Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 10

Stories within stories

I remember once reading several stories in which the characters tell each other stories. They were all by the same author. Does anyone know who I might be thinking of? Thanks ahead of time. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Canterbury Tales? Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall them being about pilgrims. If I remember right, I think that one of them was about merchants on a desert trade route. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

However, I may also be wrong and they may not all be attributed to the same author, but just grouped together. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Thousand and One Nights? That's not really by one author though. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My first thought (stopped by quadruple edit conflict) was The Decameron which includes at least one tale of the desert as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1001 Nights does include plenty of stories about merchants, and many nights involve someone telling a story about someone telling someone a story. They're all portrayed as being the stories of one woman, too. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It definitely was not the 1001 Nights. I know this because there were several books in that collection. The stories I read were in one book. While the ones from 1001 nights were in an entirely different one. Also, non of the stories had 100 stories within stories in them. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

99.226, on a point of information The Canterbury Tales are told by pilgrims; they are not about pilgrims. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So they're real pilgrims, and not pilgrims in the story? Or is it that they're fake pilgrims in the story who are telling stories to other fictional pilgrims for the sake of connecting the stories? But I suppose it doesn't matter. Because it's not the canterbury tales. XD 99.226.39.245 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And if we haven't yet delivered what you seek, see also the articles on frame story and story within a story for more literary examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As proof of the obscure nature of this story these stories, I haven't been able to locate in the articles.99.226.26.154 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To briefly explain the Canterbury tales, it's the story of a band of pilgrims who tell each other stories along the way. These stories are narrated by one of the characters, but have characters all of their own, and Chaucer interjects quite often to make points about the tale-telling characters. It might be worth looking at story within a story to see if the one you're looking for is in there. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, the story is not to be found in the articles. Thanks for the suggestion, though. 99.226.26.154 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple which haven't been mentioned, and aren't in those articles are the Heptameron and Melmoth the Wanderer (which takes story within a story within a story ... to ridiculous lengths; a favorite of Wilde and Balzac, though probably not what you're looking for)John Z (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Several dozens or even hundreds years newer is Arthur C. Clarke's Tales from the White Hart. --LarryMac | Talk 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a horror story or only half(three quarters) finished, and there was no science fiction involved.99.226.39.245 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly either If on a winter's night a traveller or The Castle of Crossed Destinies. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dual county seats

Most counties in the United States have one county seat, including all the counties in at least 45 states. Arkansas is the big exception: it's got (I'd estimate) at least a dozen counties with two seats. Any ideas on why this is? Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The county seat article says that "The practice of multiple county seat towns dates from the days when travel was difficult." Particular instance may also have other historical reasons - in a similar circumstance, the country of the Netherlands has an interesting situation where Amsterdam is technically the capital, but The Hague is where the government is (see Capital of the Netherlands). -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian County is a special case, for a few years after it's creation the county seat was moved back and forth between Fort Smith and Greenwood as rival political factions attempted to assert control of the county government. A later compromise allowed for the creation of two districts, which is specifically mentioned in Article 13 § 5 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution. Writers' Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of Arkansas. (1941). Arkansas; a guide to the state. p. 146. OCLC 882129. Twelve Arkansas counties have two county seats, but all have the same county officials. The two districts in Sebastian have each their own county courts and quorum, and are essentially separate counties. Wager, P. W. (1950). County government across the Nation. p. 532. OCLC 502998.—eric 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That may have been the case at one point, but a perusal of the Sebastian County website ([1]) reveals that it now has a single quorum court (county legislature). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the Arkansas Supreme Court stopped the practice of maintaining two separate quorum courts in Robinson v. Greenwood District, Sebastian County Quorum Court (1975). This 2006 Attorney General opinion speaks to what is or is not a "county seat" in Arkansas counties with two judicial districts.—eric 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline Prices

I was wondering the other day if all major oil companies in the U.S. have some sort of agreement to keep their gasoline prices within a certain amount of each other. I have never seen gas stations compete by attempting to charge lower prices, and this does not make a great deal of sense to me as almost no one i have known personally prefers a brand of gasoline over any other and everyone is mostly looking for the cheapest available. Wouldn't selling gas 30 cents cheaper than all the surrounding stations easily create such a high demand for your gasoline that the 30 cents could be easily offset? Thank you for your time, i greatly appreciate it. 24.88.103.234 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Timmy

In most parts of the United States you will find gas stations that sell gas for 30 cents more than the lowest price in their area. These are typically service stations that aim to make money on repairs and the like rather than gas sales. Then there is a large group of stations with prices all within maybe 5 cents of each other. The reason why they are all within that range is that they are charging a price close to their cost. The lowest-priced stations may be charging 1 cent or less above the cost of providing the gas. They are hoping to make money on volume and on sales from their convenience stores. It would be impossible to charge 30 cents less than the lowest-priced gas stations without losing money on every fill-up. The cost of gas in a given area is virtually the same from one oil company to another. This is so because the wholesale price of gas is essentially set on a global market. The cost of delivering gas to a given metropolitan area is virtually the same for every company. Then, there are uniform gas taxes charged in any given state. Marco polo (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] No firm source for my thought, but I think I've read somewhere that gas stations make almost no profit (like 1¢ or 2¢ on the gallon) on the gasoline itself anymore. My father has spoken of fierce price wars before the 1973 oil crisis, so I'd guess you, like I, am simply too young to remember such a thing. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen gas wars in the U.S. years ago where competing stations across the street from each other were lowering the price reactively to stay cheaper than the competition, clearly selling below cost, with cars lined up to take advantage. It sometimes dropped to half the regular price. Edison (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting stuff! 24.88.103.234 (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Timmy

Wouldn't any price-fixing agreement constitute a cartel, and wouldn't that be illegal even in the US? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and yes, but "even in" the US? --LarryMac | Talk 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nyttend is correct that the end marketer (the corner gas station) typically makes only a few cents per gallon profit - by far their greater profit margin is on things like twinkies and bottled water. If any station today could sell at 30 c under the typical rate in an area, they would run out of product far quicker than they would reap any profit by virtue of increased volume of sales. There is certainly no agreement among companies to set prices - most retailers, even biggies like Exxon, must purchase (on the open market) much of the oil they refine into gasoline, because they cannot come close to refining enough from their own production to accommodate the demand at the gas station - so they sell it at whatever price they must to make that tiny profit. Generally, that will be about the same amount for everyone in a region. The price is "set" by supply and demand for the most part (daily fluctuations in oil price reflect jitters and emotions on the part of market traders, but the general range of price reflects supply and demand.) Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several states that mandate a minimum gas price. [2] With the charge for each credit card transaction, some stations loose money selling gas. [3] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts: retail gasoline in the U.S. (and probably many other countries) is highly price competitive. Few other products advertise their price to the tenth of a cent on large roadside signs. The consumers are already in cars, so driving down the road for a cheaper price is not much of a burden. Anecdotally it seems that consumers are extremely price sensitive, at least in deciding where to buy their gas, with many consumers sometimes driving miles out of the way to save as little as a nickel per gallon (not realizing they're losing any savings in increased fuel usage). It's no wonder retail gas profit margins are razor-thin. --D. Monack | talk 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, I always wonder why, when I see two stations across the street and in plain view of each other with differing prices, why the more expensive one still does great business. There are three stations on at my corner, with the convenience-store-brand being reliably cheaper--sometimes by 10¢ or more--than the brand-name ones. The prices only change once or twice a week, with one brand-name always the most expensive, the other brand-name a little less, and the convenience-store "brand" substantially less. They clearly aren't competing on price alone. A few weeks ago, the spread was over 20¢, yet people were still filling up at the most expensive one. DMacks (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

J.J.J Tissot

I found a painting by J.J.J Tissot the title: A Spring Afternoon. My question is, was one of his series of paintings in reference to this one A Spring Afternoon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by April Correll (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just had to clarify for myself by clicking off that caps lock. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on James Jospeh Jacques Tissot. Unfortunately, I do not understand what your question is about. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tissot painted two works titled Spring: an oil on canvas in 1865 and an oil on panel ca 1878. The prints and posters titled A Spring Afternoon which are sold online and elsewhere are copies of Tissot's A Widow from 1868 (oil on canvas, private collection). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

William Essex (author)

I am trying to find information of William Essex. I have managed to find out some of the books he's written, but I need information on his life. Essex has written the book I'm doing a report on: The Pack. It was published in 1987. The only article I could find out about a William Essex was about a man who lived in the 16^th Century. If somebody knows of a site or article I can look at with information on the Essex I'm researching, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.133.228 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You could try a search on "John Tigges", which seems to be his real name, but I could not find a biography under that either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk/Humanities in libraries (WorldCat catalog) -Arch dude (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Iconic photograph

There's an iconic photograph that I've seen, but have absolutely no idea what it is of (in terms of specifics), or what it stands for; and it's kind of hard to search for, being a photograph. Anyway, it's of a man standing in front of 3 tanks preventing them from passing. Anyone who can point me in the right direction? Ta! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article about it: Tank Man.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From most countries, if you search Google Images for "tiananmen square", versions of this photo are the top results. However, I am told that this is not the result obtained within the Great Firewall of China. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

statehood within the United States and ambassadors

Have U.S. states ever sent ambassadors (by whatever title) between themselves? Is or was there, for example, a Maine ambassador to North Carolina? Were there ever permanent legations or embassies between the states, at a subnational level? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Historically, no. There may be some equivalent to ambassadors in the Colonial period, where the pre-states did act as de facto nations. After the founding of US, no real equivalent in the legal sense. (Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii maybe an exception as they were true republics before becoming states in the US; other more powerful states such as California, which if it was a nation would be the 6th largest economy, may have offices.) On a side note, while many have compared the European Union to the United States, the comparison only goes so far as the US is a truly a Federal State as opposed to a Supranational state. And of course, Supranational states retain certain rights, such as to continually operate their own embassies, unlike states.

Other considerations: first, states are sovereign. This means that US citizens technically belong to both the state they reside and pay taxes in, as well as being American. States are their own operating entities in the Federal sense; e.g. they have their own state wide legal system that may have completely different from National legal standards (ex. Louisana's law system is based on French and Roman ideas as opposed to the Federal government's basis of English Common Law).

In the end however, history has taught us rather bloodily each state is inherently equal to any other but ultimately under the Federal Government so only the Federal government may operate embassies. It is also due to the legal implications of the Full Faith and Credit Clause as well as the Privileges and Immunities Clause, states traditionally did not, nor ever will have embassies in other states. Delegations maybe, satellite offices maybe, official visits maybe, but embassies no due to legal, financial, and lack of historical precedent among other reasons. Zidel333 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't prevented states from occasionally sending delegations (that are not embassies) to other countries, or other subnational entities. For example there has certainly been cooperation, and even treaties proposed, between the US states and the Canadaian provinces surrounding the Great Lakes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Article I of the United States Constitution says very specifically:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

-- AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, and thanks for all the links. "Delegations, satellite offices, official visits" sounds perilously close to quacking like an ambassadorial duck to me. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Help: What are the lyrics (in English) for the song "ARENA CALIENTE" by Torazinas?

Moved to entertainment desk.

I think therefore I am

In his dualist philosophy does Rene Descartes go so far as to suggest that the mind can exist independently of the body? Caroline Finkel (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Also of interest is this article.--droptone (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But what I mean is does the mind continue to exist in the event of the death of the body?Caroline Finkel (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As most of us on the reference desk are in a state prior to the death of the body, the best you can hope for is speculation, surely not a suitable method for encyclopedias.

Induction, however, is a notoriously problematic mode of reasoning, meaning that I can not exclude the possibility that some advisors on the RD have, indeed, passed away whilst maintaining some earthly networking connection.

Some other notoriously speculative hypotheses can be found under the entry on religion, life after death and the fate of the granny and Little Red Riding Hood.

The reverse question, "has the mind existed prior to the birth of a body", curiously enough, is infrequently pondered. Cookatoo ergo non Zoom. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again thank you. But it is not really your speculations, or anyone else's speculations, that I am interested in. Rather I would like to know if Descartes expressed a view on this problem?Caroline Finkel (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The important term in his noted quotation is not cogito, it is dubito. The citation is sometimes given as "Dubito, ergo cogito; cogito, ergo sum".

On the other hand, in his Meditations he attempts to prove God´s existence.. It is a moot point if the idea of God contravenes the "laws" of his methodological skepticism.

From my recollection, R.D. states that body and soul are distinct, potentially independent entities and postulates the possibility of a mind existing without a body. I cannot remember any speculations of his referring to an afterlife but I may be wrong, having read R.D. long ago (and only in parts).

I can only suggest studying his Discourse on the Method and Meditations for any definite references to his opinion. His books, as you may know, were banned by the Vatican (he remained a Roman Catholic till his death, despite living in the Netherlands and dying in Stockholm).

I apologise as I can not answer your question precisely. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Caroline, I offer you this from the Meditations on First Philosophy;

Next I examined attentively what I was. I saw that while I could pretend that I had no body and that there was no world and no place for me to be in, I could not for all that pretend that I did not exist. I saw on the contrary that from the mere fact that I thought of doubting the truth of other things, it followed quite evidently and certainly that I existed; whereas if I had merely ceased thinking, even if everything else I had ever imagined had been true, I should have no reason to believe that I existed. From this I knew that I was a substance whose whole nature is simply to think, and which does not require any place or depend on any material thing, in order to exist. Accordingly this I-that is, the soul by which I am what I am-is entirely distinct from the body, and indeed is easier to know than the body, and would not fail to be whatever it is even if the body did not exist.

In the end Descartes 'resolves' the whole problem of the mind-matter interaction by an act, it might be thought, of intellectual bad-faith; by saying that it is a mystery, only understandable to God.

Picture, if you will, the following images. There is a bewigged philosopher in a pensive mood. A bubble appears from his mind with a question mark. “Ah”, says the sage, “I think therefore I am.” The said philosopher continues in his pensive mood. Another bubble appears. This time nothing comes. A look of panic appears on the thinker’s face. The bubble only contains an exclamation mark. And then-POOF!-the thinker vanishes from the scene, wig and all! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Caroline, in response to your question about the mind existing after death, the answer, is, I believe, yes. As C.e.Z and Clio note above, Decartes was a devout Catholic, and God was central to his whole philosophy: God provided the certainty and assurance that everything held together. The idea of separating flesh (matter) from spirit (mind/soul) was not new in Christian thought, and although Descartes approached it from a different angle, his basic premises were the same: the mind (spirit/soul) is the true individual and exists and lasts outside of this temporal, material, world. Life exists after death, the soul will be united with God, the mind will find completeness within the ultimate knowledge (truth) provided by God ("now I know in part; then I shall know fully"). A mind that did not exist beyond death has little meaning in a Christian philosophy, and certainly offers none of the certainty Descartes was looking for. As to C.e.Z's speculating about the mind existing before the body, I have no idea what Descartes thought on that, but mainstream Christian thought holds that the individual exists before birth (and even, before conception, hence the Catholic concerns about contraception). Gwinva (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding, "now I know in part; then I shall know fully" is not a statement made by Descartes but one by Paul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthians 13:12 that became part of general Christian belief. It is interpreted by some Christians not so much as referring to life after death, but to the conditions that will arise upon the second coming of Christ (see Continuationism).  --Lambiam 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your responses. A particular thanks to you, Clio. That's exactly what I was looking for.Caroline Finkel (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Kiev

I've been reading about the Russian defeat in the 1941 Battle of Kiev. I would really like to know-not fully explained in your article-what acconts for the completness of the disaster, beyond the aggressive tactics of the Germans? Was there a failure of leadership, and if so was this local or central? Would a break out not have been possible? Is there nothing the Russians could have done to retrieve the situation? Thank you.Turnvater (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, standing back from the tactical details, the broader picture might be that the German army had not yet endured a Russian winter, while the Soviet army had not yet recovered from Stalin's purges... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lieutenant-Colonel Albert Seaton in The Russo-German War, 1941-45 emphasises the orders of the Soviet High Command to hold the line of the Dnieper at all costs, and Hitler's diversion of the armour formations of Army Group Centre towards the Donets basin and the Caucasus.

The movement of von Schweppenburg's 24 Panzer Corps to the area of Starodub and Gomel and the destruction and dispersal of the divisions of Kuznetsov's Central Front were regarded by the Kremlin as an effort to outflank from the south Timoshenko's West Front and the Reserve Front, both of which lay one behind the other covering the western approaches to Moscow. The Soviet High Command was hardly at fault for its failure to appreciate the illogical thought processes by which the Führer had sent his panzer troops off at tangents to the obvious and shortest axis to Moscow. pp. 144-5.

According to Zhukov, he had advised a withdrawal even at the cost of the abandonment of Kiev on 29 July. The result was an angry outburst from Stalin, and Zhukov's replacement as Chief of General Staff by Shaposhnikov. Khrushchev would claim that he and Budenny asked permission to withdraw on 11 September, but the request was categorically refused by Stalin. Only Budenny was removed from his post. Khrushchev would also claim that Shaposhnikov ignored all warnings of the impending catastrophe, that he proposed a widthdawal again on the 16th, but that by the time Stalin agreed it was already too late. Seaton states that Khrushchev's account "is unlikely to be entirely true".—eric 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly a failure of leadership; and as Stalin had ultimate responsibility, the failure has to be his. But there is more than this; for Stalin was a politician, not a soldier. He had to trust the command of the Red Army; and he had to trust Semyon Budenny, a military dinosaur, whose moustache was far more impressive than his intellect or his judgement. Stalin wanted to hold the line of the Dnieper, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that he would have ordered a tactical withdrawal to the east if this was the advice given by all of his senior command; but Budenny said that he could fight it out in front of Kiev, and that he had at his disposal "formidable defensive positions."

It's also as well to remember that, even if a withdrawal had been ordered, it would have entailed huge risks in the face of almost total German air superiority. Budenny, moreover, had a huge force at his disposal-a million men-, who could have been expected to make the passage of the Dnieper very difficult for the enemy. But the whole thing was appallingly mismanaged. If Semyon Timoshenko, or Zhukov, or even Mikhail Kirponos, Budenny's subordinate, had been in charge, matters might have turned out differently. Instead the Red Army did nothing, as vital days slipped past. What could have been achieved with the right kind of aggressive leadership was shown by the 2nd Cavalry Division, with its daring probes on the flanks of Walther von Reichenau's Sixth Army. But local successes could do nothing to make up for Budenny, who stood transfixed, like a rabbit in the headlights. Heinz Guderian was allowed to advance with his tanks, uninterrupted and unimpeded, cutting across the rear of the Soviet 5th Army.

Budenny was eventually relieved, though by that time it was far too late. The situation was beyond retrieval. Permission was eventually given for a withdrawal, though only after Walther Model and Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist had closed the ring. By this point the Russians had neither the ammunition, nor the fuel nor the necessary co-ordination to attempt a break-out. The courage of the ordinary soldiers was extraordinary but in the circumstances, completely and utterly futile. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just from reading the article, the battle was a horrific defeat for the USSR. The USSR lost 163K killed an wounded and 450K captured, versus the Nazi 150K killed and wounded, for a 5-to-1 advantage to the Nazis. However, this was in reality a phyrric victory. The USSR could afford to lose at 5-to-1 to the Nazis, and the "winners" were also completely exhausted in the military sense. It does not really matter whether Stalin or his subordinates understood this. The USSR forces at Kiev delayed the Nazis until the beginning of winter, and this assured the defeat of the Nazis before Moscow. war in Russia is all about logistics. -Arch dude (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the Tolstoyan view of history! War is always about logistics; but it's also about people, in Russia as much as anywhere else. It is also about calculation and risk. In the opening stages of the Battle of Moscow the Germans destroyed the last significant Russian reserves in the European theatre. All that remained was the Siberian divisions, facing the Kwantung Army on the Manchurian border. On Richard Sorge's intelligence that the Japanese did not plan to attack the Soviet Union, Stavka took a calculated gamble in moving these units to the west. The German advance had certainly been slowed by poor weather conditions, though by the October thaw, rather than by winter's hardness. When the ground froze again the advance continued, though impeded by equipment failures and the tough resistance of the Soviet 16th Army before Moscow. Once the Siberians were in position, the counter-attack began. Winter did not defeat the Germans; Zhukov did. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing pyrrhic about the German victory at Kiev. It was complete and total. It destroyed almost the last of the pre-war Red Army in the West - as Clio said, the only other place there were trained soldiers was the Far East - and cost vast amounts of equipment. The Red Army lost over 600,000 men permanently, mostly dead or soon to die in German captivity. German dead and seriously wounded can hardly have been a tenth of that number, the rest, the great majority of the 163,000 casualties, would have been back with their units quite quickly. In round numbers, if we guess on 30,000 German permanent casualties, German permanent losses, compared to the total strength of the army in east, were about one frontline soldier in a hundred, while Soviet permanant losses were rather more than one sixth of the Red Army's frontline strength. Catastrophic doesn't really do the scale of the Soviet defeat justice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, Angus; it was arguably the most crushing defeat in world history. But for the Far Eastern reserves it's almost certain that the Soviet Union would have gone under. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just another point of view: Józef Czapski was a Polish officer captured by the Soviets in 1939 and recounts in his partial autobiography The Inhuman Land how the Russians were apparently quite content to abandon their matériel in the face of Operation Barbarossa but insisted in retaining their prisoners, death marching them away from the Germans. This is a very good read, by the way; Czapski's life was saved during this retreat when a fellow Polish prisoner, a doctor, recognised the early signs of hypoglycaemia, and surreptitiously passed him a sugar cube which saved his life (the doctor himself died shortly afterwards). In the book, however, Czapski himself marvels at the perverted sense of priorities which placed the preservation of prisoners above sensible defense and rational military priorities. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Browning and Strauss

Good afternoon. I would like to know, please, to what extent Robert Browning's poem "Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day" was influenced by David Strauss's "The Life of Jesus", an English translation of which appeared not long before its composition? Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.6.121 (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The third great aspect of Christian thought in 1850 which Browning dealt with in Christmas-Eve was Rationalism, and this point of view was represented by the lecture of the "hawk-nosed, highcheekboned Professor" in the university at Göttingen on ChristmasEve...the figure and the discourse mainly represent the German critic of the Scriptures, David Friedrich Strauss and his book, Das Leben Jesu, published in Germany in 1835. Browning's German was not adequate for reading the book in the original,...but read it first in the translation by Marian Evans (George Eliot) which appeared in the late spring of 1846.

DeVane, W. C. (1955). A Browning handbook. pp. 201-2. OCLC 165051290. The author cites Fnäulein Käthe Göritz, "Robert Brownings Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day und Das Leben Jesu von D. F. Strauss", in Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen 147:197-211 ( 1924) and Raymond, W. O. (1950). "Browning and Higher Criticism." in The infinite moment, and other essays in Robert Browning. OCLC 575969.—eric 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Browning fashions Easter-Day as a discussion between two voices, exploring, amongst other things, the nature of faith, how insecure it is, and how necessary God's help is in sustaining it. The simple fact is that the Victorian world was beginning to lose some of its past certainties in matters of faith and religion, a process that the publication of David Strauss's The Life of Jesus helped to accelerate. Browning was later to say "I know the difficulty of believing...I know all that may be said against it [the Christian scheme of salvation] on the ground of history, of reason, of even moral sense. I grant even that it may be a fiction. But I am none the less convinced that the life and death of Christ, as Christians apprehend it, supply something that their humanity requires; and that is true for them." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

Isn't it getting cross with each other over a name a bit silly. Why not name FYROM "North Macedonia", and then maybe the Greek side "South Macedonia". I do not expect any great offers of money for this brilliant insight that one is more north than t'other, but do so in the interests of humanity. I am not a dog (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a great article on this at Macedonia naming dispute, but after reading it the whole thing only seems slightly less silly to me. "Upper Macedonia" was suggested for FYROM but it "had invariably fallen foul of the Greek position that no permanent formula incorporating the term "Macedonia" is acceptable". Recury (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From the point of view of many Greeks, the name "Macedonia" was originally imposed by Tito as part of a communist plot to impose Communism on Greece and partition its territory, which resulted in years of fighting in which thousands of people died, and so is not especially "silly"... In any case, Greece has found "Slavomacedonia" acceptable for years now. AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Self identity

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but here goes anyway: in the article self identity, it says that this is the idea that "sentient beings hold for their own existence." Does this mean we exist for the sake of existing?--AtTheAbyss (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Define 'we' 'exist' and 'sake' :) Not being facetious; it's not really answerable without this. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Self identity begins thus: "Self-concept or self identity is the mental and conceptual understanding and persistent regard that sentient beings hold for their own existence." In simple words, this means: "Self identity" is a word for how people think about themselves. Well, I've tagged the article with {{confusing}}. Sandstein (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

persistent regard makes those sentient beings sound so self-centred. 130.88.140.110 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Persistent" refers to those cases where the awareness of your identity is subject is not subject to major discontinuity. It is not a confusing term, it is a necessary term. Some mental patients (possible some bipolar disorders et al) may NOT have a persistent awareness of their self.  ::::This, however, is unrelated to the query by the OP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you meant "is not subject to major discontinuity"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the right place. I'm not surprised by your confusion, AtTheAbyss; the statement in question is devoid of all meaning and sense: it is quite literally nonsense. It is not even clear what is meant by 'sentient beings', if sentience is understood in the widest sense, to include non-human subjects. Do dogs hold a 'persistent-regard' for their own existence?! And in what precise way is the 'self-concept' different from 'self-consciousness', which, so this argument proceeds, 'is an awareness or preoccupation with one's self.' They would seem to me to be exactly the same thing! I can just imagine what Wittgenstein would have made of the woolly-minded assertion that the 'self' is based on the 'sum total of a being's knowledge and understanding.' Do you wake in the morning, does anyone wake in the morning, with the sum total of your being and understanding at your disposal?! Alas, I am the limit of the world, but I cannot draw a boundary round it, for to do that I would have to be able to step outside of it, which I cannot do! There is no I, no ego or subject, that stands alone in the world and sees and thinks and confers sense on what it sees and thinks. That wasn't me, guys; that was Wittgenstein! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I appreciate the help. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Financial Markets - Azerbaijan

Really random question but does anyone know anything about the stock market in Azerbaijan? Im trying to understand how many companies are listed there, what the market cap is, market cap/gdp, government bond market turnover and corporate bond market turnover for 2000-2006/7. I've been looking on bse.az but not getting anywhere so i thought i might as well have a stab at asking here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.251.12 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Azerbaijan stock exchange has a web site, presumably in Aziri. The article on the Baku stock exchange has a link to http://www.feas.org/Member.cfm?MemberID=6, which contains information which may be of use to you. I know too little of the subject matter to evaluate the data. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, http://www.bfb.az/index.php comes in English and Russian, as well. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Death of Bayezid I

we know no more about death of Sultan Bayezid after battle of Ankara? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enver M (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enver. Apart from the article on the battle of Ankara there is an entry on Bayezid I, which has some notes on his captivity on the Timurid court. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a lengthy article on Bayezid I at http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/imber.pdf, but it does not refer to his captivity in Aksehir. There is, of course, an article in the Britannica, but this requires a subscription (or a free trial), so I don´t know if it contains anything new. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Britannica article isn't helpful here. It's a short article and ends: "In a confrontation between Bayezid and Timur in Çubukovasi near Ankara (July 1402), Bayezid was defeated; he died in captivity." -- BPMullins | Talk 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Enver, the story of Bayezid's end is altogether more prosaic than that given by some of the more fanciful Ottoman accounts: he died of natural causes in March 1403 in the central Anatolian town of Akşehir, as you will discover if you ever consult the Reisebuch of Johann Schiltberger. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Legal Definition of a Public Space

Hi, to begin with I am aware of Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, and I'm not asking for legal advice here. My question is whether anyone can point me to any online legal codes or case law that may or may not be relevant to the legal definition of a public space in Canada (specifically Vancouver, BC). Specifically, I am interested in whether the outdoor, common land of a strata title (i.e. condominiums, apartment blocks) is considered public space, and to what extent "consuming alcohol in a public place" laws may apply. To reiterate, I'm not asking for legal advice or interpretation, I'm asking if anyone knows of any resources that might be relevant.

Thanks in advance, -24.82.140.138 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that if you have to ask if something's OK, it probably isn't. Vranak (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As a guide, in Oz, the common land is managed by a body called the Strata Management which looks after the externals and the interests of the property. They would know the details if you ask about whether it's okay for people who own/rent the properties to do so in the common spaces. It's not okay for outsiders to just use the space, so it's common space, not public space within the grounds and environs, though this can be hard to police unless there's a specific incident and a complaint, afaik. If people who are residents want to hold a party near the pool say, as a courtesy they usually let others know re noise and how long it will go on for. Best to check with a management body. I get the feeling complaints need first to happen at the body corp level. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• BC statutes and regulations
• Vancouver by-laws -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, those references helped. -24.82.140.138 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pipeworks toy

When I was a kid (mid-1980s) I had a toy that I think was called Pipeworks. It consisted of PVC pipe with special holes drilled in it, and little connector pieces that you could use to snap them together (and a little plastic tool used to make them separate again). It came with some sort of book or manual with all the neat sorts of things you could make out of them (a chair! a slide! a car! a jungle gym!). It was sooo cool. But now I can't find anything about on the internet, and were it not for this blog entry that mentions them (and has a little scan out of said manual in the corner) I would doubt their name and existence.

Who made these? Where can I find information on them? Are they still made? Were they at all popular? If anyone can give me any information at all about them I'd be so happy. I spent YEARS playing with these things and now I can barely remember them. --140.247.240.182 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a little more searching, and I see they were made by Hasbro and even found a copy of the manual. Damn they were cool. --140.247.240.182 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh snap, there's even a Wikipedia entry on them. Playskool Pipeworks. Well nevermind then. I think the problem is that Google searches for "pipe works" when you search for "pipeworks" so unless you add the company name, nothing useful comes up. --140.247.240.182 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if you try those two searches (pipeworks and pipe works), you'll find that's not the case. You will see, for example, "Texas Pipe Works" in the first search, because their domain name matches your search string. There are ways to modify the search so that domain name matches don't come up, but I'm a little too lazy right now to hunt down that syntax. In any event, I searched for pipeworks toy and Hasbro was one of the first hits. --LarryMac | Talk 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You can sometimes force it by searching pipeworks -pipe-works. The - in front acts as NOT and the - connecting pipe-works makes it a phrase. But it is annoying when you know exactly what you want to search for and Google thinks it knows better :) My cousin had one, and I was very envious. Now I know what I was envious of. 130.88.140.110 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethics vs. Morals

What is the difference between ethics and morals? The article pages seem to suggest they are synonymous, simply two sides of the same coin, or related to each other like theory and practice (and here I've heard people call ethics both the theory and the applied practice, so that distinction in itself seems confusing). All this seems a little unsatisfying. To take as an example, some might say it is immoral to be sexually promiscuous, but it wouldn't make much sense to call sexual promiscuity unethical, or at least it doesn't sound right to my ear. Likewise, if I stole someone else's writings and then published them under my own name it would be easy to call that unethical, but immoral sounds wrong, at least to me. It seems like morality has to do with care for the self, whereas ethics have to do with care for others. What's going on here?--Beaker342 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall from my legal ethics course, ethics is a discipline of philosophy and tends to be concerned with abstract, rather general rules on how one should act, e.g., the golden rule. Morals, on the other hand, are a sociological or cultural phenomenon; written or unwritten community norms concerning correct behaviour. They are typically specific to a culture, civilisation, time and place; they also tend to be more concrete (e.g., what sort of clothing is considered decent). Indubitably, more learned folk than I will soon correct me. Sandstein (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds right, but then how do we account for people like Kant and Rawls explicitly calling their work Moral Philosophy? Here I'm apt to just throw up my hands and say the words have been hopelessly muddied and move on.--Beaker342 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the lines have blurred to the point that there's now a considerable degree of mutual overlap between what we mean by ethics, morals, principles and even values, so it's become reduced to a semantic question. (Anyone who disagrees with me has none of any of them, obviously.) The preceding parenthetical sentence isn't actually true, obviously. I was just highlighting that these are all personal matters, and what may in the doer's mind be ethical/moral/principled behaviour may not appear to be so to an observer, or any observer. I hesitate to mention his name, but if you asked Hitler about the moral or ethical basis of the atrocities he caused to be perpetrated, I'm sure he wouldn't just hang his head and plead utter absence of either; no, he'd go into interminable chapter and verse about why what he did was highly principled, moral and ethical, and of profound value to his nation. I trust you wouldn't ever be convinced, but that's not the point. I realise this may not be of even the slightest assistance in helping with the distinction between morals and ethics, assuming there is one any more, so I'll shut up now. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the article on ethics states "Ethics and morals are respectively akin to theory and practice."

Consider: Would you then call the categorical imperative a philosophical or a moral construct? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On the categorical imperative: I would not consider it necessary to have an either/or situation with philosophical and moral. Although my opinion is that Kant himself would have said that it was a philosophical construct designed to illustrate moral truths. Categorising it like that also depends on what you mean by a "moral construct". If you mean a rule/set of rules derived from morality, then it certainly is not that, but if you mean a statement designed to give moral guidance then it qualifies. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In my understanding, ethics are concerned with the best course of action because acting in such a manner will give you good results in the long run. Morals state behave properly or else. Ethics comes from enlightened self-interest, morals come from authority and fear of punishment. Again, this is in my understanding. Vranak (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to draw the line between morals and ethics, although I'm sure my answer will be far from definitive. Morals are essentially social, they are the process by which we distinguish right from wrong, right and wrong clearly being defined by society, context and tradition amog other factors. Ethics, or to put it better, ethical thought, is the act of attepting to define when something is moral, which is to say whether an action is right or wrong, inside of a coherent system. So I may say that "my actions were moral, based on my subscription to utilitarianism", or "my belief in Kant's ethical system leads me to believe that my actions were moral". So although it is a little more complex, Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM summed it up pretty nicely with the quote about theory and practice. Ethics is essentially an attempt to rationalise morality, and morality is basically the act of of identifying actions as right or wrong. They overlap a lot, and can be used as synonyms without much complaint, but they are seperate concepts. I hope that helps rather than making things more complicated 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The word ethics comes from ancient Greek; it is derived from the word ἔθος (ethos) meaning "custom". The word morals comes from Latin; it is derived from the word mos meaning "custom". This suggests that the distinction is originally not deep. One can distinguish the degree to which the use of these words involves a philosophical outlook or not. Another dimension is whether it involves principles stemming from an inner conviction of what is right and wrong, or rather external norms as determined by society or Church. The following summarizes my impression how these and related words are actually used:

• ethics (noun) — philosophical, principled
• ethical (adj.) — possibly philosophical, principled
• unethical (adj.) — usually not philosophical, principled
• morals (noun) — usually not philosophical, usually not principled
• moral (adj.) — possibly philosophical, usually principled
• immoral (adj.) — usually not philosophical, often not principled

 --Lambiam 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of death

I am trying to find out the date of death of a person for an article. He was born in 1887 and the last known record has him living in New Jersey in 1952. Any suggestions? --SpinningSpark 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Social Security Death Index. If he got a SSN, you know what state he probably died in, and he isn't named John Smith, it should do the job. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighting

I'm writing a graphic novel. I've finished the first chapter. Can I copyright the first chapter and protect the whole book at the same time? The reason I'm asking is because I need to show it to others to get advice before submitting it to a publisher. Particularly my writing coach. Thanks for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.18.174 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright in the United States automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship, which is to say your first chapter is already copyright, as presumably are the characters in the story. You cannot copyright something that has not been written; copyright is not of assistance in protecting the plot of your proposed book. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But although you're work is automatically your intellectual property you want a way to prove it was written at a certain date and thus be able to enforce your right if there is theft or unauthorized use of it (I wouldn't be too paranoid about it). You can register what you have written with a lawyer (or at least ask him for advice) for a fee or with something like the writer's guild of America or some such association that deals with graphicaly comical novels (also for a fee). I don't think mailing it to yourself registered post still works in court, maybe if its done properly (stamped post-stamps sealing the envelope) You're 1st chapter has to be pretty original for you to want to copyright it though since for any use of your drawings you're covered because you have the originals and can prove they are yours (e.g. your name on the top of the page). You only need to worry about someone stealing your plot or characters but then what an homage! Don't worry about it too much and good work. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Assuming you are in the US or in a country that is a member of the Berne Convention then you don't have to do anything to have your work automatically covered by copyright. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's automatic in Australia too, though international copyrights have to be sought usually. Afaik though, people still stand a better chance if they document whatever they have created (copies, images, CD etc) with logs, and mail it to themselves registered post, (which you leave sealed and file away) than being empty handed and on the back foot. You might as well do your best with precautions in the first place as a personal practice. The law likes concrete proof after all. Originality is moot, but authorship is something else. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

Ah, the poor man's copyright. I seem to have seen this come up on the reference desk a few times in recent months. Note that the article provides little reassurance in its actual effectiveness. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 07:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A better solution, IMO, than the standard poor man's copyright would be to scan the image as a TIFF and calculate a hash for it, and then post the hash all over the place wherever you can, and e-mail it to a bunch of people too (put it in your e-mail signature, even). You could easily prove that your original file was the source of the hash, and it shouldn't be too hard to rustle up witnesses to having received the hash if need be. You could even post the hash to your Wikipedia user page—it has a nice, firm timestamp (and if need be you could get someone involved with WP to write an affidavit saying that you would have had no ability to retroactively change the date). (I don't know if any of these solutions would hold up in a court of law, but in any case they aren't totally novel. Galileo used to do stuff like this to protect the priority of his own ideas; sending little encrypted bits to his friends and competitors so that later he could tell them how to decrypt it and they'd see he had it all along. I think a solution like this is much more sound than a poor man's copyright, because it involves so many more independent people.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, check this reputable explanation of copyright facts and myths and, (if you feel you must register the written chapter somehow), how-tos . Be aware there are copyright registration scams out there too. WikiJedits (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I found that confusing. Quote: Registration is a prerequisite for filing a copyright infringement suit, but it is not required for copyright protection. So without registration you can't sue someone who infringes your copyright. What kind of protection is that?

The argument that it is easy to fake PMC is also a bit weak. If you have an envelope with the flap along the long side, use the back side of the envelope as the address side and place the postage stamps such that they go across the lower edge of the sealed flap, and convince the postal clerk to put the postmark stamp also partially overlapping that edge, then it is very hard to open the envelope later and reseal it without visible evidence. With some kinds of envelopes – I don't know the name for the material, but it is hard to tear it – and self-adhesive stamps you have fairly tamper-proof evidence. Also, instead of addressing it to yourself, you can send it to a trusted party who keeps the sealed document for you, and who can testify under oath, if needed, that the envelope was received shortly after the postmarked time, and has not been tampered with.

I further wonder if, in the US, the services of a notary public can be used to facilitate establishing authorship.

See also Trusted timestamping, which, it would appear, can be used on a digitized copy.  --Lambiam 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to register to file the suit, but you can still sue over infringement that takes place before you registered (although you can only recover actual damages for that). --Carnildo (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Countering code talkers

In code talker:

Adolf Hitler knew about the successful use of code talkers during World War I and sent a team of some thirty anthropologists to learn Native American languages before the outbreak of World War II. However, it proved too difficult to learn all the many languages and dialects that existed. Because of Nazi German anthropologists' attempts to learn the languages, the U.S. Army did not implement a large scale code talker program in the European Theater.

Wasn't it easy to counter code talkers? Hitler could send some spies to Australia and the North and South Americas to hire native language speakers to Berlin under various wonderful excuses, e.g., circus performers, church activities, factory labors, ... anything other than language research purposes. By the time the U.S. entered the war, he could retain the language speakers and force them to help the Nazis. Did he do this?

Then how did the U.S. prevent the loss of language to the enemies? Did Uncle Sam monitor or control obscure native language speakers?

I think Nazi Germany didn't need to have strong language expertise to make it work. The remote possibility that they could understand one language could have forced the U.S. not to use that language. Owning a number of native speakers and maybe a little bluff (e.g., a radio message of a Cherokee saying hello to his people recorded during pre-war language collection) and luck could have forced the U.S. not to play this trick in the very beginning. Then, how could the U.S. play the same trick again? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing to remember about code talkers is that their communications were not just a direct in-language translation of the message content. There was a substitution which added another level of complexity "(the word for "potato" being used to refer to a hand grenade, or "tortoise" to a tank, for example) ... To an ordinary Navajo speaker, the entire code-talking "conversation" would have been quite incomprehensible, because the nouns and verbs were not used in the contextual sequence for conveying meaning within Navajo sentence structure." So even if Germany/Japan had someone who understood Navajo/Choctaw/etc., they would still need to figure out why the U.S. Army wanted to feed potatoes to their tortoises. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks to be a dubious claim in the code talker article. According to Kenneth William Townsend in World War II and the American Indian, the difference in employment between theaters was due to the success of the Marine Corps training and recruitment program, and the failure of the Army's.—eric 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I share Eric's scepticism here. Toytoy, this is a subject, I confess, of which I know little, but I would treat that statement about Adolf Hitler and code talking with extreme caution until such time as some definite and reliable support is forthcoming. It all looks so very Indiana Jones! The extensive use of Navajo code-talkers, in particular, in the Pacific theatre was because Philip Johnston, the son of a Protestant missionary, who grew up on a reservation, conceived the idea of constructing an unbreakable code on the basis of the Navajo language. His proposal came before Major General Clayton B Vogel of the Marine Corps, and was duly taken up. It was used in the Pacific theatre because, well, that is where the Marines did almost all of their fighting. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Many years ago, I have seen a number of pre-war Japanese anthropological reports in a research library. Japanese people have always been interested in their ancestry (as a race or a nation). Their scholars went everywhere in South East Asia to study the aboriginals. That is why when I heard the code talker story, I was kind of skeptical. Maybe you could fool them for a while, but their brightest minds could always solve the puzzle in a few more months.

I guess the code language shall only consist of a limited number of words. The change of grammar shall be irrelevant to a linguist who knows nothing about the language but armed with all study tools.

I think these codes were only used for instant decisions. If you can not solve the code in five minutes, you may take your time to enjoy an afternoon shower of 500 lb high explosive bombs. It would be too risky to use the code to transmit the placement of your navy fleet.

Did the U.S. really use any Native American language during WW I? -- Toytoy (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Choctaw code talkers were apparently used for a short period at the end of WW1 - see Choctaw#Code talkers (1917). My understanding is that code talkers were only used for tactical battlefield communications, in situations where there was not time to set up a more secure radio code. They also provided a check on the authenticity of radio messages, as a native speaker could easily tell whether or not they were talking to another native speaker. To counter this and respond sufficiently rapidly, the enemy would have to embed translators at company level, which would require hundreds of translators. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 5 of Simon Singh's book "The Code Book" deals with the use of Navajo code talkers. He quotes the official report on the original proposal "The Navajo is the only tribe in the United States that has not been infested with German students during the past twenty years." He continues "In Northern France during the First World War ... eight men from the Choctaw tribe (were) employed as radio operators. ... the Choctaw language had no equivalent for modern military jargon. A specific technical term in a message might therefore have to be translated into a vague Choctaw expression, with the risk that this could be misinterpreted by the receiver." For the Navajo code talkers, the complete original lexicon contained 274 words with specific military meanings, and less predictable words and phrases were spelled out using a phonetic alphabet based on English words translated into Navajo. (Alternatives were added for the most commonly used letters.) Another 234 common terms were added later. Before they were sent into operation, Navajo code speakers' transmissions were sent to an American Navy Intelligence unit, who had cracked the Japanese Code Purple. They reported that they "could not even transcribe it, much less crack it". The Navajo were to serve in all six Marine Corps divisions, and were sometimes borrowed by other American forces. Altogether there were 420 Navajo code talkers. It remains one of the very few codes that was never broken, as acknowledged by Lieutenant General Seizo Arisue, the Japanese chief of intelligence. SaundersW (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April 11

Escanaba in da Moonlight

What is the first song in Escanaba in da Moonlight called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen it, but if you could provide sample lyrics, perhaps someone else might know which song you're talking about. (BTW, while I was doing a quick search for a soundtrack listing, I ran across a link to the album For Diehards Only by Da Yoopers - your song may be on there, or on another Da Yoopers album.) -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

John Yoo and the National Lawyers' Guild

What was the tally for the National Lawyers' Guild vote to sanction John Yoo, what exactly passed and what are the case numbers and judges of the two (more?) war crimes cases? Also, are the Berkeley kids sitting in in his office? 75.61.107.140 (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not check the National Lawyers Guild site. Reading newsreports, John Yoo's present at a legal forum was greeted with protests by Berkeley students. I heard Mr. Yoo discuss torture and the Patriot Act at the National Constitution Center. The National Lawyers Guild may state it disagrees with Mr. Yoo's assessment of the legality of torture. I certainly disagree with his view. If Boalt Law School were to dismiss him b/c of his work, it would be an outrageous act against free speech, academic freedom and the role of a major public university. Indeed, those who disagree with him vehemently would then champion his cause. I don't see what possible standing National Lawyer Guild has to fire him. His views are within reason. Any move to censure him would upset more people than their disagreement with his views. 75Janice (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Corporate government

Hey guys. I was thinking about nationalisation, especially in Britain in the 1960s, and I wondered why governments don't run for-profit corporations. I can see there may be ethical issues due to regulation etc, but that could easily be curtailed by law. So why do governments not run the railways in the manner of a for-profit company, with the intention of decreasing the tax burden through use of revenue? I'm sure there are multiple reasons why this is unfeasible, at least to the extent that I would propose it, but what are these reasons? Thanks in advance. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Governments have run as a business (some still do). If you want to be positive about it, you can argue that letting the government compete with private industry is a conflict of interest since the government regulates industry. It will certainly have difficulty regulating itself. If you want to be cynical, you can argue that the government cannot compete in private industry as it has a long track record of over-managing everything to the point that it goes three times over budget and four times past due. -- kainaw™ 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See Crown corporations of Canada. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Governments frequently do that, often when they have ownership of a company they don't really want to control. For example the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was run as a trading fund for a while before it was (partly) sold off. The point was that the government didn't want to be running it, but no-one would have bought it in the state it was in initially. British Airways and British Petroleum were essentially run as for-profit organisations for many years prior to their privatization. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent BBC Radio 4 documentary on this called "Nationalise it!". It is available as a podcast [[4]]. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Norway are doing! The oil industry in those countries is nationalised and the huge profits are being spent on improving public services. Britain on the other hand prefers to spend its oil profits on CEO's wages :-) Cambrasa 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason that certain public services like public transport, healthcare and education aren't run for-profit is that the government wants to provide them at a cheaper price than the market clearing price. The justification being that a) the poor should have access and b) these services are merit goods that create positive externalities, ie. they benefit society as a whole and their macroeconomic benefits (such as a healthier workforce and avoidance of traffic congestion), outweigh the microeconomic costs incurred by running them at a loss. Cambrasa 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get the part about nationalisation, but why don't governments market military technology? Or research science that's government funded? The NHS must have at least some research being done by its staff, that could then be sold off in other countries and used to fund the NHS in the UK. Or the government could invest money in tourist industries or something. I don't know the economics of it but surely the government could run a competitive company alongside others. Or would that be too risky? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Governments do, or certainly did market military technology. The Challenger tank (UK main battle tank) was designed and developed in the first instance for the Shah of Iran by UK Ministry of Defence R and D, and built in a UK Royal Ordnance Factory, under the name Shir Iran. It became Challenger after the Iranian revolution left the UK govenment with no buyer. SaundersW (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Qinetiq 79.66.105.94 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, some governments do run for-profit businesses; in Britain, for example, the Post Office has historically been run profitably and in Poland the sale of alchohol is a government monopoly. I suspect that the answer is simply economic fashion; what is seen as the failure of the nationalised industries (tragedy of the commons) has given way to a fashion for privatisation and competition, which is now, apparently, more-or-less mandated by the EU (at least in the case of the Post Office). Part of the problem has been, I suspect, that governments try to protect their businesses by imposing monopolies; whilst, again taking the example of Britain, this does not apply in the case of the oil industry, petrol is extortionately taxed so, whilst the consumer benefits from competition between oil companies, he loses through government taxation.

I believe that in Barcelona and Denmark, public services such as rubbish collection and the fire brigade are put out to public tender.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If a government decides to run a profitable enterprice, most of the times it ends up being a monopoly, thus promoting unfair competition among the privately owned companies.This is mostly because they are protected by the law.To avoid such occurencess most governments own only part of some profit making companies or in most cases they dont engage in profitable businesess.

Poland and the Outbreak of the Second World War

Is there any way that the invasion of Poland in 1939 could have been avoided? Was there no possibility of a peaceful agreement between Poland and Germany? What I am asking, in short, is there any way in which the Second World War could have been avoided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.104.193 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you have read Invasion of Poland (1939) and Causes of World War II. The Nazi Party had assumed power with a declared policy of obtaining Lebensraum to the east for the German people. The party's policy responded in part to German resentment over the loss of territory to Poland and the Free City of Danzig in the Treaty of Versailles. There was no way that this policy could be reconciled with Poland's territorial integrity. Germany's determination to provoke war with Poland was demonstrated by the Gleiwitz incident, which Poland could not have foreseen or prevented. Probably the only way that Poland could have prevented the invasion would have been to submit to Germany's territorial demands and to accept the status of a German vassal. Even if Poland had surrendered in this way, it is unlikely that World War II could have been avoided. One of Germany's major strategic goals was to secure access to a reliable supply of petroleum, most likely in the Middle East or the Caspian Basin. A subservient Poland's resources would probably have been harnessed for a drive to the southeast, which would inevitably have brought Soviet and/or Western military resistance. (Foreseeing such resistance, Germany might have first attacked France, as it in fact did after consolidating its eastern front.) Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the invasion of Poland probably could have been avoided-though possibly not the Second World War-if the country had acceded to German requests for the reincorporation of the Free City of Danzig into the Reich, along with an extra-territorial transit route through the Polish Corridor to East Prussia. There were those in the German government, most notably Herman Göring, who were anxious to reach agreement with the Poles.

Hitler met Josef Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister, and most important voice in the government, at the Berghof in January 1939, to discuss the outstanding issues between the two countries. But Beck was obdurate, saying that Polish public opinion would resist any further concessions on Danzig. After Joachim von Ribbentrop returned empty-handed from a visit to Warsaw later that month, Hitler's policy changed from one of friendly overtures to one of pressure and veiled threats. As part of this process the destruction of what remained of the Czech state was accelerated, with Slovakia being turned into a German puppet on Poland's southern flank. Hitler also gave final authorisation for the preparation of Fall Weiss, the plan for military action against Poland, to be implemented if diplomacy failed. It was the British guarantee to Poland, following soon after the German occupation of Prague, which made the Second World War not only inevitable but also determined its early shape and course.

It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if Beck had given way to German pressure. Poland would have certainly have survived as a nation-at least for the time being-, though in the German orbit, a fate surely better than what was to follow. Yes, it would have survived, even if only as a satellite; but it would have been drawn into a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Considering that the pre-war borders of Poland were dangerously close to Moscow, and considering also that the Poles would have been obliged to allow the passage of German troops through their territory, as the Romanians and other Axis allies were to do, it is possible that Stalin would have ordered some kind of pre-emptive attack on eastern Poland. In any event, it is almost impossible to imagine, given German ambitions in the east, that some kind of Second World War would not have happened. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Peace is a valuable and desirable thing. Our generation, blood-drained in wars, surely deserves a period of peace. But peace, like almost everything in this world, has its price, high but definable. We in Poland do not know the notion of peace at any price. There is only one thing in the life of men, nations and states which is priceless. And that thing is honour. — Józef Beck

And this why the invasion on Poland could not heve been avoided. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with Clio the Muse. Hitler and Stalin had already agreed to dismember Poland with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and war from (at least) that point on was inevitable. The effect of that treaty was anyway only an insurance policy that the Russians and the Germans wouldn't come to blows. There were already enough ethnic Germans within the Polish borders for Hitler to create a causus belli whenever he wished, and there were obvious flashpoints in Silesia, Danzig, and Posnan; he held the cards in his hand to start a war whenever he wished. What could, perhaps, have stopped the war at an earlier stage was if Britain and France had attacked Germany's western borders during the phony war; that would almost certainly have required Hitler to stop offensive operations in the East and, given the drubbing that the Soviets got from the Poles in the previous decade, it's unlikely (I believe) that Stalin would have invaded Poland on his own. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what it is that you are disagreeing with, Major Bonkers; Hitler had decided as far back as April to go to war with Poland; the August pact with the Soviets merely ensured that he would not also have to go to war with the Stalin before he was ready. Yes, a serious French attack in the west (it would take months before the British Army was on the Continent in sufficient force) would certainly have caused difficulties for the Germans, though I can see no reason why operations in the east would have been halted. After all, the French would have been obliged to advance on a narrow front to the north of Alsace, forced their way through the West Wall and the Rhine beyond that, by which time the war in the east would have been over. As it was the actual offensive caused no alteration whatsoever to the German timetable in Poland. The war might also have been halted at an early stage if Hitler had dropped dead from indigestion; but he didn’t.

Much had changed since the Polish-Soviet War of 1920. For one thing the Red Army had expanded and modernised, with tanks, artillery and aircraft in far greater quantities than those available to the Poles. It's really impossible to say what Stalin would have done in the event of Polish incorporation into the Axis. But the advance of German troops to the existing Soviet border is unlikely to have been viewed with equanimity. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; perhaps we're not that far apart; but the minimal activities on Germany's Western borders ensured that she had a free hand on her Eastern borders. Certainly the British, who were dropping leaflets at this stage (leading Noel Coward to quip that perhaps we were trying to bore the Germans to death) could have done more, as could have the French, who did little more than enjoy a brief picnic inside Germany's borders. I'm not a great fan of hypothetical history; I suspect that you're the same! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gorky story

Hello. I remember reading a story by Maxim Gorky in which one of the characters is called Help or Helping or Helpful, something like that. I've forgotten the title. Does it sound familiar to any of you? S Brake (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gorky's short story is called Chums, S Brake, the chums in question being Hopeful and Jig-Leg. You will find it in any edition of the Collected Stories of Maxim Gorky. My own copy is that edited by Avram Yarmolinsky and Baroness Moura Budeberg, published by Citadel Press. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

US recognition of a UDI before Kosovo?

Hello all,

As part of my interest in the former Yugoslavia, I've been following the events out of Kosovo. As we speak, the US has recognized the area and has opened up an embassy. This has lead me to wonder. Before Kosovo, when was the last time the US recognized a countries Unilateral Declaration of Independence? The candidates in my mind are Ireland, the Baltic states, and Rhodesia. However my reading of the Declaration of Independence (Ireland) article says the USSR was the only country to recognize. The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia) seems to say that no country recognized their UDI. The US State Department's Background Notes seem to interfere that the Baltic States were recognized after WWI and don't mention a UDI. So after this, I'm stuck. Thanks for any help. - Thanks, Hoshie 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoshie, when Indonesia declared independence from the Netherlands in August 1945 it was almost immediately recognised by the United States, though it took a four year struggle before the Dutch were willing to make a similar concession. I can't think of any other examples offhand, though I assume there must have been early recognition of the Republic of Texas in its UDI from Mexico. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel of course is a bit later, 1948, the only one where the USA is listed as the first recognizer in the table in Declaration of independence. But that doesn't seem to be the question. From the table there are a good number dating later, many from the breakup of Yugoslavia and earlier, the USSR. The latest is Montenegro in 2006, according to its article "Montenegro declared independence on June 3, 2006 making it the newest fully recognized country in the world."John Z (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio and John, Thanks for your help. I had suspected Israel eariler, but I would have never guessed Indonesia. Thanks again. - Thanks, Hoshie 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Companies greater than GDP

If the worth of companies, owned fully or in part by the state (like banks), is greater than the GDP of the country, what is this the cause of, and/or the symptoms of? Scaller (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The worth of a company is its value, whereas the GDP of a country is (vaguely) it's income. So that would be like you owning a house that was more than your annual income. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Deterministic excuses

Existentialist believe that people are responsible for their behavior and consequently no deterministic excuses are allowed. However, how do existentialists deal with people that endured hardship, are taking drugs or suffer from some kind of phobia? Mr.K. (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself. I don't call myself an existentialist per se but I do believe in taking responsibility for your own life (or in modern American parlance, 'owning' a situation). So, to wit:

• Enduring hardship is a great way to build character, making your life richer thenceforth.
• Taking drugs: Andrew Weil#Medical philosophy is a good reference point, have a look.
• Suffering from phobia: This is just another form of hardship. Something to be overcome, that will make you a stronger and deeper person in the long run. Worst case scenario is that you'll only overcome such hardships by passing on, but there's no reason to think that death is something to be feared or avoided. Think of it as a fresh start by the obliteration of the present self. Although such a notion is unproveable at best, if it's a lie, it's a useful lie.

It's been said that the only unforgivable sin is boredom, and I tend to agree that boredom is the worst possible human condition. But if you're enduring hardship, taking drugs, or suffering from phobia, you're likely not bored. So things could always be worse! Although, as Nietzsche wrote, he who guards himself completely against boredom deprives himself of the most refreshing internal spring, or something like that. So really, in the end, it's all good. Vranak (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Vranak. However, I still don't have an explanation about how we can talk about choosing what we are if there are so many external factors influencing what we are. Some people don't have to endure hardship. Can they still build character? Mr.K. (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we all have only one thing: the present moment. Whatever problems or issues need addressing most urgently will be on our minds, in that moment. It's pretty much automatic to be moving forward. You had this issue of existentialism and free will on your mind so you came here to confer. Conferring with others is a good way to move forward. So is thinking things through with yourself. So is sleeping, and allowing your subconscious to plough forward. It's a piecemeal, long-term process. And even despairing and breaking down and throwing a tantrum all serve their purposes. Vranak (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Andrew Weil is a good reference point to talk about anything. He may be a alumnus from Harvard, he may be a physician, but he widely considered just a charlatan. WikiWiking (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Widely considered? I suppose you must be one of those who considers consensus gentium as good grounds for knowledge. I don't. Regardless, for an alleged charalatan, Dr. Weil sure makes some good oatmeal.[5]

Still, I am interested in knowing exactly who it is who considers Dr. Weil a charlatan, and how their interests are threatened by his ideas about health. No doubt anyone profiting from pharmacology (most researchers and doctors) would have reason to decry him as a charalatan, especially if what he says has merit. Regardless, the truth will out. Vranak (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

hmm, about Weil, I found a link on his talk page that states he endorses homeopathy, which is essentially an enormous con-job, and his page states that he believes "mainstream" (which is to say, real) medicine should only be used in a "crisis", and 'alternative' (which is to say, unproven) medicine should be used for "prevention and and health maintenance". So based on the fact that he is a promoter of folk remedies and psuedo-science, appears to promote conspiracy theories about the nature of pharmacuetical companies and even believes that mushrooms contain "lunar energy", it is fair to call him at best a charlatan and more likely a crank. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Vranak, you are right pointing out that consensus gentium is no good ground for knowledge. However, I didn't say that he is a charlatan because everybody says so. It is simply true that many consider him a charlatan. They must not be right, but believing in a sort of 'lunar energy' triggers my suspicious if this guy is a lunatic. Further reading doesn't help to steer me away from this position. If you come along some real discovery of him, I would, of course, reconsider what I said. WikiWiking (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Far be it from me to try to convince anyone who would put 'Andrew Weil' and 'charlatan' in the same sentence that doing so is in error. I'm sure Mr. K has looked at Dr. Weil's ideas about drugs and come to his own conclusions – that is my interest.

That said, Dr. Weil's ideas about mushrooms having 'lunar energy' is perhaps a little too cute to be considered acceptable, so I can see why professionals might be a little leary of him and his writings. Vranak (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never really been into the Satre school of existentialism myself so I can't say how they'd deal with it, but it seems that the conflict between environmental factors and self-determination can be resolved if one takes the view that the environmental factors are actually irrelevant to the creation of one's self. Not in the sense that they do not affect who you are, but in the sense that it is not what made you that it is important but what you make yourself that truly counts. Existence precedes essence may be a useful page. The important thing to remember is that in the eyes of the existentialist we are essentially able to escape the trappings of our birth and childhood and become the person we want to be. They may miss the point that the person we want to be is likely shaped by our childhood, but is our ability to transcend these difficulties that makes us human. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume, Mr K, that you must have been reading Existentialism is a Humanism? Though more accessible than some of Sartre's other philosophical musings, it is not necessarily the best introduction to the forms of existentialist thought. Remember, too, that existentialism is so much more than the thought of Jean Paul Sartre, and has roots going back well into the nineteenth century, not just in formal philosophical discourse, but in literature.

The important point to bear in mind about existentialism is that there are no pre-determined meanings, nothing that that can any way explain or shape the course of each individual life. The choice is not between determinism and responsibility, but determinism and freedom. Even people in the midst of hardship, or taking drugs or suffering from some form of phobia or mental illness, if you prefer, have choices to make, choices that are not predictable or preordained. Indeed, can you imagine anything less predictable than the life-patterns of many drug addicts? People in the midst of hardship or illness are also faced with the same existential dilemmas as anyone else, possibly even more, since they are confronted often with dilemmas that may expose the very roots of their existence

Let me give you some specific examples from pre-existential literature, of writers who anticipated the kind of arguments later to be made by the existential school. Consider the figure of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. In the midst of hardships that carry him close to the threshold of starvation he makes a choice, a crucial choice, which opens up a whole series of possible alternatives. He does not have to murder the old money lender and her sister, but he does. He believes himself to be beyond conventional notions of morality, to be an incarnation of Napoleonic amorality; but he is not. By his actions, by his free actions, he is pushed deeper and deeper into paranoia, into a crisis of meaning and of faith. His only resolution is to accept that path towards his personal redemption is in suffering.

Take another example, again from nineteenth century Russian literature, this time from the work of Leo Tolstoy. In his novella The Death of Ivan Ilyich he depicts a character who is the exact opposite of Raskolnikov, a man who is successful and well-placed in the world; a man full of self-conceit and self-satisfaction. But that world in all its artificiality falls apart when Ivan Illych develops an unnamed terminal illness. Everything that was important before, even his own family, become hateful to him. In the face of this great crisis of existence his life appears to have had no meaning at all. It is only in confronting his mortality that he eventually achieves a deeper sense of understanding and acceptance.

Existentialism is not just how we perceive ourselves, but how we are perceived by the 'other', in a process, perhaps, of mutual shaping. Think of Gregor Samsa in Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis, who goes through stages of self-reappraisal and reappraisal by those around him; or the character of Meursault in Albert Camus' The Stranger, who seems to be carried along on a wave of indifference, only finding authenticity in himself in the face of death.

Returning now to Sartre-though I do stress that he an existentialism are not interchangeable-you might want to glance through Saint Genet, his account of the life Jean Genet. It is in this that you could find no better account of the way in which choices are made, and how they are conditioned by the worst forms of hardship, with outcomes that cannot always, if ever, be anticipated. The following passage I took entirely at random;

Remember the story of a child from the state orphanage fostered to brutal peasants who beat him and starved him. At the age of twenty he could not read, so they made him a soldier. When he left the Army, he had learned nothing except how to kill. So he killed. He said: 'I am a wild animal'. When they asked him at the end of the trial if he had anything to add, he said: 'The prosecutor asked for my head, and will doubtless have it. But if he had led my life, then perhaps he would be in my place and I, if I had led his, would be putting the case against him.' The court was appalled: everyone in it had glimpsed an abyss, something like a naked existence, undifferentiated, able to be anything and which, according to circumstances, became Hoffman, Solleilland or the Public Prosecutor-human existence. I am not saying that it is true: it isn't that judge who would become that criminal. But the argument carried weight and will continue to do so: he was pardoned, learned to read, did read and changed. But what is important in all this is the vacillation of the self that occurs when certain consciousnesses open before our eyes like a gaping maw: what we had thought to be our most intimate being suddenly takes on the appearance of something contrived.

We must indeed imagine Sisyphus happy. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Murdoch and Marxism

How could anyone as intelligent and sensitive as Iris Murdoch ever have been attracted to Marxism? It occurs to me her passage here might have been similar to that of Simone Weil? Would anyone agree with this? Codliveroil (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That depends - was the veiled assertion that Marxists are naturally thick-witted and insensitive deliberate, or merely the result of poor phrasing? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With the experiences we've had in this century of Marxism and its detrimental effects, it is easy to say that it is a bad idea. But many of the most intelligent people ofthe early 20th century were attracted to Marxism, primarily because of the clear rich/poor divide and the awful working conditions in the very, very laissez-faire marketplace. Many people of the time, not just Marxists, did not realise the negative effects it would have on development, and as such thought that socialism or one of its many variants would provide a modern utopia for all its citizens. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of us are not so impressed with the workings of early 21st century capitalism and consider that Marx has some still-valid critiques, even if most of his predictions and prescriptions have been proven wrong. I'm not well versed in Murdoch's political positions, but I think that in her later years she tried to rescue the baby from the dirty bath water. Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, Codliveroil, Iris lived in a time, and belonged to an intellectual milieu, when to be a Communist was almost de rigueur; a moral reflex to the seemingly irresistible march of Fascism across Europe. Her fellow CPers at Oxford included the likes of Robert Conquest, later chronicler of Stalinist atrocities, and Denis Healey, a future minister in the British government. It might even be said this was a time when to be a Communist was indeed the sensitive and intelligent thing. But it could not last. Sensitive and intelligent people may have joined the Communist Party, just as sensitive and intelligent people had a tendency not to remain in the Communist Party. By 1945 she was reading Arthur Koestler, whose depiction of the cynical betrayals of Communism in Darkness at Noon helped cast light on her own intellectual darkness, as it did with so many others. Yes, her thought did begin to move in a more Christian direction, but not, I think, to the same mystical extremes of Simone Weil. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Overleaf

Is it okay to write 'overleaf' when referring to the next page/opposite page, that is actually facing the page on which 'overleaf' is written? ----Seans Potato Business 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Overleaf" means the back of the sheet on which "overleaf" is written. To indicate the facing or opposite page, I would refer to the "facing page" or "opposite page". Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to text that follows and ends up on the facing page, (below) should do it. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Who does this Indian picture represent?

Indian painting on leaf

My wife was given this picture with an ebay purchase from India. The black background is about 18cm by 23cm (7 inches by 9 inches). I am not sure who the picture represents. The snake around the neck makes me think it could be Shiva/Parvati, though it is not one of the canonical images I have come across. There is a picture in our mandir of Arjuna wearing a similar helmet, so it could be Arjuna/Draupadi. My daughter has also suggested Rama/Sita. If anyone can identify this image I would be grateful.

Also does anyone know what kind of leaf it is painted on? Thanks -- Q Chris (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with this page suggests it might be a pipal or Bo tree leaf. SaundersW (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As well as the cobra, the other Shiva symbol is the river (Ganga) falling from the crown of his head. And I think I can see the crescent moon on the front of his helmet. He might be even wearing the traditional antelope skin too. Those symbols seal it for me as a Shiva image. Rama would definitely have a bow and Arjuna would probably have one too. WikiJedits (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not helmet, cloth or hair, I think. WikiJedits (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wagner the Philosopher

It is said that what first brought Richard Wagner and Friedrich Nietszche was there mutual admiration for the work of Arthur Schopenhauer. Is there any evidence that Wagner's operatic works were directly affected by Schopenhauer's ideas? I can see some possible influences, especially in Tristan and Isolde, though the water seems a little muddied. Can anyone make the picture clearer? Mark of Cornwall (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Case of Wagner might be a good place to start -- suffice to say that Nietzsche eventually grew disenchanted with both Schopenhauer and Wagner. Vranak (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wagner may have read Schopenhauer, Mark, but he sure as hell did not understand Schopenhauer! Perhaps apes also read the great pessimist with as little understanding as they bring to Nietzsche?! Anyway, Wagner, by his own account, read The World as Will and Representation several times, impressed by the idea of music as the striving of the will. But he was equally impressed by the notion of the denial of will. His enthusiasm was expressed in a letter to Franz Liszt: "I have...found a sedative which has finally helped me to sleep at night; it is the sincere and heartfelt yearning for death; total unconsciousness, complete annihilation, the end of all dreams-the only ultimate redemption." He comes closest to Schopenhauer's ideas, as you suggest, in Tristan und Isolde, when the lovers express their longing for their individual existence to end. But Wagner transforms this gloomy abnegation to a climax of erotic love, effectively turning Schopenhauer upside down. Tristan and Isolde do not escape the blind force of Will; they just become yet another link in its ongoing evolution. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great answer, Clio-thanks. I take it that you are not that fond of the Master, then? Mark of Cornwall (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to be as detached about him as I can be, Mark, though my opinion is perhaps somewhat coloured by the fact that my father once took my brothers and I to enjoy the delightful pagan excesses of Bayreuth. I have to say I find the plots for most of his music dramas confused and tiresome. For goodness sake, the gold is Alberich's by right! What need for all the silly drama? Clio the Muse (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not - it belongs to the Rhine-maidens! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Major Major, you have obviously never had to sit through a performance of Das Rheingold-lucky you! The gold does not belong to the Rhinemaidens; they are merely the guardians. Having toyed with and rejected the randy dwarf, they are then silly enough to tell him that the gold he sees in the morning light can be claimed, and fashioned into a magic Ring, by whosoever is prepared to curse love. In his anger Alberich duly issues the required curse and takes the gold. The Ring of power he makes from the gold is then stolen from him by Wotan and Loge, using trickery and violence! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, dear Clio (if I may!), I thoroughly enjoy the Ring cycle and I make a point of listening to it at least once a year, but I have to admit that I much prefer recordings of the Howard Goodall English production, so that I can understand what's going on. I have noticed that Wagner-appreciation is mainly a masculine enthusiasm, though; you have to ignore the rather artificial McGuffin of the first Act of Das Rheingold, to which you draw attention, in order to appreciate the rest of this wonderful artistic (and philosophical) achievement. You are, of course, technically right in that the Rhinemaidens are (from memory) described as only guardians of the Rhinegold; but that must beg the question - who are they guarding it for? And, after all, they do get the gold back in the final Act of Gotterdammerung. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tolstoyan view of history

What does Clio the Muse mean by the Tolstoyan view of history? (see Battle of Kiev above)81.129.86.71 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See War_and_Peace#Tolstoy.27s_view_of_history. SaundersW (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Better still, read the original, especially the last thirty odd pages! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh. I tried, I really did, but I finally had to skip to the end. Much as I skipped through all of the talk of Masonry. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Corvus, I hope you did not miss the description of the wolf hunt, Natasha's dance, and the passages dealing with Borodino. There is no comparison in all of literature. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for precision, the original is not a Wikipedia article, but a novel written in French and Russian, an English translation of which may be found here. SaundersW (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely Clio intended the Tolstovian view of history, from what I've known of the Divine Clio. --Wetman (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Her blessing is upon you, Wetman! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

SaundersW, you mean Tolstoy wrote the original in French and Russian? Two versions? Or half and half? I do not know myself and am genuinely intrigued. (Or 'ignorant', whichever you prefer). Cheers, Joe^Talk_Work 14:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

How were the dead sea scrolls dated? Wouldn't this make hypocritical many of those who use the scrolls to argue for Christianity yet believe in creationism?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be hypocrital about those beliefs? I've never seen anybody claim that the DSS date from before the presumed date of the creation. This page dates the DSS to about what I've always thought about them. Far away from 4004BCE. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean think about how they date dinosaurs other stuff which is like really really old.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your questions here. The dinosaurs have nothing to do with the DSS. Creationists and evolutionists would both agree that they were written about 2000 years ago. The DSS really have nothing to do with a pro- or anti-creationist view. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If one already accepts that God made the Earth look a lot older than it is and created the stars more than 6000 light years away with the light already sticking out, why would it be difficult to accept that He made some things give incorrect radiocarbon dating readings? That's seriously small potatoes once you've got talking snakes in your world view. --69.134.125.223 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

He's saying it's hypocritical to accept dating techniques for biblical artifacts but not for dinosaurs. Wrad (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

However, different specific dating techniques are used -- carbon dating would be completely useless for dating dinosaur fossils. On the other hand, even carbon dating turns up dates far older than 6,000 years ago. AnonMoos (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My resident fundie says that these things are placed by God so that belief in God and the infallibility of the Word is by faith alone, without the benefit of proof. But then my resident fundie is also diagnosed psychotic. SaundersW (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

this is an old belief: see Omphalos (theology) 203.221.127.95 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hume and Mills

What were David Hume and Mills thoughts on experience as related to ethics?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is sort of that Hume felt it was a more natural thing were as Mills thought it was learned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UhOhFeeling (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals and John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, On Liberty and The Subjection of Women, UhOhFeeling? The short answer is that Hume conceives of morality arising from sentiment; that moral judgements can never be based on reason alone. Mill, I suppose, takes a much more instrumental view, advancing the notion of utility 'as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions'. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The symbiotic relationship between the media and the government.

Trying to find authors as citations for the argument that a symbiotic relationship exists between the media and the government. The media needs the gov't for source information; the gov't needs the media for info dissemination and mobilization. Looking for authors to cite.74.166.0.251 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this like looking for an experiment to prove a specific, original conclusion? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)?

How about this from Walter Karp -“The most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the ‘best’ sources.” We could do with, but don't have an article on lapdog journalism to balance our watchdog journalism, a less common canine. Propaganda, News Propaganda and other articles linked therein, like Propaganda model could help a little. More detail in the request could help too, its just a fact that an awful lot of "the news" is just press releases, somebody must have statistics on that. Here's a blog post referring to an NYT article with relevant quotes from Max Frankel and Bob Woodward; their books, autobios could help. More googling suggests these books for the symbiosis idea - Wilbur Schramm, Fred Siebert, and Theodore Perterson, Four Theories of the Press (Urbana, IL; University of Illinois Press, 1956 ) and John C. Merill and S. Jack Odell, Philosophy and Journalism (New York: Longman, 1983 ). People like Woodward, Thomas Friedman and even Seymour Hersh have been criticized for being a bit too cozily symbiotic at times. HTH a littleJohn Z (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A low-powered radio broadcaster for the spies?

In numbers station:

Some governments may not need a numbers station with global coverage if they only send spies to nearby countries.

Unless your country is really poor, I don't see a reason why you run a small numbers station.

Let's say Country A sends a spy to Country B. Would you set up one highly efficient directional antenna pointed at the spy's home at exactly required power? No! You're telling Country B which area to look for the spy.

If Country A's spy agency has money, it would setup a big radio station and cover the whole world. No one would know who's listening.

Then why are there these small stations? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be a number of reasons. It is likely that much of the money spent by espionage is highly secret, and so bulding a number of small station is easier to hide than one hugely expensive one. You may not need world coverage. The smaller stations would not be directed at one specific area, they are likely to simply cover a smaller-than-global range. It could be that I am the German secret service and my spies are in both France and Italy. One station could cover both, but there's no need to cover more than that. Or it could be to create a plot device for a nonsensical but still fantastic drama/inadvertent comedy. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed consider Taiwan, I don't think they give anything away by targetting one or more number stations at China. I don't think China is any any doubt they have agents in China. Or Cuba targetting the US. Also consider that if you have one large number station, if it gets bombed (say you go to war), you have no more number station. If you have 5 small number stations spread out over a wider area, you have a larger target area. Even if the number stations are targetting a different area, you may or may not be able to move the antenna to target the area you need to target. And of course you could use small number stations to create a false impression. For if you have 3 number stations, one targetting country X+Y, one targetting Z+A, one targetting B+C but you only have enough agents (or whatever) for country Y+B you may be able to fool countries X, Z, A, C into thinking you have agents there when you don't... Global coverage won't achieve that effect not to mention being a waste. Ultimately of course, no one really knows what countries are doing, or why they are doing it.

April 12

how much would a train ride cost from budapest to paris

one-way. i cant seem to find the proper sites :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.50.125 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this site seems to let you book trains across Europe, but when I filled in the form for Budapest-Paris I couldn't find a date that actually had trains going. It was £166.50 for Paris-Budapest, though, so I guess it's going to be pretty expensive. Perhaps you should hitch-hike? Europe is really good fun to hitch-hike through, and you'll get to see way more places than just the two cities you mentioned. If I find anywhere that does have trains running though, I'll let you know. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

166.50 seems very cheap to me considering it costs me more than that to get the train to travel the 100 miles or so to London from here! Nanonic (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your help and kind suggestion! what about ride-share sites, do you know of any big ones for europe? maybe someone is going my way anyway and we can just split fuel costs or sth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.50.125 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a matter of price, probably the cheapest way of moving around Europe is flying. Try some low-cost carrier like Ryanair or Easyjet. Mr.K. (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no direct low-cost flights on this route. He will need to connect by train to Munich or Vienna first. Cambrasa 10:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You could also consider a Eurail or InterRail pass depending on your location. Nanonic (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seek advice from The Man in Seat 61. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you make use of special offers, Munich-Paris will cost you €29 [6], Vienna-Munich €29 [7] and Budapest-Vienna another €20 or so. So in total is should cost about €80, or £50. Don't use Raileurope to buy the ticket. They are a travel agent and charge you a big markup. Get the tickets directly from the rail operators on the liks above. Cambrasa 10:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambrasa, actually he will not have to connect to Munich or Vienna first. Ryanair flights from Budapest to Frankfurt, Dublin, Glasgow... In total it should cost you less than €80. Mr.K. (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whichever way he does it, he will need to do at least one leg of the journey by train. Whether Frankfurt-Paris or Budapest-Munich. Or book two budget flights. And that will cost more than €80. Cambrasa 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Czech Railways' international tariff calculator quotes a price of CZK5340 (€209.40) 2nd class 1 way, routed via Budapest - Hegyeshalom - Vienna - Buchs (SG) - Disentis - Brig - Lausanne - Le Locle - Paris, though why it defaults to a route involving a private railway in southern Switzerland rather than via Germany I can't say! -- Arwel (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambrasa, indeed I found a ticket Budapest-Dublin for €39 (taxes and fees included). Dublin-Paris should not be much more expensive. It seems possible to fly Budapest-Dublin-Paris for less than 80€. Mr.K. (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cherry tree and Washington

Why did Washington cut down the cherry tree? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a myth. There's no evidence that he ever cut down a cherry tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragon12321 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To get to the other side. More seriously, there was no cherry tree, and no one chopped it down; that's a pious invention (i.e., lie) told by one of George Washington's biographers, Parson Weems. We cover this in some detail in both the linked articles. Weems's explanation of the (fictional) behavior: "[Washington] was made the wealthy master of a hatchet! of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way". More rain on the parade: Washington also never threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm aware he didn't actually cut down the cherry tree, I always thought that the reason he was supposed to have done it was that as a child he was given an axe and just went a bit crazy, as children will. The real moral of story is "don't give weapons to your children, they'll just destroy something you love". Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Given Weems' propensity for making things up, it's very likely this story is in the same category. But I suppose it's actually possible that he really did hear it from the cousin, the cousin was telling the truth, and Weems happened to be the first person to write about it. Stranger things have happened. Vegetarians sometimes eat meat without ceasing to be vegetarians, and boys who cry "wolf" sometimes actually have a wolf at their heels. But I wouldn't bet money on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Weems was the sort that - if he said the sky was blue - you'd have to double check to be sure. And even Weems didn't claim Washington "chopped down" his neighbor's cherry tree. He said he "barked" it. - Nunh-huh 06:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... the context I remember it being told to me under was that George Washington could not tell a lie about chopping down the cherry tree. In other words it was an admission. So all these years I've been admitting things I've done wrong on the basis of a false story intended to get people to tell on themselves. No wounder we needed a fifth amendment. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He should have claimed "executive privilege". - Nunh-huh 06:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bogus surnames on the Census list

Does the U.S. Census Bureau add nonexistent surnames into their surname frequency lists so that they can catch people who plagiarize their lists? On their list at http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/dist.all.last the 39,652_th_ surname is Pantojz. However, typing in Pantojz at http://www.ancestry.com gives you a page that shows there are no records of the name on the site. Although it has the form of a Polish surname, there are no immigration records for any surname anything like Pantojz at www.ellisislandrecords.org. If it were a real name that had been in the United States as of 1990, a few people by that name would have died and they would have been recorded by Social Security, but a search at www.familysearch.org show no records, not even in the Social Security Death Index. A Google search returns not a single real person with this name. So do you think this was made up to catch list duplicators? 67.164.59.98 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pantojz: I see many people by that name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Candace Pantojz, Dr. Kizzie Pantojz and Dr. Willia Pantojz all appear on spam sites that use the same three-asterisk convention in their titles. A name that appears thrice on such sites but not on any real person is almost certainly made from a random name generator (like the spammers who send you emails with a random first and last name for the sender). At first glance, the baseball player Leon Pantojz looked real, but a closer inspection reveals that that site is fantasy baseball. Fantasy baseball makes fictional names from huge first name and surname databases, and the Census Bureau's surname list would seem a likely place to gather them. 67.164.59.98 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Many census records are illegible, illiterate scrawls which misspell the name the person gave them. Some persons giving info to the census taker just make up a name. Some entries are based on misinformation and gossip provided by a neighbor. I would attribute the appearance of a name lacking real-world corroboration to error rather than cleverness. 24.13.255.212 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pantojz is the 39652nd most popular last name (surname) in the United States; frequency is 0.000%....

The frequency thus still could be as high as 0.0004%, giving >1,000 people called Pantojz.

There appear to be some South American folks named Pantojz, so I assume it to be a Hispanic surname. There is also an entry on a Portuguese genealogy site, which may indicate that it is a Portuguese / Brasilian spelling. Of course, it could be of Slavic origin, as you have speculated.

http://record2008.net/index.html (needs a membership, 35 USD / 20odd EUR) has Pantojz on their list. This need not be a reference to a US citizen but it is likely to be so. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that US census data, like all data created by the federal government, is not copyrighted, so they should hardly care about plagiarism. It's not illegal to reprint census data in any way, shape, or form. I find it very unlikely that they would add copyright traps, since there is no copyright to be had. (That has no bearing on whether there is inaccurate data in the census. But it does argue strongly against it being purposefully added for that purpose.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Census keeps personal information unreleased, for privacy reasons, until 70 or 80 years after a given census. Then personal information is released, mainly, as I understand it, for genealogical use. I see no reason why they would purposefully degrade the data. Pfly (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pantojz doesn't sound even remotely Polish to me. On second thought, I'm Polish and my family name doesn't sound very Polish either. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Heraldic question

Arms of Danderyd Municipality in Sweden

My last question on the reference desk did not get a single reply. :-(

I remember that question, and I tried to find out at the time, but I came up with zilch. Hope this helps. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I have better luck this time...

How would one describe the arms to the right in the correct Frenglish heraldic terminology? These are the arms of Danderyd Municipality, north of Stockholm. They incorporate (in the part below the chief with the roses) the arms of the Banér family that once possessed Djursholm Castle, which is located in the municipality and serves as the town house. Olaus (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't seem to find how to say that one on wikipedia, as we don't have the terms for that grey or for the three roses above. I'm sure the roses are quite a common motif though, so something will turn up. Cendrée is a darker grey than that in your coat of arms. Blazon might be helpful. This site says that in Swedish the blazon is "En silverspets i rött fält och däröver en chef av silver, belagd med tre röda rosor.", and in English "Gules a Pile Argent issuant from dexter pointing to sinister and on a Chief of the second three Roses of the first.". But that site seems tohave the coat of arms on a white background rather than grey. Hope that helps. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The color in question is "argent", or silver: I think the difference can be accounted for by assuming one site has rendered silver as white (as is usual), and the other has rendered silver as grey. - Nunh-huh 12:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The blazon in English given by Michael Clarke sounds all right, if a little awkward. In French heraldry there's the word embrassé for the main feature, but we don't seem to have it because it isn't used much in English heraldry. "Gules and argent embrassy on a chief of the second three roses of the first" would be much neater! Xn4 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you! "a Pile Argent issuant from dexter" sounds good. I saw the "pile" in the charts in the heraldry article, but from those it would appear that what looks like a pile from below would be called "party per chevron", so I wasn't sure if it could be a pile from any direction. (Or perhaps a pile "issuant from below", or whatever it would be called, would be more "pointed"?) Olaus (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Stuyvesant

Can it be confirmed that some family members of Peter Stuyvesant, because of his reputation, changed their sirname (last name) to Sturtevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.229 (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely; no such name changes are mentioned in the standard genealogical work on Stuyvesant; Sturtevant was a British name, while Stuyvesant is Dutch; if one is changing one's name to avoid being associated with someone, a more radical name change might be expected; and Peter Stuyvesant's reputation was perfectly reasonable. If someone has said that one of his descendants changed their surname from Stuyvesant to Sturtevant, he owes you the details. - Nunh-huh 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

On the last part, I guess it depends where you live. Not being an American, I'd never heard of Peter Stuyvesant the person before in my life (as far as I'm aware). So the first thing I though of when I read the anon's post was cigarettes, a fairly common brand in both Malaysia and New Zealand (and from the article, Australia, Greece and South Africa as well). While these may have nothing to do with Peter Stuyvesant the person's reputation, it doesn't change the problem I guess although I agree with the rest of your post Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is the problem with the reputation of Peter Stuyvesant? I would imagine most people would be delighted to claim descent from him. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he a tyrrant, ruling with an iron fist and wooden leg!! Supposedly, he was mean and not very well liked according to some family history. Is this not so?? How do we know that Sturtevant is British? My family, the Sturtevants, are supposed to be Dutch.

Quite to the contrary, "Stuyvesant" remains a name to be conjured with among Old New Yorkers. How many generations of Stuyvesant Fish can you count? Bad reputations don't get carried forward in names: how many Americans do you know named Adolf? --Wetman (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Geneology.com has a Stuyvesant and a Sturtevant coming from Holland. It also says that Sturtevant is a derivitive of Stuyvesant. Can it be trusted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.229 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean "genealogy.com". Online genealogy sites should really only be used as guides to further research. Genealogy.com can be trusted as much as you trust its sources. If none are provided, you can't say how much to trust it. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Theyness

Sartre borrowed the concept of 'theyness' from Heidegger, as I understand it. How did he adapt it within his general existential theory? To what degree does he use it in his literary work? F Hebert (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept of 'Theyness' is, of course, derived from Martin Heidegger's Being and Time. For Heidegger the essential problem of being is that people are preoccupied with a practical world, a world of doing, and lose sight of the wider problems of existence. It is because of this that we fall into forms of inauthenticity he calls Theyness-"We take pleasure and enjoy ourselves as they take pleasure; we read, we see and judge about literature and art as they see and judge; we find shocking what they find shocking. The 'they', which we all are, prescribes the kind of being in everydayness." If you find this difficult to comprehend-and I know most people will-just be mindful of your own usage of language, of the habitual formulas one tends to sink into in everyday usage, with references to an anonymous collective simply known as 'they' or 'them.'

It was from this that Sartre concluded pessimistically that Theyness and absurdity are insuperable. You will find this nowhere better expressed, F, than in his play, No Exit. The dramatic structure is wonderfully simple, cutting the theory-and the characters-mercilessly down to the most basic levels. It is set in Hell, but the tortures are not physical; they are mental.

Just imagine; three mutually incompatible people, destined to exist together, forever in the same room: a coward, a lesbian and a child-murderess. They seek in each other forms of validation, of reassurance, that they will never attain. Each tries to force the other to look at her or him, in the case of the coward, in the way that they would like to be seen. In other words, they each want to see their vision of themselves reflected back by the other, as if it was a mirror. What happens instead is a clash of egotistical self-visions in permanent conflict. Mutual deception or bad-faith, the confirmation of a lie, could work, might work, if there were only two characters; but the triad makes it impossible, because the third person is there to explode all illusions by a critical glance. It would, of course, been possible for each of these individuals to remake or reform themselves if still alive; but they are dead; the game is over; they are judged solely by what they did in life.

This, for Sartre, is the very thing that characterises all human relationships: we are all judged not by what we have done, but what we have done wrong. Noble intentions are not enough; they are bogus; they are second-hand; they are inauthentic. The road to Hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions.

Read the play. Better still, see it performed. It's incredibly uncomfortable, like a surgeon, cutting away at illusions and self-deception as if they were cancers. Now, ask yourself how terrible this vision of Hell is, far worse than the depictions of Bosch or Michelangelo; far worse than all the Medieval horrors. Picture yourself, if you can, in a room with two other people, people with whom you have nothing in common, sharing the same space, never sleeping, forever, and ever and ever. Aaargh! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Once (for me) it was one kind of family, another time, one kind of workplace, then again people I travelled with; did Sartre model his characters on anyone he knew? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If he did he must have really hated them! It's a superb piece of theatre, simple and demanding at one and the same time. It requires a lot of emotional maturity and insight on the part of the actors to bring out the three characters in all of their shabby depths. It's better to see or hear the play performed than simply to read it. I first came across it in an old recording, with Glenda Jackson in the role of Inès. Really savage stuff. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kant and Religion

How and in what manner did Kant develop and refine his views on religion and morality after the completion of the Critique of Pure Reason? F Hebert (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed by your dedication...and by your persistence! The important text here is Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, published in 1793, in which Kant takes up some of the themes touched on in the three Critiques. He concludes that Christian worship is no more important than any other form of religious belief;

Whether the hypocrite makes his legalistic visit to a church or a pilgrimage to the shrines of Loretto or Palestine, whether he brings his prayer formulas to the heavenly authorities by his lips or, like the Tibetan...does it by a prayer wheel, or whatever kind of surrogate for the moral service of God it may be, it is all worth just the same.

In other words the servile worship of God is no substitute, in Kant's mind, for the transcendental critique. The corollary is that morality does not need religion for its own service, "...but in virtue in pure practical Reason it is sufficient unto itself."

He also takes the Biblical figure of Job as a kind of forerunner of the Enlightenment, a man who speaks the way he thinks, caring nothing for false flattery. In the 1791 On the Failure of All Philosophical Attemps at Theodicy, Kant says that Job "...would most probably have experienced a nasty fate at the hands of any tribunal of dogmatic theologians, a synod, an inquisition, a pack of reverends, or any conspiracy of our day." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio, I do not agree with you on the religious disinterestedness you claim to find in the Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der Blossen Vernunft. In part three, Kant claims explicitly that 1. the formation of an 'ethischen gemeinen Wesen' is necessary 2. the formation of an ethical commonwealth is only possible in the form of a (visible) church and 3. the church must be founded by a document/revelation (i.e. christian).

And, 4. It can only be realized as a "Volk Gottes unter ethischen Gesetzen" (a people of God under ethical laws).

This reasoning leads me to the conclusion that Kant was in fact still a "christian". His claim, however, is not about christianity in particular, but about worship. Real ethical conduct is more important then symbolic piety, is his prime statement. (But perhaps this was what you meant). --Mcknol (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mcknol. Yes, indeed so. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini and Hitler

Why did Hitler become an ally of Hitler? Was it simply because of they saw the world in the same way?Lewis Cifer (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably: Why did Mussolini become an ally of Hitler? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Cifer...hmm; could this possibly be Lucifer? Sorry, I could not resist the joke! Hitler as an ally of Hitler? I wonder just how that would have worked out!

So, Mussolini and Hitler? It comes down to one thing, and one thing alone, Lewis-the war in Abyssinia. Prior to that Mussolini had aligned his foreign policy closely with Britain and France, Italy's wartime partners, most recently in the Stresa Front, a mutual declaration against any future revisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Mussolini, despite some ideological similarities between Fascism and National Socialism, had no time for Hitler; he disliked him personally and despised his anti-Semitism. At the time of the Night of the Long Knives he described the Germans as a 'nation of pederasts.' Later that same year, following the assassination of Engelbert Dollfuss by Austrian Nazis, Mussolini ordered several divisions to take up a position on the Brenner Pass, to preempt any German move into Austria.

When the British, acting on a League of Nations initiative, took the lead in imposing sanctions on Italy, Mussolini was surprised and antagonised, especially as nothing had been done to halt the earlier Japanese move on Manchuria. Snubbed by those he regarded as his friends, he was open to sympathetic noises from his enemy. Thus it was that the Rome-Berlin Axis was born.

It is important to understand, though, that the Axis at this stage was an 'understanding', not an alliance. There were those in the British Foreign Office who believed that Mussolini could be brought back into the Stresa Front. It might just have happened but for Stanley Baldwin and Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, both of whom were keen to work with Hitler. According to Eden an agreement with Hitler "...might have a chance of a reasonable life whereas...Mussolini is a complete gangster." Eden, it has to be said, was a man of extraordinarily poor judgement, a 'bear of very little brain', amply demonstrated later in his career. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4

Radio 4 transmits different output on FM and Long wave. Which of them is carried on DAB? - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The FM output is carried on DAB. Samilong (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Eichmann

What was it specifically about Adolf Eichmann that turned him into the Nazi expert on Jewish affairs?Lewis Cifer (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure he was seen as an expert. The Nazis thought they knew everything there was to know about the Jews. Eichmann's page says that "his organizational talents and ideological reliability" lead to him being tasked with "facilitating and managing the logistics of mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps". So it's more because he was a reliable Nazi and efficeint bureaucrat that he was chosen, than any expertise on Jewish people. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lewis, he was indeed the Nazi expert on Jewish issues. A member of the Sicherheitsdienst, he was an early recruit to a section set up to examine Judaism, Department II/112, then run by Elder von Mildenstein. It was under Mildenstein's guidance that Eichmann was encouraged to learn about Zionism, at a time when emigration was the favoured solution to the 'Jewish problem'. Eichmann was ordered to summarise the history, structure and activity of the Zionist movement, reading Theodor Herzl's Der Judenstaat, the founding text, and Adolf Böhm's Die Zionistische Bewegung, a work of 1921 analysing the movement up until the foundation of the British Mandate of Palestine. He did such a good job that his findings were printed and distributed to other SD departments, as well as more widely among the Allgemeine SS.

Eichmann also used his expertise to make contact with Zionist groups in both Germany and Palestine. He met one Feivel Polkes, a Palestinian Jew, who proposed that the Nazis and the Zionists should work together to increase Jewish emigration. Eichmann's continuing work in D II/112 was the basis of his war-time career, including his participation in the Wannsee Conference, though by this time the priorities had changed from emigration to extermination. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Character of Eichmann

A supplement, if I may, to the above. Is there a key to understanding the character of Eichmann? Did his trial in Jerusalem serve the ends intended? Lewis Cifer (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not well-versed on the topic, interesting though it is, but The banality of evil is often said to be the key to his behaviour. And then there were the Milgram experiments, which threw up some interesting conclusions. Hope that helps. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As always the key to understanding Eichmann, or any other like him, lies in history, ideology and politics; in a system of beliefs that served to dehumanise a whole group of human beings; to render them problematic. It has nothing at all to do with the silly Milgram experiment!

Your second question is, perhaps, a little more problematic. It certainly served some purpose, revealing ever more detail about the bureaucratic mechanics of the Holocaust. But there were those, like Harold Rosenberg and Elie Wiesel, for whom the trial was not just a disappointment, but a failure. Imagine, if you will, an announcement that the Devil himself was to stand trial; people would expect a manifestation of evil in its most lurid forms. Instead, what they got with Eichmann was a colourless little bureaucrat, a tiresome, self-pitying mediocrity. Evil was not grand; it was banal. Eichmann's very ordinariness seemed for some to defuse the impact of his crimes. In his frustration Elie Wiesel noted "It irritated me to think of Eichmann as human. I would have preferred him to have a murderous countenance." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that he may have been genuinely interested. I seem to remember reading that he applied to his superiors for permission to learn Hebrew (how very German!) but they turned him down on the grounds that that was a bit too far. A lot of the Nazis were very well-educated and cultured; it may suit to paint Eichmann as a mediocrity, but that is a belittling judgment of his enemies and which, perhaps, his trial was intended to promote. I'm afraid that he wouldn't have got as far as he did had he been a nonentity. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the Hebrew language story was invented by the makers of the TV drama Conspiracy. At least I can find no mention of it in Eichmann's biography. Yes, a lot of Nazis were well-educated (though not Eichmann), just as a lot of Nazis were mediocrities, including Heinrich Himmler, Wilhelm Frick and Walther Funk, much more senior than Eichmann. Eichmann's progress up the ranks of the SD, for all his acquired expertise, was surprisingly slow; he was still only an Untersturmführer (2nd lieutenant) at the outbreak of the war.

It did not suit anyone to paint Eichmann as a mediocrity; he was a mediocrity, which was the very thing that frustrated Wiesel and others, who expected something altogether grander. I'm not at all sure why it would be in the interest of the Israeli prosecutors to create a false impression of the man. It might aid your understanding somewhat, Major, if you read his plodding, machine-like replies to the questions put to him in during the trial. Or, if you have not the time for that, you might care to have a look over Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. It serves no purpose, as I have made clear in discussions with others (see my talk page for some thoughts on Magda Goebbels), to belittle the things and the people we do not like. But Eichmann is impossible to magnify; a little man with all the imagination of a lower-grade civil servant. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to cover my fundament here, I want to make it quite clear that I thoroughly disapprove of Nazi-ism and that I've no particular knowledge of Eichmann. Having said that, I can quite see that people such as Hans Frank and Hermann Goering, in a social context, were probably both very good company and no fools. Regarding Eichmann's trial, it must have been obvious to him that he was heading for an inevitable death sentence; taking a transcript of his cross-examination under those circumstances and drawing conclusions as to his character seems a bit dubious to me. Anyone who has undergone a hostile cross-examination will recognise it as a highly stressful and artifical environment; it's an example of extrapolating from the specific to the general. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan, North Korea and Iran

Although apparently Pakistan has never stated any desire to wipe Israel off the globe while Iran has repeatedly stated such intent, how were Pakistan and North Korea able to fund and build nuclear weapons and what about places like Cuba and Venezuela and other countries which lack but want them? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan's program to develop weapons of mass destruction came as a reply to India (they don't get along well). The program was started sometime during the 1960s, only recently official. Our article on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction isn't too shabby, if you want to have a look at that. All country-WMD articles on Wikipedia are standardized to follow that formatting, so you can quickly reach North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure NSA or FBI will have you flagged for googling "building a nuclear bomb", but nuclear weapon design should save you this inconvenience. All honour to the contributors of those articles, but I remain somewhat unsure of how to answer your question. This and this state that Venezuela are receiving help to build a nuclear reactor, made plausible by this source. In order to build a nuclear bomb, one first needs a nuclear reactor to produce enriched uranium, a major component in the further construction of the bomb. The expertise is normally the most difficult thing to get a hold of, since you need people with a know-how for all the different stages of construction. Nuclear proliferation is also something to take a look at, and deals a bit with resource trading. What I find most likely is that the expertise in North Korea comes from the former Soviet Union. Seeing as the country is as poor as it is, the actual production is humble to nothing. Scaller (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You've got a few errors there. The NSA and FBI don't care if people google about nuclear weapon design—it's all over the internet and being curious doesn't mean you have the will or means to build one. A reactor does not produce enriched uranium, it produces plutonium. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

According to our article Enriched_uranium, reactors can indeed produce enriched uranium, although I'm sure other reactors can produce plutonium as well. GreatManTheory (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First the US thought that Germany was going to make a bomb, so they made a bomb first. So then the USSR wanted one. After the US threatened PR China fairly explicitly with the bomb (First Taiwan Strait Crisis), China wanted one too. At first the USSR helped out, but China had to finish it up on their own after they had a falling out with the USSR (and thus had another reason to want one). Then India and China had a war, and India wanted a bomb. After India got the bomb, then Pakistan felt it needed a bomb. In the meantime, Israel had gotten a bomb. North Korea felt isolated and insecure, so it wanted a bomb. Iran probably wants a bomb both to stand up to the US and to Israel, as well as be the biggest non-Israeli power in the region. Countries want bombs because they fear attacks from others (who have the bomb), and because a certain amount of political power and prestige comes from having the bomb (even though in real terms they can limit the types of interactions you can have with other countries that have the bomb).

Pakistan got their bomb material by using Dutch enrichment technology. Then they sold some of that knowledge to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. They may have bought designs from China. But it's worth noting that North Korea, in the end, seems to have had much more success with producing plutonium that they did with enriching uranium, which they did by operating a reactor they originally got from the USSR.

Bomb design is easier for uranium, harder for plutonium. In both cases, though, a country with sufficient technical resources can accomplish it if they work at it long enough. The hardest part about getting a nuclear weapon is getting the materials for it, in either case. Production of either enriched uranium or plutonium requires rather large facilities with specialized staff and specialized machinery. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Captain Ref Desk for laying out the sequence of motivations. I would assume then that even if Israel did not exist Iran would still want the bomb if for no other reason than Iran is probably next in line to have some kind of secular trouble with its neighbors and since Iran can't just buy a bomb (or can it?) then what other choice than to make their own. However, I do not think anyone is going to let Iran buy the bomb or make one, even if at this juncture they fully recanted their desire to eliminate Israel. In fact, if Iran is to blame for the continued fighting in Iraq then I would expect to see more and more of what is being sown in Iraq, being reaped in Iran. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the assumptions need looking at. Regarding Iran's desire to "wipe Israel off the globe" - this may be coming from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements, the most famous of which was officially translated similarly, but about which there was a translation controversy, see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. There is no doubt that he has said many idiotic and reprehensible things. On the other hand, Iran has endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative toward Israel, which is arguably more important. I think few neutral observers (opposed to propgandists) think that Iran has much if anything to do with fighting in Iraq. The effect of the American invasion was to create a friendly Shi'ite state, why would Iran have a problem with that? The very respected Israeli military theorist Martin van Creveld's remark that "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy" is worth noting.John Z (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I for one, believe that if Iran is foolish enough to be behind bombings in Iraq that after a certain while Iraqis will catch on and you will begin to see bombing inside Iran. Although teh Golden rule is not Islamic it is still a very valid rule. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cuba and Venezuela. What don't they have? is sort of the wrong question—it's not technical issues that are keeping them from trying to develop nuclear arms. They're both members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which means that their nuclear facilities are all monitored by the IAEA. That doesn't mean that they can't secretly try to built weapons, but it means there will be immediate and serious economic and political consequences, and potentially even military consequences, should they do so. Cuba is far too close to the USA to possibly risk trying to develop nuclear weapons (esp. after the tension caused by the Cuban Missile Crisis) and it wouldn't have been in anyone's interest to let them try to do so. Venezuela, on the other hand, has been threatened by the US lately, but the likelihood of military conflict is low, IMO. Additionally, both countries are also parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco and would face harsh retributions for developing nuclear weapons.

Could they technically build them? Any country with reactors could, if they devoted the resources to it and worked hard enough. The science of basic nuclear weapons is well-known. What keeps nations of any wealth and scientific standing from having them is almost entirely political. Fortunately the resources needed for weapons are at the moment outside of the reach of non-state entities, without taking into consideration the real possibility of theft of special nuclear materials. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard a story once about Castro that he was told a certain button would fire a nuclear missile at America and he pushed it and all of the sudden support for missile technology and nuclear technology and even airplane technology began to evaporate. I do not know if the story is true or not but on the other hand if you can not buy nuclear missiles from the former Soviet Union or anyone else then back to square one. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unincluded holy scriptures Jewish/Christian

I am unable to find a complete list of the unincluded scriptures in the bible, and also their cathegory. The following are written wrongly probably, but I am able to find my way within them: the apocrypha, the deuterocanonical, the pseudopedigrapha. Some are mentioned as included in some churches like Enoch in etiopian, and some scriptures are listed in the gnostic church. However, I can not for the life of me for instance find Bartholomew. References like to jewish legends appear without giving me much about where they come from, trying links get just more confusing. By cathegories I refer to where they are to be found, the natural reference. Like "unknown found script" to "the dead sea scroll". I hoped for a list included all the scriptures, complete and incomplete, that have a reference to these holy scriptures. I can not even find Bartholomew's scripture under Bartholomew. I would at least like a general listing more than the official christian. Any general place or cathegory to look more than apocrypha, deuterocanonical and pseudopedigrapha would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestorebo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There has never been any document attributed to Bartholomew on any canonical list of New Testament books, and the Dead Sea scrolls wouldn't contain anything about him either, since they're non-Christian. The terms Deuterocanon/Apocrypha are most often used to refer to works which are accepted as authoritatively scriptural by some Christian church bodies, but not by others, so that there are a fixed and limited number of books which can be included under those terms. By contrast, "Pseudepigrapha" is kind of a left-over category for all works with quasi-scriptural pretensions which have never been highly valued by any quasi-mainstream form of Christianity or Judaism -- so that membership in the Pseudepigrapha is indefinite and open-ended, including hundreds of works, some of which are known only in fragmentary form. However, we do have an article Gospel_of_Bartholomew... AnonMoos (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Roccasecca: To which territory did it belong in 1225

I have been looking at Thomas Aquinas's birthtown of Roccasecca on modern maps of Italy and comparing its location to this map of the Kingdom of Sicily. To me, it almost looks like Roccasecca was not part of the green area marked as Kingdom of Sicily, but rather part of the yellow area marked as Papal States. WP's map shows the boundaries of 1154 and states that they would remain virtually unchanged for 700 years. The map may not be completely accurate. Either way, Roccasecca lies near the boundary, but on which side? Thank you in advance for maps or other references showing exactly to which territory Roccasecca belonged in 1225, the year Thomas Aquinas was born. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Italian page for the city has it more definitely placed in Lazio. But another problem is that in 1225, the Kingdom of Sicily was supposed to be a papal fief; it wasn't, because it was ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor (as Frederick II was both king of Sicily and emperor), who was constantly at odds, or in outright war, with the Pope, so the boundaries were not very stable. In fact in 1225 Frederick well on his way to being excommunicated. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia names the place "The Kingdom of Naples" [8]. The same page also states that the birthdate is not certain; it may have been 1225 or 1227. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The abbot of Monte Cassino had settled a junior line of the counts of Aquino there in the tenth century. Though under contention, Roccasecca was part of the lands of the abbey of Monte Cassino. It didn't become effectively a papal fief until it was purchased in the sixteenth century. In between, it was the current allegiance of the conti d'Aquino that really mattered. I've added some translation from Italian Wikipedia to offer a history sub-section. --Wetman (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! That leaves me with two questions regarding the article on Thomas Aquinas:

• The current text says that Aquinas was born "at his father Count Landulph's castle of Roccasecca in the Kingdom of Sicily, in the present-day Regione Lazio." What should replace the Kingdom of Sicily? I can't think of an adequate way of putting it, please help.
• Bielle makes a good point. The article's lead sentence says Aquinas was born "c. 1225", the biography section's first sentence says he was "born in 1224", the box on the left says "Birth c. 28 January 1225". He is a member of Category:1225 births, and his birth is also featured in the articles on 1225 and January 28. The TA article also says "The Roman Catholic Church today celebrates his feast on January 28, the date of publication of the Summa." Would it be right to remove all references to Jan 28 as his DOB? And would it be best to set all year-of-birth references to "c. 1225", or can something be said for 1227 or another year? Bielle's reference states: "From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint's death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274." If there is doubt, should both years be mentioned? Should TA still remain a member of the 1225 article and category?

I realize these questions might belong on the articles' and categories' talk pages. Well, I asked here and very soon saw informed, and referenced answers, and the encyclopedia saw an expansion of another article! (I will post this thread on the talk page eventually.) ---Sluzzelin talk 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the birthdate, January 25 was (probably) still 1224 at the time, since the new year (probably) didn't start until March or Easter or some other date, but we retroactively say it was 1225. (But if the date is disputed between 1225 and 1227 then this explanation doesn't work!) I would say that if Roccasecca was part of the territory of Monte Cassino, then it is more likely in the Papal States than in Sicily, even if Monte Cassino was effectively independent. Or perhaps we can just say it was in "Italy" and link to Italy in the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kemal and 1914 war

did Kemal Pasha think it good that Turkey join war? Enver M (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Kinross's biography, pp. 65 - 67, he opposed it, especially joining on the German side. He thought the outcome uncertain, foreseeing a future as a German satellite in victory and catastrophe in defeat. He preferred neutrality and waiting to see what happened in the war, and "lobbied his friends in Constantinople insistently" for that.John Z (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are his precise thoughts in his very own words, Enver;

Looking at Germany's position from a military point of view, I am by no means certain that it shall win this war. True, the Germans have overrun strong fortifications at lightning speed and are advancing towards Paris. But the Russians are pushing to the Carpathians and are pressing hard the Germans' Austrian allies. The Germans will this have to set aside part of their forces to aid the Austrians. Seeing this the French will counter-attack and put pressure on the Germans. The Germans will then have to recall their troops from the Austrian front. It is because an army which zigzags to and fro must come to a sad end that I do not feel certain about the outcome of this war. (Atatürk, by Andrew Mango, 1999, pp. 136-7) Clio the Muse (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

CSA a one-party state?

Since the secessionists were uniformly Democrats, and the states which seceded had previously been dominated by the Democratic Party to the point of one-party rule, was the resulting Confederacy therefore a one-party state? I've never heard of any formal partisan structure in Confederate politics, i.e. a "Democratic Party of the Confederate States of America" distinct from the U.S. party. Was there one? If not, would it be more accurate to describe CSA politics as non-partisan? Furthermore, were there any well-defined political cliques or currents which operated as de facto parties and which might have developed into parties had the Confederacy persisted? I'm not looking for anything definitive, I'm just curious. Lantzy ^talk 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Factions or parties never developed within the CSA, although there were those for and in opposition to the administration. As to what could have been, I recommend Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 series. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Or for a more traditional history, see this source: [9]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

With 'friends' like Governor Joe Brown I imagine that Jefferson Davis might have welcomed some honest partisan politics! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Where parties do not exist, criticism of the administration is likely to remain purely an individual matter; therefore the tone of the criticism is likely to be negative, carping, and petty, as it certainly was in the Confederacy. But where there are parties, the opposition group is strongly impelled to formulater real alternative policies and to press for the adoption of these policies on a constructive basis. ... But the absence of a two-party system meant the absence of any available alternative leadership, and the protest votes which were cast in the [1863 Confederate mid-term] election became more expressions of futile and frustrated dissatisfaction rather than implements of a decision to adopt new and different policies for the Confederacy." -- David M. Potter

AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, everyone. Lantzy ^talk 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen Christina's sexuality

Is it true that Christina Augusta of Sweden was a hemaphrodite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Hacket (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From the article on Kristina of Sweden: "Her unusual attire caused her to later become an icon of the transgendered community, even though Christina herself was not transgendered. During the 20th century, her grave was opened so that her death mask could be examined, and her bones were examined to see if sex abnormalities could be identified, but none identified."

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article. It has almost no references. I think you would be ill-advised to draw any conclusions from this specific text, however fascinating the statements may appear to be. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Buckley touches on this topic in her book Christina Queen of Sweden: the Restless Life of a European Eccentric (Fourth Estate, 2004) Apparently Christina's gender could not be immediately determined at birth. Even after she was declared to be a girl there were all sorts of ambiguities attached to her later career. She later announced her aversion to having sexual relations with a man, and was fond of bawdy jokes and course language. There was also some suggestion of lesbianism. Even those trying to arrange a marriage eventually conceded that this was never going to happen. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Think of the temptation for an intellectual and energetic C17 woman to take on a masculine personality, with the freedoms and privileges that went with maleness, in the way of Julie d'Aubigny, and the prurient fascination of men: witness Théophile Gautier's highly colored version of Julie d'Aubigny's career in Mademoiselle Maupin. --Wetman (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell, Torture, and Ambien

Colin Powell who has been implicated foreign-departmental approval of the torture memo.[10] It seems that he was also given a prescription for Ambien at about the same time[11][12]. I would like to know whether Powell was regularly using Ambien while the torture memo was being discussed?

If so, I would like to know the name of the M.D. who prescribed it.Dream Academy (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why Colin Powell would broadcast the name of his prescribing physician, but then I can't think why he might have told a journalist that he sometimes took (takes) the drug to ensure his sleep when travelling through multiple time zones. I am curious, however, as to why the name of the physician is of any significance at all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder why the M.D. matters—it's a standard drug. But it's interesting to think about how many government officials are taking medication which is now known to have quite a list of side-effects. I know of at least one person who apparently resumed a previously fractured relationship while on Ambien and had no memory of it at the time. Gives one the chills! --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you be seeking or trying to avoid the same physician or asking in regard to ascertaining possible abuse, i.e., as in the case of Anna Nicole Smith? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 13

Obama as "post-racial"

I've just come across a statement in my readings that posits Barack Obama as the "post-racial candidate" in an "apparently still racial" America. What on earth can "post-racial" possibly mean?? I'm pretty sure Obama has a race at present, and that he openly talks about it. Or is this phrase intended to mean "post-racism"? Because that's not true either. I am very confused and would appreciate elucidation. --Masamage ♫ 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a link to the source of the statement? It is difficult to comment on something like this without a context. Thanks ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was only mentioned in passing, but you can just google "post-racial" to see what I mean. There are tons of examples, which suggests it's an idea that's entered the mainstream, but I can't find an original source or what it's intended to communicate. --Masamage ♫ 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Obama is neither white nor truly black (in that he is not of African American origin and both has a white parent and was raised in a white family), he defies and confounds traditional U.S. racial categories. By defying categorization, he exposes the arbitrariness of the categories. Also, he is not culturally black, although his wife is black and he attends (or used to attend) a mostly black church. He has striven to keep race out of his presidential campaign and asserted that he is neither a candidate for black people nor for white people but for all Americans. He suggests, and many of his followers hope, that by winning the presidency, Obama, who has bridged the gap between white and black in his own life, will bring white and blacks together and heal racial wounds. Hence the idea that an Obama presidency would be postracial by moving beyond racial divides. (Note that I am trying to present the point of view of those who consider Obama postracial, even though I myself doubt that his presidency would be so transformative.) Marco polo (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Clumsy expression: post-racialist was doubtless intended. So few of us truly are post-racialist. It's a start to be aware of our own in-built "race"-thinking. --Wetman (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama has intentionally tried to avoid becoming involved in the politics of race. An earlier black candidates in the US, Jesse Jackson, used "racial equality" as part of his campaign. However, this disenchanted whites, who saw him as pitting blacks against whites, so he lost. Obama has tried to avoid this happening to him, and has thus had very little to say about racial discrimination. Hillary has actually said more about racial inequality than him. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the term "post-racialist" used in North America? Once upon a time, "racialist" was a word used by South Africans, Australians and the English (I don't know about the Scots, the Irish or the Welsh,) where Canadians and Americans would use "racist". I don't think I have ever heard "racialist" in any other context in North America. Perhaps there are those in Wiki RefDeskLand who can enlighten me. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The word is very uncommon in the United States. Whenever I have heard it used among Americans, it has generally been intended and interpreted as a synonym or perhaps a euphemism of "racist". Lantzy ^talk 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of "post-racial" to many Blacks is something that any mulatto has physically achieved by "...putting a little cream in their coffee," whereas to many Whites all mulattoes represent in the context of Western heritage, only a Trojan Horse. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misreading the above, but, it seems to say that "post-racial" refers to people of mixed heritage (black-white, which is not a useful distinction, I think). I have not yet seen such a meaning attached to the phrase. I feel this may be a not very thinly disguised presentation of original, racist research, and, as such, may be trolling. There is something distasteful about the wording, this opinion being, of course, my own, original conclusion. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the title posted by the OP: Obama as "post-racial" unless of course Obama is not of mixed race. But your further comment reminds me of a trend since the beginning of the civil right movement called the "race card" which has long since made "post-racial" a meaningless term. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is shared and supported by some other contributors to the WP:RD. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But not all, necessarily. Maybe the term was used to refer to the knowledge, now scientifically proven, that all humans are of the same "race" and thus any distinction drawn between people of supposedly different "races" is a false distinction. We know better than that now, so we're "post-racial". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The point above is that even if "post-racial" is based on recognition of insignificant genetic deferences able to erase the genetic basis for defining separate races it is still not a magic bullet which can erase cultural differences that may be one second, one decade or 4,000 to 10,000 years old. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than debate about who read what and who means what, when the very words seem to twist before my eyes, I'll stay with Jack's explanation. My race card is thus full -or was that "dance" card? ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack's explanation of the correct meaning of the phrase is most likely correct, however, that does not mean that the phrase is not a pipe dream since race is not based entirely upon genetics. Such thinking is atypical wishful thinking of newcomers to Western Civilization but in error nonetheless. Recently I saw a poster that showed a retarded kid participating in the Special Olympics. The caption said, "If he wins is he still retarded?" IMHO it does not matter unless he is competing outside his peer group, which is the Special Olympics. You may desire that race not be an unspoken criteria for members of a group to which you want to belong but I prefer to stay within my own peer group where the invitation and welcome are genuine with far less risk of not being universal or fake. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How sad for you. Oh, and atypical means the opposite of typical...

The reason Obama is seen as a "post-racial" candidate, at least her in the UK, is that he is the first black person to campaign for the presidency who is not campaigning largely on the fact that he is black. The fact that he is black is rarely addressed by Obama, and as such he is seen as representing a step forward for American politics, as he is symbolic of an America that is actually considering electing a black man to office. He is post-racial insofar as race is not relevant to his campaign, or at least never explicitly mentioned by the man himself, although the media seems to have quite a fixation on the fact. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be foolish for a Irish Catholic to run for office in the UK even though his official political platform was not Irish Catholicism? 71.100.171.178 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, and I don't understand how that applies. This article in the Telegraph states that there are at least three Catholic MPs in the Cabinet, and the only reason the issue has been brought up there is because of their specifically religious beliefs. They were not elected on solely Catholic platforms, although that analogy would apply much more in Northern Ireland, where there are deep religious divisions. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

General European situation of plays/operas around 13th to 16th century

Around the 13th to 16th century, were women alowed to cast plays/operas? Or, were female roles also performed by men like in ancient China? Was it common in that period for men to cast female roles? If yes, is sexual discrimination the reason? And lastly, would you be so kind to give me links of articles that can futher answer my questions? Thanks! -- Felipe Aira 07:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a little early, 10th and 11th centuries, but Hrosvit of Gandersheim and Hildegard of Bingen wrote plays and possibly an opera. I think there must have been female roles for them, since they wrote in nunneries. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In Britain until the restoration of Charles II in 1660 all female roles had to be played by men (usually young boys). Opera was invented in the late 16th Century in Italy and became increasingly popular throughout Europe in the 18th Century (which by that time most countries allowed women to act in them). In Italy the 16th Century Commedia dell'arte included 3 women in its troupe. I'm not sure about the sexual discrimination part of your question; there is evidence that women enjoyed acting (Elizabeth I included) but professional female actors were unheard of and probably scorned, perhaps because of the link between acting and prostitution (i.e. doing something entertaining with your body for money). Even in the 18th century when female acting was recognised and enjoyed, it still wasn't seen as a fashionable or respected profession. See: History of theatre, Origins of Opera, English Renaissance theatre, Medieval theatre. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a History of women in theatre article could be created? Perhaps another exciting adventure for the Ref Desk Task Force? Lord Foppington (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a clarification about your use of the verb "cast", Felipe. The person who decides which actors/singers will play/sing which roles is the one who casts the play/opera. This is often the director. The players themselves do not "cast" a play or opera, they appear in it. Is this what you meant? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you start it, my Lord, I will try to help you along, as the female director! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My Lady Muse, I would be most honoured! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you build it, they will come. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pitcairners?

In the German Wikipedia, there is an article de:Pitcairner about the people of Pitcairn Island and their Norfolk Island offspring. There is no other article like that in any other Wikipedia. Do you think that they are relevant in their own right? --KnightMove (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How interesting. On a basic look it appears to be notable enough, so I'll write a stub when I've gathered some sources. PeterSymonds | talk 12:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Demographics of the Pitcairn Islands? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, didn't see that one. I've redirected Pitcairner there. PeterSymonds | talk 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article is *not* about the specific inhabitants of Pitcairn, but about all offspring of the Bounty mutineers, including those on Norfolk Island. They are regarded as an ethnic group of mixed ancestry in their own right. The question is whether this point of view and this article are legitimate. --KnightMove (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. But I'll need time to work on it because sources are not readily available. The redirect can stay for now until I (or someone else who beats me to it) can write a half-decent article about it. PeterSymonds | talk 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who was invited to this Investiture?

Who was invited (via Royal Invitation) to attend the Investiture Ceremony of Prince Edward of England (later became King Edward VIII)which was held in Wales on July !3,1911? Mtdeluna (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtdeluna (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Full lists aren't published on the web. I suggest getting in touch with the Public Information Office at Buckingham Palace (by phone or post; they don't respond to e-mails). The address is here. PeterSymonds | talk 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

6% of the population

What affects only six percent of the population of, say, the Western world but is considered perfectly normal and acceptable? Preferably more or less even distribution (i.e. 6% are of German decent (made that up) is not useful) ----Seans Potato Business 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanity? 172.142.17.75 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I like. But seriously, what sort of thing were you thinking of? I don't understand the question. PeterSymonds | talk 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Left-handedness is a bit above 6%, but would fit otherwise. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Western World is a grouping that it's hard to search for statistics for. Worldwide, about 6 per cent are Buddhist. in the UK, married couples have a 6 per cent risk of breakup in the three years following the birth of a child, 6 per cent of (non-disabled) women are self-employed and 6 per cent of children attend independent fee-paying schools. In Canada, 6 per cent of adults over 40 have diabetes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJedits (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a riddle? Any hidden agenda concerning homosexuality? --KnightMove (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

lol; it's a riddle (i.e. I've a hidden agenda re: homosexuality) and I think left-handedness is useful while the percentage of non-disabled self-employed women is workable and offbeat. Thanks everyone. --Seans Potato Business 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Price of Hummer H2

How much does a new Hummer H2 cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.53.15 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

$56,690-$56,735 (£28,765-£28,787). [13] PeterSymonds | talk 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.53.15 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Elder von Mildenstein

Who, please, is Elder von Mildenstein? Lewis Cifer (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can find, he was the person in charge of the Jewish section of the Sicherheitsdienst, a Nazi secret service branch. He was there in 1934 and 1935, but that's all I can find. PeterSymonds | talk 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As per http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/gestapo-rsha-nazi-secret-police.php: Nazi intelligence Sicherheitsdienst in Palestine.


In early 1933, Baron Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein, a man who a few years later was to become chief of the Jewish section of the SD (the Sicherheitsdienst, the SS intelligence branch headed by Reinhard Heydrich), was invited to tour Palestine and to write a series of articles for Goebbels´s Der Angriff. And so it was that the Mildensteins accompanied by Kurt Tuchler, a leading member of the Berlin Zionist Organisation, visited settlements in Eretz Israel. The highly positive articles, 'A Nazi Visits Palestine,' were duly published, and a special medallion cast, with a swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

The original idea of the Nazi politicians seems to have been to "merely" expell German Jews and resettle them in what is now Israel. I think there is a reference by Clio.t.M (answer to Mussolini) above on the Wannsee Conference which changed this original concept. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: The reference is in the answer to your question about Adolf Eichmann. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Sorry, I guess you are reading Adolf Eichmann: The Mind of a War Criminal / David Cesarani, so you know about this anyway. 
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, slightly adapted, is an answer I gave last June to a question on this very individual. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised that the career of Mildenstein is being used as political ammunition because he was involved in attempting to construct a working political 'partnership' between the Nazi state and Zionist movement. Now, could any subject be more loaded than that?! I have to move carefully here, and will try to be as objective as I can. The chief point to hold in mind is that the aim of Nazi policy for much of the pre-war period was to encourage as much Jewish migration from Germany as possible. Inevitably, whatever political and ideological differences existed, this aim overlapped, to a significant degree, with similar aims by the Zionists, anxious to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

One has to remember that when the Nazis came to power in January 1933 they had no agreed solution on how the perceived 'Jewish problem' was to be tackled. There were those, of course, like Julius Streicher, who advocated an immediate expulsion of all Jewish people from German territory, though more moderate influences were quick to point out the implications of such a move for the German economy, still in deep depression. Beyond approving limited gestures, like the one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in April 1933, Hitler gave no clear lead in the matter, which left the way open to initiatives by agencies within the state; agencies like the SS, which began to research possible policy options. And from the midst of the SS came Baron Leopold Itz von Mildenstein, a self-appointed 'expert' on the Jewish question.

Mildenstein, who was born in Prague in 1902, had taken an early interest in Zionism, even going so far as to attend Zionist conferences to help deepen his understanding of the movement. He actively promoted Zionism as a way out of the official impasse on the Jewish question; as a way, in other words, of making Germany Judenrein (free of Jews). The Zionists, whose movement had grown tremendously in popularity among German Jews since Hitler came to power, were keen to co-operate. On April 7 1933 the Juedische Rundschau, the bi-weekly paper of the movement, declared that of all Jewish groups only the Zionist Federation of Germany were capable of approaching the Nazis in good faith as 'honest partners.' The Federation then commissioned one Kurt Tuchler to make contact with possible Zionist sympathisers within the Nazi Party, with the aim of easing emigration to Palestine. Tuchler approached Mildenstein, who was asked to write something positive about Jewish Palestine in the Nazi press. Mildenstein agreed, on condition that he be allowed to visit the country in person, with Tuchler as his guide. So, in the spring of 1933 an odd little party of four set out from Berlin, consisting of Mildenstein and Tuchler with their respective wives. Mildenstein's experiences were later reported in twelve instalments in Der Angriff, Goebbels' own paper, beginning on 26 September 1934, under the title Ein Nazi faehrt nach Palestina ( A Nazi travels to Palestine). Perhaps the most curious aspect of this whole bizarre affair is that Der Angriff even commissioned a medal to celebrate this journey, with a Swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

On his return, Mildenstein's suggestion that the solution to the Jewish problem lay in mass migration to Palestine was accepted by his superiors within the SS. In 1935 he was put in charge of the Jewish Desk in the RSHA-Section 11/112-, under the overall control of Reinhardt Heydrich. SS officials were even instructed to encourage the activities of the Zionists within the Jewish community, who were to be favoured over the 'assimilationists', said to be the real danger to National Socialism. Even the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws of September 1935 had a special Zionist 'provision', allowing the Jews to fly their own flag.

In the end Mildenstein fell out of favour, because migration to Palestine was not proceeding at a fast enough rate. His departure from the RSHA after ten months in office also saw a shift in SS policy, marked by the publication of a pamphlet warning of the dangers of a strong Jewish state in the Middle East. It was written by another 'expert', who had been invited to join Section 11/112 by Mildenstein himself. His name was Adolf Eichmann.

If anyone would like to follow my footsteps here I would recommend the following;

• The Jews in Germany by H. G. Adler, 1969.
• Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, 1970.
• The War Against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowicz, 1975
• German and Jew by G. L. Mosse, 1970
• Baron von Mildenstein and the SS support of Zionism in Germany, 1934-1936 by Jacob Boas, in History Today, January 1980.

And, of course, the relevant editions of Der Angriff. Clio the Muse 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, when I first read the phrase "Jewish section of the Sicherheitsdienst" I imagined that there were a whole section of Jews who were working for the Sicherheitsdienst - leading me to wonder how it was that a Jewish family had been raised to the German nobility (as Edler) and then granted the title of Baron. In fact, this was a Catholic family of Bohemia ennobled in Austria on 4 October 1788. I haven't found the date they were made Freiherren. - Nunh-huh 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethical System

What ethical system would the idea of allowing anything that is done with the participants' consent come under? I tried reading the articles, but they're not particularly optimised for searching by concepts.

Thanks, Daniel (‽) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is basically a form of liberalism, more specifically, its extreme incarnation, libertarianism. Some libertarians, and perhaps some who would identify themselves as liberals, would go so far as to allow even the use of hard drugs in private, though this is relatively uncommon, I believe, and not voiced often in politics. Typically libertarians believe in a "nightwatchman state" that exerts a fair amount of control over matters of individual liberty that could still have a decaying influence on society, but this is still where the system you refer to would belong. 203.221.127.95 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like to think of myself as a libertarian, but even libertarians have ethics, understanding ethics as a boundary, beyond which one should not go. To allow literally anything to happen simply on the basis of mutual consent surely defies all ethical categorisation; it is not immoral but amoral. How could any normal code of ethics explain the actions, freely entered into, of Armin Meiwes-the eater-and Bernd Jürgen Brandes-the eaten? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, although its presentation of the topic leaves much to be desired from an encyclopaedia entry, you may be interested in our article on voluntarism. With regard to specific philosophies, Objectivism, anarchism and – as noted above – the classical liberalism of philosophers such as John Locke incorporate an ethical stance opposing anything but voluntary co-operation.

Related concepts include affinity group (an incarnation of consensus decision-making), consent of the governed, heterarchy and horizontalidad, negative liberty and value pluralism. If you have any further questions I would be happy to attempt to answer them. Skomorokh 03:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I must respectfully disagree with Clio that a moral spectrum delineated solely by mutual consent defies ethical categorization and is amoral. I think this begs the question of what constitutes moral philosophy, but it is a vice shared by many moral philosophers. Voluntarist moral philosophy qualifies as an ethical position because it coherently defines for the moral agent what is good conduct and what is bad. Amoralism declines to make this distinction, or may seek to move beyond good and evil. Skomorokh 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to be respectful, Skmorokh-disagree away! I am not saying that a moral system cannot be constructed on the basis of mutual consent; I am saying that the example I have given is beyond even the wildest frontiers of moral relativism. It's not just beyond good and evil, it’s beyond comprehension; beyond Socrates, beyond Epicurus, beyond Locke. Or perhaps this is just me revealing all of my conventional and bourgeoisie preconceptions? Anyway, I shall now return to Henri Bergson to refresh my understanding of the nature of moral obligations! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of what consenting behaviour is allowed by systems (in this case political rather than ethical, but most law is based heavily on a version of ethics), it might be worth having a look at Operation Spanner and Armin Meiwes, as the two cases involve the ability of people to consent to actual bodily harm or murder. The first one seems to be much more of a grey area, but I think I'd agree that if you're consenting to be being branded and severely injured it's probable your ability to consent could be diminished. Very murky ethical waters, these. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Meiwes case is the one I am referring to, Michael, as you will note if you read my opening remarks above. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interpret my question.

<moved to miscellaneous desk for VIVID's crosspost, is why Julia Rossi (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)>

April 14

Sovereignty definitions

My political science professor is teaching a first-year intro course for the first time, and basically everything he says is way over our heads, even when we ask for clarification. He gave us the following definitions for sovereignty (which were just one group of definitions among many! --he's not much for pinning things down):

International/legal- mutual recognition, more form than content
Westphalian- establishing law, religion, taxation, etc. within own territory
Domestic- something about political authority, and something about others stepping in, and I also have something written down about Rwanda and the Congo????
Interdependent- political regulation of flow of goods, capital, information, etc. across borders

So as you can probably see, it's the third one (domestic) that makes no sense to me (I included the others for context--all paraphrased and simplified from my prof's long and rambling musings). Anyone have an idea of what he's trying to get at there? Thank you so much! (P.S. My final exam is in about eight hours so if I could get an answer before then please? Thanks, you ref desk people rock!) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a rushed answer: from http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Krasner/krasner-con3.html, domestic sovererignty means that a (1) a country has infrastructure (government, police, courts, etc.) that enforces its authority over the population, and (2) the infrastructure is effective. I suspect the reference to Congo and Rwanda was because these countries' presidents, due to wars, have little control over the areas affected (see http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/11/12/edmvemba_ed3_.php). The comment on others "stepping in" is related to this; governments don't have sovererignty over an area that rebel groups constantly capture, lose, retake, etc. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-amalgamation Ottawa

Does anyone know what the boundaries were (what streets/rivers/lines) of pre-2001 Ottawa? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This description is based on city maps in three pre-2001 road atlases (Rand McNally Ontario RoadMaster, and AAA and National Geographic atlases of North America) and is somewhat simplified in order to keep it reasonably short. Distances are approximate; directions like "south" and "east" follow the street grid (and therefore are not at right angles to each other!) except as noted; and I don't clarify whether the boundary follows a street exactly or only roughly.

• 0.2 km south from the Ottawa River ending at the corner of Carling Av. and Bayshore Dr. (Where "south" means parallel to the streets, not true south, and similarly for the rest of this description.)
• 0.2 km east along Carling.
• 2 km south roughly along Roseview Av. and other minor streets to Base Line Rd.
• 7 km east along Base Line to Fisher Av.
• 2 km south along Fisher to the corner of Viewmount Dr.
• 0.2 km east to the Rideau River.
• 3.5 km upstream along the Rideau River.
• 2 km mostly east, but with some small zigzags, cutting across the airport, to near the corner of Royal Route and Breadner Blvd. in the military base.
• zigzagging about 1.5 km north and east, cutting across the base, to Hunt Club Rd. near the corner of Paul Anka Dr.
• 7 km east along Hunt Club to Hawthorne Rd.
• 1.5 km north along Hawthorne to the corner of Ages Rd.
• 1 km east to the railway tracks just west of where they cross highway 417.
• 2.5 km mostly north, first following the curve railway and then angling off to the east of it, roughly true north, as if following a railway not shown on my map and perhaps no longer existing. This bit crosses the highway.
• 1.3 km mostly west, on a curve, recrossing the highway and coming back to the railway, again as if following a disused railway line.
• 0.2 km north along Star Top Rd.
• 1.5 km northwest (parallel to Cyrville Rd.) to near the corner of St. Laurent Blvd. and Tremblay Rd.
• 1.7 km north along St. Laurent to just before MacArthur Av.
• 2.5 km east, cutting across the National Research Council property, to Blair Rd.
• 2.5 km north along Blair Rd. back to the Ottawa River.

But that is not the complete boundary, because it did not just return to the starting point along the Ottawa River. Rockcliffe Park and Vanier were not part of Ottawa; they fitted in between Ottawa and the river. Their boundaries are not shown clearly on my maps and are too irregular to be well suited to the above style of description. But Vanier was roughly 2 km across, extending east from the Rideau River and centered around Montreal Rd.; and Rockcliffe Park was a bit smaller, between Vanier and the Ottawa River.

--Anonymous, 07:44 UTC, April 14, 2008.

Thanks! I had no idea the lines were that squiggly. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Most city limits are, especially where the city has grown by many amalgamations and annexations of towns and villages over time. Simple cases like the present Toronto limits are the exception. (For Toronto it's because of the reuse of old township boundaries originally drawn in rural areas.) For Ottawa at least most of the segments were parallel to the street grid, making them easier to describe. --Anon, 23:10 UTC, April 15, 2008.

Translations of Dream of the Red Chamber

Are there any translations to English of Red Inkstone Study (脂硯齋)'s commentaries on Dream of the Red Chamber? 130.85.251.16 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Court Hierarchy

Hi,
I've had a look through [14] but I couldn't find the answer to my question. Which is to what extent are state level courts in the Australian legal system bound by federal courts? For example is the Victorian Magistrates Court bound by the Federal Magistrates Court? If so what about the County Court? The Supreme Court? Also which state courts are bound by the Federal Court? Thanks! --58.175.34.222 (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Found this[15] and this one from the second par[16]. Hope it helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Accounting expression

Hi, If a company has written-down an asset (such as a lease-hold improvement) they would usually take it off the books. But if they want to keep it on their books for administrative purposes, they may keep it there for e.g. $1. What is that amount called under US GAAP or IFRS. A "symbolic value", "memory value" or ??? I tried googleing it, but without the correct expression, that's pretty futile. Hope s.o. here can help. Lisa4edit--Lisa4edit (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You might find more in our article Peppercorn (legal) which refers to the minimum legal amount to keep something contractual. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I really need the accounting term. Peppercorn only worked with "rent". I also found "nominal value" but that turned out to be something else. A colleague suggested "reminder value" but that doesn't seem to be it either. --Lisa4edit (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Notional value. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In case s.o. else needs to know "notional value" is what it was. --Lisa4edit (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Richardr, I think that Lisa4edit was just confirming that, of all the suggestions, yours was the correct one. That's a thoughtful thing to do. Often, the readers are left unsure as to which, if any, of a series of proposed answers is the right one. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was "nominal value", the same as how a transaction where money has to change hands is often $1 and is called a "nominal fee". But this is in the UK, so it the US it couldbe different. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-modern revolution

So the article on the EZLN says

Some consider the Zapatista movement the first "post-modern" revolution: an armed revolutionary group that has abstained from using their weapons since their 1994 uprising was countered by the overpowering military might of the Mexican Army.

And after reading the article on postmodernism, I'm still a little confused about how it supposedly applies to the Zapatistas. Non-violence existed before postmodernism, as did the idea of abandoning tactics that don't work. So what's so postmodern about the Zapatistas? --superioridad ^(discusión) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It went underground (addn: using the internet). In the article Metanarrative Lyotard explains: "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives." So it seems that the Zapatista movement no longer believed in the master-narrative, or the old heroic real-world, real bloodshed way of carrying out a revolt. By turning to the internet, they entered a post-modern strategy best explained (for me anyway) by taking a lateral action as given in the writings of postmodern philosopher Gilles Deleuze and his ideas about the progression of a rhizome with its unpredictable growth; he also describes lateral solutions as a "line of flight" away from the linear arboreal model of hierarchies and historic progressions. Compared with these old models of action and reaction, the rhizome is a model of an underground way of life or action, " that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation" which the internet provides. Deleuze develops this in A Thousand Plateaus and his book Rhizome. In a way, it's postmodern to enter into your quest/question not through the main article Postmodernism but through the links in this answer. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There was also the civil war in the Solomon Islands, see History of Bougainville. Surprisingly, we don't have an article on the war itself, but it started with a group of local landowners turning guerilla and shutting down the environmentally damaging Rio Tinto mine. They then fought off various private and state security forces with home-made guns. It does help that Bougainville is an island. Their power come from coconuts, which makes it a surreal if not pomo war in my book. They made coconut oil into biofuel and used that in looted jeeps, and scavenged the deserted mine for equipment they could remake. Fascinating stuff. I read up on it after the recent Radio 4 serialisation of Mister Pip, a novel with the war as its backdrop. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Congress and Amritsar Massacre

how did congress party respond to the massacre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Godberly (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre article, specifically the "Reaction" and "Monument and legacy" sections, may help, likewise Non-cooperation movement and History of the Indian National Congress. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Congress organised its own inquiry into the massacre, headed by Chittaranjan Das, and Swami Shraddhanand, supported by Pandit Nehru, which began work on 16 October. Ghandi joined the following day after the order prohibiting him from entering the Punjab was lifted. Unlike the official inquiry, Congress allowed the victims of General Dyer's actions to give witness. Ghandi, true to his legal training, kept matters as precise as possible, admitting only that which could be proved, frustrating some of his colleagues, who were looking for something altogether more lurid. This inquiry was particular importance for the future political direction of Congress; for it turned Ghandi from an imperial loyalist into an unremitting opponent of British rule. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio's answer is as sharp as ever. I'd also like to draw your attention to an extraordinary libel case which lasted for a remarkable five weeks in the High Court in London in 1924, called O'Dwyer - v. - Nair. Sir Michael O’Dwyer, Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab until 1919, successfully sued Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair. You'll find it worth reading up. Xn4 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Organisations looking forward to human dieback

Dieback is the phenomenon where a species with excessive numbers dies back to a level more supportable by its environment. Human dieback has been predicted by all sorts of doomsayers, though is now looking more and more likely -what with climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, emerging avian flu and other possible pandemics. I'm just wondering if there are any organisations or groups out there planning for this and actually looking forward to it, any links or details you can give would be welcome. Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

VHEMT... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an excessive example. There are various organisations that are acting to reduce the human birthrate though better access to contraception, family planning, abortion, and so on. The history of the movement can be traced through to eugenics, which is a dirty word, as often it is assumed eugenics=negative eugenics, whereas negative eugenics is merely a subset, and this should rather be considered under liberal eugenics. I am not a dog (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

From misanthropy: The Finnish eco-philosopher Pentti Linkola is considered as the most influential misanthrope currently living. He has openly advocated genocide as means of population control, Social Darwinism to promote euthanasia campaigns for extermination of life unworthy of living,[...]

Not exactly an organisation but I guess he's got some followers so he could be considered as being part of a group of people. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not meaning organisations trying to reduce human birthrate or human population, rather organisations that believe its inevitable it'll happen through natural (or unnatural man-made) events or as an inevitable consequence of overpopulation and are looking forwards to it and preparing for it (either with a view to being part of those who survive or just looking forwards to it as a general good thing). Though VHMET is interesting to hear about. AllanHainey (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

François Mitterrand

I vaguely remember reading somewhere (don't remember the quality of the source), something to the effect that Mitterand said, on his deathbed, that "50 families" control the world. Now, ths sounds really conspiracy theory, but does anyone know whehre this might stem from? Is it a recurring theme in political CTs? Or maybe this is a question rather for WP:RD/E than here? Dorftrottel (troll) 15:51, April 14, 2008

I can't find any reference to such a quote from Mitterand, even when I search in French. The idea seems to me highly implausible. Conspiracy theorists often point to the Bilderberg Group, an exclusive and secretive organization, as the vehicle by which a small elite controls the world, but even the Bilderberg Group involves more than 50 families. This kind of conspiracy theory is certainly a recurring theme in fringe discourse, but I have never come across the "50 families" claim before. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 02:15, April 15, 2008

Engelism

To what extent was it Engels who really invented Marxism? Is there any truth to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.245 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article looks quite interesting: [17]. PeterSymonds | talk 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is to Friedrich Engels that we owe the materialist interpretation of history. Not only did he invent the term, but he refined and, more important, interpreted the work of Karl Marx, handing it down like Moses in tablets of stone to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the leading left-wing movement of the day. The problem is that Engels, while he tried to be true to the thinking of his mentor, began to act as if it was sacred canon, introducing a degree of rigidity that was not in the original; turning fluid observations into concrete precepts, what he called 'the great law of motion in history.' Marx’s sociology was thus transformed into a kind of deterministic science, comparable, in Engel's view, with the laws of energy.

It was Engels, not Marx, who saw economics as the ultimate foundations of all social and historical structures. He attempted, towards the end of his life, to correct some of the damage done in turning Marxism into a materialist pseudo-science, though by this time it was altogether too late. His earlier interpretations conveyed a simplicity readily understood by those with less subtle intellects, those looking for straightforward dogmatics; people for whom notions of base and superstructure offered a short-cut to understanding. Yes, he might very well be said to have 'invented' Marxism; and, yes, he might also claim the right to be its earliest gravedigger. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger and language

How does language fit in to Heidegger's general concept of being? F Hebert (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This probably does not answer your question, but, I went to the Heidegger article, pressed Ctrl F (something you may want to learn), typed in language, and scanned, and copy/pasted select sentences. Here are my results.

For Heidegger, unlike for Husserl, philosophical terminology could not be divorced from the history of the use of that terminology, and thus genuine philosophy could not avoid confronting questions of language and meaning.

The existential analytic of Being and Time was thus always only a first step in Heidegger’s philosophy, to be followed by the “destruction” of the history of philosophy, that is, a transformation of its language and meaning, that would have made of the existential analytic only a kind of “limit case” (in the sense in which special relativity is a limit case of general relativity).

(About Die Kehre) In his later work, Heidegger largely abandons the account of Dasein as a pragmatic, engaged, worldly agent, and instead discusses other elements necessary to an understanding of being, notably language, the earth (as the almost ineffable foundation of world) and the presence of the gods.

He wrote a book called: On the Way To Language, published without the essay "Die Sprache" ("Language") by arrangement with Heidegger. Neal (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

It was one of his central preoccupations. In A Dialogue on Language he wrote "Language is the house of being. Man dwells in this house...In language there occurs the revelation of beings...In the power of language man becomes the witness of Being." Being or Dasein-the central concept in his ontology-is revealed through language.

He also spends time discussing the vacuity of ever-day language, where words lose meaning through overuse. One only has to consider here the use of 'love' in relation to all kinds of experience and tastes, so much so that the original intensity of meaning has been sucked dry. Heidegger says that the key to self-understand is to rediscover the original link between the word and the experience, when, as he puts it, 'Being first spoke' in words like 'peace', 'love', 'truth' and 'compassion'.

It is in the area of the Language of Being, in Heidegger’s own philosophical vocabulary, that his thinking tends to become particularly opaque. His use of all sorts of obsolete and compound expressions makes the English translation of his work problematic, particularly that which he wrote after Being and Time. It's only for the most determined of Beings in the world! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The language and monstrous sentences in Sein und Zeit inspired German comedians Thomas Pigor and Benedikt Eichhorn to perform Heidegger's lyrics over a soft reggae beat. It works surprisingly well, and everything makes more sense, all of a sudden! Here are the lyrics, his website has the leadsheet, piano score, and a mp3 recording as well, if you want to learn it in order to impress the philosophy undergrads at the next dorm party. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, those guys must have spent hours on that! They really know the work of the boozy begger [18]! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Presidents and recessions

When was the last time a U.S. president presided over two recessions? Any recession agreed on by consensus will do--the two-quarters-of-GDP-declines-in-a-row definition is too strict. Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give your definition of recession if you are refusing to use the proper definition. Otherwise, you are actually just trying to spark a debate about what an alternate definition of a recession could possibly be. -- kainaw™ 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it really the "proper" definition? The last recession I think saw only one quarter of negative GDP growth. I don't think the NBER, to whose opinion I'll defer whatever it is, thinks it is the primary determinant. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See recession. There is only one case where the NEBR felt it necessary to rule a contraction as a recession when it didn't fit the normal definition. I don't consider one exception to the rule to be reason to toss the rule out all together and start making up our own rules. -- kainaw™ 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You may also be interested in List of recessions in the United States. -- kainaw™ 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw, I didn't know that. Ok. So now, why does the above list differ from http://www.nber.org/cycles/ ? Which do you prefer? Imagine Reason (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are comparing a list of recessions to a list of contractions. Contractions are normal and happen all the time. The economy goes up and down over and over. The proper term for going down is a contraction. A recession is a specific type of severe contraction. While contractions are considered normal and no cause for concern, a recession is cause for concern. If nothing is done, a recession may not naturally rebound into an expansion. Similarly, expansion is normal. However, severe expansion is cause for concern. That is commonly called a "bubble" and it wasn't too long ago that we learned what happens when the bubble pops. -- kainaw™ 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks a lot! Imagine Reason (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

April 15

Why does the sun make people happy?

Moved to the Science desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What's so bad about pandemics?

Yes, yes, I know there's the pain and suffering of the infected. But I'm talking about a more dispassionate and logical approach. Let's say that a disease spreads throughout a continent or maybe even farther. The ones who are most affected will likely be the poor (due to limited access to health care), the elderly, and the very young. So you're basically taking out those who are taking money and resources from welfare systems, those who are no longer adding significantly to the production of goods/services, and in general those who are on the receiving end of the balance sheet. There will be the initial cost of keeping the people outside of those demographics healthy but after the disease has subsided, won't society be "healthier" in some respect? So is there a "harm" that I'm missing here? Dismas|^(talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The typical party line is that suffering is never justified or acceptable, but I for one am with you. I think the real problem is that we read the news about far-off places that we have no business knowing about, when we should really just be concerned with what's in front of our noses. Vranak (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the harm that you're missing is what you've passed over with your dispassionate and logical approach. Djk3 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Biologically, Dismas is correct. Pandemics either wipes out an organism or make them fitter for survival.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The same dispassionate logic might next take you to the next step. Why waste money on any health care, for any one, rich or poor? It is the weak (and the unlucky) who get sick. Let them all die and humanity will be the stronger for it. It is not a strength I would admire, and not a place I would care to be. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Setting to one side the repugnant sentiment expressed by Dismas and Vranak, if we consider a pandemic such as Spanish flu in 1918/19 "another unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old." In our own time, AIDS is doing much the same, notably in Africa (one of Vranak's far off places that we should not concern ourselves with, as if that makes it all go away). I'm going to doubt that the orphaned child of an AIDS victim agrees that it was the economically unproductive who died. Dismas and Vranak might want to reflect on what sort of society they want to live in: one which does not give a shit, I'm guessing. One which conveniently selects out evidence that does not support their world view. Lovely. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the relevant answers, I find the assumption that I endorse such a situation fascinating to say the least. I don't recall saying that we should throw the poor and elderly to the wolves. I was just posing a question about a hypothetical situation and asking for relevant issues that I might be ignorant of. Dismas|^(talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "harm" you might be missing... I guess what's also missing is the idea of personal, cultural and social capital which is not measureable in economic, goods and services, balance sheet terms. These are invisible largely because they're not going to appear on the books. See Pierre Bourdieu for an expansion on that. Sometimes people are simply worth supporting because they're part of society and contribute in ways economists and accountants overlook, but are important in ways known only to their families, carers, and others whose jobs depend on having the poor, elderly and ill to cater to. My bet is that society wouldn't feel so well off if the vulnerable disappeared for, among other reasons, that they are binaries, offering a dialectic such as in the existence of the Other. (and a ps, the "other" continues to encroach as those who are "us" take our turn to be "them" given time and chance events which as I see it, respect no-one in reality. I'm smiling at the idea of you imagining a selective pandemic. Hmmm, the Black Plague took out the educated and well-off, opening up previously privileged fields of employment to people from the lower classes. Howzat for an unpredictable pandemic!) Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I also didn't completely understand what you were asking, Dismas. Was the "harm" that you might be missing to be viewed entirely from a species point of view? If so, it is theoretically conceivable that a sufficiently virulent pandemic could wipe out the entire human species either directly or by affecting its ability to reproduce.

If not, even for a seemingly "unaffected" and "healthy" individual, and even from a "dispassionate and logical" point of view, and as pointed out by Julia Rossi, a pandemic will not only make the victims suffer and die, but also lead to great suffering among the survivors in their families and communities, with far-reaching global effects, especially if there is the impression that too little was attempted in terms of fighting the virus or protecting human beings. Entire societies could collapse with unpredictable costs and consequences regarding their peace and stability, as well as that of neighbouring regions. Even without compassion and only applying selfish logic, this isn't desirable anywhere in a globalized world, unless you happen to profit from instability. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If the world's poor were wiped out, who would do the jobs that poor people tend to do? I hate to sound this arrogant, but I'm rather happy having a desk job.

Besides, since most forms of poverty aren't genetic, the evolutionary gains would be slight. What would probably happen is that there would be a serious shakeup in the economy when the poor-people-in-large-numbers suddenly stop buying stuff and at the same time suddenly stop showing up for their minimum wage service jobs. After a (hopefully brief) period of chaos many of us currently enjoying life in the middle class would find ourselves filling the role previously held by the plague victims.

That's how it's always happened in the past. A society would have to take a deliberate effort to avoid that. But then we're talking about Communism or something, and that's not easy to get right.

That's not to say a giant population decrease wouldn't be good for the species or its longterm survival, of course, but you asked about society.APL (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pandemics also herald political and economic instability. We look back on the social and economic effects of the Black Plague today and see a net gain, since it moved Europe a bit closer to what we have today (a less strong Church, increased social mobility), but that's just the pride of the victor (and omits the peasant uprisings, persecutions of minorities, etc.). Who knows what would happen in a similar situation today—it's a dice roll, and could most easily end up in awful situations. Additionally, I think you underestimate the long-term effects of getting rid of the elderly, the poor, and the young. The poor contribute a huge amount to the functioning of an economy; the elderly are major investors; the young are, well, the next generation of laborers, thinkers, workers, etc. A nation with no elderly and no young and no poor would be in sad shape indeed; and any benefits to state coffers from a lack of welfare checks would be quickly offset by a lack of tax income, a lack of manpower, general economic downturns, etc., much less the expenses of disaster mitigation, healthcare, insurance, etc. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You might consider the fact that a pandemic will take out more than just the elderly and children. It would take millions oflives, regardless of fitness, age etc. If it was fast-acting enough it is likely that no amount of wealth and thus medical treatment could cure it before it does huge damage. It would destabilise society, taking out key workers all over the map, and to look at it from your point of view, taxpayers. If it was severe enough it could do much more than just this: as Ms Rossi mentioned, the Plague was pretty severe. To look at it from your point of view, you might consider the possibility that humans could expend billions or even trillions attempting to cure it, to no avail. Your way of looking at it is short-sighted to say the least. I would say society would be much "healthier" place if we actually gave a crap about people suffering from deadly diseases, and attempted to show some compassion and empathy towards them. Let's assume that people on benefits/welfare contribute nothing to society, and are then all killed off in a huge pandemic. Sure, the governments of the world would be paying out less in benefits, but you'd the have no old people, who are often the most involved in politics, no young people, who are indeed the future, no struggling musicains to get you throught the hard times as you deal with the death of your student cousin, virtually no real economic hardship for some of the greatest art to be created from etc etc. It may feel to you that many people are on the "receiving side of the balance sheet", but that is to ignore all the advances of the last 150 years in Western civilisation. One of those victims could have gone to university on welfare and developed the cure for cancer. One could have become the next Shakespeare. One could have done anything, for that is what we often recognise now: although many traits are genetic, human potential is enormous, and clever parents do not a clever child make, and the same is true for poor or struggling parents. Your point of view seems to be encroaching upon eugenics or social Darwinism, and yours, Vranak, is either objectivist or just plain selfish. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, Dismas, if I gave the impression that I thought you were supportive of a society that throws people "to the wolves". My comment was meant merely to remind us that, once we start thinking that way as a society, we are headed to places that may well be even worse. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you owe anyone an apology, Bielle. Anyone asking questions about "what's the harm" in millions of people dying horribly ought to have a thick skin, I should think. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn’t it curious, Bielle, that when an argument like this is presented that it is always the 'others' who are affected, those removed by distance, or by poverty, or by culture; those in 'far-off places' and with 'far off lives', never oneself. My father has a very extensive collection of Bob Dylan recordings, and I am reminded of one song in particular, World War III Talkin' Blues, where the narrator keeps having a recurring dream that he is the only person to survive a nuclear holocaust. Troubled by this he goes to the doctor;

Well, the doctor interrupted me just about then,

Sayin, "Hey I've been havin' the same old dreams,

But mine was a little different you see.

I dreamt that the only person left after the war was me.

I didn't see you around."

The typical 'party line' in the nineteenth century was that the suffering caused by cholera was 'justified and acceptable' for as long as it only affected poor people. But, unfortunately, disease, being rather blind, tended to walk, all unannounced, into nice middle-class neighborhoods, then it was a different matter altogether! Death is fine just so long as they are the deaths of other people, and then one can be dispassionate and logical; then one can discuss healthy demographics and healthy organisms in all liberty, in the full conceit of Olympian 'logic'.

But it occurs to me, Bielle, that we have reached such a stage of development that there is no need to wait for the necessary pandemic to 'willow out' those far away and worthless people. Why not begin the process ourselves? We would, of course, have to prioritise those suitable for some measure of social hygiene. You may have your own views on this. Jonathan Swift suggests in his wonderful A Modest Proposal that the problem of hunger could be solved by the consumption of babies. But I personally think it better if the terminally stupid start dining on one another! And, please, everyone, never seek to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. People with a thick skin deserve less courtesy than those who are more easily offended. I'll have to remember that, Matt. Bielle, thank you for your apology. As Matt assumed, I do have a thick skin and was not offended by your comment, though you did jump to an incorrect conclusion. I don't advocate pandemics. I am simply looking for more than a "we should save the poor because they're human beings just like you and me" argument. I was looking for the soceital effects as well as the financial and political. So far, the responses have been most enlightening! Thank you, everyone! Dismas|^(talk) 09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Majahapit civilisation

Disclaimer: not a school project.

What are the features that caused the civilisation to flourish/decline? (In terms of geogarphical location, allocation of occupations, government and leadership, form of writing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean Majapahit?--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, soory for the speeling error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the disclaimer? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Colette and religion

Exactly when, and exactly why, did the French writer Colette, who often proclaimed her agnosticism, start to take an interest in matters of religion? Did she undergo some kind of personal or spiritual crisis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.98.146 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this, but if Colette did meet such a crisis I guess it was near the end. As she wrote in La Maison de Claudine (1922), "Tu comprendras plus tard que jusqu’à la tombe on oublie, à tout instant, la vieillesse". (You will understand later that we keep on forgetting old age, until we get to the grave.) Xn4 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some information on this topic, 217.42, in The Secrets of the Flesh: A Life of Colette by Judith Thurman (Bloomsbury, 1999). It was in the spring of 1943 when Colette turned towards religion, urged on by Francois Mauriac, who decided that it was his personal mission to 'lead Colette to God.' It was on his urging that she began reading the Bible, particularly the epistles of Saint Paul. She was highly vulnerable at the time, old and ill, increasingly convinced that she may not survive the war. However, Maurice Goudeket, Colette’s husband, took a more sceptical view of her motives, that her 'spiritual flirtation with Mauriac', as he put it, might give her some kind of immunity 'in a moment of great danger'. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Death

How does one mentally prepare ones self for the eventual death, assuming all practical matters, like wills, financial affairs ect. are taken care of?--Artjo (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In a recent study it was proven that people with some type of religion usually cope better with death/dying. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. If you are disinclined to religion you might like to contemplate impermanence as well as rebirth, and perhaps consider voluntary work in a hospice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of interesting books on the subject. I found Sherwin Nuland's How We Die to be quite interesting. But anyway, there's no obviously generalizable answer for the individual person; any reasonable response will have to be personalized to their situation. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers, I am not religious by any standards, so will try to find the Nuland book. Thanks again.--Artjo (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Many non religious people (including myself) find it helpful to realize that we have all actually been “dead” for eternity. As Schopenhauer saw it, for instance, life is merely a short and rather unpleasant episode in an expanse of glorious nothingness. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

People living deeply have no fear of death. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm very surprised that no one had yet mentioned the Kübler-Ross model or its author Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. If I were in the position you describe, this would likely be where I started. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.36.216 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify--I'm not sure that her model would be the only thing that allowed me to deal with the process. But I think understanding why we feel the emotions we do as we approach death, and how we transition between them, would be one of the best ways of making that transition more smoothly and with more self-awareness. 71.112.36.216 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lenin and bureaucratic decay

Thank you for answering my question about Engels. I am turning now to Lenin. Beyond the warnings in his testament about Stalin did he see a danger to the revolution in the rise of the new bureaucratic class?Yermelov (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He was, Yermelov, effectively 'hoist by his own petard.' "We are convinced", he wrote, “that our machinery of state...is inflated to twice the size we need", but offered no solution to the problem beyond the rather lame suggestion that 'further study' was required. Effectively the situation was impossible, because he had created the problem of over-centralisation himself. In his recommendations on the recruitment of 'irreproachable communists' to the Central Control Commission he says, with absolutely no sense of irony, that "...a great deal has yet to be done to teach them the methods and objects of their work." In other words, the supervisors of the supervisors need supervising! For Lenin the Party had to play the leading role in all spheres of Soviet life. From this all else followed; from Stalin to the final collapse of the whole impossible structure, crushed by a dead-weight of empty dreams. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden

Shortly after the September 11th disaster, the US government identified Osama Bin Laden as its lead terrorist target. I saw a follow-up national TV news story reporting that Osama was totally dependent on dislysis machine treatment...it seemed credible. I have not seen a similar report since. If he does require/required such treatment he should have had major difficulty surviving in the Afghan/Pakistan caves, as our government reported as his hiding places. He would also have had diffulty surviving to this date. If this is true, maybe government searches should have traced a dialysis machine trail.

Could you verify whether Osama Bin Laden did require/requires regular dialysis machine treatments? If he does, what ailment is being treated?

TyRonne de DuPonte' —Preceding unsigned comment added by TyRonne de DuPonte' (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Try here it's a complete medical history, including information inferred or discovered by intelligence services that has been revealed to the media. I can't vouch for the reliability of the site, but the article seems very well referenced. Evidently Osama does not require dialysis, but does suffer from kidney stones. There used to be a wikipedia page about the CIA's analysis of his gait, which I believe they use to verify his identity in the videos as it is very difficult to imitate, but I can't find it. Essentially I think the CIA determined from the way he walked that he had something wrong with him, possibly bone problems, but that it was not renal failure. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Marlborough coat of arms

Coat of arms of Marlborough

Are there more informations on the coat of arms of the Marlboroughs? Why a double-ehaded eagle, the spanish motto and the Shell of Saint James?--Tresckow (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the bit about the spanish moto is explained on the page the image resides on, Duke of Marlborough, which states "The meaning of the motto, Fiel pero desdichado (Faithful but unfortunate), can be related to the fact that as a consequence of his loyalty to the king, the first duke lost his home and lands. It is original having the motto in Spanish and not in Latin. That could be related to the fact that the first duke become honored after the battle of Blenheim, decisive in the Spanish succession war." There's no reference but it seems plausible.

However, despite my best efforts on Google I can't find anything that explains the origins of the various parts of the coat of arms. I wouldn't be too shocked if Clio knows, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep I read this explanation. But I wondered if there was more to it. Considering the eagles that are rather odd for British heraldry. At least in my opinion. sadly Google has nothing to offer.--Tresckow (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Imperial Eagle and princely coronet are to do with the first Duke holding the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (an honour granted by the Emperor in 1705). With regard to the shells, the part of the arms the OP is interested in is the quarters representing Spencer. They weren't part of the arms until added by the 3rd Duke, whose father was a Spencer, his mother Lady Anne Churchill. The 14th century arms of Hugh le Despencer were Quarterly argent and gules, in the second and third quarters a fret or, over all a bend sable. It isn't certain that these Spencers were descended from him, except through female lines. When we come to Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland (1674-1722), father of the 3rd Duke, the bend sable is differenced by three escallops argent, distinguishing him from other Spencers, who bore on that bend five mullets argent or three fleurs-de-lys. Xn4 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The German eagle has its head turned to our left hand, and the Roman eagle to our right hand. When Charlemagne was made "Kaiser of the Holy Roman Empire," he joined the two heads together, one looking east and the other west...

Benét, W. R. (1948). "two-headed eagle." The reader's encyclopedia p. 327.—eric 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I always thought the Double-headed eagle was the symbol of the Byzantine Empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So it was, but adopted also by a miscellany of empires. One of the most surprising uses is on the arms and flag of little Albania. Xn4 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pope's Airplane

This morning on the radio a newscaster stated the Shepard 1 was in the air, the Vadican reports that the Pope is on his way to America. Was this a joke? or Does the Pope fly in a plane called Shepard1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raszone (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article: [19] will answer your questions. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he does. CNN mention the Shepherd 1, as to many other news sources. It's not as strange as the Popemobile, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Resourceful Tips to be a Qualified Cartoonist?

I was asking how to be a cartoonist without a acquainted edge on illustration or drawing characters before.

I had a interest by watching cartoon shows these days namely Stephen Hilling's (or whatever his name was) brainchild of the American program, Spongebob Squarepants. I envied the genius of making a sponge speak and have typical human characteristics and so I thought it wouldn't be so bad if I made characters of my own to entertain. --Writer Cartoonist (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be only me but I don't really understand your question. What is 'to be a qualified cartoonist'? Do you mean with a diploma? By cartoonist you seem to mean character designer or did you mean something else (someone that writes and draws newspaper cartoons, animation ,comic books)? Making up goofy things might cover most of it? Practice and looking at 'cartoons' are the two basic ingredients it would seem to me. Maybe you could rephrase your question (for me anyway). Using google queries such as 'cartoon blogs', 'illustration blogs', 'drawing ressource', 'character design', etc, will show you how broad the field is. All the best. Keria (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are how-to cartoon books, and illustration courses from community college to degree level and cartoon workshops, so googling is the way to go. If a person has ideas they can get a cartoonist to collaborate with them which is what Harvey Pekar did. He had ideas but not the cartooning ability. I guess you've thought of training yourself by copying, developing stylistic bits that you like and putting them into your characters. I saw a little book that played on the stick man theme because the guy had ideas but could only draw stick men. It worked. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You could practice by yourself, attempting to draw the human body in motion in various poses. try buying a small mannequin withadjustable joints and just sketch its body shape accurately and try to add features. The human body is really complex and difficult to make look realistic, so it'll improve your ability endlessly. Try and give your drawings character, or even better attempt to create characters, like a storyboard or something. I've no idea how to do cartoons in flash but I'd imagine you'd still need to be able to draw pretty well, depending on what style you're doing. Practice is the best way to get good, and I find that when you sketch out a character, the ideas normally turn up pretty quickly. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

JeffreyLotusSan

Mister San was born on October 4th, 1993 and has made many accomplishments. He has been through many struggles in life, and yet is living it to the fullest. He is loved by the most awesomest people on earth, like Tho Nguyen.

Jeffrey San became the queen of [name here] kingdom, ruled by his one and only king, Tho Nguyen. Misz Nguyen has hired a noble servant who has been there for both her& her queen through many troubles. Vuong Tran, would be this handsome [gag] gentleman's name.

Vuong Tran, was born February 3rd, 1993 and is currently still walking. He likes to be himself& day dream about [fill it in]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misz thoquin (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this some sort of wiki Mad Libs? Dismas|^(talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Specialized Prison Cells

I remember seeing pictures, several years ago, of a private and highly secure room that was to hold a very high-profile criminal for his life-time sentence. My memory seems to suggest that it was built in Britain for an Islamic terrorist, but this could be false. I also feel like I saw it on the http://news.bbc.co.uk website, but this could also be wrong. I've tried searching that site, along with general google searches, but I can't seem to turn anything up. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a very strange idea. Does anyone remember ever hearing about a special prison room, designed with one criminal in mind? It's one of those things that has been pinging around the back of my head for a long time, and I'd love to have it cleared up. Thanks in advance for anything you think up! -Vannav (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Loveable characters from literature

What male characters or heroes of literature would you fall in love with? Keria (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If I´d be a girl most likely with Jean Valjean, Javert or Colonel Brandon (that is if he´s like Allan Rickman in the movie).--Tresckow (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Heathcliff! I hated you; I loved you.[20]. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All the chicks dig Mike Hammer. ;-) —Kevin Myers 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, some of us are handicapped in this! But judging by the women I can't resist, I'll say Lord Peter Wimsey. Xn4 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not limit it to males here! Wrad (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I were a chick or gay, I'd probably go for Lazarus Long. Since I'm not a chick or gay, I'd go for pretty much any Heinlein heroine especially Laz Long's twin "daughters", Lapis Lazuli and Lorelei Lee. "'What would you do if you had a million dollars?', 'Two chicks at the same time'" - Not Heinlein but it gets the point across... Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Common ones I hear are Mr Darcy (handsome and smouldering) and Mr Knightley (sensible, good-natured and handsome) from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Emma, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights (why? I have no idea, whatsoever), Jean Valjean (older, honourable, gentlemanly), Marius (sensitive, romantic) and Enjolras (strong, leader type) from Les Miserables. Steewi (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional - I'd be interested to know JackofOz's opinion here. Steewi (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Steewi, thanks for the interest in my opinions, but this is actually quite a tough call for me. I've been so immersed in non-fiction reading for so long that fictional characters do not readily suggest themselves to me. I'll have a memory search and get back to you. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I realise - probably for the very first time, actually - that as I matured to the point where I was able to fall in love with anyone, I unconsciously decided that fictional characters, interesting as they can be, are just not available to fall in love with in a real sense, and so I switched my attention to real people. Hence my interest in biography and non-fiction in general when it comes to reading. I can certainly fall in love with characters from movies, but I suspect that's strongly influenced by the actor/tress playing the part. For example, I love Alec from E.M. Forster's Maurice, but if an actor other than the delectable Rupert Graves had played the role in the movie, I suspect I couldn't give a fig for Alec. In my strange mind, the actor and the role are often merged into one. Maybe I need more boundaries in my life. Thanks for the opportunity to continue on my steady and unremitting path to self-actualisation. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I need to justify my dreams to you, Steewi, but I see in Heathcliff all of the uncontrolled and elemental passions; dark, brooding and impossibly romantic. You are quite obviously male...or most awfully tame! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Wrad (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

True on both accounts, Clio, but you assume that my maleness would completely remove my opinion... Steewi (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit of an odd question for a predominantly male website. I'll have to say anyone but Lovecraft's Cthulhu. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I can include pop-culture literature, there's replicant Roy Batty; (segueing to the movie: especially his monologue at the end summarising his short, harsh life). He was weird, but admire-able. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to go with Rhett Butler. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Scarlet Pimpernel, perhaps? · AndonicO ^Engage. 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

April 16

Woman and money

Do woman care more about the financial situation of their partner than men do? 217.168.0.112 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose they do. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it too. However, it is no surprise at all, since most men don't care at all about the financial situation of woman. Anyway, in our modern times woman are able to structure their life independently of men - what means that they earn their own money and don't have to think about the income of their partners if they don't want to. 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltnVinegar (talk • contribs)

Lots of men work to support their wife and children so that they will be in a good financial situation. In these situations, I'd say the "care" is mutual. (Always that problem with lumping the sexes in a group and making general statements!) Wrad (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's surely to do with men, all over the world, having the lion's share of the income. Most women understand poverty and dependency better than men do, though perhaps in the developed world this is at last becoming less true than in all past ages. Xn4 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course, I meant only the part of the world where I am. Woman in some countries have to fight against considerable social discrimination.SaltnVinegar (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Meat on Fridays

Is it a sin to eat meat on Fridays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In what religion? Wrad (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And what meat? SaltnVinegar (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think it's pretty clear we're talking about Roman Catholicism and animal flesh other than fish - as far as I know it's the only religion which restricts meat ingestion (vs complete fasting) on Fridays (if I'm wrong on this I'd love to hear more about the others which others seem to have in mind). With regard to this restriction, the Code of Canon Law revised in 1983 says this: "Canon 1251: Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday." However, most Episcopal Conferences (i.e., the local bishops) have determined that an act of penance other than abstinence from meat can substitute - so the answer to your question is that for Catholics, some form of penance on Fridays is required, that this form of penance can take the form of abstention from meat, and can take other forms based on the determination of the local bishops. - Nunh-huh 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Abstinence would include smoking tobacco and that other stuff. --Wetman (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are all kinds of abstinence, and the canon above is not discussing tobacco or "stuff". - Nunh-huh 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Practitioners of Magic

I was writing a paper for school about the history of magic and it's various beliefs up until the modern times. Although the paper is completed, I still haven't been able to find why there are so many titles for a practitioner of magic (Witch, Wizard, Sorcerer, Magician, Shaman, etch). I've search the web quite thoroughly (for more than a week now) and was still unable to come up with any information pertaining to the historical significants, only the basic definitions. So my question is: why are there so many titles and what is the difference between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.124.231 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Take different languages and different cultural beliefs and you get the word list; add demonising by the powers of the time, and you get negative or positive reputations/meanings. Maybe you've been there already, but I've made links to our articles of the terms in your question that you might like to click through. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you included Miracle, or is yours a parochial school? --Wetman (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

homestead exemption

my grandfather wants to put two more homes on his 5 acres but i will be living in one and my uncle in the other we will pay all bills our selves so basically 3 homes on 5 acres. My question is does this cause him to l0se his exemption and is that even allowed or do we have to sepperate the land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.210.152 (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume this has something to do with a Homestead exemption in the US? Does that article help? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous quotes

Who said 'In victory we must prepare for defeat' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrie buck (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the firewalking Anthony Robbins that's for sure. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

english boarding schools for girls

did any of you english chicks here go to boarding school and was it anything like st trinains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo McGoogle III (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no. But "anything like St Trinians" is awfully vague you know. If you are really interested, take a look at boarding school and list of boarding schools. Those in the UK all have jolly good websites. By the way, I am now a hen.--Mrs Wibble-Wobble (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lohr and the Greek Resistance

I was looking for information on the German response to the growth of the Greek Resistance movement in World War 2, specifically the response of Alexander Lohr, the Commander of the South East area, but there is not much, either in his biography page or the more general articles on the Axis in Greece and the Greek resistance. How, then, did Lohr react, and what were the consequences? How did the resistance war change German attitudes towards the Greeks? Thank you for giving this your time. Vasilis Tsironikis (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The deaf in the ancient world

How were the deaf perceived in the ancient world? Your page on the History of the deaf is no help at all because it's only about sign language.217.43.9.32 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[21] [22] I found these quite a good source on the subject (You need Powerpoint for the second). PeterSymonds | talk 09:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hell is an empty desk

Can anyone please tell me who said this first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardieparrot (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Smersh

In a James Bond book, "Live and let die", an organisation is mentioned who name sounds foreign, an I think is something to do with communism. The name rhymes with sm-er-sh, pronounced according to the general trends of British English enunciation. What is the name of the organisation? --145.29.23.38 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

SMERSH (James Bond) :D Wikipedia has an article on everything. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Page on Norwest Venture Partners

Hi Dear Wiki Volunteers: I have found very good material on several VC firms on the Wikipedia. May I request that a page on Norwest Venture Partners be done as well ? If this is not the right forum, or not an appropriate request, please discard the question :). Thanks for all your efforts, Regards, Anil 59.163.46.162 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)