, and killed by gladiators for sport. I still cannot find any historical references to these events.

Have a look at our article on martyrdom. Halcatalyst 17:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roman events such as Venatio also detail this topic.
Tertullian wrote (Apology, ch. 40) If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine or pestilence, straightway the cry is, "Away with the Christians to the lion!" He was probably exaggerating, but we know that damnatio ad bestias ('condemnation to the beasts') was a Roman method of execution, and Christians were certainly executed often enough. —Charles P._(Mirv) 17:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of evidence of actual persecution. See here. As for how often they were killed by wild animals, I don't know if anyone could say. Fighting (or being fought by) wild animals was a common form of gladitorial combat though, called Bestarii.--BluePlatypus 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Christians were persecuted, tortured, and killed by the Romans. The Romans were, in general, quite tolerant of other religions. They allowed Jews to practice their own monotheistic religion, after all. There were also many other religions and cults throughout the Roman Empire. The Romans even copied their religion from the Greeks. The difference with Christians is they taught that anyone who didn't believe in Jesus would burn in hell, and the Romans took that as quite an insult. So, it was essentially the Christian's intolerance toward the Romans which lead to Roman intolerance towards them.

With all due respect, bullshit. Cite either a Christian or pagan source that even gives that reason, let alone calls it a major reason, for persecution. alteripse 21:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This site supports my statement that Romans were generally tolerant of other beliefs and Christians were not:
http://www.answers.com/topic/fall-of-rome
"Gibbon debunked the myth of Christian martyrdom by deconstructing official Church history that had been perpetuated for centuries. Because the Roman Church had a virtual monopoly on its own history, its own Latin interpretations were considered sacrosanct, and as a result the Church's writings had rarely been questioned before. For Gibbon, however, they were secondary sources: The same Latin documents translated by someone else. Gibbon eschewed these, and never referred to them in his own history. This is why Gibbon is referred to as the "first modern historian", and thus, his interpretations were deemed pagan."
"According to Gibbon, Romans were far more tolerant of Christians than Christians were of one another, especially once Christianity gained the upper hand. Christians inflicted far greater casualties on Christians than were ever inflicted by the Roman Empire. Gibbon extrapolated that the number of Christians executed by other Christian factions far exceeded all the Christian martyrs who died during the three centuries of Christianity under Roman rule. This was in stark contrast to Orthodox Church history, which insisted that Christianity won the hearts and minds of people largely because of the inspirational example set by its martyrs. Gibbon proved that the early Church's custom of bestowing the title of martyr on all confessors of faith grossly inflated the actual numbers."
StuRat 22:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source showing how tolerant the Romans were:
http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/christianity.htm
"However, the evidence suggests that the routine policy of the Roman elite and imperial bureacracy was not persecution for the first two centuries of Christianity. In fact, to characterize the Roman response to Christianity far overstates the matter. By and large, members of the Roman elite ignored Christianity. If notice of Christianity was forced upon them, they tolerated it if they could."
And later in the same source is the suggestion that Christians actually wanted to be martyrs:
"This laissez-faire policy, however, might be irrelevant to a committed Christian. We have accounts of Christians who virtually assaulted Roman governors with their assertions of Christian identity."
StuRat 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Christianity became the official religion of Rome, then the Christians went about persecuting others. This perhaps culminated in the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition, many centuries later. StuRat 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Criminals destined for a fate without hope were nevertheless well fed in order to fatten the animals....A special effort had been made to bring these brave animals from abroad to serve as executioners for those condemned to death." - Apuleius, The Golden Ass (IV.13)

"Christian martyrs often suffered the same fate. Saturus, the priest of Perpetua and Felicitas, who died with them in the Carthage arena (AD 203), first was bound to a wild boar, which turned instead upon the venator, mortally wounding him. He then was tied to a bridge and exposed to a bear, which refused to leave his cell (cavea). Finally, he was exposed to a leopard, whose bite bathed Saturus in so much blood that the crowd, mocking baptism, taunted "Well washed! Well washed!" (Passio, XIX, XXI)."

    • Once more, there has been something rather inaccurate offered. The reason the Romans persecuted the Christians had nothing to do with Hell. It had everything to do with why the 2nd Jewish Revolt occurred. After Augustus, there was an emperor cult. All Romans were required to venerate Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and the rest who had died as gods. The Romans were tolerant of other polytheistic religions. They ignored monotheistic religions, as long as those practitioners admitted the divinity of Caesar. For the Isis cult, this was not a problem. Mithraism had more trouble, and it was persecuted. The Jews would not allow a statue in the Temple. Christians would not sacrifice. The second factor was when noble Roman ladies were commanded to marry and produce little Romans. When these women had made a vow of chastity as nuns, they were put to death. Again, the condemned were always given a choice: sacrifice to the gods and live/marry and live, or don't and die. Geogre 20:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. The Roman's didnt care about personal beliefs of afterlife such as hell or heaven.. They cared about other monotheism religions getting in the way of Roman religion and affairs.
    • Not quite correct. Judaism was the one monotheistic religion permitted; the Romans respected it because it was ancient. However, the Romans crucified thousands of Jews for insurrection and other offenses. Christianity was a new religion aggressively seeking converts and proclaiming Christ was the savior-god, not Augustus. Christians were considered atheists who challenged the state religion. Like others who have challenged state religions, they were put to death whenever the authorities felt like it. Halcatalyst 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Painting by Robert Foster[edit]

I am trying to gain information on a painting by Robert Foster entitled "Resting by the Wayside". It depcits A horse, sadled, its rider dressed in a sottish kilt sitting on a log with dead game to his right.

Thanking you for your help in this matter.

Jim Walmsley

Is it a Scottish kilt or a sottish kilt ? StuRat 19:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a sottish kilt is what you get when you suitly emphazi a Scottish one. JackofOz 00:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do they call what a Scotsman wears a kilt ?"

"Because anyone who calls it a skirt gets kilt."

StuRat 19:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. I like that answer better than the real one, to quote our Kilt article "The word kilt comes from the Scots word kilt meaning to tuck up the clothes around the body. The Scots word derives from the Old Norse kjilt, which means "pleated", from Viking settlers who wore a similar, non-tartan pleated garment." On the painting google tells me that it is a drawing by Thomas Berwick c.1790 & hangs in a gallery in Newcastle. [[50]]. AllanHainey 11:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1940's big band music[edit]

Hi tj: I have a good suggestion concerning music of the 1930's & 40's big band revue.With many "ghost" big bands still playing today P B S two or three hour presantation could cover this as follows: (a)much film is available on the open market that could be used. (b)"ghost big bands could be used for the live effect. this could be done in 10 or 15 minutes for bands as Harry James,Tommey Dorsey,Jimmy Dorsey,Guy Lombardo which would give a two or three hour P B S presantation . This would complement & complete your musical presentation of the 50's,60's&70's which you did a fantastic job. Thank you musically John John J Czerwiecki 33 Graham Drive Chicopee Ma 01013-3605 413 594 6265 (Saving you from the spammers) --66.103.2.149 18:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a programming suggestion for the US Public Broadcasting System, might I suggest you send them to PBS at [51] ? StuRat 19:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland front passenger seat laws[edit]

I've searched www.maryland.gov, and couldn't find the answer to this question. Is there a requirement to ride in the front passenger seat? I think I heard once that you had to be 12, 100 lbs, or 5'2", but that probably wasn't accurate. The only information I can find on google amounts to the child safety laws, which deal with car seats, and fines on children under 16 riding without seatbelts. Any help on this (seemingly impossible) question would be greatly appreciated! 68.49.175.198 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. Under "About MVA", "Rules of the road" doesn't state anything on such a requirement except the following: Maryland law requires everyone seated in the front seat must have their seat belts fastened. If age 15 or younger, they must always wear a seat belt regardless of where they are seated. Children under 6 and those who weigh less than 40 pounds must be in a child safety seat. Any passenger in a car being driven by a person with a provisional driver’s license must also use a seatbelt or a child safety seat. --BluePlatypus 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Safety people recommend that children not ride in the front seat because they could be injured by airbags or be thrust into the windshield in a crash. But it might not be a law in the state. -- Mwalcoff 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess what I'd been hearing was a reccomendation by some manufacturer. 68.49.175.198 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin History[edit]

Where in Berlin was the famous crossing point from east to west from 1961-1989 --195.92.67.75 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Checkpoint Charlie? It was on the Friedrichstraße. —Charles P._(Mirv) 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

literature[edit]

What is the 'foul fiend' mentioned in shakespeares king lear --195.92.67.75 18:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a homework question. Read the passage. Geogre 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Dirty devil"? Halcatalyst 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

penguin books[edit]

As what have penguin proposed to rename Evelyn Waugh's novel 'vile bodies' --195.92.67.75 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is on Penguin's website as Vile Bodies. [53] --Kainaw (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes[edit]

What was Guy Fawkes real first name --195.92.67.75 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy. —Charles P._(Mirv) 18:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Guy isn't really his first name, you can burn me in effigy. See Guy Fawkes. StuRat 21:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to one of our links, he was born as Guy, but in around 1596 he adopted the name "Guido" and used it for the rest of his life. JackofOz 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which, it must be said, is just another form of "Guy". =P —Keenan Pepper 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but GF must have had his reasons to prefer one over the other. I've often wondered why he used an Italian form when he lived in England. Maybe he was like me - I was born John, but I don't like that name so some years ago I adopted Jack. The names may be etymologically related, but to me they have very different connotations. JackofOz 02:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because he was baptized as a protestant with the name of Guy and he adopted a more unambiguiosly catholic name of Guido from the staunchly catholic Italy. MeltBanana 14:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A plausible theory. JackofOz 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

age of marriage in Quebec c. 1980[edit]

Does anyone know where I could begin to look for information on the change in the age of marriage following the election of the Parti Québécois in the late 1970s? My understanding is that before that, it was absurdly young, maybe 12 years old for girls, and the PQ came in with a strong feminist platform and modernising instincts and raised it to 16 with parental consent and 18 without. Am I correct so far? But what I really want to know is how many girls were married after World War II at ages that would be illegally young now. I don't expect anyone to have the data at the tips of their fingers, no matter how wonderful Wikipedia is. But perhaps you can point me towards some named organisations or individuals who might know. Thanks.18:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)BrainyBabe 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

civil harassment[edit]

There is a difference in the law regarding the usual procedures for a civil matter and those for a criminal matter. That is plain BUT...There is a third form of legal matter that is catagorized as "civil harassment" and apparently the procedures are different from the other two. I am trying to discover how to deal with a civil harassment matter, particularly how one knows what is the time to respond to a request by a plaintiff (complaint) for relief from the court from alleged harassment.(restraining order) I cannot locate anything in the California Code of Civil Procedure to elucidate this third system of law. It seems to be mostly civil but smacks of criminal too in a way. There are special forms by the judicial council with the prefix of CH ( CH-100 etc) but they do not offer many clues to procedures. Is this an emrging syatem with no set rules or is there some special set of rules written somewhere that apply to these types of matters? I think there are many such cases being heard each day. Maybe this is only in California.

You are talking about something that is nationwide in USA and also in many western nations. If you have been served by some complaint, then you need to see a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyer, then ask the court about getting you a public defender. A person who tries to represent him or herself has a fool for a client. Civilians may file a variety of complaints, both civil and criminal. For example in a family dispute, one family member can have a court issue some decree for other family member(s) to stay away from them, and if they violate this, call the police to arrest whoever for violating the stay-away order. It varies from locality to locality how good or bad the police do on responding to these complaints. User:AlMac|(talk) 08:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhammapada[edit]

To what degree are the stories in the Dhammapada commentary by Buddhaghosa likely to be fictional? [54] ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 18:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Theravada Buddhist view, each verse was originally spoken by Gautama Buddha. Exegesis of the verses are preserved in the classic and voluminous commentary composed by Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa in the fifth century C.E. The bulk of the commentary makes reference to the canonical works in the Tipitaka, especially to the most ancient discourses by Gautama Buddha preserved in the Sutta Pitaka. The commentary is reliable, in my view, and I'd recommend this impressive edition of The Dhammapada by Narada Thera. Usedbook 04:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. The stories at the site I found are rather longer than Narada Thera's translations; might they have been expanded upon by someone notable since Buddhaghosa? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 05:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daw Mya Tin, "has simply culled the facts of the stories and [has] rewritten them briefly." It is not a word-for-word translation of the commentary. I'm thinking he simply returned to the original utterance of a particular Dhammapada verse in the Nikayas and extracted more context than Buddhaghosa thought was needed. Material of minuscule relevance to the Dharma may have been added to the oral tradition before the suttas were commited to writing. This is my view of all religious texts though, even for the Qur'an and the grandiose claims bestowed upon it. Usedbook 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

law[edit]

In may 1995 lord chief justice taylor granted whom permission to wear trousers and where --195.92.67.75 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is in the U.K.?

bra size[edit]

Which letter denotes the largest bra cup size --195.92.67.75 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the manufacturer. DD is the largest size in common use, I think. —Charles P._(Mirv) 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While manufacturers have their own designation for sizes above DD (such as DDD or E), the extremely large sizes are commonly falsely named by the adult entertainment industry using whatever sounds interesting. You will often see many D's (as in DDDDD), or random high letters (L, X, and sometimes even ZZZ). It is not baed on a real size just as XXX is not a real movie rating (NC-17 is the "adult only" rating). --Kainaw (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.figleaves.com/uk/fitting_room.asp?cat=131&cm_re=fr_lndg-_-sizing-_-textlink seems to suggest that common UK and US sizes run from AA to JJ.

literature[edit]

Which is the only shakespeare play that doesnt contain a song --195.92.67.75 19:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there is only one? I don't recall a song in Titus Andronicus. It would have been pretty out of place there. Geogre 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. See this.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. :-) I did see that movie. Heck, any film version of Titus Andronicus I wanted to see, since we used to joke that a film version of it would have Titus wearing a hockey mask and the sons saying "Ch-ch-ch-ch! Ha-ha-ha-ha!" It was an interesting film version, but no one sang, except, of course Lavinia. Geogre 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The questioner may not be referring to song sung by the actors. It was common practice to include directions about songs (by the orchestra or at least a minstrel) in the play along with the stage directions. However, I have no idea if Shakespeare had one, none, or many plays with or without such directions. --Kainaw (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the way Shakespeare's works came to be published, authtentic stage directions are far and few between, the classic being "Enter Lavinia, her hands cut off, her tongue cut out, and ravished". - Nunh-huh 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and "Exit, chased by a bear" from Merry Wives of Windsor and, according to one wag, a stage direction in a later Hamlet that said, simply: "All die." Geogre 12:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exit pursued by a bear is from The Winter's Tale. Been there, done it. DJ Clayworth 19:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Sometimes you chase the bear, and sometimes the bear chases you. (I knew it was one of the ones I didn't like.) Geogre 04:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget "Enter mariners, wet". Shimgray | talk | 20:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry IV, Part I has the direction "Here the Lady sings a Welsh song" (III:1), and Julius Caesar has the direction "Music, and a song" (IV:3), so it's not unknown. Gdr 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there's no song in Macbeth, unless you count "A Show of Kings". EamonnPKeane 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism History[edit]

Is this entry from "Socialism" correct?

"During the Enlightenment in the 5th, revolutionary thinkers and druggies such as the Marquis de somewhere in France, a guy, and some1 with too long a name, and him, abbé de Mably, and Morelly provided the intellectual and ideological expression of the discontented social layers in French society.

It doesn't sound correct?

No, it's not. It's vandalism. Looks like it has been fixed, though. Thanks. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sociology. four-step change model[edit]

can anyone explain the four-step sociological model of change ? (direction of change, rate of change, sources of change, and ability to control change) I do home courses, so i dont have a teacher or anyone to get help from. let me know, thanks =)

Do you have any text books for these home courses? User:AlMac|(talk) 08:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of the Apostles[edit]

Is there any extrabiblical accounts of the deaths and/or murders of the Apostles of Jesus? It is rumor that one died by crucifixion upside down, one beheaded, and another boiled in oil in Egypt. Are there any details about the possible deaths of the Apostles in the earler 1,2,3 centuries?

The Wikipedia articles contain the Biblical information and then goes on to the stories attributed to them (including all their nasty deaths). See Twelve Apostles and click on each Apostle's name. --Kainaw (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Civilization[edit]

What are the reasons for the decline/fall of the Indus civilization? And which theory do Historians find most accurate-- 1/26/06~~

Try reading Indus Valley Civilization. Lapinmies 23:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do check this link for other theories, that the article doesn't cover. deeptrivia (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universals[edit]

Is it reasonable to say that if universals 'exist' then reality is subjective? and if 'universals' do not exist and are only mind constructs then reality is objective? and also, I read in the article that universals are concepts like 'doghood' and can be said to have a separate existence, but then I ask myself, are universals only those concepts? or can for example 'love' be a universal? or can each experience and feeling have it's universal? this sounds really crazy, but how is research in that area going? I mean, what does contemporary philosophy say about universals?( I hope I didn't cunfusse you much) --Cosmic girl 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic girl, your posts are, uh, cosmically interesting... To briefly tackle this:
First, I think you're setting up counter-intuitive "exclusivity parameters" in the initial sentences: If X, not-X. I don't follow the first two sentences, honestly.
"Universals are concepts like 'doghood' and can be said to have a separate existence." This is broadly Platonic and you should look at Plato and its links (...you're either a Platonist or you're not).
What does X say about Universals? You should read Epistemology as a general suggestion and come to grips with the definition. "Where is the field going in terms of Universals?" is a rather fuzzy question. Specify ("theory of science," say) what you mean and it might be quantified better. Marskell 22:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well Cosmic, in Plato's view, the universals did exist, in a real, tangible sense. Just not in the sensory world. As for how research is going, it's not really going. Most professors of philosophy I've talked to consider metaphysics to be a rather dead subject. (I remember one praising the Vienna Circle for 'killing' it). I'd say the most metaphysical thing recently is Postmodernism, which when applied as an epistemology is basically Philosophical skepticism in a new, clever, wrapper. While it has some good points, it doesn't really make for good epistemology. (If Derrida truely didn't believe in the metaphysics of communication, why did he bother writing books at all?) --BluePlatypus 23:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

haha, very funny BluePlatypus! :D I guess noone is free from being inconsistent. ok, I know Plato thought that universals did exist, and he may have been right, but I am more oriented to think like Ayn Rand,like universals are only constructs of our mind and nothing more. Why do most modern philosophers regard metaphysics as dead? I don't unerstand, I mean, do they have any compelling argument to say this? I mean have they found out some logical problem with metaphysics or whatever? or have they simply realized it's something way to dificult to tackle and given up? how did the Viena Circle 'kill' it?...

Marksell, I couldn't understand your argument because I find it really hard to understand logic statements like 'X is X if and only if X is X' (kind of stupid but still) I can't really understand philosphy like that, I think I do my abstract thinking my own way without crystalizing it that way. I already read about epistemology and I believe I am a skeptical/pragmatist/objectivist of some sort...so I am a hybrid, and I don't know how to define myself, haha. --Cosmic girl 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Phenomenon, Noumenon, and Two Truths Doctrine. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Vienna Circle guys were basically just this group of young Austrians in the '20, who were impressed over how the Sciences had been so very successful at describing the world, and quite disappointed that philosophy had done so poorly, despite a head-start of several thousand years. They didn't feel it was going anywhere. So they developed a radical new philosophy called Logical positivism, which held that if a statement isn't verifiable (can't be shown to be true from observation) then it is meaningless. (Although that doesn't mean it can't have artistic and emotional significance.) So in one big swoop they got rid of all of metaphysics, basically saying "Hey, let's focus on the real world, instead of abstractions." They were very influential. Karl Popper later modified the verifiability idea, to be "statements that cannot be disproven", which is more reasonable since a lot of statements are more easily disproven than proven. That philosophy is still pretty much dominant when it comes to Science. But the world isn't populated only by scientists of course. There are artists too. And they didn't really have much inspiration to draw from that philosophy, which is why we've got postmodernism I guess. I think one of the things that the philosophy professors like about the Vienna Circle guys, was that it really broke the tradition of starting with some metaphysic and building up a enormous, single, logically-consistent philosophy (although Wittgenstein's Tractatus has been credited with that too.. it's in that time-period anyway). --BluePlatypus 02:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, so the main current philosophy of science tends to be logical positivism? in what aspects are logical positivism and pragmatism different? because I find them much alike... and also, is there any philosophy that believes that:

- for usefull purposes like science and technology we should go with what works best and not be so restrained by ethics and subjective things (even if they are real metaphysically).

-is skeptical about the ultimate truth and the nature of reality (skeptical in the sense not that it doubts it's existence, but in the sense that we are uncapable of knowing it and even if we know it beyond doubtwe have the possibility of being wrong).

-doubts naturalism and mysticism equally if it refers to the nature of reality, but on the real world of everyday, goes more with naturalism because it works best.

-in esscence doubts that anything is 100% confirmed and that there is room for skepticism everywhere and in everything, but still functions in the real world and uses reason eventhough it acknowledges that reality may be irrational.

ok quite complicated but that is somewhat my personal philosophy, and I haven't found many that resemble it, besides pragmatism,do you know of any philosophy that is like this or resembles it?.--Cosmic girl 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first sounds like moral relativism or social Darwinism. Do you believe the ends justify the means? The second is transcendental idealism, I think. In the third, what does "if it refers to the nature of reality" mean? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 17:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tend to think that the ends justify the means. but I didn't ask for separate philosphies,I was more asking for a philosphy that most resembled all of the points I made, if there is any.--Cosmic girl 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 27[edit]

education system[edit]

hi! i would like to know about canadian education system. i am from other country but recently settled in canada, but i am facing some problems in understanding education system of canada. can u please give me detailed information about its credits system.

You could start with Education in Canada. —Keenan Pepper 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guiliani[edit]

is Mayor Giuliani a republican

See Rudy Giuliani. --Kainaw (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is now. He didn't used to be. Taiq
He's a Republican though on issues - abortion, gays, gun control - he's like a Democrat. --Blue387 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'Dutch'[edit]

Greetings from Australia At a recent trivia meeting a questian came up as to why the people of Holland are not called Hollanders or Nederlanders but Dutch Reading on your page the history I understand that Dutch is the English translation of the Nederlands is this correct or have I read it wrong As far as I am aware it is the only large country that does not call it's people as a form of the name ie Australia australian America americians Sweden swedes Germany germans ect Hope you can help

From the article Netherlands:

The English word "Dutch" is akin to the German word Deutsch and has the same etymological origin. Both these terms derive from what in Latin was known as Theodisca, which meant "(Language) of the (common) people". Taiq 08:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That can't be right. Latin words don't start with "theo" unless they are borrowed from Greek and theo means god, not people. alteripse 18:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Greek or German, you mean. It appears that Theodisca (we have a very short article on it) was a medieval Latin spelling of the older Germanic word meaning 'people'. --Heron 22:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the Dutch do call themselves 'Nederlander' in their own tongue. Holland is a part of the Netherlands, and for some reason some people call themselves 'Hollander' (again, in Dutch). -- Ec5618 08:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, people from the United States call themselves Americans, since United Stator sounds like some kind of motor part, LOL. StuRat 14:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "American" is well discussed. Frank Lloyd Wright proposed "Usonian." It's the most euphonous suggestion so far, but people of the US have been called "Americans" since the 1680s, so it's hard to change now. Geogre 17:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The direct answer to the question is that in the 16th century the Netherlands and Germany were called Low Germany and High Germany and were parts of a single state. The English called them all 'Dutch', as the word 'German' wasn't in use then. When the two parts separated, we kept calling the Low Germans 'Dutch' because we had closer relations with them than with the High Germans. We started calling the High Germans 'Germans' at the same time. (Ref: 'Dutch' and 'German' in OED.) --Heron 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Details appearing on British naturalisation certificates[edit]

Can you please tell me whether the original surname in their country of origin of the holders of such certificates and the name of the town they came from, appears on the British naturalisation certificates issued in the 1920s. With thanks.


American Revocable Trust Agreements[edit]

Is the text of a Revocable Trust Agreement established in 1990 in the County of Sarasota in the State of Florida open to the public and if so, how can a member of the public obtain a copy? Thank you.

Simple answer is most likely no. Revocable living trusts that people set up are generally private documents. There could be some caveats that could make the document a public document so if it is important to you you need to hire an attorney in Fla to look into the issue for you. I'm not an attorney and this is not legal advice. See our trust (law) USA article for background information that until rewritten is pretty confusing, sorry. - Taxman Talk 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who owns it?[edit]

i have tryed to contact them but they do not reply.... as i have heard they work for free if you are the right client...

please advise as i would like to know if anyone has had any luck contacting them.

regards

Mr Hall (OBE)

Your question was answered here. User:AlMac|(talk) 11:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that link was supposed to be: this. I am assuming that when you say "it" you mean "Wikipedia". - Akamad 20:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Ahmed I's Blue Mosque[edit]

Hello

I was wondering if you could help me by answering some questions that I have about Sultan Ahmed I's Blue Mosque. Could you please tell me what some of the significant architecture representations are or beliefs and values reflecting the Islamic religion of the: • Iwan-Prayer Hall • Qubba-Domes • Minarets-Towers for the Call of Prayer • Sahn-Courtyard • Sebil-Fountain • Mihrab- In the inside of a Wall in the Prayer Hall facing Mecca • Decoration and colour • light

The question im trying to answer and currently working on is: "How does the style of Architecture of the Blue Mosque in Turkey, Reflect the Islamic Religious Beliefs, Ideas and Expression of Feelings?

Or provide me with some references

Thank you, your help is greatly appreciated

See Sultan Ahmed Mosque. Gdr 12:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popocatepetl - a poem[edit]

A long time ago when the earth was young, we were required to anylise a phoem which was either about Popocatépetl or contained a reference to Popocatépetl. I can remember very little about the poem other than the fact that it had a profound impact on me. What is the poem called, who wrote it and where can i get of copy of the text?

Could it be "All the earth is a grave and nothing escapes it" [55], attributed (though perhaps wrongly) to Nezahualcoyotl? Gdr 12:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


GDR - Thank you. No, I don't think this is it... bit dark for grade school poetry I think. No... the poem I vaguely remember was about being friends (or perhaps lovers???) And there was something about popocatepetl inviting the writer to be his friend... Whew! I know this is terribly vague but as I say it was a long time ago when things like this were less important to me that they are today!


SUCCESS!! By chance I found a message from someone on the UK looking for the same poem, but this writer could remember a line from the poem... "Chimbarazo, Cotopaxi Took me by the hand". I put that into the google search engine and it turned up a the poem entitled Romance by WJ Turner.... Thanks for all your help... here is the poem for your interest:

When I was but thirteen or so I went into a golden land, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi Took me by the hand.

My father died, my brother too, They passed like fleeting dreams, I stood where Popocatapetl In the sunlight gleams.

I dimly heard the master's voice And boys far-off at play, --- Chimborazo, Cotopaxi Had stolen me away.

I walked in a great golden dream To and fro from school --- Shining Popocatapetl The dusty streets did rule.

I walked home with a gold dark boy And never a word I'd say, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi Had taken my speech away.

I gazed entranced upon his face Fairer than any flower --- O shining Popocatapetl It was thy magic hour:

The houses, people, traffic seemed Thin fading dreams by day; Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, They had stolen my soul away!

Who was the only president to hold a PhD?[edit]

See President of the United States. Gdr 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Jack Ryan, of course. Proteus (Talk) 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And President Bartlett. (I wish they Wood row over to our articles, where they Wil soon find their answers.) Geogre 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me an intelligent man like the current President Bush doesn't have a PhD ? The only way I can explain that is that his military draft was deferred by intermittent service in the National Guard, otherwise I'm sure he would have stayed in college indefinitely to avoid the draft. Eventually they would have had to give him a PhD just to get rid of him. StuRat 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must be ignoring all his honorary degrees from small conservative colleges! Don't those impress you? alteripse 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the question is, can he spend those honorary degrees? Did they come with honoraria? Are they part of his political capital? Halcatalyst 19:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, the link to political capital above is a wrong number. To get the point, you'll just have to know what Bush said about "political capital" the day after the 2004 election. Halcatalyst 19:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet Bill Clinton held a PhD. At least one of his interns must have been one. DJ Clayworth 19:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre is surpassingly subtle. The answer is Woodrow Wilson. Halcatalyst 19:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many: Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Dr. Zakir Hussain, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, Dr. K. R. Narayanan, and the current president Dr. Abdul Kalam. What a waste! deeptrivia (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're including India, don't even bus drivers have PhD's there ? StuRat 21:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they're not President. Not yet anyway. JackofOz 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of bus drivers with masters degrees in India, but not yet with PhDs :) The question was "Who was the only president to hold a PhD?" deeptrivia (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like they need to upgrade their educational system. I wouldn't feel safe with a bus driver who only has a masters degree. :-) StuRat 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is another way to look at it - if the bus drivers have masters degrees, then the unemployed must have at least a BS or BA. So, everyone in India is either highly educated or the schools are extremely relaxed. I wonder which one it could possibly be? --Kainaw (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The not-so-funny reality is that some people in India are highly educated and some have never been to school. Halcatalyst 03:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Competition for jobs is so tough that even highly educated end up being drivers. Despite 35% population being illiterate, there are far too many educated people compared to the number of jobs. By the way, for the same reason (tough competition), getting into college is real hard too. deeptrivia (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Presidents of Corporations and Non-Profits. They are all over the economic landscape, and many of them have advanced degrees. User:AlMac|(talk) 08:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone born in Puerto Rico become President of the United States?[edit]

The President has to be a natural-born citizen. If you are born in Puerto Rico (or anywhere else outside the US), and one or more of your parents is a US citizen, you may also be deemed a natural-born US Citizen. See United States citizenship#Through birth abroad to two United States citizens and United States citizenship#Through birth abroad to one United States citizen. Halcatalyst 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at least two people considered candidates for President have been born in US territories - John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before statehood. No issues were raised over either Shimgray | talk | 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the Governator, born in Austria, first assumed office as governor of California, there was a lot of talk about changing the Constitution so he could run for President. That talk has died down as problems in the state continue to accumulate and solutions are not so easy to find as some imagined. Halcatalyst 21:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that "a natural born citizen" meant passing 2 tests: (a) being born in the USA or in US territory, and (b) being born a US citizen. It would not be enough to pass only one test. A person like John McEnroe, for example, who was born a US citizen but in Germany would be ineligible for election to the presidency. JackofOz 21:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I think anyone born in the US or a US territory is automatically a US citizen. StuRat 22:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're right. Those people would have no worries. It's only the US citizens born on foreign soil that seem to be excluded (through no fault of their own). JackofOz 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's right -- I think meaning (b) is the entire meaning of the phrase. Do you have a reference saying otherwise? --Anonymous, 01:01 UTC, January 28, 2006.
The writers of our article on Henry Kissinger seem to agree with me: "There was even discussion of ending the requirement that a U.S. president be born in America so that Kissinger could have a chance to run." I guess you're saying that the real reason Kissinger is ineligible is that he was not born a US citizen (I assume he was German at birth), not that he was born outside the USA per se. Is that so? Then the Kissinger article needs amendment. I've never contributed to that one, so it seems others have the same wrong idea as I've had for as long as I can remember. Maybe it's something I should add to "the greatest furphy of all time". Of course, you realise what this means? John McEnroe could become US President after all. You can't be serious!! Cheers JackofOz 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Kissenger article eventually gets around to telling us he became a naturalized citizen after fleeing Germany. I suppose "There was even discussion of ending the requirement that a U.S. president be born in America so that Kissinger could have a chance to run." should be changed to "There was even discussion of ending the requirement that a U.S. president be a natural-born citizen so that Kissinger could have a chance to run." since that's the actual language of the requirement. - Nunh-huh 04:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
George Romney was considered a legitimate Presidential candidate, even though he was born in Mexico to US citizen parents. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In short... Is there a lawyer in the house? Halcatalyst 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a lawyer would be useful. We need a Supreme Court Justice. It's in the Constitution, and so we don't know what it means until the Supreme Court rules on it (and even then we only know that until they rule on it again). I don't know that it's ever come up, but I think it's clear that Ahnold doesn't qualify. The wording was discussed when John McCain first ran for president, as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, under American control at the time but not American territory; as he was born to American parents no one considered the "natural-born" language a real impediment. - Nunh-huh 04:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orrin Hatch seems to have a different point of view. He discusses his proposed constitutional amendment here, and makes the point that it is far from certain that people outside US territory are eligible for election to the presidency, not even if they were born US citizens. This and this are not authoritative, but they illustrate the American community's lack of agreement about this question. This article ("Allow foreigners to run for president?") gives some background, but also confuses the terminology. Henry Kissinger himself talks about the issue here, saying: "And I think foreign-born should have a possibility of running for president" (my emphasis). Maybe he was using imprecise wording, but that's the concept that seems to have gained a foothold in the minds of many. JackofOz 07:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, a person born in country X is usually automatically a citizen of nation X. However, there is currently an Immigration Reform movement in the USA to try to deny US citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. In fact, some children were apparently not told by their parents that the parents were illegals, then when the children tried to do what is Ok for US children, such as apply for jobs, attend education, or visit neighboring nation, they got arrested by immigration authorities. User:AlMac|(talk) 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually most countries base citizenship on the citizenship of the parents and not the place of birth. Agathoclea 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many other countries have requirements for high office based on place of birth rather than simply citizenship or length of residence, etc.? It seems a rather artificial requirement — someone born in the US but who spent his entire childhood in another country is eligible whereas someone born abroad but who has lived in the US since the age of 2 months is ineligible, which seems rather strange. Proteus (Talk) 12:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, at the time those rules were made, it was the fashion to form "blood alliances" by marrying royals from two countries. The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid anything like that happening to the US. Since the US wouldn't have hereditary rule (except perhaps for the Adams, Roosevelt, and Bush dynasties), they weren't concerned with cross marriage but did have another fear, that a "foreigner" would be elected President and would have dual loyalties, thus getting the US into an "entangling alliance", as Washington warned us. Much of this fear seemed justified when the family links of Europe (descendants of Queen Victoria) seemed to cause WW1 to spread from a small conflict to global war as a result of such alliances. To this date we haven't had any of those type of "blood alliances", so it seems to have worked. StuRat 12:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inhabitants of the Philippines[edit]

What amount of people over the ages have inhabited the Philippines? Gelo3 22:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See History of the Philippines. Gdr 22:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the time before we fir[edit]

--64.12.116.72 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question ? StuRat 23:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody knows; he didn't suitly emphazi his question. Perhaps he needs to think about questions before he fir asks them. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 02:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he was typing and he was shot before he finished the question.
No. He wouldn't have hit the submit button if he was shot.
Maybe he was dictating and the typist thought that was the complete question.
Maybe you need to watch less Python.
--Kainaw (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I often think one thing, but type another, then submit, then see it is not quite right, and I fix it. Perhaps something went wrong so he could not come back to fix it. User:AlMac|(talk) 22:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that IP address account is an Aol's, and has been banned to Elfland. --DLL 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous?[edit]

Where/when did the word miscellaneous first come into use and what was its function compared to its modern meaning?--64.12.116.72 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC) <--could somebody please put this question on the RD:Miscellaneous page for me, it seems I'm the victem of an AOL based sharedip autoblock, so sadly i cannot edit that page myself--64.12.116.72 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comes from Latin: "miscellus" (mixed) or "miscre" (to mix). As for where to put this, perhaps the RD:Language page would be better. --Kainaw (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's miscere, not *miscre (2nd conjugation verb). —Keenan Pepper 07:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per Merriam-Webster Collegiate, the first attested use of "miscellaneous" in English was in 1637. - Nunh-huh 01:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary gives a citation from 1615 by Thomas Roe. Ardric47 06:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is renaming a ship bad luck?[edit]

I was reading about the accidents aboard the Upholder/Victoria class submarine HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879) and I read somewhere that renaming a ship was bad luck. Is it? --Blue387 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two answers here. First, luck is a matter of debate all its own. Second, there are many superstitions around boats. Renaming them is considered bad luck. There are psychics (and other con artists) who will gladly accept payment to help your boat accept a new name without too much bad luck. Try this Google search [56]. --Kainaw (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everything has been considered good or bad luck at some point. As for whether it actually is bad luck, no. Superm401 - Talk 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The two commonest superstitions regarding ship names are: 1) renaming a ship is bad luck; 2) giving a ship a name starting with T is bad luck. I doubt whether either is in any way less lucky, though it's difficult to tell, even with a statistical analysis, since a re-named ship will logically be older than one still with its original name, and therefore more prone to needing repair or other similar problems. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could still control for age. There's no shortage of data out there. Superm401 - Talk 07:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 28[edit]

Poems that glorify war[edit]

Could anyone point me to some poems or verse that paint a rosy picture of war or conflict, perhaps single combat? --Impaciente 02:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Charge of the Light Brigade? —Charles P._(Mirv) 03:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pace Charles (supra), I am not certain that The Charge of the Light Brigade would generally be seen as painting a rosy picture of war; at the very least, there is a good deal of scholarship that would militate against one's citing the poem as an example of a verse painting a rosy picture of war. Joe 03:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Battle of Maldon" [57]; ""Our hearts must grow resolute, our courage more valiant, our spirits must be greater, though our strength grows less. Here lies our Lord hewn down in the dust. ... I am advanced in years. I do not desire to be taken away, but I by my liege Lord intend to lie."; "Le Chanson de Roland" and probably a few more fairly ancient writs. - Nunh-huh 04:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest of all goes back near the start of western civilization: the Iliad. War is the subject, on and on and on. alteripse 04:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you really want to psych the troops up for battle, check out the pre-battle speech in Henry V (play). alteripse 04:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. --Impaciente 04:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Horace had a few. There was a whole industry of Tudor poetry on the soldier going to war, where he would say, effectively, "I loves ya', Babe, but I loves my country more." The list is quite long, actually, and I've been trying to remember which Horace Ode it is that has the "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" that Wilfred Owen took such exception to. Also, Kipling does have some glorymongering stuff (and some anti-war stuff). Basically, there are too many to pick one. Iliad isn't really one to glorify war, exactly, although the war is glorified. Geogre 04:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try this one by Edna St. Vincent Millay. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a war poem set to music ? The Star Spangled Banner, national anthem of the US, is one of those:

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html

Note that there are some who wish to change the US national anthem to a non-militaristic song, namely America the Beautiful.

StuRat 06:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also "War song" by John Davidson, Michael Drayton's "Ballad of Agincourt", John Pierpoint's "Warren's address"... Grutness...wha? 06:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the people who want to glorify war don't write poems about it. They just do it; glory is a major motivator for warmakers. The depictions of violence are usually left to the novelists and filmmakers. The poets generally have something else in mind: patriotism, courage, camaraderie, etc. --Halcatalyst 15:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not strictly a poem, but the song referred to in Jingoism might qualify. Also the Lays of Ancient Rome by Lord Macaulay. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though containing the Gita, the Mahabharata is sometimes warlike. --DLL 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, just about anything by Radovan Karadžić, like "A morning hand-grenade". There are some examples here. Bad poetry by a bad man. But glorifying war? Yes. --BluePlatypus 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stars and Stripes Forever Opus #[edit]

What is the opus number for John Philip Sousa's Stars and Stripes Forever? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting question... this site only numbers his earlier works - most of those numbered are below 40 but also from the 1870s. Opus 131 was in 1881 (President Garfield's Inauguration March), but that's the highest number there is. Stars and Stripes forever is considerably later (1896), so it would theoretically have a considerably higher number. That is, of course, if the numbering was conntinued. It could be that his work was becoming considered "popular" rather than "classical" (always tenuous terms at best), and the numbering may simply not have continued. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Employees in the People's Democratic Party Of Nigeria[edit]

Is John Oscar a National Secretary in The People's Democratic Party of Nigeria --84.18.71.131 07:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Do not respond to any of "his" emails requesting help with fund transfers. They are 419 scams. See Snopes and a listing of false identities (including John Oscar). Superm401 - Talk 07:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Link edited above) --Anon, 09:45 UTC.

civilization[edit]

Why people learn about civilization?
Do you mean the video game Civ? I learned about it so I'd have an appropriate means of wasting my undergraduate years.
As for civilizations in general, they've given us the Pyramids, the moon landing, and African slavery amongst a few billion other things of some import. Marskell 08:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that people avoid learning about civilizations so they can believe that everything happening is new and nobody has ever experienced it before. For example, the stock "correction" after the tech bubble was the very first time that anyone has ever lost a lot of money in the stock market. Hurricane Katrina is the very first time a whole city was flooded out by a natural disaster. Bush is the first world leader in history to invade another country to preempt them from taking military action themselves. I am the first person ever to be skeptical of all these "firsts" that the media blabs on about all day. (Please, if you cannot see the humor, do not waste your time responding. I know I'm a (fill in your insult here).) --Kainaw (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I did not know that." Johnny Carson --Halcatalyst 15:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first to speculate on markets believed that the summer would be hot and the olive crops would be plentiful. He reserved for his own usage all the olive mills around. His name : Thales.
The first flood is in the Bible. Noah did anticipate.
No one could anticipate such a disaster.
Every philosopher believes he is the first person to think. But Stu, your contribution was first quality. --DLL 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carriage Clock presented to Earl Haig early 1900's[edit]

Dear sir, Whilst surfing, I came across your site regarding Earl Haig. It reminded me of a brass carriage clock that I was told had been presented to Earl Haig in the early 1900's. As I remember, it was an 8 day clock with a repeater chime. There was no engraving or reference to the manufacturer of the clock or to Earl Haig. When asked, the dealer said that the top of the clock had been skimmed to remove the engraving. Sounded 'Fishy'. I am interested to know is there any truth to this story? Look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Gordon.

Sounds rather fishy to me, too. I would ask how he knows these facts. Does he have any documentation of them ? Can he provide contact info for whoever told him these facts ? Is he willing to let you take it to an appraiser for an opinion ? I think you should stay away from this dealer. StuRat 11:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I was interested to find out if anyone knew of a site that may have details or references of presentations to Earl Haig. Thanks again, Gordon.

That's good, too. If you do find such a clock was given, then you can approach the problem from both ends, starting at the date it was given, going forward in time, and from the present clock, going backwards, to possibly establish a link. This is called provenance, a clear chain of custody from origin to present. StuRat 12:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria[edit]

Is the name (FRANCIS OGBO the owner of ASHLAND RESOURCES LTD) REGISTER : 1765460 EAN / BAR : 5765490 INTERNAL REVENUE REGISTER CLEARANCE No. : 3031

Does this company realy exists in:

  1. 85 RANDLE AVU,S/LERE,LAGOS .BRANCH; 58B OMUOBA

OGBOR HILL-ABA -ABIA STATE NIGERIA

Or is this person a scammer. --212.38.148.226 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person and company probably exists, but if they ask you to share contact details or money in an email they're most likely part of a scam as discussed in a question a few posts above this one. I recommend you do not respond. - Mgm|(talk) 15:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the question just above on the Humanities reference desk. The same old scam started out years ago and now has "evolved" to the Web. What they want is your bank account number. --Halcatalyst 17:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All-male rock bands with female vocalists[edit]

Can anyone name some very well-known rock (or any subgenre thereof) bands which are completely male except for the vocalist? Reperire 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Blondie (band), No Doubt, Gladys Knight & the Pips. If you want more, I'll have to turn my brain on and start thinking. --Kainaw (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence! --Cosmic girl 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Garbage (band). GeeJo (t) (c) • 21:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morningwood. Belly, although Tanya Donnelly also played guitar. Big Brother and the Holding Company. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Skunk Anansie, Catatonia, The Distillers ... Proto t c 23:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's not listed on the article, Joan Jett's backing band, the Blackhearts, were all men IIRC. --Robert Merkel 00:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patti Smith Group, Curve, early line-ups of Fairport Convention (more folk than rock), Jefferson Airplane, PJ Harvey (the band - the vocalist is Polly), Katrina & The Waves, Dead Can Dance, Siouxsie & The Banshees... This could develop into a very long list! Grutness...wha? 00:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cowboy Junkies. Sixpence None the Richer. X-Ray Spex after Lora Logic left to form Essential Logic, which also qualifies. —Chowbok 01:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Len if you want to consider them rock, The Cranberries, Heart though they had two women they both took lead, 10,000 Maniacs, shall we go on? Dismas|(talk) 14:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Australian bands (just off the top of my head): The Superjesus, Killing Heidi, Little Birdy, Magic Dirt and Baby Animals. Also George, although Tyrone Noonan did vocals on some tracks. -- Chuq 11:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I swore at myself that I wouldn't enter this discussion, as it's already on the edge of becoming List of male bands with a female vocalist, but if you're going to mention the Australian acts, don't you have to include Devinyls? Also, my favorite band from my youth was Pylon (band). Geogre 14:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should mention that. I was considering suggesting the creation of just such an article.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should rather be a category instead of list, as those are easier to manage. What about Category:Male band with a female vocalist? – b_jonas 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. mentioning Aussie bands that qualify but not mentioning Clouds? And across the ditch in NZ we had The Crocodiles, Fur Patrol, Tadpole.... Grutness...wha? 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Clouds is an interesting one, they had two females - but both did vocals. They both also played guitar. Does that count? :) -- Chuq 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steeleye Span (again folk rather than rock), Nightwish (metal, not rock though)... Thryduulf 17:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Thatcher cabinet ? --DLL 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian bands: Suferosa, Briskeby.

Architecture[edit]

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question but I will try anyways. My question is where can I find good pictures or drawings of St. Giles area of London from the period of the late 1800's and find some good descriptions of the streets and building, it's architecture, etc.?

Try the Royal Historical Society [58] or the sites on this list: [59].StuRat 12:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 29[edit]

Brave New World characters[edit]

I was just wondering about two characters in the book by Aldous Huxley. Henry Foster and Benito Hoover. I know that the other characters in the book all have their names from historical figures.. who are these two characters' names based on? gelo 01:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brave New World says "Benito Hoover joins fascist Benito Mussolini and Herbert Hoover, early 20th-century President of the USA." I'd imagine the Henry is from Henry Ford. I don't know who Foster is (see List_of_people_by_name:_Fo#Fost for some possibilities) - perhaps Michael Foster (physiologist). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if it would be Stephen Foster, but perhaps John Foster Dulles ? StuRat 12:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! gelo 02:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Rushmore[edit]

There is a worker's path that goes to the top of Mt. Rushmore. It is normally restricted. Does anyone know if it is ever open to the public (even by guided tour)? I'd like to ensure I visit when I can go to the top. --Kainaw (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the National Park Service, "The Presidential Trail takes visitors near the memorial (length 1/2 mile)." If you wanted to go to the top, you'd probably have to volunteer to do some work up there. However, you could inquire about a special permit at the park headquarters. --Halcatalyst 14:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films dealing with loneliness.[edit]

What are some films or artistic pieces or literature that deal with the theme of loneliness? gelo 02:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are scads of them. Some that come to mind right now: Taxi Driver is well-known, Tokyo Story is my favorite movie ever, and Requiem for a Dream is more recent. As for literature, it's hard to beat the poems and short stories of Dorothy Parker; it's one of her most consistent themes. --George 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Separate Tables is a great film that deals with this theme. It's one of my 2 favourite movies of all time. JackofOz 03:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, almost any movie based on a Terence Rattigan play will have a strong element of this. JackofOz 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for chuckles, I'll mention one of the lesser known short stories that deals with loneliness, "Silent Snow, Secret Snow" by Conrad Aiken: a child sees snow falling and obscurring the world. (He probably nicked it from the closing image of Joyce's The Dead, but everyone steals from Joyce.) Loneliness is, simply put, one of the most prevalent themes in literature. For some hard core loneliness, though, try The Seafarer, The Wanderer, and Deor in Anglo-Saxon poetry. It's hard to get lonelier than those. If you want something you can read without translation, try Elegy Written in a Country Church-yard by Thomas Gray. Still, though, you can't put your thumb into any Norton Anthology without hitting something about loneliness, whether loneliness because of tragedy (the second section of Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury) or just being a solitary person. Geogre 03:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a poem leading from lonliness to terror to insanity, try Edgar Allen Poe's, The Raven. StuRat 12:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! gelo 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a recent film dealing with loneliness, Lost In Translation comes to mind. --Robert Merkel 08:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure they deal with other issues, but the films "Blue bird" and "Nobody Knows" probably deal with it on some level. - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good classic film about loneliness is Umberto D. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Umberto D is absolutely explosive. It's one of the saddest films on loneliness ever. Much, much, much less high quality would be Silent Running and My Side of the Mountain, which both deal with happy solitary individuals. (Lost in Translation is another good nomination.) (I wish there were a way I could recomment The Last Laugh here somehow, but it hasn't anything to do with loneliness.) Geogre 11:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles produced artistic pieces of literature : songs! Try Nowhere man. --DLL 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another one I've just remembered is the obvious one "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner". JackofOz 21:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about mentioning that one, but I didn't think it was really about classic loneliness. It's more about disaffection and alienation, which are pretty lonely things, alright. Hmmm. The Anxiety of the Goalie at the Penalty Kick by Fassbinder? Geogre 03:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative, analytical, creative?[edit]

Sorry for my many queries...but I wanted to know what the difference was between investigative, analytical and creative pieces of work? gelo 02:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • An investigative work tries to discover the answer to a question.
  • An analytical work tries to display, explain, or explore the relationship between two or more things.
  • A creative piece of work is the vaguest term, and instead of having a specific purpose, is characterized by some degree of novelty. In a narrower sense, a creative work may be said to bring into existence something new as the purposive product of the creator's imagination.
  • From some perspectives, there would be the expectation that the structure and results of an investigative or analytical work would be constrained to a greater degree by a pre-existing, objective truth about the subject matter of investigation or analysis, while a creative work would be less constrained by reality. These characterizations have been challenged and in some perspectives (especially literary theory) may be rejected. alteripse 02:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! gelo 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order W199I-WF-213589[edit]

Conspiracy theorists invoke Presidential order named W199I-WF-213589 (or simply W199I) supposedly signed by George W. Bush in July 2001 - but looking for information, it appears to be widespread among conspiracy sites...but none of them can quote it. The best anybody provides is a "partial scan of documents released to the BBC", and a transcript to a BBC interview that references the documents...yet surely they must be online somewhere? Is this whole thing fictitious? Surely Executive Orders are somewhat recorded? http://www.gaianxaos.com/SpecialReports_files/199I-WF.htm and http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html (BBC transcript) are the two closest things I can find to "reputable" sources Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official White House website, the only executive orders issued in July 2001 were ones about trade with Belarus and energy efficiency in government operations. The document number "W199I-WF-213589" at the websites you mention appears to be some kind of internal FBI case number, not an executive order number. -- Mwalcoff 05:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in this GIF file [60], also from propagandamatrix.com, which purports to be a copy of an FBI printout with that number. Of course, the "printout" is of the sort that anyone with a PC could churn out in about three minutes, so I certainly wouldn't give it much credibility, no matter what the conspiracy theorists are trying to claim it "proves". In any event, it most certainly is not an executive order. That fact alone should be enough to make any rational person question just how much conspiracy theorists care about accuracy. (As an aside, Mr. Palast is quite a character in his own right, to put it mildly.) --Aaron 06:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the GIF file mentioned above is also so low resolution that you can only make out parts of the heading, not any of the actual content. StuRat 12:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You ain't gonna get this information. Executive orders are issued purely at the pleasure of the President, and he can attach to them any degree of security he likes; he can certainly claim executive privilege. If the President wanted to withhold the information, it would take a Supreme Court decision to wrest it from him. That's what happened in the case of Nixon tapes in 1974. The Watergate scandal article states, "This issue of access to the tapes went all the way to the Supreme Court. On July 24, 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Court (which did not include the recused Justice Rehnquist) ruled unanimously that Nixon's claims of executive privilege over the tapes were void and they further ordered him to surrender them to Jaworski. On July 30 he complied with the order and released the subpoenaed tapes." --Halcatalyst 06:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tie in the House of Representatives[edit]

In the Senate, the vice president casts a tie-breaking vote should there be a tie. I was doing some thinking. There are 435 members in the House. Let's assume that every congressman and representative is in the House chamber to vote on an important bill and it is tied with one representative out sick. In the House, who cast the tie-breaking vote should something like that occur? Has something like this ever occured? --Blue387 03:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution specifies that Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. According to current House rules, If a vote is tied, the presiding officer does not have a casting vote (unless he or she has not yet cast his or her vote). Instead, motions are decided in the negative when ties arise. --Halcatalyst 05:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hatcatalyst is technically right. However, the speaker of the House generally only votes to break ties. So if the vote comes up a tie, the Speaker breaks it. If the vote is a margin of one, the Speaker doesn't bother voting, because, as Hatcatalyst points out, making the vote even would not pass the bill. So the House never has a situation in which a vote ends in a tie the way it does in the Senate -- Mwalcoff 05:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I made my comment after only a few minutes of research on Wikipedia, and I was quoting Wikipedia in my last statement. However, of course, the quotation from the Constitution stands. The House, like the Senate, is the sole arbiter of its rules. --Halcatalyst 06:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't criticizing. You were correct, I was just pointing out how it works in practice -- Mwalcoff 07:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I wasn't offended :o) --Halcatalyst 15:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N KOREA NUCLEAR[edit]

We know that America does not do anything without any reason and his campaign against Iran nuclear program dipicts its intention to capture monopoly over oil resources and above that he does not want EURO to overpower DOLLAR if Iran's opens its oil market for the rest of the world. In the similar manner I want to know the reality behind US opposition for Nkorea nuclear program and what are the gains US can get by doing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.154.3 (talk • contribs) 01:06, January 29, 2006

Please see the articles on U.S.-North Korea relations, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction and Foreign relations of North Korea for some background info on the subject. Dismas|(talk) 06:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The assumption in your question, that "the US opposes Iran's nuclear program so it can have a monopoly over the world's oil supply and keep the EURO low relative to the US dollar" is quite absurd, for several reasons:

  • England and France also oppose Iran's nuclear program.
  • Preventing Iran's nuclear ambitions would not give the US any more control over the world oil supply. If anything, the predicted UN boycott on Iran would reduce Iran's contribution to the world oil market and that would increase world oil prices, which is quite bad for the US. Specifically, high oil prices drive the US inflation rate, and make the US dollar worth less relative to other currencies.
  • The US is very far from having a monopoly over world oil production, as many oil producing nations are historically and/or currently unfriendly to the US, including Venezuela, Russia, and many nations in the Middle East.

Why is the US opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions then ? For exactly the reasons stated:

  • Iran has repeatedly cheated and tried to develop nuclear weapons while pretending to develop peaceful nuclear energy. The UN has caught them doing this. As a result, the US, as well as most of the world, no longer trusts Iran when it says it's not going to build nuclear weapons.
  • Iran, being oil rich, doesn't appear to need nuclear energy.
  • Iran has even rejected Russia's proposal to provide them with nuclear fuel, provided Iran does not develop any capacity to refine the fuel further into nuclear weapons. The only way to explain this rejection is that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons.
  • The US, and many other nations, consider Iran to be an unstable, fundamentalist, anti-democratic government which supports terrorism (Hezbollah) and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Allowing such a nation to have nuclear weapons would be very destabilizing, possibly resulting in nuclear war with Israel.

StuRat 11:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for North Korea, the US opposes it having nuclear weapons because:

  • It promised not to, but cheated, on several occasions.
  • By spending it's money on weapons instead of their people, North Korea's population is in a nearly perpetual state of starvation and it's economy is near collapse.
  • North Korea is a totalitarian nation which has been aggressive toward it's neighbors, South Korea (they are still officially at war) and Japan (they have kidnapped Japanese citizens then killed them OR forced them to work as translators).
  • Traditional enemies, like South Korea and Japan, may very well want to develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves from North Korea. This nuclear proliferation could then spread to Taiwan. With all these traditional enemies armed with nuclear weapons, a nuclear war is quite likely.

StuRat 11:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran wishes to have nuclear weapons so it can protect itself (threatening MAD) from the nuclear arsenals of Israel (and the United States), and also have them on hand to use offensively if they feel like it. Defense/offense is the motivation of every nation which possesses nuclear devices and other weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and there's a little national glory and pride involved, too. --Halcatalyst 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea, enthralled in the cult of Kim Jong-il, has had for many years a million-man army which could flood into South Korea at a moment's notice. South Korea, however, is protected by the American nuclear umbrella. Under the communist rule, the people of North Korea have suffered some of the worst social disasters (especially starvation) in recent decades. They have few or no resources to pull themselves up. Having nuclear weapons and threatening to use them is one way of getting the world's attention and humanitarian help. In addition, the government is ideologically opposed to the West, with which it considers itself in a life-or-death struggle. --Halcatalyst 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Law lectures on the Internet[edit]

Where on the Internet can I find video law lectures? With my best thanks.

How about Law School Video Lectures -- the first site that came up when I put video law lectures in the Google search box. --Halcatalyst 19:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Kept Hitler[edit]

What kept Hitler from invading Switzerland and Sweden?"

It was useful to have neutral nations nearby for the exchange of prisoners, hiding stolen assets, negotiations, and an escape route once the war was lost. StuRat 10:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re Switzerland: Mountainous + fully mobilized citizen army = awful drain on manpower. Switzerland is not an easy country to invade and given the terrible time the Nazis had in occupying the Balkans another open sore would have been a bad idea. But the water is murky here, because the Swiss carried on trade, currency exchange, and general relations with Belin; Swiss banks were used to hide assets of Holocaust victims; and the Swiss closed their borders to potential refugees from the Reich. Marskell 10:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See our articles Switzerland during the World Wars (also Operation Tannenbaum) and Sweden during World War II. Gdr 13:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm the only one who gets that this is a joke reference, to the fact the question is our very example of questions to ask on this page :P Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 14:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, this is great! We should change the example question every month or week or something, and see how many people ask it. —Keenan Pepper 16:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm completely out to lunch I guess but where is the sample question on this page? Marskell 16:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question says For general questions, ask our volunteers at the Reference Desk. e.g."What kept Hitler from invading Switzerland and Sweden?" Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good, now I feel like less of a dunce for answering. If I've ever looked at the page, it was months ago at least... Sneaky little devil, whoever asked. Marskell 17:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was the same one who asked about "foul fiend" above... you know, little devil (dang, I hate to explain my own jokes). --Halcatalyst 14:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cover of Radiohead's Creep by "Abigail"[edit]

A while back I heard a cover on Radio 2 of Radiohead's song Creep by a female vocalist. All I've managed to find about about her is that she is called "Abigail". I am pretty sure that it isn't this Abigail as it was a slow, very emotional vocal rendition not a clubbing-type version. It isn't listed in the cover versions in our article on the song.

I know this is a long shot, but can anyone help me find a copy of it! Thryduulf 12:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the All Music Guide page, if you haven't checked it, on the song. There are several possibilities. BTW, the "Richard Cheese" version is absolutely hilarious and intolerable (lounge singer parody). Geogre 13:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not nearly as hilarious as his cover of NIN's "Closer"! Grutness...wha? 00:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beating Five[edit]

The Beatles did originally have five members, then Stuart Sutcliffe suggested the name The Beatles, so perhaps that was their name for the band at the time. See this page for details: [61] StuRat 18:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard the name "Lion Tops" before. I did a Google search, but couldn't find anything definative. What I remember is that it produced singles out of Germany. Though, I may be remembering Germany and it was actually Sweden or Austria. They did a lot of knock-off singles and tried to make them look like they came from England (printing the labels in English, regardless of typos). From that memory, I do not think it is much of a stretch that they took an English hit by the Beatles, stamped it on a single and mistyped the band's name as "The Beating Five" - especially since the Beatles were a 5-member group that was rather popular in Germany at the time. As for P. Phitington - that is probably another typo. Is it Wittington, which would become Phitington with a German accent? --Kainaw (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to start with, it's definitely not the Beatles. They never called themselves the Beating five (The Quarrymen, Johnny & the Moondogs, The Silver Beetle band, but not the Beating Five). They also never recored a song called "Think". The early Beatles recordings were released by a number of labels (Lingasong, AFE, Pickwick), but never Lion Tops. What often happened in the early 60s (and since, come to think of it), is that because it wasn't always easy to get recordings of original artists doing particular songs, other bands would be deliberately employed to cover those songs in the style of the original artists, and release the music on local labels. Lion Tops seems to have been a label that went in for this sort of thing - another of their early releases was a cover of "Have I the right?" - a big hit from the early 60s - recorded by Ton Theyn & the Young Ones. The label was based in Utrecht, Netherlands. You can find out a bit more about the label here. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how about the voices, the beatles are famous, everyone knows the sound and voices because they had plenty of nr 1 hits. The voices on the single are for sure Paul Mccartney and John Lennon, so i cant clarrify the origin of it. I know hundreds of people do have more knowledge of the beatles or some kind of name they were called, the only thing i ask, is it an early version off Paul Mccartney and John Lennon on this single, the label is from The Lion Tops, for your information, its an old dutch butter company, the name of the band is 'The Beating Five', which i believe is an early term for 'The Beatles'. Howelse you all could explain the voices off them on this single?

TEG +++ I own this exact same 45 as you described. My Dutch mother in law bought it new while she was a teenager. I did some hunting. There is a website called "Beatles Conversions" that lists ithere. I also found another EP listed by the "Beating Five" called "Glad All Over" Lion Tops LZ 108. If you search for Lion Tops and a date like 1963 or 1965 you can find that they produced records for other bands (the Jets, Little Ritz & the Rocking Butterflies,Mariolein Sijnke,TRIX & PARAMOUNTS) in the 60s. In short, the EP in question seems to be some sort of Dutch bootleg from about 63 or 64. My wild guess is that this obscure label "Lion Tops" just shoved a couple of completely unrelated songs on either side of the EP that would make them money. Whether royalties were paid, who knows? I read on wikipedia that for very very early songs the Beatles had a crummy contract and only got half a penny each for records outside of the UK. +++

Medieval kings of England[edit]

Can anyone tell me more about the French king Louis who apparently ruled England briefly during the mediaeval period, possibly around the 12th/13th century. I remember the reference from simon Scama's TV history, incidentally, and know all about Blackadder's Richard IV.

You're thinking of Louis VIII of France - who invaded (but was never crowned King of) England after the First Barons' War in 1216. He ruled as king de facto if not de jure. GeeJo (t) (c) • 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that difficult. Lion Tops were records that were available for people who collected the stamps from a margarine brand called Leeuwenzegel. Leeuw = Lion. So this brand brought people the hits, the toppers (Tops) for a small sum and stamps or for stamps alone. The used a wide range of artists on both singles (two hits) and EP's (four hits). I think Phonogram was involved in the production of these records for the maragrine-company. I love to know more, so if anyone has more info? Please!!!!!

"Cory" as in Chilean or Polish "Cory"[edit]

I'm a Political Science student and can't find the meaning of this term in "The Third Wave," Samuel P. Huntington, U of Oklahoma Press, 1991. p. 158.

Appreciate your help.

Janet Hudgins Vancouver Canada

for those without the book in question, could you give some idea of the context? GeeJo (t) (c) • 18:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The second wave was an expression of machine muscle, the Industrial ... The “Second Wave” was the shift from agricultural societies to industrial societies. Toffler contrasts industrial ways of organizing societies to new social ...". Source : google books!
So, the book about waves must be Alvin Toffler ; first is agriculture, second industry, third is information. --DLL 18:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a text about democracy: "Democratization in the Late 20th C," and the third wave of democracy began in 1974 with the coup in Portugal.

Huntington's use of this term: "There is no Chilean Cory." "Lech Walesa was a Polish Cory."

Hope this helps. Janet

Anglicans[edit]

Assess the problems faced by the Anglican Church during the 16th century?

I've no idea where to start with this essay, any ideas?

Sure. Latter 1500s. Henry viii forced separation from Rome: problem-- conflicted loyalties among clergy, king vs pope. Reformation is spreading in Europe: problem-- probably a wide range of receptiveness to the Reformation ideas among the clergy and consequently great potential for conflict. Scotland was more receptive to Reformation than England and Presbyterian church becomes dominant: problem-- church conflicts become aligned with the poltical conflicts in the relations of England and Scotland. Kings confiscate monastery property wholesale: problem-- loss of revenue and social power base. Now you are off and running. alteripse 19:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go rent A Man for All Seasons, essay done! Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's too big an essay you've got there. I'd never give that as an assignment. Essentially, the Church of England faced the Scylla and Charibdis of the Roman Catholic Church and Counter-reformation on the one hand and the emerging "Geneva Church" (John Calvin) on the other. It faced these dangers theologically with Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, politically with increasing absolutism of the monarch and decreasing civil rights, militarily with the great naval expansion, economically with a series of alliances with protestant nations, internationally by alliance in several entanglements designed to ensure protestant succession. Nothing was settled in the 16th century. It wouldn't be settled for good and all until 1745. Geogre 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was my master's work, but I won't overwhelm you, I promise. :-) I would suggest that the creation of the Book of Common Prayer (1549, 1552, and 1559 editions) was a pretty major challenge (and one that touches on both sides of what Geogre mentions above). The coronation and reign of Mary Tudor (and the work of Reginald Pole), and the resulting effect on English Protestants has to be considered. The list could go on forever (and reach pointless--for your essay--levels of detail), but I think if you touch on even some of what's been mentioned here, you'll be fine. And I totally agree with Geogre that this is a dreadful prompt...and you can tell your teacher I said so (though perhaps you'd better not). Jwrosenzweig 07:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doonesbury Quote[edit]

There was a Doonesbury comic a while ago involving someone (I believe Mark Slackmeyer's dad) shouting "Death, be not proud!" while being wheeled into the emergency room. This wasn't actually shown, it was described secondhand by his wife to his son. Another phrase I remember from it was, "It was just so tacky." Does anyone know how I could find this particular cartoon online, or which of the book collections it showed up in? Time's a factor. Black Carrot 19:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it was fun browsing Doonesbury and List of published collections of Doonesbury. You could start there and wish for luck. --Halcatalyst 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who influenced Hitler?[edit]

Since Adolf Hitler had moved to Linz after his parents death and his history teacher Professor Leopold Poetsch had influenced him about the ideas to reunite the German-speaking people under one government. Who else has influenced Hitler in terms of his thoughts, ideas and concepts?

_S.M_

Thank You.

See Hitler. It has a quick, but well written rundown on his early years. --Kainaw (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider looking through some of the articles on early 20th century German history - such as Kapp Putsch. They may give you more clues. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reunite? I don't think they've ever been united, really. That'd be only if you interpret the Holy Roman Empire as a German nation-state like the nationalist romantics at that time did, although with little basis in reality. Anyway.. Most of Hitler's ideas weren't his own. See for instance Lebensraum, an idea which predates the Nazis. During the 20's and 30's, there was a general idea that Germans needed more land to come to terms with unemployment. A more peaceful (but hopelessly utopic) contemporary idea was Hermann Sörgel's "Atlantropa" project, which suggested getting new land by lowering the level of the Mediterranian, with huge dams at Gibraltar, the Nile and the Bosphorus. The idea that they should grab land in East Europe came from von Bernhardi, who was no doubt a major influence in many ways, not least his militarism. Then there's of course the whole 19th century thinkers. Guys like Heinrich Schliemann who promoted the swastika was an old aryan symbol. Indeed, the entire "aryan" idea and the 19th century theories of race were in the mix. In general though, I don't think there was really that much original thought in the Nazi ideology, it was mostly an extreme expression of ideas that were already in circulation. (It's not like they had a deep and well-argumented philosophy, it was more a largely emotional and irrational movement) So the history of the Nazi ideology is by necessity a history of many of the prevailing ideas in Germany at that time. Hitler himself didn't seem to have much consistency in his thought, it's known that he considered "Mein Kampf" to be 'outdated' by the mid-30's. --BluePlatypus 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Composer[edit]

The 1976 Summer Olympics were held in Montreal and I believe the closing ceremonies were a tribute to the Five Nationsm in which the music featured was that of a young man whose first name was Maurice. Does anyone know his last name and any information about him. Roland

Maurice Forget gave the official oath. --Kainaw (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See 1976 Summer Olympics. Gdr 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the Wikipedia article and then at the official olympic.org website. They disagree, so went with the Olympic's site and spelled it "Forget". I then Googled for both names and turned up many unrelated hits. (also - do not edit other's comments. Simply comment for yourself.) --Kainaw (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I touched a nerve there. Sorry. Gdr 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-God[edit]

ok... I hope this doesn't sound too heretical ( well it will but I hope I don't offend noone since I'm only a silly annoying speculating psychology student). What if God turns out to exist and by this I mean a complicated notion of god resembling mysticism and not monotheism the way it's understood by children. (meaning a human-like god).

I mean for example, the way Meister Eckhart saw God...ok, let's say I take skepticism to it's extreme and say that not even God can be sure he is the ultimate? since he (it or whatever) can always have the doubt that He can be being fooled into believing he is the ulitmate and be given apparent control over the multiverse or universe or maybe HAVE that control, but be no more than a simulation or something of that sort controlled by outside forces (whatever they may be) .

ok so what I'm saying is that there can ALWAYS be a possibility of being 'fooled' by something outside,no matter how accurate scientifically, or compellingly mystical or Godly a notion, reason can always make us doubt. even if a mystic thinks he/she reaches union with God or a buddhist thinks he/she reaches nirvana, even then, that can only be make believe...because if there where no room for doubt, mysticism would already be the dominationg philosphy and be regarded as the truth...but it is not and I suppose that is because there is room for: A) an irrational truth -or- B)a make believe 'ultimate', maybe only make believe for us, and maybe make believe for 'the ultimate' also.

is there any philosopher that postulated this? are there faults in my reasoning that I haven't noticed?.- I'm sorry if this question is really crazy and stupid...-Cosmic girl 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delusion, especially self-delusion, by definition can't be recognized by the deludee. So we can easily imagine a deluded, self-deluded god. However, Doubt is not merely, or even mostly, rationalistic. In Analytic philosophy, doubt about God isn't on the table for discussion. Such topics are "bracketed," meaning excluded from discussion.
The Mystics don't necessarily exclude or derogate reason. They simply claim experience which can't be proven or disproven by reason and empricist approaches. As Pascal put it in his Pensées, Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas: "The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing." --Halcatalyst 02:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Woody Allen ruined that quote for at least a generation... alteripse 02:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That can be, but what if the heart (as a metaphor for mysticism as opposed to the brain representing reason and skepticism)is deluded?...what I mean here is that 100% absolute knowledge isn't possible and maybe it's so for God too (the most probable thing is that it isn't and He knows everything) but there is a posibility for him to doubt he is the ultimate...even if He is, He can still have doubts about it...he can for example, I don't know, sometimes believe that he is a celular automata controlled by an outside environment.--Cosmic girl 02:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of question that Thomas Aquinas would have thought reasonable, but Ludwig Wittgenstein would have pointed out is simply a meaningless linguistic generation without any relation to anything real. So make sure you arrange a seance with the right dead European philosopher. alteripse 02:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahahaha!!! :D :D :D I'm glad my question wasn't taken as if I was heretical or delusional :S !! how and which kind of reasoning would wittgenstein have used to say what I asked was meaningless? maybe meaningless for our immediate reality but I'm talking about metaphysics. and also, how could a Theologian and religious person like Aquinas find reasonable a doubt about God's omniscience? since what I know of Aquinas was that he loooved to prove God existed and so I'm quite sure he would've come up with a rationalization that refutes my question hehe. --Cosmic girl 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Tom would have agreed with you, just that he would have considered it a meaningful proposition, even if provably false. On the other hand, Ludwig would have dismissed it as an artefact of language: just because you can generate a proposition or a question by applying standard language rules to an abstract noun like God, it doesn't necessarily represent a model of reality, and logical manipulation of it doesn't yield any more knowledge of the world than you started with. alteripse 03:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a mystic experience, Aquinas set aside forever his academic, intellectual, theological work. He never finished his Summa. You might judge by that how powerful a mystic experience can be. Or you can simply dismiss it as delusional. Actually, you'll never know unless you experience it yourself. And then you won't "know." You'll be in The Cloud of Unknowing. --Halcatalyst 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me and the Eckmeister. I am still waiting for mine. alteripse 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahahhaa!! :D same here...--Cosmic girl 17:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is no God, so all your discussions here are merely playing with language. If you believe there is a God then He is unknown and all the discussions are still meaningless - Adrian Pingstone 09:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... well when I say God I mean truth... I outgrew the human-like God when I was 14. and also, if we are merely playing with language, and reality allows us to do that, doesn't that mean that reality (truth) is weirder than we can imagine? since I know math is 'stuck' because we can know things but we can't know why they are so...but I can be so wrong since I'm not a philosopher, and I can be sooo crazy, but can you explain me on what basis can you dismiss my question with such confidence? please, because I need to understand.--Cosmic girl 17:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic, see Omnipotence paradox. Marskell 09:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About that paradox, I think that God CAN act irrationally,(since existence doesn't seem that rational to me when I question it)...if God can, then there's no hope that we understand 'it' 'him' because we are logical mentally.--Cosmic girl 17:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is God in self-delusion ? Are we logical mentally ? For us, it seems that there is some unconscious mind driving us. This "Das ?" is not logical.
As for God, first thing, does He believe in you, in us ? Is there reciprocity : some admit a forceful Yes, I don't.
Let's say that few psychology students really try to think, and they are the ones who should. Let's not leave this to theologians. --DLL 17:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Reading again : I do not mean that you are of the many who do not think. Go on! --DLL 17:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, yeah well first of all I hope the admins don't get upset over the length of this question...:S since it says up there that further discussion should be moved to another place like a talk page. also...well thank you DLL, I think that way too, psychology needs theology even more than maybe theologians need it since our job here is to point people in the right direction but I myself have a very vage idea of what is right and we can't know what is right until we know what is the truth since our notions of right and wrong may be even backwards...and there are a lot of psychologists (specially my teachers) that pretend to know the truth, I sympathise more with the ones with naturalistic world views but there are those with a mystical blend to them, which I cannot grasp and they may be right...so in conclusion, I guess we can't know what is 'mental health' since we don't know what truth is, so a shizophrenic person may be more sane that we are just because the truth is weird and resembles his thought pattern more than it does ours. (it's obviously not that way in the 'real' world since it apears to be rational, but I'm talking about the bassis of it)--Cosmic girl 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitent adding to this because it's so long, but I think I have a point that hasn't been brought up yet. It's that, if you accept a common assertion that God created creation, then it could logically follow that He created its rules and would therefore know exactly how omnipotent He is because He knows all the rules. So, by this line of reasoning, applying the psychology of a human perspective to Him is meaningless because His perspective is different. -LambaJan 20:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. --Halcatalyst 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC) I was going to make a joke of this by saying, "Why should God worry about His omnipotence? EYE don't." --Halcatalyst 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC) But then I figured, who wants to listen to my jokes? --Halcatalyst 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant LambaJan was not that he wouldn't know all the rules of his creation, he would, but picture a super computer for example, or super consciousness that created it all in whom we move and have our being ok? then that would be God, whether it's conscious or not, but if He is conscious, then He can always have a little skepticism and leave open the possibility that outside of him the 'operator of the computer' could fool him into believing he is omnipotent, thus God would be subject to philosophical skepticism also... maybe it isn't like this at all, but I can't see why. --Cosmic girl 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, He would still know everything that He created. And about that His omnipotence would be unquestionable. The argument you just presented added another level. Think of it like this. We are a violin, and God is the violin maker. He's omnipotent about the violin, but when He goes home he wonders if God exists. So it's really the same argument from before, you just added another level. Personally I think God is everything, but what would you expect from a violin? lol. -LambaJan 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
umm.. I mean a speck of varnish on a violin. I think Halcat's joke was better. -LambaJan 22:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :#) Halcatalyst 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you guys???? I'm on vacation with my family and I'm not on my computer and hell,I didn't undersdtand a thing, please post further comments on my talk page, please!! and tell me if my argument is possible!!! thabk you )I can't even sign in here= bye! cosmic girl

In Buddhism, Brahma is exactly as you describe: he's seen to be under the delusion that he is the creator, when in fact there is no creator. There are a number of stories that touch on this theme, such as the Kevatta Sutta (one of the more entertaining suttas; see [62]). ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 30[edit]

Noah, Ham, Shem, Japheth[edit]

We are trying to find out the age of Noah and his sons Ham, Shem and Japheth when they died. --"""

Noah was 950 (Gen. 9:29). I don't think the ages of Ham, Shem, and Japheth are given, but you can search through Genesis chapters 6-9. --Halcatalyst 02:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

950 years! How many people in the world believe this? deeptrivia (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are suggestions that the incredible ages in the Old testament are a mistranslation or misunderstanding - a confusion with an old method of calculating time by lunar cycles. 950 lunar months would work out at about 73 years. Grutness...wha? 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the Hebrew word used in the bible is "shanah," which is very simply the word "year" in English. How one would get "month" from "shanah" (shin-nun-heh, dunno how to type that out in Hebrew letters) is beyond me... Zafiroblue05 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, reportedly, many literalists believe that the amount of inbreeding that had to occur chopped human life expectancy right, right down. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also heard the explanation ('justification' would perhaps be a better word) that it is due to the degeneration of mankind since the Fall of Man, a degeneration which will continue until and culminate in the apocalypse. Which seems very Platonic/Aristotelian to me. I wonder how the large increase in lifespan in the last century fits into that framework though. (Especially since it was brought about through knowledge, which is what supposedly caused the fall in the first place) --BluePlatypus 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer deeptrivia's question directly, yes there are a significant number of people that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Primarily fundamental Christians. We have articles on it, try reading from Bible and go from there. I think it's not majorly different from people tht believe literally in the Koran, Gita, etc. There are statements in the Bible that could directly lead one to conclude that the age and time numbers given in the Bible are meant not to be taken literally, but many people refuse to let the facts get in the way of a good story. - Taxman Talk 23:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shem was 600 years old when he died (see Genesis chapter 11 verses 10-11)

Grutness is probably right. Not only did the Torah Hebrews count years differently, but they counted differently in general (with a base-12 system). However, the mistranslation has consequences for folks in the west. James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh, infamously set the date of the creation of the world at October 23, 4004 BC. He did this by going with known history and then counting the ages of the patriarchs in the Bible. Furthermore, the various Chronicles in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began with the Creation, and they did this by also counting the ages of the patriarchs (although none of them came up with 4004 BC). The reason this is more than a joke, though, is that there are people out there now using Ussher's dating to deny evolution and geology, and the mistake in calculating the ages of patriarchs means that, had Ussher known about the lunar ages, he's have put the creation at more nearly 2800 BC. Geogre 11:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At last the catholic church glose tells us that the years may be taken as a metaphore of a long life ; Or a symbol, see also Gematria. --DLL 17:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth center[edit]

What is a Youth center? I've heard about them, but I haven't found a formal definition yet. --Oskilian

don't know whether there is a "formal description" as such, but they tend to be clubs where teenagers can congregate to meet, often with recreational equipment like pool tables, etc, and often with things like counselling services available onsite. I'm amazed we don't have an article on the subject... Grutness...wha? 09:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The concept behind it is that teenagers will congregate there, in a safe environment, as opposed to, for example, the streets. - Akamad 09:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to some gay guys in funny costumes, they have "everything for you men to enjoy." You can "hang out with all the boys", "do whatever you feel", "put your pride on the shelf", and "the world was so tight."

I see. Thanks a lot. (LOL on the VP) --Oskilian

Canadian women[edit]

62% of canadian women have done what the rest haven't done--Ronny 64.152.195.34 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always suspected the world was divided into 2 kinds of people, and now I know for sure. Thanks. JackofOz 06:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the world is divided into three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't. --Halcatalyst 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was: The world is divided into 10 kinds of the people: those who know binary and those who don't. --Kainaw (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure it's two: those who go around dividing the world into 2 kinds of people, and those who don't. JackofOz 22:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Had a pedicure? Visited the United States? Had maple syrup on their pancakes? --Robert Merkel 08:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38% have yet to do it. Grutness...wha? 09:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Written potty non-questions to Wikipedia? Adrian Pingstone 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this proves your either with us or your against us. Marskell 09:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 62%, a good 43% didn't know they were doing it, and 15% said that they didn't plan it in advance, so that leaves only 4% of 62% who really were committed to it. Also, of the 38%, 80% said that they approved of it and would do it if they ever collected enough coupons. 10% said that they wouldn't judge the 62% harshly and would join them in a bridge club, if asked. I think these are important facts to keep in mind. Geogre 11:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well guys am not messing you up but thought I would get a good answer here.This is a serious question The question is 62% of Canadian women have done it what's that......Anybody has an idea webwalkers

I'm sure we've had this question before... smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We did. It was a few months back but it's been here before. I don't think there was a serious answer that time either since it could be so many things and the questioner doesn't even narrow down a context to maybe help out with a google search. Dismas|(talk) 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only here. It has been asked on many reference sites on the Internet. It apparently was a quiz show question a while back and now people keep asking it over and over. The closest answers I've seen on any site (ones that had references to new articles) were: 62% of women were found attractive by men and 62% of young women put money in savings. Neither were accepted as the correct answer because they didn't fit the "62% of women have done" criteria. --Kainaw (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we narrow down what quiz show it was on? --Robert Merkel 11:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consulted a physician regarding migranes. [63] -LambaJan 21:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. Though personally I find it hard to categorize anything asked on a quiz show as a "serious question"... Notinasnaid 18:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of surveys are done per year. Logic says that for about one in a hundred questions asked, 62% will answer in a given way (probably more, since hardly anyone asks questions likely to have answers of 1% or 100%). So there must be hundreds of correct answers to this question. DJ Clayworth 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question reminds me of the quiz question about words that end in -gry. --Uthbrian (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this quiz show question has received such wide circulation, perhaps by now 62% of Canadian women have tried to answer it. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick googling gives this and this question on Yahoo Answers. – b_jonas 12:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of the late Rabbi Dr. Kopul Rosen[edit]

Has anyone written a biography of the late Rabbi Dr. Kopul Rosen, who was Principal of Carmel College, Wallingford Oxfordshire in England? With thanks

A google search for "Kopul Rosen" turned up a book entitled Memories of Kopul Rosen, ISBN 0950137200. If you click on the ISBN link it will take you to a book source metasearch page. The Google search I did turned up lots of other interesting links which you may wish to peruse. --Robert Merkel 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about turning them into an article? Start with this: Kopul Rosen alteripse 12:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys did the research, not I, but are we comfortable that the person will pass the notability bar and be worthy of a biography? I.e. has the figure had an effect upon the world in some context other than merely one doing his job? I only say this because I hate to see new users write an article, get on AfD, and then get frustrated or turn bad, and, if this biography doesn't establish his wider importance, that may happen. Geogre 14:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This guy founded a private school, had a book written about him which you can order on Amazon, and is pretty easily Googleable 35 years after his death. That's a prima facie case for notability. --Robert Merkel 11:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britain france and poland during the 1930s[edit]

Why did britain and france go to war against germany over poland?

You should check out our article family on World War II, specifically sections relating to the origins of the war. As an immediate answer, though, Britain and France had signed a mutual-defense pact with Poland in hopes of deterring Hitler's desire to annex the Polish Corridor. The subsequent declaration itself, while upholding the terms of the pact, was also probably intended as further deterrent in hopes of forcing Hitler to back down; certainly neither nation was interested in immediately and aggressively prosecuting the war effort (see Phony War). — Lomn Talk 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe-Max Moore[edit]

The Joe-Max Moore says he is third in US history in goals scored. An email to the Help Desk mailing list, alleging to be from Joe-Max Moore, claims that he is second in US history. Can somebody verify this and correct as appropriate? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not a football (soccer) fan, but according to US Soccer Players, Joe-Max Moore has scored 24 goals, less than Brian McBride (29 goals) and Eric Wynalda (34 goals). I'd say our article is right, but as I said, I'm not really a football fan! --Lox (t,c) 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This press release from US Soccer, on the occasion of Moore's induction into the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame, gives the 24-goal total and in fact lists Moore as fourth all-time (though omits any mention of those above him). Joe 06:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 31[edit]

Niña, Pinta and the Santa Maria[edit]

How many trips from Europe to the American continent did each of these three ships make. What was the name of the ship that brought the first settelers to America?

The Santa Maria: One. It was grounded on Christmas Eve of 1492.
The Nina: Three - Columbus' first three voyages (I don't know if he had more).
The Pinta: One - unless it was renamed. After the return trip from the first voyage, it drops from history (likely scrapped for building materials).
On the first voyage, Columbus left behind something like 39 men. However, the Mayflower is commonly called the first ship of settlers. --Kainaw (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's La Niña :P I fixed it for you. --Cosmic girl 01:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get technical, it was the Santa Clara. But, who wants to learn about the Pinta, the Santa Maria, and the Santa Clara? --Kainaw (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean Santa Claus ? --DLL 11:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I think I'd get arrested if I went into an elementary school and taught, "In 1492, Columbus rode Santa Claus all the way to the Bahamas." --Kainaw (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Mayflower isn't the first ship in reality though. That's only if you discount previous failures like the Roanoke colony, and also Spanish colonies like St Augustine. It's the first ship that formed a New England colony which survived. And if you want to talk of the new world as a whole, the Spanish were far ahead. Almost every major city in the Caribbean was founded long before Jamestown. (Havana, Cartagena, Caracas, San Juan (Puerto Rico), Santo Domingo, and so on.) --BluePlatypus 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why was that incidentally? A lot of South American cities were founded in the 1500's, even including inland cities. Why was the colonisation of North America so slow to get going? Jameswilson 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partly it was slowed because Spain had lots of ship with lots of cannons and didn't encourage visitors to their land. Rmhermen 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Mayflower wasn't even the first ship to bring English colonists to what is now the United States. As was mentioned, the Roanoke colony was established in 1585. The ships which brought colonists were, accoriding to this site, the Dorothy, Elizabeth, Lyon, Roebuck and Tyger. The second Roanoke colony in 1587 was brought by the Commander, Gabriel and Swallow. The first permanent settlement of Englishmen was at Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, 13 years before the arrival of the Mayflower. According to this, the first ships at Jamestown were Susan Constant, Godspeed and Discovery. I'm sure there were several more ships to bring colonists to Jamestown in the 13 years before the Mayflower. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth,The Theory of Intelligent Design, & The Separation of Church & State[edit]

I've heard that some people say that we shouldn't teach intelligent design(or creation-science of any kind) in public schools because, even if it's taught alongside evolution, it violates the First Admendment of the US Constitution's principle of the separation of church & state.

But what if that's the truth?If the theory of evolution is scientifically proven to be wrong, intelligent design is proven right, or both happens, then are we still going ban teaching creation in schools just because of this stupid little separation-of-church-and-state thing?

Media:User:Bowei

This is commonly referred to as a "What if worms carried guns?" argument. In other words, you are taking something that is currently expected to never happen and claiming that we should change our practice based on the nearly impossible occurence.
As for separation of Church and State - do you want your kids to have to sit through Buddhist creationism class, Muslim creationism class, Hindu creationism class, Aztec creationism class... just to make sure everyone is included? Of course not. This is America where we have freedom of religion as long as you are a Christian. We'll accept a few Jews if they lay low and pay for some good entertainment in Hollywood. --Kainaw (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be getting more of these provocative ID posts lately. You have more patience than I do. I think we ought to have a new page entitled Wikipedia:Reference desk/Troll arena, where we immediately move this sort of thing so that anybody who feels like it can kick it around, but it doesnt waste anymore time and space here. What think? alteripse 03:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's an interesting idea. I'm not sure it sits well with Don't bite the newcomers, though, and there's a lot of potential for abuse. The people asking these questions seem to be seriously underinformed; someone should make an effort to broaden their knowledge. I think it would be better for those who don't want to go into all the details to try to ignore these questions. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 17:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The separation clause of the US constitution says that the government will not establish any religion. It's true that this was originally designed to prevent the establishment of a state church, a la the Church of England, but it's also true that any time the state endorses a religious position, it is, in fact, creating an official church. It's a church that might not look like the Church of Ireland or the Church of Norway, but it's still a church in that it is an officially requisite set of religious principles. Now, I am a Christian, but I am also a Christian who does not endorse the narrow, ultra-Protestant view of my holy text fostered by "creation science." I take it as a deeply important tenet of my belief that the Bible is true but that truth is not limited to the literal and that, as Paul said, the letter kills and the spirit gives life. I do not want my Christian beliefs or those of my children impinged and distorted by this radical sect of a division of Christian thought, so the rulings against creation science are to protect my Christianity, as well as another's atheism and another's other religion. It is to prevent a State Church from clobbering the individual church or lack of one that the separation of church and state exists for. As for intelligent design, I don't think that what people are talking about now even deserves the title, and, in any case, it is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. Geogre 03:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you say, but do you want to post it every 2-3 days when one of these bozos drops by? Maybe we could put your standard response in the Troll Arena (TM) (see my proposal just above your note here), and the trolls could kind of "practice joust" at it, and every day or so we could wash the blood off the sand and post a fresh copy. Whaddaya say? alteripse 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat of a meta-response, but IMO this wasn't trolling - it was a legitimate (if, from my perspective, somewhat under-informed) question, and I applaud Kainaw and Geogre for being patient, cool and methodical when discussing a somewhat controversial subject. Of course, if we wanted to avoid the extra work, we can always redirect questions of this nature to Creation-evolution controversy and Creation and evolution in public education, as well as to Creationism, Intelligent design and Evolution for more in-depth background - but, again, hats off to those who take the time to write up personalised answers. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Geogre and QuantumEleven. It's a serious subject, one worthy of asking about and discussing. Here is a good place to do so. Trolls are people who disrupt and destroy things, not those who bring up controversial subjects, not even those who ask about what has been asked before. Around here, trolls get ridiculed, not deported. Even if it's a dumb question, or intended as a joke, usually somebody says something intelligent about it. --Halcatalyst 14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this question is usually not trolling. The person who asks is most likely raised to believe strictly in literal translations of an English translation of a French translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew translation of an Aramaic translation of an oral tradition. They are taught that if they do not immediately reject all science, they will burn forever in hell. So, it is not reasonable to assume that they are trying to troll by asking why the thing they have been taught all their life is not being taught to everyone else. Unfortunately, they are not allowed to consider the answer received without burning forever in hell. I wish I could find a good way to open up a discussion with some of these people and explain that science and religion can live together in harmony and nobody has to burn in hell for it. --Kainaw (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! That question appears everywhere, it was also in the Misc. RD. Let us give links to the relevant articles stop. --DLL 11:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the allegations of trolling: there is a type of troll known as the "evil clown" troll whose mission is to pick fights and be contrarian. Then there is the oldest type of troll, and this may be what we're looking at. Originally, "trolling" was a corruption of "trawling," I believe. There were people, usually inexpert if not uneducated, who would go to controversialist discussion areas and ask basic and antagonistic questions. Their mission wasn't as much to start a fight as to get someone to talk to them. They were lonely or batty. They typically brought discussion areas to a standstill as they kept asking about first principles, axiomatics, and irrelevancies, and when the controllers of the discussion areas punished them, the whole thing blew up as people of conscience and people of irritability fought it out over whether the area itself was being governed well. Thus, the trawler and the evil clown had the same effect: stopping all business and forcing the area to discuss itself, instead of whatever people were there to talk about. I thought this was just a trawler until I saw the follow up, below, about how all nations are Christian, and then I figured this was just an evil clown. I attempted to answer, at first, to try to satisfy the questioner in such a way that progress was cut off. I now see that the hunger is too great and the mission is probably not legitimate. Geogre 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We shall not be the keepers of the good speech against other keepers. We are trying to help people use a neutral encyclopedia.
Let us give charitable links to relevant articles to people asking questions and showing by their tone that they are trying to go farther than some inculcated faith.
For those who really try : sign in, do not use anonymous AOL's IPs. Thanks. --DLL 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the original question, you say "what if inteeligent design was to be proved right..." If that happened it would be taught in schools of course because it would have stopped being a religious thing. But the important thing is that it would have to have been 'proved right in the opinion of most scientists in the field first. They are the ones who are best qualified to judge what goes on the science curriculum, not priests or politicians or public opinion.

Incidentally, in the UK we dont have church/state separation. I think some of the American religious right would hate it if their children went to school in Britain where they would end up learning a bit about all the major religions, not just their parents' particular version of Christianity. Jameswilson 03:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British MP's[edit]

What percentage of british MP's hold a university degree?

Which MP's where born before 1930 (I know their is at least two)?
Whichn MP's are WII veterans I believe their is at least one?
In terms of military service what is the highest rank achieved by a sitting member?
Who most politcally right MP?
Who is the most pollically left MP?
Does Gordon Brown face serious challenge in his own party?
What is the Anglo Indian representation?

What are the odds of the Lib dems gaining stregnth?

I can't answer your quantitative questions but I'll try some of the others:
Who is the most right & left - frankly these are subjective terms usually applied by the media (eg Euro-scepticism is viewed as 'right-wing' but one of the most 'left wing' (former) MP's Tony Benn was incredibly eurosceptic, similarly support for the NHS is 'left wing' but almost no MP would oppose this). You can't really categorise MPs like this, at least not accurately in most cases.
Gordon Brown - Serious challenge at what? If you mean in succeeding Tony Blair then probably not, those most perceived as his rivals have been either discredited (David Blunkett)or unlikely to achieve support (John Prescott),(John Reid). If you mean challenge to his position as Chancellor - only by events.
Anglo-Indian no idea, never heard of this but it could be something from back when we used to govern India, though even then there were no Indian representatives. AllanHainey 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the questioner means "How many current British MPs are of Indian/South Asian descent?" As for the Lib-Dems, sadly I suspect they reached a peak shortly before the last election, and are now busy shooting themselves in both feet with a variety of scandals. History and politics are strange beasts, though, and it wouldn't take much for opinion polls to swing back the other way. Grutness...wha? 14:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the most left-wing/most right-wing, although it is as AllanHainey says above hard to judge because it depends on what issues you look at, I would think it's fairly safe to say that George Galloway is the most left-wing MP. For the stats questions (i.e. all except Brown facing challenges within the Labour Party) you could find answers by trawling through a list of British MPs, although going through all 645 of them would be a rather tedious task, IMHO. -- AJR | Talk 00:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From this article, I make it that there are currently 10 MP's of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin - Marsha Singh, Piara Khabra, Mohammad Sarwar, Parmjit Dhanda, Keith Vaz, Dr Ashok Kumar, Khalid Mahmood, Sadiq Khan, Shahid Malik and Shailesh Vara. Jameswilson 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Anglo-Indian is a completely different term. deeptrivia (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if you mean that sort of Anglo-Indian, I really dont know. I have never heard of anybody being described as Anglo-Indian in that sense in the UK nowadays. Maybe some of their descendants do privately keep a sense of their identity but, as far as the rest of us are concerned, they have just merged into the general society. I imagine one or two MP's do have an Anglo-Indian grandfather (just by the law of averages) but its never mentioned. Jameswilson 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What contries are hating eachother, and what people are hating another race of people[edit]

Are there any example in our world today, of countries HATING each other. Also, are there any organizations, posing threats to the world, which hate a certain group of people. Also, it would be great if you could give an example where in the world peolpe let themselves be taken over by a foreign or different power, just because they want to live.

Short answer = Yes.
Longer ... look at the world press. You don't even have to leave many nations. In the USA there is a political divide that is getting steadily worse, that could end up in a second Civil War, if this keeps up. There is hatred across ideological grounds, and there is hatred stemming from fear of what other nations and peoples might do, to abuse power, control of WMD, carry out threats, etc. User:AlMac|(talk) 08:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good starting point might be the List of wars and (linked from there) the List of invasions. An example of a nation that didn't resist invasion was Austria in WWII, but that was because they wanted to be united with Germany. I don't think any people who do not want to be invaded will not put up any fight at all. The only reason might be that they can't possibly win (I suppose that's what you mean), but even then there will be some opposition by some people. The chances of resistance will decline with the difference in power, but the strongest differences I can think of were during the Roman empire and the colonisation by European nations, but even then there was resistance. Just think of the resistance of the Indians in America against all odds. The resistance can be very limited, though. In the Netherlands after the invasion by Germany, the first few years there was hardly any resistance at all, first by the military, who were too weak, and then by the people, who noticed not much had changed and just wanted to get on with their lives. But that was because the Germans saw potential allies in the Dutch (fellow 'aryans' as we were). So no resistance could be inspired by a will to live, Im imagine (though I can't think of an example), but that will only happen when the invader isn't too oppressive. DirkvdM 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My Reply- I was looking at modern exapmles, like today, and on going, thanks.
"Hate" is subjective, so that's not a possible question to answer. Obviously there's a whole spectrum of foreign relations and emotions. Yet there are very few places where it is anywhere near the level of armed conflict. Indeed, the number of conflicts between states has decreased dramatically in the past century. It seems that conflict between nation-states is becoming something of the past. As for organizations, there are no organizations of any kind threatening the world as a whole. As for countries who 'let' themselves be taken over, I've never heard of such a thing. People tend to really, really, hate foreign rule. Few Russians I know liked the Soviet system, but I've yet to meet a single one who'd have wanted a foreign invasion to rid them of it. I think the only cases where that works is when the people have been to tired of war and fed up with their rulers to provide resistance. The threat of being invaded by someone else helps too, in WWII the German people were much happier to surrender to the Allies than the Soviets. --BluePlatypus 17:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did they 'know' what was going to happen in either case? I think it was more a matter of the Germans having been indoctrinated to be afraid of both Slavs and Commies - and the Russians were both. Just like westerners like myself have been indoctrinated to believe the Soviet system didn't work and the USSR citizens to believe western society was rotten. I once spoke to a Ukranian guy who was taught to hate the Russians for ruling over his country and fear the western world for it's strive for world dominance - sound familiar? DirkvdM 08:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it's due to indoctrination. Be it love or hate, most inter-people relations like that are based on prejudice and group psychology, not an open-minded evaluation based on personal experience. --BluePlatypus 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there palm trees in Florence, Italy?[edit]

It's kind of a trivial question, but I was curious if there were any palm trees in Florence? I would imagine there were, but are they as abundant as, say, mid or southern Italy? Un sogno modesto 09:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them there. I've even seen palms in Cornwall, England. Although in both cases, I think they've been planted. (They're certainly not indiginous to England!) There's certainly more of them in southern Italy and Sicily. --BluePlatypus 17:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ones in England probably aren't true palms - they're more likely to be "Torquay Palms", also known as Cabbage trees (Cordyline australis, IIRC), which are actually more closely related to lilies than palms. Grutness...wha? 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that made me uncertain, but Google turned up a couple pictures of true palms around Falmouth, so it seems my memory has served me correctly. --BluePlatypus 19:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sainte Estelle[edit]

Who was Sainte Estelle? She appears to have been an early French martyr but does not feature in any online dictionary of saints. Nor for that matter do Saint Stella or Saint Ethel - two possible English spellings of the same name. Did she ever really exist?

Estelle ou Stella (étoile) honorée à Saintes comme ayant subi le martyre au troisième siècle. Elle fut surtout rendue célèbre grâce au poète Mistral.Son nom était en fait Eustelle (du grec "eu"= beau, bien et "stello"= parer, orner). La forme latinisée Estelle a été donnée par Frédéric Mistral. Gouverneur de la région de Saintes, son père était un Romain de naissance illustre; sa mère descendait d'une antique et puissante famille de druides. La curiosité de son esprit cultivé la plaça sur le chemin de saint Eutrope, premier évêque de la région. Après avoir entendu ses enseignements, elle demanda le baptême : elle fut baptisée par lui et consacrée à Dieu. Comme elle se refusait à tous les prétendants et qu'elle s'obstinait dans sa Foi, son père la fit mettre à mort dans les arènes de Saintes. Son corps fut enterré dans le tombeau même de saint Eutrope, à qui elle avait donné, peu de temps auparavant la sépulture. Le nom de sainte Eustelle était si populaire dans la région charentaise que les évêques de La Rochelle et Saintes la choisirent pour patronne de la jeunesse chrétienne.(Sources : Les Jeunes Saintes, par l'Abbé J. KNELL, 1896 / Notice sur Sainte Eustelle, vierge et martyre de l'église de Saintes, par M. l'Abbé BRIAND, 1837 / Le mystère de sainte Eustelle, drame en trois actes, par le chanoine honoraire L.-M. DUBOIS, imprimatur de 1922)

The above was found at [64]. It basically says Estelle was a third century martyr in Gaul, daughter of an illustrious Roman and descended from a powerful family of Druids. She was attracted to the group of Saint Eutrope, first bishop of the area, and asked to be baptized. When she refused to abjure, her father condemned her to death in the arena. She has been popular in the charentaise region and was considered a patron saint of young christian girls. Now see our article Saint Estelle. alteripse 12:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! More saint articles! (Just did Monan, myself.) There are over 10,000 saints on the calendar. There are many that have been demoted but are of historical interest. Anyone who wants a quick article to her or his credit need merely grab some serious reference works and start poking around for saints without articles. There are plenty. Geogre 12:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that St. Elsewhere is aleady taken. --Halcatalyst 05:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Feb 1 is fairly well covered, but look at Saint Ursus. What a disappointment! Predicate nominatives are not articles. If I can find an hagiography and write an article, I'll start by deleting what's there now. "Nuclear fission is when atoms split" is not an article on nuclear fission, and "Saint Ursus was a martyr" is not an article on a saint. Grrrrr. (Must kill substubs!) Geogre 14:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But at least it's a start. "From small acorns, mighty oaks grow". JackofOz 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, not to me, or at least I don't consider that an acorn. I consider it a sign saying, "Coming soon: acorns!" Or, put another way, I don't believe that walking around naked in the belief that someone will eventually put clothes on you is a good idea. While you wait for that eventually, you're still parading around showing your a*se. 2-3 sentences is a stub. A predicate nominative ("Adolf Hitler was a German dictator") is not a scaffolding upon which anything could be built. Geogre 03:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha on Godwin's Law here. Argument over. alteripse 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows that invoking Godwin's law is just like the Nazis! Geogre 16:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's just amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia. JackofOz 07:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

european union[edit]

what are the 12 original eu members?

See European Union - and there weren't twelve original members, there were six (Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Italy, (West) Germany, France). The "twelve" member states (from 1986 to 1995) were the original six plus the UK, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Denmark and Ireland. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't called the European Union until 1992, though (again, see the article), so there were 12 members at that time. --Anonymous, 17:30 UTC, January 31.

The worlds most prominant religion?[edit]

Just wondering, why is it that everyone is up in arms about religious persecution, and seperation of church and state? I mean christianity is fast becoming one of the most practiced religions on the face of the earth! If every day, more and more people are seeing the error of their ways, and converting to the true christian faith, then why is it nessesary to appease the tiny, shrinking, portion of the earth's population who keep making such a big stink about it? Can't we just accept that secularists, athiests, religion haters, and the whole middle eastern mess, are going to eventually all see the light, and convert to a true faith? Why must governments be bullied into supporting alternate religions? and tolerance of aithiests and other hate mongers? Can't we just accpet that the United States in a Christian Nation? That in reality all modern societies are in fact Christian Nations? That in effect every civilized society is Christian? Why are people who are suppsoedly scientific, rational, and tolerant, so unable to show compassion to Christianity?--64.12.116.72 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hungry trolls, apparently. A deafening silence is the only logical answer. Geogre 16:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have to laugh. It is bad enough to feel sorry for someone like that, but it is worse when you realize they were taught to be that way by a large number of people in their home, church, and probably in their public school. Didn't I read something in the news this morning about how Iran is evil because they force a strict religious believe on everyone in their home, school, and business... --Kainaw (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same question in RD:Misc. More, the IP address is blocked. More, thanks god, you don't have wikipedias in that horrible mid eastern mess to ask such questions, have you ? --DLL 20:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What planet are you living in? Perhaps a fantasy world of home schooling? Christianity is a minority religion on this planet Earth. The USA is about the only nation with freedom of religion, and this is accomplished through constitutional separation of church and state. In most nations, if you caught with a cross, a bible, other overt signs of Christianity, the penalty is: major fines; serious jail time; even death. Be thankful you live in USA where you have the mental freedom to spout the fantasies expressed in your question. User:AlMac|(talk) 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Render Our Lives Laughter(-filled)... we should tip this person. It probably took, oh, 10 minutes to write the statement above. At minimum wage (in the US), that's 86 cents. I'm passing the hat. How much will YOU contribute? --Halcatalyst 23:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AlMac, considering the original posting you should make it a little clearer that you're joking (which I suppose is the case :) ). DirkvdM 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I very much hop that's a joke, AlMac. EamonnPKeane 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

establishing the future value of music copyrights[edit]

I'm looking to find out how to establish the value of copyrights on music created 25-30 years ago. As the rights to income from copyrights were transferred to record companies in the 1970s, those rights are now expiring and some artists are seeking to recover back the rights they transferred to those record companies while under contract. I'm looking for a formula or method for analyzing individualized and market-wide data on these rights that are reverting to the original artists and composers. Further, I can't seem to find out how record companies evalate the financial strength of an artist's work - when they advance an artist money prior to sales occuring - they must have some formula to determine how much they can advance and the relative risk associated with that advance payment.

First, about the advance: don't calculate it. The artist owes the advance, and it is recouped from the artist royalties, so it doesn't enter into the calculations of value of copyrights. Second, I can't answer directly. There is a lawyer in the US who has been doing yoeman work in getting old blues musicians, in particular, their royalties. I suspect that if you enter an antique, living bluesman's name plus "lawyer" into Google, you'll find the fellow's name. I know Paul Lambden is at Ryko Disk, and they deal with a great deal of lapsed catalog and try to do the right thing. A formula must be in use, but I'm sure it's set by court precedent in your particular nation and cannot be international or universal. Geogre 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting question is whether interest is applied to the advance before deducting it. -- Pakaran 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cro-magnon humans[edit]

What happened to the cro-magnon humans? We read that they lived between 50000 and 10000 years ago, I am curious, any lignt on the subject would be appreciated.

Not to imply you have the intelligence of a cro-magnon, but if you type "Cro-Magnon" into the little search box and click the "go" button, you will see this page. --Kainaw (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We all have the intelligence of a Cro-Magnon, as they are basically us. --Ornil 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed something analagous the other day ("all humans are apes, but not all apes are humans"). I think saying the words "Not to imply you have the intelligence of a cro-magnon" might (however fleetingly) create that very suggestion in their mind, where none existed previously. JackofOz 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clapping rhymes[edit]

I just stumbled on our article about Jump-rope rhymes. I then tried to find a similar article about hand-clapping rhymes, but to no avail. I'm talking about those schoolyard songs and chants that kids do as they clap hands in intricate ways. An example is "Miss Susie [or Lucy] had a steamboat, / The steamboat had a bell" etc. So what are these things called? And do we have an article on them? I didn't find anything at Pat-a-cake or Clapping. (This was borderline Humanities/Miscellaneous, so apologies if anyone thinks it should have been there rather than here.) — BrianSmithson 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you're looking for Clapping game? --Lox (t,c) 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, thanks. I've built the web a bit, adding appropriate cross links to the articles mentioned above. — BrianSmithson 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress of reform over the transition from communism[edit]

Hello,

I've studied all pages relating to 'communism', but have only found small sections regarding the economics of transition economies. Essentially, i'm wishing to find out how ex-communist countries, moving from planned to market economies, are faring?

I'd be ever so greatful if you could help,

James.

Well, if you've read the articles you should know that they're supposed to be called ex-'socialist states' :) . Which would be the former Soviet Union (or did I blink and miss one? :) ). And in this case one should distinguish between how the country as a whole is doing and how the individual people are doing. This is just what I've learned from tv (a BBC documentary on the Russian oligarchs), but in Russia, the biggest of those countries, the transition was done in a pretty lousy way. These people were raised with the idea that capitalism is theft, so when they were fully emerged in capitalism (more so even than in other capitalist states) the thieves got rich. Filthy rich. Leaving nothing for the poor. Shares in companies were divided equally amongst the people, but most didn't know what to do with them. Just a few did. They bought the shares for next to nothing, combined them with foreign money and got filthy rich. Also because the managers of factories didn't have a clue how to operate in a free market and thus left that to the few who did - the aforementioned few. So now all the power is still in the hands of a few, except that these don't care at all about the poor, who now have nothing in stead of little - the safety net that the state was has disappeared. But now their power is being curtailed by Putin, who seems to be trying to become a new Tsar. Which of course will lead to a revolution, bringing Russia back to square one, except that the Communist Party will have refreshed its legitimacy. Which would realise the prediction I made in the early 1990's.
How the economy as a whole is doing (in an international comparison), I don't know really, and would also like to know. DirkvdM 08:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/January_2006&oldid=1089067770"