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

February 25

Did Zionist political violence stop in 1948?

Did Zionist political violence stop with the establishment of the state of Israel? I am unclear how to answer this question, as neutrality is so hard on this sensitive subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

After May 1948, there was a widely-recognized state with an organized military in uniform which fought at least four conflicts with the organized militaries in uniform of other states, so the proper term for such violence would generally be "war". AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You are The OP is perhaps thinking of the 1948-to-present coöpted usage of the term "Zionism" by some antagonistic factors as a label (e.g. "Zionist entity") for that state and its supporters, on charges of the imperialistic usurping of native rights, or when objecting to the policies and practices of the State of Israel. This is employed to distinguish "anti-Zionism" from outright antisemitism directed at the Jewish people whether in Israel or the Diaspora. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is a sort of RfC. The editor is in the middle of dispute with user:Jayjg on Talk:Zionist_political_violence. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin? --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What book is this?

Does anyone know what this science fiction/fantasy novel is? IIRC it was relatively recent (probably later then 2002) and I believe the author was British. It has a short Prometheus insipire subplot where the brother? of someone who considers himself a God is required to keep pushing up a rock up a hill. I believe the brother eventually escaped. But he wasn't the primary character although the 'God' may have been the primary antagonist. I believe it involved multiple worlds, possibly including earth and someone who somehow travelled between worlds. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Was there a character named anything like Sisyphus? That's the guy from Greek mythology who was required to keep pushing up a rock up a hill, watch it roll down again, and repeat the process, forever. He was no sissy. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possibly not what you're thinking of but Terry Pratchet's Eric does involve a section in the latter part of the book of someone damned to do as Sisyphus but first has to undertake the more horrifying task of reading volumes and volumes of Health & Safety manuals first. Nanonic (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In Gene Wolfe's novel Soldier of Arete the hero rescues Sisyphus by, as I recall, splitting the rock. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

animal rights quote

I am looking for the quote of a biologist that said that you cannot compare the suffering of animals. I know it is used by animal rights advocates, but I can't find it anywhere on the internet. I hope this rings any bell to you. Thank you in advance. Maziotis (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be found on this site. [1] MarquisCostello (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I pay Sales tax

I have started a business making rock candles that I sell at art and craft festivals. Most of the shows are in Ga. sometimes the surounding states. I need to know if I have to pay the sales tax for each county that I do the festival in. I have heard that since I pay tax on the raw materials that I only pay tax on my profit quarterly or yearly.

Having trouble finding an answer. Thanks for the help. FWilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbewilson (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This google search has several links which may or may not answer your question. I have no idea if you have found these sites. If you cannot find information yourself, then your best option is either to contact a lawyer or accountant who specializes in tax issues, or to contact the Georgia Department of Revenue yourself, which has a website located here. There is a "contact us" bit in the menu bar. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural disasters/wrecked environment in literature

T. C. Boyle's A Friend of the Earth is set in a future, in which all kinds of pollution have destroyed the environment. Does anyone know any other novels, short stories or even poems dealing with dystopian visions of nature and environment? --95.112.166.243 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In several of Isaac Asimov's novels, earth is depicted as irradiated to the point where it is no longer habitable. Originally, there were some vague allusions that this was due to nuclear war, but his later novels retconned an explanation that it was a deliberate act designed to encourage earthlings to leave earth and colonize the galaxy. As another example, in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein depicts earth as on the brink of Malthusian catastrophy with some cities so over-populated that they are literally packed shoulder-to-shoulder with people. There are probably many others as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, a number of Philip K. Dick's books were set in dystopian futures or presents. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The '07 Pulitzer winner, The Road by Cormac McCarthy, takes place in a post-apocalyptic future in which life has been all but eradicated due to unexplained circumstanced. Nature is kaput, at any rate, though there are still some people staggering around being horrible to each other. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There must surely be very many. On the Beach (novel), Riddley Walker both came to mind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the List of dystopian literature is categorized by date, not by type of dystopia. --Anonymous, 19:54 UTC, February 25, 2009.

The Purple Cloud by M. P. Shiel is considered on of the first instances of apocalyptic literature where the apocalypse is triggered by science in particular. --140.247.243.27 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Z for Zachariah by Robert C. O'Brien is often set by high school teachers (well, it was back in my day). Gwinva (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Two I remember, though I think the cause, in each case, was nuclear war, are David Brin's The Postman and Walter Miller's A Canticle for Leibowitz. // BL \\ (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The subgenre you're looking for is the Dying Earth subgenre. The article has a short list of examples, but google might turn up more. Steewi (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The dying earth subgenre is something rather different from what (most of, I don't know all these books) this thread is about. For example, dying earth stories are much further in the future, and the dying is not normally a result of human activity. Algebraist 00:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength, N.I.C.E. (National Institute of Coordinated Experiments) want to sterilize the Earth and put up "art trees". Enter Mr. Bultitude. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In his The Magician's Nephew there is also a world where all life was destroyed by a powerful magic word. The sun is put out in The Last Battle. Also in Byron's poem Darkness (poem), the sun goes out and the entire world freezes over. Wrad (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And we must remember Pierre Boulle's Planet of the Apes, originally published in French as La Planète des singes. // BL \\ (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We read The Chrysalids in high school (although the intended reading age is probably younger than that). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, The City Underground by Suzanne Martel (I should have asked about that on the RD, someone else probably could have found "underground Montreal year 3000 nuclear war" faster than me!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks for all the answers! -- 93.132.161.2 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the first of this genre I ever read was Robert Silverberg's Time of the Great Freeze where folks live in an underground city protected from the new ice age. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of novels in this genre. Have you had a look at Science fiction#Apocalyptic and Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction? A recent best-seller, with a movie on the way, is Cormac McCarthy's The Road. There are some novels set in times so post-apocalyptic that no one remembers the apocalypse, except perhaps the "remembering machines", and the earth may have returned to a fruitfulness but for certain aspects we notice and the characters do not (e.g. sterile oceans); try Ursula K. LeGuin's Always Coming Home. Others are set near our times, with the apocalypse coming towards us like a freight train, which the protagonists may or may not be able to head off; e.g. desertification and collapse of the water table has fostered a draconian political situation in Starhawk's The Fifth Sacred Thing, also set in California. Some of Margaret Atwood's novels deal with the theme of social collapse after natural or man-made disasters, notably Oryx and Crake and The Handmaid's Tale. Marge Piercy, who anticipated cyberpunk with Woman on the Edge of Time in 1976, dealt with these themes head-on in He, She and It (aka City of Glass). I could go on....

I was prompted to look up Suzanne Martel, mentioned above (the things you learn on Wikipedia!), and found this in The Canadian Encyclopedia: "The City Under Ground (1964) is a science fiction story about brothers who leave the underground world where people have lived since a nuclear attack and discover the world of nature." Good luck and happy reading! BrainyBabe (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jewish MPs (UK)

Hiya :-) Does anyone happen to know how many Jewish people there are in the British House of Commons, who they are, what positions they hold (ministers, shadow cabinet?) etc.? Thanks so much! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See List of British Jewish politicians. I know for a fact that Jack Straw, Michael Howard, Oliver Letwin, Margaret Hodge,David Miliband,Ed Miliband and Lynne Featherstone still sit in the House today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarquisCostello (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I saw the list, thanks, but it's a question of who's still in the House, which that list doesn't state. Someone might know ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There has always been a definitional problem with Jewish Parliamentarians in that some identify as Jewish by religion, while some who have Jewish parents are not religious. You may however be interested in the recently published book "Jewish Parliamentarians" which profiles all who probably meet the description. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

looking for a book I read 10 years ago

I can not remember the title. It was about climbing a mountain in Switzerland that was supposedly unclimbable. The main character's father had died trying to climb it earlier. It was a fictional work. I don't recall anything high tech in the book like cars or helicopters, so it was probably set in the 19th century or perhaps early 20th but I could be wrong on that. It was in English. Any ideas? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Banner in the Sky by James Ramsey Ullman? It was made into a Disney movie, Third Man on the Mountain. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

February 26

Universal Healthcare in the United States

If the government of the United States decided to institute a Universal Healthcare system, run by the Federal Government, what clause in our constitution would support it? Would it be the Commerce Clause? 66.229.148.27 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably the thin legal argumentation that makes the Social Security Administration constitutional too: [2]. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See Taxing and spending clause. Basically, the government can spend money on almost anything. Its regulatory powers are narrower. Assuming the healthcare system imposed included regulatory elements, that would probably fall under the interstate commerce clause. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk should provide answers, not opinions. I don't have time to research this topic. The broadest embrace of federal power is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which the problems of the Great Depression, widened considerably. Although the present Court and the Rehnquist court trimmed the expanse of the clause, it is still formidable. Congressional findings are important for justifying use of a federal power. The SSA is valid, it is not thinly valid. We can post debates between the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society all day. They remain citizen opinions. Hopefully, someone will arrive with citations for cases that clearly express Congress' authority in this area.75Janice (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

You're committing a crime

Ehud Barak is on List of assassins.. how dare you call him an assassin. You have no evidence. --201.254.84.133 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He's on the list because our article on him says he was an assassin during his service in Sayeret Matkal. Comments about the content of an article are best made on the talk page of the article in question. 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)DuncanHill (talk)

But an assassin is a criminal! and he is not a criminal! --201.254.84.133 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sayeret Matkal engaged in assassinations. This is a fact. (See, for example, 1973 Israeli raid on Lebanon.) They no doubt committed crimes in the process. These are not really up for debate. Whether you think their assassinations were, in the end, moral, justified, etc., is an entirely different question from whether they were legal (under whose jurisdictions?). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Assassinations" is your choice of word; what about extra-judicial killings? See the latter page for the distinction; I suggest it better fits the case of Sayeret Matkal (with no different moral equivocation implied, nor language-laundering or sheer semantics). -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

But understand what I mean, if he committed crimes he would have been charged or accused by some International Court and it never happened. --201.254.84.133 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Murder per se is not an international crime. (Assassination as a method of terrorism may or may not be, and in any case is not yet within the jurisdiction of the ICC). And in any case state terrorism may or may not be within the definition of terrorism at international law.

Assassination per se is probably not a crime in many jurisdictions, especially if it is sanctioned by the government and/or in the interest of national defence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, libel is not a crime in a number of jurisdictions although a person may still sue you for defamation. Evidentally Florida has criminal libel laws [3] although this 1991 source [4] suggests they unconstitional but they're being used in this modern internet age [5] and haven't yet been ruled completely unconstitional but some have [6] and it doesn't seem they reached the Supreme Court yet. Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See our page on Extrajudicial killings, the nature and instances of which are treated separately from assassination. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Israel routinely carries out assassinations "targeted killings". Their military obviously considers it a legitimate tactic. --Sean 13:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed by original editor Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Perhaps. The place for a discussion of the purpose of List of assassins is Talk:List of assassins. Algebraist 14:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

True. I've removed my argument for the disinclusion of Mr. Barak, making Algebraist's remark immediately above refer to nothing. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"To-may-to", "to-mah-to." "Assasination," "extrajudicial killing," "targeted killing," "wet work."Edison (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Title of Dante's Commedia

Greetings,

I'm wondering if the background behind the Divine Comedy's original title is known? It predates Commedia dell'arte, and I can't find the original Italian meaning (the full meaning, not just a literal translation to "comedy") of the word.

Thanks a lot, Aseld ^talk 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an explanation of sorts in the article on The Divine Comedy, in the thematic concerns section:

"Dante called the poem "Comedy" (the adjective "Divine" added later in the 14th century) because poems in the ancient world were classified as High ("Tragedy") or Low ("Comedy"). Low poems had happy endings and were of everyday or vulgar subjects, while High poems were for more serious matters. Dante was one of the first in the Middle Ages to write of a serious subject, the Redemption of man, in the low and vulgar Italian language and not the Latin language as one might expect for such a serious topic."

- Eron^Talk 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Apologies; should have read the article more carefully. --Aseld ^talk 05:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Dante himself had to say (if, that is, one accepts the attribution of the letter to Can Grande to him):

Comedy, then, is a certain genre of poetic narrative differing from all others. For it differs from tragedy in its matter, in that tragedy is tranquil and conducive to wonder at the beginning, but foul and conducive to horror at the end, or catastrophe. … Comedy, on the other hand, introduces a situation of adversity, but ends its matter in prosperity. … And, as well, they differ in their manner of speaking. Tragedy uses an elevated and sublime style, while comedy uses an unstudied and low style. … So from this it should be clear why the present work is called the Comedy. For, if we consider the matter, it is, at the beginning, that is, in Hell, foul and conducive to horror, but at the end, in Paradise, prosperous, conducive to pleasure, and welcome. And if we consider the manner of speaking, it is unstudied and low, since its speech is the vernacular, in which even women communicate. (Trans. Robert S. Haller)

Deor (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Speech made by the Australian Prime Minister

I've been sent one of these circular emails which claims to report the exact text by the current Australian Prime Minister. Reading his biog on here and his quotes on Wikipedia, it seems most unlikely that he ever made this speech. How can I find out? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you get an email that seems suspicious, you can often just enter a distinctive phrase from it (in quotes) into Google and find various pages (e.g., Snopes) pointing out that it's a hoax. --Sean 13:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Was it this email? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup! That's the one. As I thought! Many thanks. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which refers to the former (not the present) Prime Minister. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What's this philosophical belief?

What's the name of the philosophical belief which states that moral judgments are meaningless from an objective standpoint and are just opinions(for instance, if you say "killing is wrong" you're really saying "I dislike killing" or more crudely "Killing stinks!")? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It think you want ethical subjectivism, though 'Killing stinks!' is perhaps closer to emotivism. Algebraist 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, relativism? Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, moral relativism? Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, in more formal philosophy, Nihilism meets this definition the best. From our article: "Nihilists generally assert that objective morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no objective moral values with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over another." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In more formal philosophy, Algebraist's answer is best, although see also expressivism. Nihilism is a vague word with various meanings and it doesn't capture the full sense of what the questioner is asking. (The article on moral nihilism says "Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism, and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but do not assign any static truth-values to moral statements.")

The difference between emotivism and ethical subjectivism is that the latter states that moral propositions are meaningful and it makes sense to discuss moral ideas, whereas emotivism holds that there are no moral propositions, just gut reactions (making it non-cognitivist; hence it is sometimes called the "hurrah/boo theory"). Expressivism is a related non-cognitivist topic, holding that moral judgements don't express moral facts but instead the attitude (likes/dislikes) of the speaker; it differs from emotivism in holding that moral judgements are not primarily emotional reactions (they may be beliefs, expressions of opinion, or commandments). The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy has some good articles that explore the topic in a more formal way than Wikipedia[7][8][9][10]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Some associate that stance with post-modernism. DanielDemaret (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cairo talks, February 2009

[11] says that 13 Palestinian groups are meeting for unity talks in Cairo. The article names Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, DFLP, PPP and Islamic Jihad. But which are the other seven groups present? Any news links? --Soman (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[12] indicates that PNI, PPSF, PFLP-GC, Fida and ALF are also present. So who are the remaining 2? --Soman (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine there will be some Mossad agents there. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is the United States an Empire? I have heard the term before somewhere but it doesn't appear to be a common term in my area. What qualifies it as an empire if it is one? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See American Empire. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget Norton I, Emperor of the United States, Protector of Mexico. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it referred to as the Empire of Liberty. Exxolon (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not an Empire that would be ruled by an emperor but it can be looked at as imperialistic. Livewireo (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Empire of Liberty", by the way, was Thomas Jefferson's phrase; he also used "Empire for Liberty". In Jefferson's day, "empire" simply meant a large, diverse country (or confederation of states), and so the Founding Fathers of the US frequently spoke of their creation as an empire, even though they had no desire for emperors or monarchs. A century ago, an "empire" was a state that imposed dominion over other territories. Now it just means a large state whose foreign policy you don't like. ;-) —Kevin Myers 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Historian Niall Ferguson argues that it is, but that being so isn't necessarily a bad thing, in his book Colossus: The Rise and Fall of The American Empire. Some of the beginning part of that covers some hand-wringing wherein Americans recognise the US has many of the characteristics of an empire, but are deeply unhappy at it being called that. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what have the Romans ever done for us? Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In South America, where the US has a long history of interfering in internal affairs, many refer to the US as "The Empire". Perhaps you heard this from a South American source? DanielDemaret (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. actually has a much longer history of interfering in the affairs of Central America and the Caribbean than in South America -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Statehood Monument on Market Street, San Francisco, quotes Senator Seward (iirc) saying THE VNITY OF OVR EMPIRE HANGS ON THE DECISION OF THIS DAY (i.e., on the question of admitting California as a State). —Tamfang (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. acted like an empire in the 1890's when it seized Cuba (including Guantanamo), Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the Phillipines, because fueling stations for ships were necessary to maintaining a worldwide navy. The Phillipines finally got their independence from colonial rule by the U.S. in 1946. Hawaii was absorbed as a state in the 1950's, Puerto Rico is still ruled by the U.S. after 111 years , and Guantanamo is still maintained as a naval base/prison through a contract of adhesion wherein the U.S. could keep Guantanamo as long as it chose. Empire? Certainly, but without an emperor. Edison (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The US has a long history of imperialism. Jefferson himself oversaw the Louisiana Purchase, which placed great numbers of people, including many "civilied" Europeans' and descendants under US jurisdiction without consent. The Mexican Cession forced even larger numbers of "foreigners" to live under US rule without choice. Perhaps the most obviously imperial example is the many American Indian Wars which were often undisguised wars of conquest, forced land cessions, and the long-lasting legal status of defeated Indians as "wards of the state" or at best "second class citizens". The American mythos calls it Manifest Destiny, a noble thing. But isn't this just a feel-good gloss over imperialism? Pfly (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See the recent BBC Radio 4 series America, Empire of Liberty, and Denys Arcand's film The Decline of the American Empire. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Syria as non-member of Francophonie

Why Syria is not a member of Francophonie, even though it was under the French control during the Interwar Period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.34 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't want to be? Many former French colonies actually have had mixed feelings about having been recipients of the mission civilisatrice, and some Syrians have bitter historical memories about the whole Sykes-Picot and Battle of Maysalun thing, as well as the unilateral French cession of Alexandretta to Turkey. I'm not sure that French was ever as widely used in Syria as it was in Lebanon, anyway. AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Francophonie is sort of the French analog to the Commonwealth of Nations. Just as there are former British colonies which have opted out of the Commonwealth, there are likely many former French colonies which have opted out of Francophonie. It's not exactly the same, since Francophonie is more about French language than French colonialism, so some nations, like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Egypt, which were never French colonies, ARE members because of their sizable French-speaking population. Likewise, there are some areas with sizable French-speaking populations, such as parts of the United States (specifically Louisiana and New England) which are not members. It is a voluntary organization, so places like Syria and Algeria, both former French colonies, may have political reasons to not join. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana is actually an observer, which is all that it is eligible for. Two Canadian provinces are member governments but under the Canadian membership. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana is not an observer in La Francophonie, although it takes part in the Association parlementaire de la Francophonie, the Francophone parliamentary association. Observer status in La Francophonie is reserved for states; sub-national governments can become part of la Francophonie as a "Participating government". At this time, only Quebec, New Brunswick and the Communauté française de Belgique have this status. As for Syria, it has chosen not to seek membership for domestic political reasons (i.e. it considers itself to be a part of the Arab world only). --Xuxl (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well they are an observer in the ordinary sense of the word, perhaps without the fancy title. They took part in the recent summit in Quebec for example and Bucharest before that. Incidentally Syria is a member of the the parliamentary association as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Movement Along the Supply/Demand Curve

In introductory economics classes, you hear a lot about movements along the curve versus shifts of the curve. However, while real-life examples are often given of the latter, none ever seem to be given for the movements along the curve; i.e. it always seems as if ANY change in ANYTHING in the market shifts the entire curve. Is the idea of a movement just a fantasy? Can anyone provide an example of the price changing that results in a movement along one of the curves? Thank you 136.152.140.202 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A shift in one curve corresponds to a movement along the other. For example, if demand for gas increases, the price of gas increases and so too does the quantity sold -- that's a movement along the supply curve. Wikiant (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, but is there ever a time when only a movement takes place? in the free market, there must be some shift in a curve to change the price and quantity. i don't understand the importance of learning about movements, that's my point.136.152.144.128 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Only when there is a disequilibrium. By definition, if the market remains in equilibrium, a shift in one curve is accompanied by a movement along another. An example of disequilibrium is the case of the minimum wage. If the government imposes a minimum wage that is above the free market wage, then we move up the demand curve and up the supply curve. The result is a higher wage, a lower quantity demanded of labor, and a greater quantity supplied of labor. Wikiant (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I don't understand how the original poster is using the word "movement". The curves move, and the intersection of the two curves determines the price in a free market. What do you think is moving along the curve? One can record how prices and supply change over time and graph the datapoint dots to see the intersection points of the theoretical curves. The curves themselves are pretty much imaginary, e.g. it's taken on faith that more people will buy something if it's cheaper (as long as it's not luxury goods), even if there is no practical way for an actual person to buy an item for 1/1000th of a cent less than the previous price. - BanyanTree 02:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Movement along the curve" is a standard phrase used in economics textbooks to describe a change in price due to something other than a shift in the curve in question. The curves are not imaginary, but rather are graphical representations of idealized relationships. Wikiant (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, and this is the essence of my original question. they teach this to us in class, but it doesn't seem to really translate to anything in the real world, as banyantree correctly pointed out. i'm just very confused why the teachers and authors think this is an essential point to make when it really means nothing at all169.229.75.140 (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bangabhumi

I know that Khulna and Barisal Divisions of Bangladesh will be part of the idea of Bangabhumi. Do you know which two districts of West Bengal will be part of this idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.34 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism

After reading the article "Baloch Nationalism", I notice at the bottom of the page that you put Sindh nationalism, Khalistan and Marathi. What about Gujarati, Oriya, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Assamese, and Bengali in West Bengal and Pashto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.34 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited by millions of people around the world, there is no "you," it is "we." If you wish to see it changed, be bold and change it yourself. Livewireo (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag draped coffin photos

Per [13] the flag draped coffins ("transfer cases" in government-speak) of America's returning war dead can now be photographed, as long as the family agrees. What possible mechanism or process could be set up to notify the families that the coffin is due to land at Dover Air Base, then get back permission from the families of all on board, then notify the Associated Press and other news agencies to send a photographer? Or would they Photoshop out the coffins of those whose families did not give permission? How can one flag draped coffin be distinguished from another, since they are not talking about photos showing the face of the deceased? Has any newspaper or press service announced plans to publish photos of all such planeloads of flag draped caskets, or to carry videos of each on the evening news? Edison (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on other considerations, they could do an opt-in or opt-out pre-approval form. Perhaps attached to the notice (phone? in person?) of when the coffin will arrive in the country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're on to something, Edison. That is, Obama doesn't want such pics in the paper any more than Bush did, knowing the press will print those pics daily with few pics of the far more people who die each day of other causes, giving the public the impression that our soldiers are being massacred daily when the casualties are actually quite light. This could undermine public support for any military actions, present or future (such as to stop the genocide in Darfur). However, just banning such pics is bad PR, too. So better to pretend to allow them, but set up a difficult, nebulous process for getting permission, so that it doesn't actually happen. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a better approach would be to allow photos of flag-draped coffins so long as this coverage is proportional to coverage of US deaths from other causes. So, if one soldier a day dies in combat, and 10,000 US civilians die a day from other causes, then every photo of a flag-draped coffin would require 10,000 photos of other coffins, at the same size, in the same paper. This would stop press bias towards over-reporting military deaths, without creating any sense of a cover-up. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not fair. How about number of photographs of as many US civilians die out side USA in a day? Is there any such count? 122.169.127.46 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the established religion, people authorized to kill are special; therefore the Govt has no cause to complain if their deaths are emphasized over others. To treat them as no more important than the deaths of octogenarian tourists would be failing to Support Our Troops. —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many "special" groups which are underrepresented in the press, like children who die of diseases (you generally only hear about them when someone is begging for money for those diseases), or minorities who are murdered, or accident victims. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Garden of Death

Calling all Oscar Wilde experts! And all Sergey Nikiforovich Vasilenko (who?) experts! I doubt there are any Vasilenko experts here, but I've been amazed before, and am prepared to be amazed again.

In 1907-08 Vasilenko wrote an orchestral work called The Garden of Death, symphonic poem after Oscar Wilde, Op. 13. I’ve been trying to track down some information about its source, for Music based on the works of Oscar Wilde, but no luck. There's no poem or story of that name by Wilde - that I can find. It does sound like a title that Wilde might have come up with, and he did indeed use that expression, but not as the title of anything. Virginia, a character in the short story The Canterville Ghost, mentions "The Garden of Death" in her conversation with the eponymous ghost (Chapter 5), but it's never repeated and there's no explanation of it. That's the only connection with The Canterville Ghost that I can see. This site provides the text of a poem called "I'm Glad she was There", which includes the phrase "the garden of death", and claims it's from The Canterville Ghost. But that seems wrong on 2 counts: that poem doesn't appear in the text of the story; and imho it doesn't look remotely like anything that Oscar Wilde would have written.

And yet, here's another person who wrote a musical work called "The Garden of Death", which also claims to be a setting of words from The Canterville Ghost.

Apart from those two, the best I've come up with are various sites that assert Vasilenko's work is based on "a poem by Oscar Wilde", without saying what the poem is. Wilde's writings are replete with allusions to death, gardens and flowers, so Vasilenko's title may just be a generic nod in his direction. He didn't specify that it was named after any particular work of Wilde's, just "after Oscar Wilde".

But lo and behold! I discover Lord Alfred Douglas wrote a poem called "The Garden of Death". It's an unlikely phrase for two people so closely associated to have independently dreamed up, so I'm assuming one of them copied it from the other. I haven't tracked down when Douglas wrote his poem, so I don't know which person to name as the borrower.

Could Vasilenko have taken the title from Douglas's poem, but still have written his symphonic poem as a sort of tribute to Oscar Wilde? Given Wilde's and Douglas's association, it's not unreasonable. It's just that I've never heard of anything quite like this before – writing something in tribute to Person A but using a title that comes from Person B. It has echoes of "the love that dare not speak its name", an expression that has come to be very strongly associated with Oscar Wilde, but was in fact created, again, by Bosie Douglas.

Can anyone help me pin this down? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I know nothing about Horace Keats, almost nothing about music and just slightly more about Oscar Wilde, this seemed like the perfect Ref Desk question for me. Here [14] I found the first line of Keats's song. The words are "Far away beyond the pine woods, there is a little garden". Interestingly, these are also exactly the opening words of the Ghost's description of the Garden of Death in chapter 5 of The Canterville Ghost. The description immediately precedes Virginia's use of the phrase "The Garden of Death". It is not set like a poem, neither in the link above, nor in my copy of Collected Works of Oscar Wilde (Wordsworth Editions, 1997), but that is no barrier to a composer. I think you could safely add Keats's piece to your list, even though I can only find the one line, and it is otherwise unpublished. // BL \\ (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr Vasilenko's connection will be more difficult to demonstrate unless there are words in this "symphonic poem" to tie to the theme. I suppose there are academics who could make their professional reputation on "proving" such a link through the music alone, but we may be limited to what the composer has said he has done: written a piece of music drawn from Wilde's description of "The Garden of Death". And now, we turn this over to the experts. // BL \\ (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bielle seems to be on the right track. Looking at Keats' sheet music etc, it seems he has set the words of the Canterville Ghost to music: turning prose into lyrics. "Far beyond the pine woods there is a little garden. There the grass grows long and deep, there are the great white stars of the hemlock flower, there the nightingale sings all night long. All night long he sings, and the cold, crystal moon looks down, and the yew-tree spreads out its giant arms over the sleepers." - a description Virginia identifies as "The Garden of Death". Lord Alfred and Wilde undoubtedly inspired each other; perhaps one decided to expound on an idea created by another. It's also a term you can find in other contexts: [15]. If Vasilenko credits Oscar Wilde with the idea ("after Oscar Wilde") then it seems the description also inspired him to music. Gwinva (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ladies, your thoughts make a lot of sense. Essentially, Douglas's poem is a red herring. It may have given Wilde the idea of a "garden of death", but he was the one who chose to use that expression in The Canterville Ghost, and that's what the composers were focussing on. Still, I'd love to find out when Douglas wrote his poem, to see if it preceded Wilde's story or came later. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Lord Alfred Douglas, Wilde and Douglas did not meet until 1891. The Canterville Ghost was first published as a newspaper serial in 1887, some 4 years prior to the meeting. It seems unlikely then that the phrase originated with Douglas. Douglas's poem "The Garden of Death" was published in 1899 by Grant Richards of London in a volume entitled The City of the Soul [16]. I cannot be sure if that was either the first or the only published version, though more than one Ghit gives the date of 1899 for the poem. If I had to put up funds, mine would be on Wilde as the originator, in this case (but then I would have bet money on Wilde as the originator of "the love that dares not speak its name", and lost.) // BL \\ (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bielle to the rescue. I've updated the article with those details. Much obliged, Bielle. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy places to emigrate to

Asking out of curiosity, are there any countries that let anyone emmigrate to themselves or become a pernament resident without formality? As a european I've come to realise how difficult it is for an American to do that here. 78.146.52.210 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read that there are some countries in the Caribbean which effectively sell their citizenship by requiring a very large fee for processing applications. Try checking out Dominica, Guyana, Nicaragua and Suriname. In Europe, Switzerland used to have a reputation for giving citizenship to the very rich, but I believe that there you need to apply in a particular municipality and the local people then vote on your case. This is said to favour middle and upper-class Europeans (whether from Europe or elsewhere) over others. Xn4 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Svalbard. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If one has money, I think the US is probably easy too. I read somewhere that setting up enough money to start a company there, perhaps one million dollars, and hiring people, would get you automatic US citizenship. I have read about similar deals in many countries, formal rules or not. My experience is that changing country of residence without resorting to this sort of deal has become harder and harder. I do not think passports were needed to move between countries before WWI. As far as I can tell, borders between countries are continually solidifying, so whatever country may have been easy to move to a few years ago, may not be as easy today. DanielDemaret (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd expect that you could get into pretty much any country with enough money. Well, that and knowing the proper people to bribe. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Back in 1990–3 I worked for an immigration lawyer in San Francisco. Clients included aliens who operated businesses here (not necessarily owners); so long as they were in business they qualified for an "E" visa, which was not a step toward citizenship. (Unlike "H" it had no time limit.) But I dimly remember there was at least a proposal that aliens (from only some countries?) who made a big enough investment would get a green card, which is a step toward citizenship. —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that deal may have been meant for people leaving Hong Kong in anticipation of the Communist takeover. —Tamfang (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you could get into Somalia very easily. No bureaucratic red tape (among other things). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Literature: slim classics

I've just started reading Voltaire's Candide, only about 100 pages long. It is more amusing and has much more variety than I expected. (Edit - but as I read on, racist and very violent). So unlike the thick doorstopper stodge of over-long Thomas Hardy or Dickens novels (personal view - no offence meant). What other slim classics would people recommend? I can think of Laurence Sterne's A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy, which must have a similar location in time and space. But I am interested in the whole range of literature from any place or time. 78.146.52.210 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh? // BL \\ (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Livingston Seagull -- SGBailey (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich? 160 pages including the intro though and opposite in form to the massive Gulag Archipelago. Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha at 119 pages. Another skinny classic: The Epic of Gilgamesh text itself (Penguin classics) is 58 pages. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great Gatsby and Goodbye Mr Chips are 144 and 128 pages respectively (in the basic editions available on Amazon). Gwinva (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sorrows of Young Werther is only about 145 pages long. LANTZY^TALK 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Kafka's The Metamorphosis 87.112.17.229 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hemmingway's The Old Man and the Sea, Mishima's The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea, and the brilliant Charles Bukowski's Post Office. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Conrad's Heart of Darkness - 112pp. See also Novella and Novelette FYI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Onegin, Pushkin. A "novel" novel for being written in verse (which makes it more engaging--you mention wanting variety]--this is no gimmick). –Outriggr § 01:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Byrne: A Novel, by Anthony Burgess, is slim, a novel, in verse, and better than at least half of the "classics" above. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You might take a look at List of novellas. After a glance over my bookshelves, three slim volumes I can recommend are Nicholson Baker's The Mezzanine, Steven Millhauser's Enchanted Night, and Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities. But there are loads of small gems—even if you don't want to tackle Dickens's Bleak House, why not give The Haunted Man and the Ghost's Bargain a try? Deor (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Time Machine by H.G. Wells comes immediately to mind. --Anonymous, 03:20 UTC, February 27, 2009.

Oh, and of course Lewis Carroll's two books, thin enough that they are now typically published as one, about Alice in Wonderland. --Anon, 03:21 UTC, Feb. 27.

The Stranger by Albert Camus is about 120 pages. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Another one I remember is Matsuo Basho The Narrow Road To The Deep North. 78.149.170.123 (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Rum Diary... cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Turn of the Screw (Henry James) and Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (Robert Louis Stevenson). Gwinva (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Inherit the Wind, though not a novel in the strictest sense, is very short. Of Mice and Men is also rather short. I'd look up page totals for you but I'm at work and our internet sucks compared to at home. Dismas|^(talk) 11:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know The Invention of Morel is a neat 100 pages because it's sitting right next to me, but I'm pretty sure all these are well under 200 pages: The Awakening, The Red Badge of Courage, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, The War of the Worlds, Death in Venice, Siddhartha. Also, look into short stories. A good short story writer can say more in thirty pages than some people fit in a novels. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jane Austen's Lady Susan is really short but not all people like epistolary novels. ;) --Cameron* 19:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Slim classics? Any individual book of the Bible. Depending on your definition, all of the New Testament put together. Dickens might surprise you with the relative brevity of A Christmas Carol. Kipling packed an overview of the foundation of Britain into Puck of Pook's Hill, and of course there is 1066 and All That for more abbreviated history. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything by William Shakespeare, my copy of Hamlet, his longest work, is only about 20 pages. Also short stories. those by Edgar Allen Poe are classics and well worth reading, as are Stephen Donaldson's, which will likely become classics when they are old enough, and the longest is only 100 pages. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Collected short stories of Saki or Lord Dunsany. Any novel by P. G. Wodehouse. —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Juvenalia in general is not a bad bet, as kids tend not to drone on in black and white; in addition to the Austen works (e.g. Love and Friendship [sic]), there is the c. 1900 The Young Visiters [also sic], wickedly observant. Short stories in general are obvious candidates for brevity; top of my list for living writers would be Alice Munro. Don't overlook poetry -- many narrative poems are shorter than short stories, and deliver a punch; try Evangeline. And don't overlook non-fiction: a love story (love-of-books story) is told via letters in 84 Charing Cross Road; it's stretching the word "classic" but is short and wide-ranging. To a certain extent, anything substantially old and still in print satisfies the definition of "a classic". All the best. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Juvenilia. —Tamfang (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Book by old-time, non-notable British author

Someone stashed a bunch of old books in their since sold holiday house – among them was a memoir of childhood that was well-written and interesting for the sociology of the family at the time (Britain, maybe London, early 1900s?). It was a poor, "working-class" anglo family: a clever brother, intellectual mother and more basic postman father. Both boys were very bright: his brother was an inventor and the writer taught himself to play piano as a child without the usual supports of money, opportunity or real pianos. I think he went on to academia or the public service (maybe both?). Don't have enough to find anything on him unless my googlefu is wilted, but I'm curious – anyone? Julia Rossi (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If has been published in britain then it should be in the online catalogue of the British Library. So any guesses about the date of publication, words in the title etc may help you narrow it down. It does sound a little like a memoir I once read, written in various parts. The book you have described might have been the earlier volume to what I read. The names "Church" or "Peter" come to mind, but these might just be memory-noise. Edit: the author I was thinking of was Richard Church. He wrote a number of autobiographical books, one of which was called The Voyage Home. Looking at the British Library Catalogue, there are 34 books published in english between 1900 and 1960 with the word autobiography in the title, and 29 with the word memoir. But it might not have these words in the title. 89.242.103.68 (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Eureka! "Yet Richard Church (b. 1893), the son of a postman, raised and educated in south London..." He wrote several autobiographical books including "Over The Bridge, an Essay In Autobiography", "The Golden Sovereign", and others. See Richard Church (poet). 89.242.103.68 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are a star! Thanks so much for your fine googlefu and resourcefulness. Not so non-notable after all, oops. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Episcopal shield (Image) vs Anglican shield

Is there a difference between the Episcopal Shield symbol and the Anglican Shield symbol and what is the history please.Gordon Oscar (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about their history, but they are almost the same. Both are based on the St George's cross (most familiar in the flag of England, also seen in the flag of Georgia), and both have a field azure (blue) in the cross's first quarter, but whereas the Anglican shield has on that a Chi Rho argent (silver), the Episcopal shield has on it a saltire of small Greek crosses argent. I guess the second has more resonances with the flag of the United States, but this is only a guess. I have also seen a version of the Anglican shield with a mitre over the crossed keys of St Peter on that field azure, which I guess applies to the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Anglican communion. If anyone knows whether any of these have been granted by the College of Arms, I'd be interested to hear. Xn4 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This page (referenced in our article Episcopal Church (United States)), explains the significance of the number and arrangement of the crosses in the Episcopal Shield's first quarter. I can't vouch for its accuracy, though. Deor (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Bear DJ comic

Ok, I once saw a comic/cartoon of a Teddy Bear as a DJ holding a broken record. Really loved that image, but am completely unable to find it. I think it was created by an artist from San Francisco, but that's about all the more I know. Any help locating it would be greatly appreciated (been Googling all day but to no avail.) Thanks! Xous (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The best I can do is a monkey (this is my sly way of saying that I tried googling too, and this was the best I came up with) Belisarius (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

http://dom-productions.ovh.org/files2/Winnie-the-DJ-(cartoon)-Dominique-Bray.jpg -- SGBailey (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This? meltBanana 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you!Xous (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

February 27

Presidential inaugural address which is said by heart

Is It usually said this way? Did some of the previous presidents read it from a paper? When it is said by heart, like this time, is there someone close by with the written text, to help in a case of a problem? This may be asked of course regarding other big addresses, like state of the union etc. Thanks! נרו יאיר (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

When they do it without notes, I'd be very surprised if there's anyone on hand with a "cheat sheet". It's not like singers at the opera, where there's a prompter in a box to help them along if necessary (but there's a complicating factor there - they're singing in a language they may not normally speak at home). Some politicians are naturally gifted in the area of public speaking (not that they probably don't practise behind the scenes), and Obama seems to be one of them. Some public speakers have their main points written on a small card, which would be very easy to disguise. Some do it completely without notes. I'll leave the rest of the question to those who know what they're talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you are thinking of Obama's inaugural address, which it sounds like you are, I don't think it was said by heart. Today's speeches by politicians are almost always said while looking into transparent screens, on which the text is projected (much like news reporters use). I expect every recent inaugural address has been given this way. I'll see if I can find a picture. — Sam 216.133.14.34 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This system is mostly known as a teleprompter (originally a brand name) or autocue device. --Anonymous, 20:08 UTC, February 27, 2009.

You can see a picture of the screen in the image of the audio linked in the article: Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration#Inaugural address. Note that they put two screens up, one on either side, so that the speaker can turn his head and look natural as he speaks to the audience. — Sam 216.133.14.34 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A wise speaker has a printed copy of the address in front of him, to refer to in case the teleprompter breaks or is hacked by the equivalent of a Wikipedia vandal. There appears to be such a script on the podium in most Presidential addresses. Edison (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In this link from the speech to Congress last week, you can see the president with an open binder with the speech inside. Though some politicians like David Paterson have to memorize entire speeches in his memory but he's a special case as he is blind. --Blue387 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Life in the Papal States

Does anyone know where to find information on people's daily life in the Papal States and how it compared to life in other European nations at the same time? Were there significant differences for the average inhabitant? I don't see much about that in the Papal States article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.250.56 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What time period? The Papal States existed for about 1200 years. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They kinda still do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a late source but you should read Pictures from Italy a travelogue by Charles Dickens. It is public domain and available online. He travels through various areas so it would give you something of a comparison. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Authorized to brief reporters on condition of anonymity"

Today in the Post I read

Two senior officials authorized yesterday to brief reporters, on conditions of anonymity and a news embargo on their remarks until this morning, said that no politics were involved in Obama's decision and emphasized a series of high-level meetings he has held with his national security team and military commanders since the inauguration.

How can you be authorized to say something anonymously? Why would it need to be anonymous if it were authorized? — Sam 216.133.14.34 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That you are anonymous to the public does not mean you are anonymous to the company/government body you are speaking on behalf of. The individuals in question were likely authorised to give comments on behalf of an organisation on the basis that these comments would be reported on an anonymous basis. ny156uk (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And because organisations (or estates, if you prefer) adopt conventions which enable them to communicate to mutual benefit (administration gets story out on terms acceptable to it, newshounds get fragment for story). Not everyone connected with (or unconnected with) the transaction may be happy with the convention. In the UK until very recently (and details are hazy) the administration would give anonymous briefings to so-called lobby correspondents. Eventually one paper (either the Guardian or the Independent) rebelled, got sulky, kicked up a stink and refused to attend on anonymous terms ... later IIRC the briefings were de-anonymised. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the benefit of it being anonymous if it's an official comment? Anonymity is usually used when the speaker isn't authorised to speak and they don't want their superiors to know it was them. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They want to control the spin on the news stories, which is driven considerably by the names of the people involved. Imagine how different reaction to that paragraph would be if it said "Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod", or "Leon Panetta and Robert Gates", or "Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell", instead of "two anonymous officials". All of those named people are plausible candidates for being those officials. Substitute in your own officials too, and see how they sound. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Legality of Nazi Germany as a state/government

Do we have any articles or can anyone refer me to any reliable sources regarding whether or not the government of Nazi Germany was legitimate and legal? I'm referring to its very existence, not the actions taken by it. On one of our article's talk pages [17], there's an editor who's claiming "historians do not accept that the Nazi State was legal". This is news to me but granted I'm not a professional historian. He references a 1974 book by someone named "Harold Kutrz" but I don't have this book nor am I familiar with historians enough to know them by name. I'm aware that the Nazis used intimidation and many questionable if not illegal tactics to gain control, but I've never heard it said that the state on the whole was illegal. I've heard arguments that Vichy France wasn't legal, but not Nazi Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the transition from the previous Weimar Republic was done in accordance with German law or the Treaty of Versailles ? Or are you asking about whether the actions of the Nazi government, once in power, were in accordance with German law (which they then wrote) or international law at the time ? StuRat (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The former. I'm trying to understand another editor's comments that according to historians "Hitler was not 'legally elected'" and "the state was not legal therefore its laws were not either". (Yes, I know I can just ask him/her but the discussion on the talk page has evolved into a slight war, so I figured I would get a better answer here.)

As an example, there are arguments that Vichy France wasn't the legitimate government of France. I'm wondering if there's anything similar in regards to Nazi Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal is defined by the local authority in charge of the plot of land where the event occured. If the Nazi government was in charge of the plot of land where they came to power, then their rise was legal under any normal definition of the term. Now, whether their rise to power was moral or just or ethical or right or good is open for debate, and well within reasonable bounds of the meanings of those words, one way or the other. However, charges of "illegality" need to be narrowly defined. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Nazi party was of course not in control of Germany before the election that (more or less) put them in power. Said election did indeed involve a bit of intimidation and vote-rigging, but in my experience it's not usual to call a state (or even a government) illegal just because of questionable elections; there would be a lot of illegal governments around if this were so. Algebraist 17:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They are usually called "illegitimate" rather than "illegal", but only when there was actually some reason to expect a real democracy. There are plenty of dictatorships posing (very poorly) as democracies, and those aren't usually considered illegitimate or illegal. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You can interpret "legal" as "constitutional" and often get a pretty well defined answer - selection of leaders is usually determined by a constitution rather than regular laws (there are exceptions, of course). --Tango (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've modified my original question to be a little more clear. I'm referring to its very existence, not the actions taken by it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between saying that there was vote-rigging and intimdation in the elections that broght the Nazi party to power and saying that its existance itself was entirely illegal. It is rarely helpful to reduce a complex historical situation to a single sentance, especially one as oversimplified as that. One can note that there were problems with the elections that brought the Nazi's to power, but pragmatically they were really in charge of Germany after those elections, so it becomes pointless to debate whether, from the moment they took power, the entire government was somehow illegal. Its something of an ex post facto situation, but once they were in power, it becomes silly to refer to the government itself as illegal. They may have committed illegal acts, under the laws of the nation at that time, during the elections that broght them to power. That, however, does not make the entire government of Nazi Germany "illegal" from 1933-1945. Again, it may have been unjust, it may have been immoral, it may have been evil and bad and an abomination, but use of the term "illegal" is not really applicable in the way you seem to be using it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, I'm trying to understand another editor's comments. You can follow the link in the original question if you want to see the actual statements. (This in the section about whether "execute" or "murder" is NPOV). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They were certainly elected, although I'm not sure those elections were free and fair. The kind of intimidation used during the elections was probably illegal, but I don't know if that would actually invalidate the result under the Weimar laws. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The kind of intimidation was more like street brawls between Nazis and Communists (not like, say, what happens in Zimbabwe). People tend to forget (and definitely do not like to hear) that the Nazis were a perfectly reasonably choice made by perfectly reasonable people; in hindsight it was obviously a bad choice, but in 1932 was there really a better option? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a little more than that. Would the Enabling Act been passed if the SA hadn't surrounded the Reichstag? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues I'm aware of. One is the passage of the Enabling Act that you just referred to. The other is Hitler's assumption of the presidency when Hindenburg died. Hitler assumed the office and combined it with his own to create the new one, Führer. This act was said to be both unconstitutional and a violation of Article 2 of the Enabling Act as well. This could be said to have turned Germany from a semi-Presidential state with a Nazi government into a Nazi state.

But one should remember that all states are, in a sense, illegal. My Constitutional Law prof. used to like to say that the Glorious Revolution was illegal and thus, in a certain sense, all British governance since then has been as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

One standard is whether the Nazi regime's ambassadors were accredited by other countries and international bodies. This standard would exclude the idiotic "micronations" which people create on their personal quarter acre. The U.S. and other countries , including the USSR, and the League of Nations, received German ambassadors credentialled by Hitler's government as the lawful representatives of Germany. Edison (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If the government of Nazi Germany was not a recognized government, the International Olympic Committee would never have accepted Adolf Hitler as the head of state when he opened the Berlin Olympics. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their answers! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioned above is another reason the statement "Hitler was not 'legally elected" is true: Hitler did not occupy any elective office. - Nunh-huh 08:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Elizabeth II's coronation footage in the public domain

The footage is classed as public domain at archive.org here. Thanks, --217.84.188.88 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

:And thank you for sharing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread your question. I thought that you were making a general statement. I will let someone else answer this question. My sincere apologies. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that it comes under Crown Copyright, which would probably make it free to use for news or noncommercial purposes, but I am not a lawyer and do not know the specifics of UK copyright law. Your best bet is to go to the official website for Buckingham Palace and send them an email. //roux   20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How many people have ever lived?

Apparently there are 6bn people in the world today, but i would like to know roughly how many people have ever lived. Even if their lived lasted a mere fraction of a second outside the womb. There must be some estimates out there somewhere?79.75.207.25 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere around 100 billion. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Using this link I found a source saying somewhere between 45 and 125 billion people have ever lived. Obviously, these estimates are going to be extremely rough -- what record do you think people kept of babies that survived for a "mere fraction of a second"? — Sam 146.115.120.108 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit more information at Number of humans who have ever lived. Algebraist 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how you define people. Do neanderthals count? Homo erectus? transitional forms between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Its a tough call, and any answer is bound to have huge degrees of uncertainty. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"People" is usually used to mean Homo Sapiens, the difficulty comes in defining what is and what isn't a Homo Sapien. --Tango (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "Homo sapien"; the "s" in our species name isn't a plural marker. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that as I typed it and tried to remember how it worked... I guess I came to the wrong conclusion! Is there a short way of saying "a member of the species Homo sapiens"? ("Human" isn't quite precise enough.) --Tango (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a challenge. The opinion that I received when I asked some academics about it recently is that species names really shouldn't be used as countable nouns (i.e. "one Homo sapiens, two Homo sapiens"), so you could just say "a member of Homo sapiens"; or you could use "modern human", which I think is arguably the common species name for "Homo sapiens". --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

However, in terms of the Latin language (as opposed to English scientific terminology), "Homo Sapiens" is singular, and the corresponding plural would be Homines sapientes... AnonMoos (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we use the singular in English as well - we refer to the human race as a whole as "man" not "men", so it makes sense to use the Latin for "wise man" not "wise men". --Tango (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that the Latin adjective (masculine singular nominative) for "wise" is not sapien, but sapiens. There's no such word as "sapien" in Latin. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: how do i go about doing a search for information on a legal data base for a particular issue?

I have to find legally binding authorities supporting the proposition that "an oral contract is binding on the parties to by whom it was made. This is for use in the court of Law in Trinidad W.I. do note i am not asking for your opinion on my particular issue, just the way it is or can be done, thank you, D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.208.42 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Trinidad have its laws in a database? That should be your first question. You should contact a library from one of these schools to find out. Followup questions should go to a librarian. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[18]. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dickens character

The secret POW radio at Batu Lintang camp was nicknamed Mrs Harris, after the character in a Dickens novel who was a gossip-monger. Anyone know which novel that would be? Thanks Jasper33 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Life And Adventures Of Martin Chuzzlewit -- Fullstop (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Jasper33 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really a character, since she never actually "appears" in the novel; she's just continually referred to by Sairy Gamp. Deor (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

men vs. women

My mom says women are a lot smarter than men. (I believe women are strong in faith and pride.) But still, are men physically stronger than women?72.229.135.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Many people say many things. This does not make them true. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The average male is stronger than the average female. Men hold most world records involving strength or speed, though women are gaining is some places, such as in marathons. Both sexes seem equally stupid, though often in different ways. Matt Deres (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Olympic records in weightlifting may help! Livewireo (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Strength is relative. More than half the deceased members of the Donner Party were male. While women did not undertake tasks as risky and dangerous as men, there was also something more to their physiology that allowed them to survive. There is something to be said for emotional strength as well, although I am not comparing men to women. It's just a different type of strength. --Moni3 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It partially depends on what you measure and how you measure it. For example, if you measure absolute upper body strength (such as the ability to lift X number of pounds), then women are pretty much guaranteed to fail miserably. However, if you measure women's strength relative to their body weight, or set tests of dexterity and endurance, then women will come out relatively well.

Also, keep in mind that due to basic statistical properties, if the measured strengths of women and the measured strenths of men on some particular task each have a normal distribution, and the average strength of men is, say, one standard deviation greater than the average strength of women, then it will still be the case that over 15% of women are stronger (on the particular task measured) than the average man... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, on intelligence -- IQ scores may or may not have any particularly deep connection to real intelligence, but IQ testing has consistently found that the average overall measured intelligence of men and the average overall measured intelligence of women are pretty much the same (i.e. not significantly distinguishable from each other with the methods of measurement being used). However, one real difference which does exist according to IQ scores is that the standard deviation of men's measured intelligences is greater than the standard deviation of women's measured intelligences -- i.e. there are more male geniuses, but also more male morons (for whatever that's worth). AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Aren't IQ tests designed and normalised to try and remove gender biases? So of course they come out with equal intelligence for men and women. --Tango (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As a basic matter of balance, a well-written comprehensive IQ test will certainly not give undue weight to tasks which one particular sex can generally do more easily than the other (e.g. certain verbal tasks for women, or abstract spatial logic for men). However, it's still possible to try to use IQ tests to measure overall average intelligence for men vs. women, and the results seem to have been reasonably consistent over decades (as far as I'm aware) -- no real difference between average male intelligence and average female intelligence (insofar as this can be measured by means of IQ tests), but a greater range of measured intelligences among men (i.e. greater male variability). AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. IQ tests are designed starting from the assumption that men and women should come out with equal average IQs, and so the tests are tweaked until they do. As some point out, this makes the accepting of different ethnic groups getting different average results look rather bad. But that probably risks soapboxing. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it just shows what nonsense IQ tests are. --Tango (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I once read in a semi-reliable publication that the difference in male and female race times among elite runners was roughly proportional to the difference in male and female heart sizes. I.e., both groups were limited by the amount of blood they could pump, and men simply had bigger pumps. --Sean 20:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds plausible, but the difference in heart size is probably roughly proportional to the difference in lung capacity, leg length, etc.. It's very difficult to pin it down on one thing. --Tango (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it's all roughly proportional, but the point was that at the extreme of training and dedication, it comes down to the capacity of the machine. That's leaving out non-size structural differences like the pelvic angles mentioned. --Sean 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For running, the difference between male and female pelvic angles might be relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Men and women are each individuals with individual strengths and weaknesses. Howzzat? Wrad (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No one's asserting otherwise, it's no reason to ignore differences in the average specimen. --Sean 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine empress regnants

How many Byzantine empress regnants were there? That includes the one that co rule with their husband. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also were the children of Byzantine emperors and empresses titled in any way. I notice the phrase Byzantine prince or princess but the Byzantine never gave such titles. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Was List of Byzantine emperors unhelpful? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was unsure if any were left out. Also I have a question about Eudocia Angelina. Was she ever married to Alexios V Doukas during his brief reign as emperor?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2009

The article on Alexios V Doukas states that she was. - Eron^Talk 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexandrian and Augustan empires

I'm looking for an anachronistic map showing overlap of these two at furthest extent; Rome and Persia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question is a little unclear, since the maximum expansion of the Roman empire is more usually considered to have occurred in the second century A.D., rather than under Augustus -- and the empire of Alexander the Great, the empire of the Ptolemies with its capital city at Alexandria, and the various incarnations of the Persian empire are all different things... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This map shows the Roman Empire at its greatest extent (under Trajan). The article Persian Empire lists several candidates for that title. Alexander's empire is here. The Seleucid Empire, Alexander's Persian successor, is shown here in yellow. - Eron^Talk 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking for an anachronistic map of the greatest extent of both Roman and Persian empires, showing where they overlap. My Penguin Atlas of Medieval History is an old book with black and white pictures, but it shows one with both empires. I know that Wikipedians like to make maps that show anachronistic accumulations of empires at different periods of their existence, like showing the British Empire having both the Thirteen Colonies in North America and Australia, along with India and South Africa, in the same map. There are also Roman maps depicting the furthest Rome ever expanded. Was Persia bigger under Alexander's conquest, or smaller? In any case, I wonder if there are any anachronistic, "furthest extent" (all territories ever occupied) images of Persia. Ideally, I'd like to see a map with both Rome and Persia under an anachronistic, furthest extent format and I know they'd overlap, but I want to see it with my eyes rather than my head. I'm not a great graphic editor and you guys probably have better paint/editing tools anyways. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the overlap would be between Rome and the Islamic Caliphate, as a version of Persia. Is this right? Wouldn't one then include Holy Roman territories as "further Rome"? Would Russia be Roman too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Islamic Caliphate would be a bad version of Persia. The Caliphate was an Arabic empire with a homeland in modern-day Iraq. It was absolutely not Persian/Iranian in any sense of the word. The problem is that there are several unrelated states which all get called Persia. There is as much continuity between Achaemenid Empire Persia, Seleucid Empire Persia, and Saffarid Persia as there is between, say, the Roman Empire, the Papal States, and modern Italy. However, if you want to get an idea about the sizes of the Roman and Persian Empires at approxiametly contemporaneous points, the specific Persian Empire you want is the Sassanid Empire, which was not Persia at its largest, but it was still pretty big, and it reached its height at around the same time as Rome reached its height. A map containing both the Roman and Sassanid Empires at their peaks would not be all that anachronistic. Persia at its greatest extent in terms of land area was probably the Achaemenid Empire, but that reached its peak while Rome was still a whistle-stop on the Tiber... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The caliphate was somewhat Persian in culture; Iraq was Persian long before it was Arab. But anyway, to include the HRE and Russia as "further Rome", why stop there, why not make a map showing all Christian and all Muslim territories? Also the "Persian empire" and the "empire of Alexander" are not really the same, Persia was simply one of Alexander's conquests. And he was hardly an emperor, he was a conqueror who left a big mess for his successors to deal with, and the whole thing immediately fragmented into numerous different states. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So then, the HRE was only a Romanized Germania and Russia was only a Romanized Scythia, each claiming legitimate inheritance? What ever happened to the Hellenic culture of the Persian areas? I ask because there are still Nasrani (Nazarenes/Judaeo-Christians) in India who hold to St. Thomas...wouldn't there also be a Greek subset of India which remained to the present? Would Russia owe more to the Alexandrian world of Hellenistic peoples in the East, or its descent from Scythia Minor and the Black Sea Greek colonies, or the Byzantines? Would the vast difference between the usage of Latin and Cyrillic alphabets be because the Romans had their way, but the older, Oriental Hellenic tradition is what Russia got and gave to their bordering peoples? The reason I used the title "Alexandrian and Augustan", is to distinguish between the older Oriental and newer occidental worlds of the Greeks/Europeans. I think this is the true source of the European interest in Aryan theories, tied to the colonial period, on a Neoclassical basis, to revive and continue Alexander's conquests. The Alexandrian world seems to be the infrastructural blueprint for the Augustan, but not because of the Aryans, only because the Greeks adopted their secular government, just like they adopted the Jewish religion, which made a Roman and Christian world out of a Persian and Jewish. I think these are the origins of our "West", but it ultimately rests with credit for the Greeks, being continued by the Western/Roman Germans and the Eastern/Persian Russians, in one form or another until the 20th Century. It could be the differences between Centum and Satem in the languages. I think the ultimate legacy of the Greeks, was the ability for Indo-Aryan languages to be assimilated into the European family. Greeks colonized that region in the ancient era and the descendants of the Greeks revived these conquests in our own era. Otherwise, I can't really see the legitimacy for Aryan theories. This is my version of one, based in historical events, rather than extrapolated from "trajectory" ideas of diffusion. Am I in hot water? 68.231.163.38 (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Centum/Satem division was due to a sound change of roughly ca. 2000 B.C., presumably in the general area of Russia. This was a purely phonological change of assibilation of velar consonants with secondary palatal articulations. The Centum/Satem groupings only emerged from linguistic work done in the 19th century, and have no particular cultural or historical political significance. And a form of Hellenistic culture did persist in the revived Persian empire, especially in the Mesopotamian cities under the Parthians. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And anyway some linguists believe that the assibilation of velars happened several times independently, rather than reflecting a single grand division. The western Romance languages show that it can happen at least twice, so why not more? —Tamfang (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not "Oriental Hellenic tradition [that] Russia got", but rather the fact that the Russian emperors was followers of the Eastern Orthodox church, which has little to do with Hellenism. • With respect to the ambiguous use of "Persia" (abused beyond belief on WP), and to the propensity to name entire nations after the dominant tribe within that nation, Jayron32 has said what needs to be said. • With respect to whether Persia was bigger under Alexander's conquest, or smaller,... it did not change size. It became a 1:1 governate under Peucestas immediately following Alexander's arrival there in November 331 BCE. • The Greeks had nothing to do with "the ability for Indo-Aryan languages to be assimilated into the European family", regardless of how that phrase may be interpreted. • The fallacy of European Aryans derives not from "[Neoclassical attempts] to revive and continue Alexander's conquests", but from the erroneous belief that (a word like) "Aryan" was used by prehistoric Europeans as a name for themselves. • With respect to "What ever happened to the Hellenic culture of [post-Alexandrian Iran]?": the Seleucids were too few and weren't around long enough. In any case, they were too busy beating each other's brains out. Their successors, the Parthian Arsacids, were Hellenistic, and said so. The Arsacids' successors, the Persian Sassanians, defined themselves in Iranian nationalist terms, and were thus decidely anti-Hellenistic in most things. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So then, Persia and Rome were the only Hellenistic empires to exist, but one cannot define successor states in terms of any legitimate Greek inheritance, all the while they may be indirect heirs of Hellenic traditions? I'm trying to figure out the exact dimensions of Greek influence in all geographic directions, but not simply through trading outposts, only through government run by Greeks and the offspring of the Greeks. While we all know Rome as heir of the Greeks, I am more curious about the Oriental legacy of the Greeks, which is primarily through Persia, as an empire, with simultaneous rule of lesser nations and tributary chiefdoms alongside. Would the furthest east be India (yes Indus, but what about Ganges?), furthest north be Scythia (Transoxiana, or did they go beyond the Jaxartes as well? What of control over the Caspian and Aral seas? Lake Baikal?) and furthest south be which Nile Cataract? It seems explanatory that the whole Judeo-Christian tradition of St. Thomas owes itself to the Hellenistic influence, so there must have been a real creole, colonialist culture (e.g. Greco-Buddhism) comparable to Mithras in Rome. There must have been a kind of Americanism among the region descendant of the Greek conquests, like how the English influence in America remained the culture of the people, although they cast off any formal ties to Britain. Isn't all of this Greek experience the groundwork primarily responsible for Russia's ability to expand eastwards, despite all of the invading Asian nomads coming at them? The Kushan Empire article lists Greek language and religion. Whatever happened to all of the Alexandrias? I would assume the Muslims were the ones to try and erase that history, but I cannot imagine the earlier people doing so. I'm still trying to trace the heirs of the Greeks in two blocs, East (through Persia to Slavs) and West (through Rome to Germans), but you are stating that these are not successors? What about their claims of cultural inheritance? 68.231.163.38 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "so then". I've already noted why, and your insistance on using ambiguous vocabulary does not help matters (and provokes a gag reflex). • Not being able to "imagine the earlier people [erasing that history]" does not make it true; not only did Central Asian/Eastern Iranian Greco-Iranian syncretism vanish PDQ after the Persians (genuine ones, from south-western Iran) took control in the east, we also have evidence for why that happened. • The "whole Judeo-Christian tradition of St. Thomas" is about Thomas having (according to legend) travelled to India. This has nothing to do with Hellenism. • Mithras is not evidence of colonialist culture, but of Greco-Roman fantasy and pseudepigrapha ("alien wisdom", as Momigliano called it). Its a product of Greco-Roman throught, just as all the other mystery religions are as well, no matter what pseudo-oriental patina the Romans accorded each one. • European influence in North America (or Australia) is not comparable to Hellenistic influence in Western Asia. The numbers are reversed. A more appropriate comparison would be India or Hong Kong, 200 years from now. • I have already noted that your assumptions about Hellenistic->Iranic->Slavic influence are misguided. Oh, and "Germans" are not "heirs" of the Greeks either. These are not successors, and -- unless you are alluding to the German affection for Graeco-Turkish doener/gyros -- I have no idea where you get "claims of cultural inheritance" from.

It would seem that you have a particular outcome in mind, and are (consciously or unconsciously) tuning the evidence to suit that outcome. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You have informed me of some specific things I did not know about, but are rather off base with assumptions on what I am getting at, apparently because you are viewing me as some kind of ignoramous, all the while proving that you think you can box the world's history and all the circumstantial causations into your own brain as sufficiently explanatory. My main interest was to trace the flow of the Classic World to revivals in Neoclassicism, Romanticism and even 20th century nationalism and the attempt was to look for confirmation on some suspicions, on a general basis and not impossible conclusions from minutiae, as I instead look at the forest for the trees. You should try it more. 68.231.163.38 (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

February 28

Can free newspapers be stolen?

I have a friend who follows a minority religion (in his neighborhood). In front of his building he has a stand with free issues of a monthly paper. Large quantities have gone in the past couple of months, and while bad times often bring new converts, this is unlikely to be the case here. If he catches whoever has been taking the papers (even if he catches them on video, he wouldn't be able to tell what they plan to do with the stacks they apparently are taking each time), can the police get involved? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(We can't give legal advice, so I'm going to give some legal guesswork instead!) If someone is allowed to take one, I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be allowed to take many. Your friend could try putting a "one each" sign on the stand to make it clear what permission is being given to take them. Then I guess it probably is theft (there may be an issue over whether your friend actually possess or is in control of the newspapers once they are in the stand - I'm not sure that's necessary, though, I think ownership is enough), but I'm not sure the police would do anything about it. The best way to find out would be to contact the police (or a solicitor). --Tango (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't see any reason that there might be reasonable limits on the depletion of "free" stock? I can see lots of good reasons that one could imagine purposefully taking the entire contents of a stock that is implicitly expected to be a "one each" sort of deal could be illegal. A reasonable court, like a reasonable person, would surely recognize that there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between taking one and taking a much larger number. Perhaps no one would want to decide when that particular scale changed (does it change after one, after ten? does the total number originally there matter?) but stealing all of an almost full stand is surely over wherever the line is. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I recall from years back that the Mayor of Berkeley was charged with stealing free newspapers. The article linked to note though that this really varies by jurisdiction, as the laws are often not specific enough to make it clear that this is the case. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether the newspapers are being "stolen" probably depends on the analysis of who "owns" the newspaper while they are on the stand. If the analysis is that the newspapers are a complete gift to whoever takes them, then the question is whether the gift is complete upon it being placed on the stand, or whether it is complete upon the person taking it *from* the stand. If the latter (I lean towards that view, becuase the stand is the original owner's property; and the good has not been delivered into the hand of the recipient at that time), then you could argue that the donor's intention was for each passer-by to take only one.

If the newspapers are still owned by the donor while they are on the stand, and if it is implied that each passer-by should take only one (or some reasonable variation on that), then it could be argued that taking a whole stack is contrary to the intention of the donor, thus no gift, thus it is larceny.

As above, all of this is legal guesswork. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely up to the proprietor of the establishment how he wishes to distribute said items. As an analogy, think about the soda dispensers in fast food restaurants. You get a cup. You fill it yourself. If you drink it all during your meal, its usually OK if you refill your cup during your meal. However, if you pay for a drink during a meal, and then go over to the soda dispenser, and fill up a five-gallon bucket with the soda, that would seem an unreasonable breach of the trust set up in the "serve yourself" arrangement. Its an expectation that when you buy a soda for that meal that your purchase price covers your drinking that soda during the meal, and that you don't get to walk in off the street and fill up a cup without paying, nor do you get to fill a 5-gallon jug when you paid for one cup. Refills during the meal may be reasonable, but other absurd extensions of that trust are not. Likewise, implicit in giving away a newspaper to read for free is that people take what they need. People don't personally need to read more than one paper. If your friend is concerned, perhaps he could move the newspaper dispenser to somewhere where people would need to ask for one. He could still give them away for free, but if he controlled the distribution, it may cut down on people walking off with the whole stack. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with analogising with "free" dispenses in a restaurant is that the latter is a ride-on to a contractual relationship, the meal. Giving away a free newspaper is almost certainly not part of any contractual arrangement. An implied promise to read the newspaper is probably not sufficient to constitute consideration, and in any case, such a term is unlikely to be implied into the putative contract.

From a purely legal viewpoint, the rules governing contractual versus non-contractual relationships can be very different. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a knotty problem. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that "free" newspapers belong to whoever produces them (as with paid-for newspapers) until the point of distribution. If you broke into a warehouse and took a pallet of "free" newspapers from there, it would surely be theft. In the UK, most "free" papers are delivered from door-to-door, and they must surely become the property of whoever receives them in that way. A producer who puts such newspapers out on a news-stand for passers-by to pick up (a rather lazy and low-cost method of distribution) must surely be taking the risk that some passers-by will take several papers. If someone took ten such newspapers from a stand every day to be passed on to ten friends, or even a hundred for passing on to a hundred people in a hospital, then it seems unlikely that a case could be made out for theft. If a rival publication systematically emptied all such news-stands that weren't its own, to take the contents away and pulp them to use in its own works, then I suspect most legal systems would be able to find something unlawful in that; but if the intention of the person concerned is relevant, then a prosecution relying on unlawful intention could only be pursued with evidence of that intention, and in the circumstances of a prosecution I should think it would be very hard to find. Xn4 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's the publication of a "minority religion" wouldn't it recommend your friend's faith more if he'd try to find a less aggressive means of curbing the misuse of his newspapers than getting the police involved? A couple of "inspiring" posters saying things like "We believe in being frugal, do you?"or "Only truly lost souls are encouraged to take more than one per person." might indicate to the pilferers that their action was discovered and met with displeasure. (He should be able to come up with something much better to write.) If it's pranksters they would be encouraged and then would deserve most anything he threw at them, but someone who took them e.g. as padding for moving boxes or another use might be discouraged. If he fears it's religious zealots of another creed he might get together with his congregation to concoct a message that would make them feel they were going against their own convictions with their action. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is why he hesitates to escalate the situation. He suspects that one person has been picking up a couple dozen copies each time he walks by, but contacting the police might bring bad publicity upon the premises. As others have said, it is difficult to discover the intent of the person in this case short of detective work, but who will do that? Imagine Reason (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to get people from the other religion to help draft the message? Even better if they are organised, perhaps ask them if they could remind their congregants that such things are unacceptable. I'm sure most would be happy to help since even if they don't agree with your religion, they wouldn't agree with the theft (and I suspect many would consider it theft) Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That'd kind of blow things all out of proportion. It's not like a community problem. Imagine Reason (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a technical solution would be better here than a legal one. There could be a box with two sections, for example, which keeps most of the papers in the upper (locked) section, but drops one into the lower (unlocked) section five minutes after the lower portion has been opened. Thus, someone who intends to stock up on fuel for their wood-stove would need a lot of time and patience. I'd bet someone already has such a device available for sale. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Even without the five minute delay, it would probably help - someone is much less likely to take several one at a time than to just grab several off the top of the pile. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of the case of the banana feeder. There was an attempt to feed a starving population of monkeys by leaving bananas out for them. Unfortunately, the first monkey there would take every last one, even though there were far more than he could eat (or even carry). They then tried a timed release mechanism, but that same monkey would guard the machine and grab them when they came out. Greedy little capitalists, aren't they ? StuRat (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This would indeed solve the problem, but the disadvantage--take-up ratio will fall even lower than is the case--seems to outweigh the benefit. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In 1993, there was a kind of fad of stealing all of the free student newspapers on US university campuses as a protest against a particular newspaper. For example, an African-American student group at the University of Maryland decided the school newspaper was racist. So they followed the truck delivering the free newspapers and stole all of them from the racks before sun-up, replacing them with a note that, "Due to its racist nature, The Diamondback will not be available today -- read a book!" I don't know if anyone was ever charged in any of these incidents. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like dishonest misappropriation with intention permanently to deprive the rightful owner. I.e. theft. So the police should be willing to get involved. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't say who funds the printing of your friend's newspaper, but if it's supported by commercial advertising at all then there's a whole other kettle of ball games to consider, since the advertiser's contract with the publisher will include certain commitments about how, and in what quantities, the paper is distributed. Large-scale removal might get the publisher in trouble with advertisers who feel they are not getting the service they have paid for. The opinion of the law on this matter will depend on the jurisdiction, so this should not be construed as legal advice, but if the unnecessary taking of many newspapers might cause somebody actual commercial harm, then it would be sensible to make this clear in any complaint to the police. Karenjc 23:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A similar case is [19] [20] [21]. The interesting thing is that most of the copies were eventually returned with a page removed (the page containing and advertisment the people who took it found offensive), the intention had been to just remove the advertisment (which was just a quarter page) but I guess the people were lazy. While the action was called theft, many people have noted it's questionable if that term is applicable. Do note of course there are two issues, is there criminal action, and could the party who took the paper be subject to civil action? In this case, it doesn't appear we found out, the people who took the magazines were served with trespass orders banning them from student association property (there was also a threat of banning them from the university although I don't know if the university would have cooperated) and were billed for the losses but that appears to be it. This does raise an interesting issue, if your friend moved the papers to inside his store then he could surely similarly ban anyone who took multiple copies but this likely wouldn't be an option if the paper is outside your store. However it would depend on several factors, for example if the friend is legally allowed to put the box containing the papers there and since the box is his property and he may be able to ban someone from using it. The advertisment issue is another interesting issue. If you were subject to losses, whether because you had to pay advertisers or because advertisers withdrew contracts or expected contracts didn't materialise or whatever, you may be able to sue the party responsible for your losses since it's resonable that this person should have realised their actions would cause these losses. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OP, back to basics: Why would your friend want to convert other people to his religion? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The OP never said his/her friend wanted to convert people, simply that bad times usually means more converts but he/she doesn't think the large number of people taking copies is because lots of new converts Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is this the first time you've heard of a religion that seeks converts? The paper in question actually doesn't do that much, but I suppose the action of placing the bin outside the store is an attempt to make it more appealing to passers-by. Imagine Reason (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Would this be The Epoch Times, by any chance? AnonMoos (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If it were, no one would bat an eye. Those people print more copies than the New York Times, it seems. Where do they get all that money? Imagine Reason (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the Ganges River drying up?

I heard that the Ganges River is drying up. If it is, is the Indian government doing anything to save the River? Northern India would be in a lot of troubles if the Ganges River were to dry up. Sonic99 (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The WWF has published a study on large rivers which are at risk here [22]. There is a separate case study on the river Ganga, but the site is currently being reorganised and can´t be accessed. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

According to our Ganges#Ecology section, "A UN Climate Report issued in 2007 indicates that the Himalayas glaciers that feed the Ganges may disappear by 2030, after which the river's flow would be a seasonal occurrence resulting from monsoons.". StuRat (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, 2030 is not a long time from now. If the Ganges River dried up, the Northern India would be in chaos because there would be no water to grow their foods. The Indians better do something fast like reducing their population immediately or else. Sonic99 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is still expected to flow seasonally, so the secret may be to drain off large amounts into reservoirs during the times when it does flow, to provide water for the rest of the year. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

World War II. Home Defence. Stopline Red.

Today I walked the Thames path from Lechlade to Radcot Bridge, passing on the way numerous concrete pill boxes which, I gather, formed part of Stopline Red, the last deperate bid to keep invaders from the Midlands. Can anyone tell me more about this defence line and the strategy it embodied?Kent1940 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of articles which may help - British hardened field defences of World War II and British anti-invasion preparations of World War II. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, GHQ Line and the articles linked from there. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empresses

One more question who would be the direct heir of the Latin Emperors of Constantinople. I notice they don't use the title anymore but I am unsure who is the direct heir of Louis I of Naples. Would it be the heir to the House of Valois-Anjou which would probably be a French or would it be a King of Naples. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Louis also inherited the title of King of Jerusalem, and you can see his successors there - it doesn't seem to be a direct descent but the current claimant would be Juan Carlos of Spain. I don't know if the same line of descent applies to the Latin Empire though, and in any case there should be numerous possible claimants just like there is for Jerusalem. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The last "recognized" Latin Emperor (recognized at the Angevin court, anyway), was James of Baux. He left his claims on the empire to Louis by testament; by strict rule of descent, the Empire would seem to have passed to John of Artois, Count of Eu, whose heir appears to be Prince William of Windisch-Grätz. (See User:Choess/Latin Empire.) As for the question of Louis, it would really depend on your definition of "direct heir". Choess (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What title did the wife of the Eastern and Western Roman empresses hold beside Augusta, Mater castrorum, Mater patriae, basilissa? I need the entire list both Latin and Greek. Please no English ones such as Empress of Rome.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have trouble finding an answer to this because (as usual) you are dealing with a very long period of time. There was no single list of titles that they all used. If you want a list of all the ones that were ever used, I suppose that might be possible, but in many cases the sources simply don't say what titles the empress had, if any. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Defense of a kingdom in 8th or 9th century Britain

I know that William I brought the "motte and bailey" castle to England in the 11th century, but what did they do before that? Did the many small kingdoms have some sort of central defense area or strategy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evermaore (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article, Anglo-Saxon Military, but it doesn't really cover defensive structures, I'm afraid. --Tango (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of earthen embankments such as Offa's Dyke seemed somewhat prevalent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To put it mildly, those centuries weren't exactly the golden age for military Britain. Their defense tactics included surrendering, mostly, as well as some giving up without a fight here and there. Wrad (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Alfred the Great was an exception to this. See Battle of Ethandun for a good description of a typical battle for him. Wrad (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Earthen embankments and ordinary fortresses, often defences built/patched up using Roman sites as a foundation. A random search on JSTOR turns up this paper about 8th century fortresses. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As Palace Guard notes, old Roman structures including forts, milecastles and so forth were adapted to suit the new societies; Hill forts were sometimes used, as were simple wooden keeps. Linear defences (such as Offa's Dyke) were significant. Commonly, settlements would have had timber palisade and ditch (or earthen bank) defences. Motte-and-bailey constructions are often referred to as the first "castles" but that is only when you define "castle" as structures that look like motte and baileys. If "castle" means fortified military constructions, then they go back much further. Google books has Osprey's Fortifications in Wessex c. 800–1066 by Ryan Lavelle. Another Osprey title which might be of interest is British Forts in the Age of Arthur by Angus Konstam ISBN 9781846033629. No preview on google books, but you might find a copy through your local library. Gwinva (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel and the Holocaust

Apologies for the title, but I thought it might attract the most attention :) I'm working on an MA History essay on the commemoration of traumatic events by nations, and part of it is how the State commemorates to create/reinforce national identity. That's my theory anyway; I have evidence for other states, but The Holocaust is such an influential event I can't really ignore it. It's only a shot essay, but I still need some information on how Israel has used the Holocaust to promote its national identity, or at the very least how it's used it to its advantage. That's if it actually has, and my brilliant idea isn't very brilliant in actual fact. So, can anyone help poor ol' History MA student out? There are just so many books on the Holocaust that narrowing it down is getting a tad difficult, and any direction/advice would be greatly welcomed!Skinny87 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yom HaShoah, which is the traditional day of Holocaust Rememberance in Isreal, is probably a very good start for you. It is moderately referenced, so you can find stuff beyond Wikipedia as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You might take a look at this book. Marco polo (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, check out our article on Yad Vashem and follow the links. Marco polo (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion Israel is probably too easy a case to mean much. They make the Holocaust an explicit reason for their national existence and a lot of other policies. In most cases the action of commemoration is going to be more subtle, I would expect. More subtle instance would be, say, the way in which Ukrainians use the experience of Chernobyl as a nationalizing issue (as is argued in this book). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of other cases where a state will commemorate an event to foster a feeling of national identity. For example: Guy Fawkes Night (UK), Bastille Day (France), Anzac Day (Australia/New Zealand), German Unity Day (Germany), Grito de Dolores (Mexico) and all those other independence/revolution commemorations around the world. Astronaut (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, with your interest in military history and WWII, investigate the USSR's commemoration of what it dubbed the Great Patriotic War (term). Otherwise, a more recent topic is national commemoration activities in the framework of conciliation in Rwanda a decade-plus after the fratricidal genocide there. And may I note, the opinion expressed by User:98.217.14.211 about the Holocaust etc. is both superficial and an oversimplification; the Holocaust in Israel is pervasive throughout the society and its history. Focal points such as the national remembrance day and national remembrance authority are only parts of the picture, while entire books and probably a good number of full-blown doctoral dissertations have dealt with aspects of commemoration in the "collective memory" etc. Perhaps your assignment calls for a more discrete topic. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

March 1

Starvation in US during Great Depression?

Did any people actually starve to death in the US during the Great Depression (1929-38)? Are there any reliable numbers on this? Elinde7994 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this source, there are no verified deaths from starvation in the United States during the Great Depression, but hunger was widespread. In conditions of hunger and malnutrition, hunger often contributes to death without being its ultimate cause. For example, hunger and malnutrition severely weaken the immune system and make a person more susceptible to disease and less able to recover from it. Marco polo (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course people starved to death in the U.S during the great depression. People starved to death every year the U.S. or any other country has existed. 1 per 100,000 died from malnutrition in 2005, for ifor instance. [23]Give me a break. Edison (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Malnutrition is not the same as starvation; the figures you give include deaths from vitamin deficiencies and disorders such as kwashiorkor, which is associated with a diet with enough calories but not enough protein (and common in situations such as old people in homes[24] where the cause is more likely to be neglect or other biological disorder than poverty). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Starvation, per the article, is extreme Malnutrition. If it is bad enough you die, it is extreme. People also starve who are too poor to buy food, too proud to ask for charity, too much of a hermit to benefit from the mercy of others, or who are denied food as victims of abuse, infants, elderly, prisoners or other captives who are denied adequate nutrition. Edison (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

partnership or no partnership?

Time and again, I pass a Wells Fargo branch. Sharing the same space would be Starbucks Coffee. I know Starbucks shares a partnership with Barnes & Noble. But what about Wells Fargo? What's going on with that? Anyone know?72.229.135.200 (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Starbucks, which doesn't franchise, will enter into licensing agreements with companies who occupy real estate they covet, like airports or colleges. Their company fact sheet lists at least two dozen companies with whom they have 'alliances', although Wells Fargo is not among them. Wolfgangus (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The sheet also does not list Commonwealth Bank of Australia, with which Starbucks has an arrangement. Those listed are probably the most prominent ones only. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I found http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/14/business/fi-39045 in a Google search. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fighting back against hip-hop

How has hip-hop managed to drive punk and heavy metal off Toronto's FM airwaves, posterable vertical surfaces and to a large extent Future Shop shelves, not to mention the YouTube landing pages? What can the latter genres do to reclaim their place, and how long do they have left to do so before white musical culture is reduced to the likes of Green Day and Britney Spears? NeonMerlin 08:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly ridiculous, as there is only one mainstream FM station in Toronto that ever plays hip hop. Is this a clumsy attempt at trolling? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But there are none that ever play heavy metal, except insofar as you count Korn and Linkin Park, or punk (I was recently disabused of the notion that Green Day and Sum 41 were punk). Even if you adopt the broadest definitions of those genres, no station plays them anywhere near as regularly as Flow plays hip-hop. NeonMerlin 08:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, the way I prefer to think of it is that only the lowest common denominator is influenced or dependant or radio programming for guidance. From a pure marketing cost-benefit point of view, radio is forced to pander to people without musical guidance. People with better direction will find alternate methods of distribution!NByz (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Radios are forever plagued by playlists. Personally, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about the state of, uh, white musical culture based on what you hear on the radio, any more than I would draw conclusions about the state of black musical culture based on what you hear on the radio. It's simply not designed to give you a balanced selection of the best and most innovative current music available. Lowest common denominator is exactly right. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You asked a very similar question last month, see here in case you've forgotten. The answer I would give you now is the same as the one I gave you back then. For those in positions of power in the mainstream media, whose choices dictate what we see and hear on the TV and radio, hip-hop is basically seen as cool whereas heavy metal is not. FWIW, I agree with them. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't exactly how it works in Canada. The CRTC is responsible for spectrum management in Canada and it is fairly particular in its mandates. Stations can't just play everything they want. There was actually trouble getting a license for an urban station in Toronto which some attributed to racism after the refusal of the Milestone Radio application. There was an order-in-council directing the CRTC to license two stations in TO that reflected the city's diversity. CFXJ-FM was licensed because of that. The other was Aboriginal Voices. Here's the CRTC decision on Flow.[25]

How long have they got? Wasn't that a Kids in the Hall sketch? "According to a computer model, three years." --JGGardiner (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Between Internet Radio, MP3 Players, Satelite radio etc. etc. there's lots of ways to get free music in any genre you wish. If you don't want to expose your ears to various kinds of music, then don't. No one forces you to listen to radio stations that don't play what you want them to, and you have plenty of options to find music you do. No heavy metal stations in Toronto? Find heavy metal music via other means then. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The root of your problem is what is concieved of as mainstream music and alternative music. These days hip hop and r&b are mainstream music, running alongside pop music. Metal still sits with indie, punk, post-rock, prog and the like as alternative music that isn't part of what is being pushed by the biggest companies. There's still a big market for alternative stuff, but it's not as big as the market for mainstream, so mainstream gets more airplay, while alternative gets less airplay, or play on smaller stations. Internet radio is a better bet for you. I suggest my favourite Australian station which mixes alternative with indie hip-hop - Triple J. Steewi (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ART

Is the first edition of a painting print more expensive than the tenth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.177.203 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the painting and the size of print runs. --140.247.11.19 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But, on anything valuable, I would generally expect a first edition to go for more money, yes. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Our article "Edition" has some information. It seems not to be as simple as 1-2-3. -Milkbreath (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Poldark

Hello,

Have only seen the fantastic series, not read the books. What happens to George Warleggan? Poldark? Demelza? Dwight and Carolyn?

Many thanks if someone can answer this without typing a novel of their own in length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgflikchik (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

is warren buffet jewish

is warren buffet jewish pls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.0 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

how can I invest in a "race"

how can I invest in a race, such as Jews, etc. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.0 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry I need to elaborate: I just mean in financial terms, same as Vice Fund (google it) invests in vices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.0 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there is such a way that is already established. If you wanted to do something similar to Vice Fund for a race, I imagine you'd invest in companies who would benefit from consumption patterns of your specific "race". For example, investing in, say, a company that produced high-priced menorahs would be a nice "Jewish" investment—on the whole, one might expect that if Jews, on the whole, were having good financial prosperity, they would be spending some of that income on a higher-priced menorah. Or something like that. Of course in engaging in such an approach you are necessarily making a lot of guesses, some of which are likely to end up being somewhat offensive as they will play on various stereotypes.

It's of note that one of the biggest "Jewish" investment schemes as of late went belly up recently and pulled down a scandalous number of Jewish charities and probably companies with it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but investing in the companies in the state of Israel is not exactly the same thing as investing in the "Jewish race" in the way he means about the Vice Fund. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are State of Israel Bonds, if you want to invest in them, but otherwise your request would not appear to be operationalizable (as a 1950's behaviorist might say...). AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry Im being dense, is there a point youre making about behaviorism - though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (as a 19th century Freud possibly said) --85.181.144.0 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See my past comment at Talk:Operationalization -- some behaviorist and logical-positivist types basically said that if you can't come up with a procedure for concretely measuring somthing, then it's completely meaningless. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying a bit, but that was the gist... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes "the Jews" a "race" that can be "invested in"? Do you mean "investment" in the sense of making a profit in return for providing funding? This question is for the Original Poster User:85.181.144.0 and all the previous and prospective respondents here who didn't clarify, or question, this basic premise of the initial proposition. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(clarification continued) What other "race" besides the Jews? Would the "target race" have to have a lot of money and be easy to profit from? By "investing" are you talking about a "get-rich-quick" scheme, so ruling out the effective historical methods of Colonialism, by which your investment requires a lot of hard work to extract wealth out of an impoverished, underdeveloped native population ("race" – like Black Africans) whose property contains valuable resources? I was thinking about maybe the Vatican which is supposed to have a lot of money (though Catholics are a religion, not a race), or Warren Buffet (who has a lot of money though he's not a Jew, according to the reply you got to your earlier query). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are Islamic funds, such as the Dow Jones Islamic Fund; these are established because of the difficulty in making conventional investments that comply with a traditional understanding of Islamic law. In addition, there are country funds that are set up to invest in a particular country, and I believe that these include Israel funds. I'm not aware of any other kinds of investment vehicles that target a particular race, ethnicity, or religion. Of course, you can invest in particular securities that are associated with particular ethnicities (menorah makers and Israel bonds already having been mentioned as examples). John M Baker (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

is it possible to do great evil just by writing checks, while remaining 100% legal?

Let's say you have a huge amount of money for some reason but you're evil. Can you do anything really evil with all that money, if you'd like to just write checks and have other people do the evil -- IF you want to remain 100% legal? I mean, how evil could it be if there's no law against it, right?

I'm NOT asking for legal advice, and in case you didnt' guess I don't actually have the funds in question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.0 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are funding a criminal activity, you are an accessory to the crime, or worse! See inchoate crimes, especially solicitation and facilitation. If your definition of "evil" is wider than the criminal, then it's easy. Giving all the money to someone who doesn't deserve it is pretty evil. Donating it to an extremist politician could do a lot of damage while being legal (subject to electoral donation laws in your jurisdiction). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You could probably buy up loads of companies and liquidate them, resulting in massive job losses. I can't think of any law against that and it would probably be deemed pretty evil by most people. In fact, some private equity firms have done very similar things, and have been called evil, although they did it with the intention of making money and the job losses were just a by-product. You could buy up lots of food and destroy it, causing mass starvation. --Tango (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You should also keep criminal conspiracy laws in mind. - Eron^Talk 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In countries without limits (or with big holes in limits) to how political parties and candidates are funded, you can choose to fund only the worst, most extremist and hate-filled parties and candidates. With your backing they're sure to be elected, and they're sure to screw things up and plunge the country, or the world even, into a pit of despair. Don't you get the feeling that people are doing this already? 87.113.100.227 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Something is only "illegal" if the laws, and the courts, of a country say it is. So just buy yourself a country (if you're only an evil billionaire then just buy a really small country) - say find a small island republic and give each citizen a million dollars, on the understanding that they evacuate one of the country's smaller islands, and agree to a velvet divorce, where you (and your henchmen) remain on the small island and it becomes a new country. Then you write the laws to suit yourself, and so nothing you do can be illegal (bar pesky international laws). Again, doesn't it seem like this has been done a bunch of times already? 87.113.100.227 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But how much evil could you do without falling under the jurisdiction of other countries? --Tango (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's jurisdiction and there's condemnation that many moves don't seem to fall under, so it beats me. The answers here are already saying it's being done already, "legally" too. If other countries change their laws (like the Swiss bank traps now being set) you'll need a clever international accounting firm to negotiate this terrain. Legitimate governments take turns to fund arms supplies in third world countries, and corporations like the Nestle scandals dump their unwanted products on third world people, or Big Pharma testing people there, creating heaps of problems, so you may find yourself in a queue or club of some kind. A small number of African countries might take the money and run, leaving you to be President, writing all those checks to continue the evil dictatorships as you like. In Australia a corporation just sacked all the workers to send their jobs off shore and wrote themselves millions of dollars in self-payment checks, so y'know, there's a textbook everywhere you look. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So it's probably a question of "how huge is huge". If you only had a million bucks, that wouldn't stretch very far. But if you had $60 billion, you can buy Switzerland. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

no way could anyone buy Switzerland for $60 billion. For $60 trillion, sure -- maybe even $6 trillion (though I doubt it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.145.125 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Its GDP is about $0.5tn, so if we assume that remains constant (in real terms) and make some completely unrealistic assumptions about how the value of a country works, we can use discounted future cash flows to get a present day value. With a discount rate of 2% (a number picked out of thin air, but its in the right order of magnitude), that gives a present day value of $25tn. (Assuming the online calculator I used works.) --Tango (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it should only be the present value of the government's sustained ability to Tax, don't you think? Or are we buying all of the country's private assets? Either way, a neat trick is that if you set the growth rate exactly equal to the discount rate, the price is whatever your starting value is (GDP or Tax Revenues)NByz (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How about getting a job as CEO of a large financial corporation, tell your minions to go only for short term gains, when the bubble bursts "retire" on a fat pension and watch the world's economy collapse. Oops, it's all been done before, so maybe it won't stay legal for much longer. Astronaut (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You could move to Australia where you might get all the time you need: "There is no overnight solution to this, but we think it's a serious issue and we're dealing with it."—Federal Treasurer on executive salary issue[26]

But at least it's being looked at. Is there any country that actually legally limits the salaries of CEOs of private companies? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're really dead set on evil-doing, why bother buying out a small country's populace? Just hire some mercenaries, stage a coup, and kill anyone who disagrees with you. It's bound to work eventually. The legality issue can be conveniently solved when you rewrite the laws after the fact. --Fullobeans (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered investing in sin stocks, like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, porn, legal prostitution, gambling, and defense contractors ? [27] StuRat (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Buy _ALL_ produced items of the next Apple product, iPhone 2 or what it might be, film yourself destroying them all and put it on youtube... some might not think it's evil... but the Apple fans' delicious tears will surely feed you for years to come. — CHANDLER#10 — 05:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the Simpsons, you can just write out your check to the Springfield Republican Party... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just make a whole bunch of donations to an organization like Westboro Baptist Church. You can bet they'll put it to some pretty evil use. There's no shortage of Fred Phelps types in the world. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

how could I go about calculating EVIL return on investment?

This is related to my question above. Let's say someone wants to spend a lot of money on doing evil while remaining 100% legal. Well, I got a lot of suggestions above, but it is really hard to think of a way to quantify what would get that person the most evil for their money. So now I'm wondering how such a person could calculate the returns, in terms of evil, of the activities they are pondering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.145.125 (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You would probably want to aim for what would probably be called a strong pareto minimum (see Pareto efficiency), where no further harm could be done without providing anyone a benefit. SDY (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a great answer! It would be useful in determining "optimal evilness." To determine Evil ROI, however, the hardest part is finding a unit of measurement for the numerator. Staying on the quantitative side of the "What is evil?" argument, I'd suggest a weighted "index" type figure. You'd need to create a category for all evil acts (assuming acts are discrete and measurable). If you want to have a multiple degrees of an act (intentional murder vs. negligent murder), they'd need their own categories. You could then weight each act on a percentage basis. Then you need to somehow scale the "actual acts committed"/"strong pareto minimum number of acts" ratio. I'd suggest logarithmically, because, you'd assume, the "easiest" acts would be done first, and each successive act would require marginally more effort. This is a very rough way to do it, of course. Multiply the scaled ratio by it's weight, and add it up with all the other "scale*weights" for the "evilness index". Adding some discounting to account for time considerations would make it more of a "return on investment" measure. Otherwise, you could just divide it by dollars invested (for a time period) to get an efficiency measure: Evil/$. This would only be comparable from, say, year to year, or between evil operating groups, but would still be useful as a performance metric for a global evil enterprise.NByz (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess evilness is about all causing suffering, so you want to maximise the net suffering you cause. I don't see how you can really quantify suffering. You could just try and cause as many deaths as possible, that makes the maths easy, but it's not a good definition of evilness.. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need money to be evil, you can use other peoples money. For instance go into government and get contaminated blood factor distributed on grounds of cost. That'll cause lots of people to die slowly and horribly. There's lots of opportunities. Pass laws entitling people to money but have lots of bureaucrats stopping them getting it. That'll waste lots of lives. Health and safety regulations offer loads of ways to case misery in the interest of safety. Or keep people alive as long as possible despite their wish to die because of their suffering - you don't want to encourage murder. I could go on and on ... use your imagination and you can be a pillar of society and respected by all while you do your great work. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hire lobbyists to advocate military conscription. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could buy all the world's oil companies, and then fire all the employees. The ensuing chaos of all oil pumping stopping at once would do some really nasty things. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy. Final evil less initial evil divide by initial evil. All you need to do is to answer the rather metaphysical question "what is evil" and then quantify it, possibly using a basket of moral indicators. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Create a malecific calculus and do what that tells you. My guess is it's be something like buy water companies and shut down service. Or pollute the water. It is historically very difficult to quantify good and evil but my personal take on it would be that doing evil just to do evil is probably as bad as it gets, regardless of what the evil actually is; most evil acts were likely committed in mistaken attempts to do good. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2

Japanese atrocities in the People's Republic of China

Has anyone ever been judged (Japanese officer or politician, or something like that) for the terrible and unforgivable atrocities they did against China? .... example of atrocities Yoshio Kodaira --201.254.95.71 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal is quite short but affirms that people were put on trial for war crimes and links to other articles. This is not to minimise your question. Background is in Nanking massacre and Japanese war crimes with further links. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese war criminals were tried after the war in a large number of locations, with the most prominent of the trials held in Tokyo. The Tokyo trials included the most senior of the accused war criminals, under the name of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

A number of tribunals were convened in China for the trial of war criminals in China - mainly members of the occupying forces. The most prominent of these was the Nanjing trials, as Julia mentioned above.

By the way, there was no such thing as the People's Republic of China (founded 1949) at the time of the Japanese atrocities.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TVO documnetary Saddam Hussein

I remember that on TVO, there was a documentary that talking about Saddam Hussein and his life and family. I remember one part that there was a part where they showing a naked lady taken away from her father because her father betrayed Saddam Hussein? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.55 (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, and what was your question? Do you want us to help you track down the documentary? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Five Chinese Funeral/Mourning Rites

Can any user please list for me the five Chinese Funeral/Mourning Rites? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is not a single "Chinese culture". Are you referring to the Chanyuan Qinggui funeral rites by chance? If this is a homework question, any answer you find here will likely differ from what is in your textbook. -- kainaw™ 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to Huitian's monumental work Wu-li Tung-kao (Comprehensive Study of the Five Rites) on mourning rites which was written in about the middle of the 18th century. This is not a homework question - I am a pensioner! Simonschaim (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same Qui Huitian mentioned in Ancestors: 900 Years in the Life of a Chinese Family? I came up pretty much empty with Google Books but Google Scholar had a bit more: see this pdf – on page 169 there is this snippet: "The Five Rites that Qin dealt with, in accordance with the categories of The Civil Service of Zhou: Major Zongbo, fell into the Rites of auspices, omens, army, guests, and of celebrations." They seem to be classification categories rather than specific individual ceremonies. I can't see a funeral link, though, so ask again if this still doesn't help. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all thank you for the infornation up to now. It is the Qui Huitian mentoned in the book "Ancestors". What I have in mind is the CEREMONIES (and not just classifications) in the same manner as given by T'ung-tsu Ch'u in his book "Law and Society in Traditional China" p.101 and David Buxbaum in his book "Family Law and Customary Law in Asia" p.45, with regards to the "Six Marriage Rites". What are the CEREMONIES for the five funeral/mourning rites? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, his name is Qin Huitian, the book is most likely listed as "Wuli Tongkao" (五禮通考) in your local academic library, and his surname is Qin. Huitian is his given name.

the Wuli Tongkao, "Comprehensive Study of the Five Rites", refers to the five areas of rites in classical Chinese culture: the auspicious rites; the marital rites; the rites of fealty; the martial rites; and the rites of death (my translations).

What I'm calling "rites of death" covers not just funerary/mourning rites, but rather any inauspicious occasion requiring the attendance of the Prince. Major funerary rites are part of this chapter.

The easiest way to find out about the rites described by Qin is probably to read the original, (or to get someone to translate it for you.) This is a modern work and so the language is fairly accessible.

If you are simply looking for a list of funerary rites, these will likely differ from source to source. I've seen schemes which divide the rites into three sections, or five, or six, or seven...--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Finding map coordinates for international borders, past and present

Ukraine and Slovakia share a border, though I don't know where to find info as to how this might have changed during or after WWII. In particular, there's a locale, Izky (alternative names: Iska, Iski, Isky, Iszka), coordinates 48°39'N/23°23'(or 23°22') E, that's variously cited as being in Slovakia and Ukraine. This map places it in today's Ukraine and reasonably near Slovakia, but what about the historical border? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Zakarpattia Oblast (Subcarpathian Rus) was transferred from Czechoslovakia to the Soviet Union in 1945. Your map shows the village as being within this area. Fribbler (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

UK Postal Service

Is it possible to go along to the local sorting office and ask them if a letter is there for me? I know that one is in the post, sent to me recently by someone in my area, so it should be in the sorting office. Is it possible to just go along and get it from there, rather than waiting for the postman to bring it to my house?--92.41.246.101 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the UK postal service is as automated as the US postal service, you cannot. Humans don't have much to do with the mail service. So, they cannot go in and pull mail out of the automated system. -- kainaw™ 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Once it reaches the local sorting office it will be delivered the same or next day, so there isn't much to be gained by collecting it in person. You can always try, though, the worst that can happen is they say "no". Make sure you take ID and proof of address (a utility bill, say). --Tango (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, incidentally, that the correct name is the Royal Mail, not the "UK postal service". Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"UK postal service" is a description, not a name. --Tango (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Assassinations

How many internationally recognized heads of state have been assassinated in the past 200 years? I know the US has lost 4 presidents in that manner, but what about other countries? I presume you will need me to define the question better, but am not sure how exactly.65.167.146.130 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List of assassinated persons is probably a good place to start counting. - Eron^Talk 17:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

...and by my quick review, it shows 138 people who could arguably be considered heads of state who were assassinated worldwide since 1800. I included Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Kings, plus the odd Emir, Emperor, Tsar, etc. I did not include any former leaders assassinated after their term, but I did count a couple of Presidents-Elect. - Eron^Talk 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone holding political office is murdered for purely private reasons – say, by a jilted lover – is that an "assassination"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Our article states that assassination is the targeted killing of a public figure. I think that it is the fact that the public figure is killed for being a public figure that makes it an assassination. The motives may be ideological or psychological, but they are intimately connected to the public face of the figure. The murder of a king, say, for purely personal reasons could arguably have taken place - for those same personal reasons - even if the king were a completely private individual. So I'd have to say no, that wouldn't be an assassination. - Eron^Talk 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

are there any publically evil ("flamboyantly evil") people out there?

There have been a lot of public, powerful people past and present who are villains at least in current western opinion. But none of them go out and SAY that they are evil, that their goals are evil (a la Dr. Evil of Austin Powers, who does make such statements). Are there ANY powerful evil people who are "out of the evil closet" and make no secret of the fact that their goals are sinister and that they are out to do EVIL?? I mean there are thousands or tens of thousands of large-scale philanthropists dedicating their lives and bank accounts to charitable goals, and making no secret of it -- is there (or has there ever been) even ONE evil person doing the opposite (dedicating their lives to doing evil) and frankly letting the world know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.157 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, people rarely believe they are doing evil even when they are doing it. One could safely argue that the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin, to pick just three, were evil - but I doubt that any one of them would agree. They had their own justifications and reasons, however twisted or misguided, and they believed that what they did was for some greater good.

I think to find naked, self-declared evil you need to look a little further down the food chain. I would expect that several of these folks probably quite admitted quite cheerfully that they were being evil. - Eron^Talk 19:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I know about Hitler through Saddam Hussein, and I also know about serial killers. The former doesn't answer my question because they were not publically evil, and the latter don't fit because they are not "public, powerful people". I am looking for a single public, powerful person (past or present) who publically behaved like Dr. Evil does: avowing, and following through, on admittedly evil intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.157 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who fits that description. I can't imagine that any existed, outside of comic books and James Bond movies. - Eron^Talk 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot depends on your definition of evil. I'd suggest Aleister Crowley as someone who consciously tried to do the opposite of "good". --TammyMoet (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about conscious or not, I'm talking about publically avowed or not. There are memoirs that confess to pangs of conscience after the fact, but I'm really looking for Dr. Evil type public statements from someone powerful WHILE they are doing the evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.157 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, evil doesn't have much depth. Hence cartoons villains are so ridiculous—instead of, say, taking that stolen oil tanker and selling it for cash, they want to beach it on the rocks to kill the seagulls. That's not just evil—it's dumb. Real evil is, as Arendt argued, banal—it is the absence of good, not a force opposed to it. Uday Hussein, for example, seems to have lacked even the semblance of good intentions (one can argue that Saddam, for all his deficits, at least thought he was achieving some sort of Pan-Arabic strength), but did he espouse evil? No. He espoused nothing. He was a creature of greed, excess, and cruelty. He had no ideology from what I can tell. He was certainly not doing what he did as part of an organized plan.

I suspect the only place you'd find an elaborate justification of "evil" per se is in the work of nutcases—serial killers and the like. Most people don't think about themselves in those terms, for fairly obvious psychological reasons. --140.247.253.176 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried finding stuff on Victor Bout? Well-known to governments and his own trading circles, now relatively public with a documentary showing his moves. He'd fit your the question about returns on evil as well. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

did you even read my question? the wikipedia article you just linked says "Viktor Bout has always professed his innocence, saying he is just a businessman. He was interviewed by Peter Landesman for the Süddeutsche Zeitung (24 October 2003).[25] He also appeared on Moscow radio station Ekho Moskvy, saying "I have never supplied anything to or had contacts with the Taliban or al-Qaeda."". A far cry from "I do what I do because it is evil, and I like being evil" which is the kind of thing I'm looking for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.125 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. People are trying to help you here. As it appears that the simple answer to your question is "No," we are trying to find some answers that come close to what you want, or that explain why the answer is no. - Eron^Talk 23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you may have found a niche. You should try to become the first public figure celebrated for being evil, but not committing any crimes. This would be a very challenging tasks, but you would probably be rewarded with fame, done correctly. NByz (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some of these guys may have beaten our OP to the punch on that one. - Eron^Talk 00:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who said it first but someone once told me that no man ever intentionally does evil. It has stuck with me ever since. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

About reading your question – I did, but decided to roll this one in anyway because it's got a theme with the other "evil" threads. If that spoiled your question thread, apologies. So as someone answered above, No. Mostly "evil" doers would like the rest of the world to think they're just innocent everyday businessmen, or sincere every day dictators. Btw, these are good questions – very stimulating. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't ruin my question thread - sorry if I barked at you!  :) However in the conclusion of every single respondent above it seems you should write Without exception "evil" doers would like the rest of the world to think they're just innocent everyday businessmen, or sincere every day dictators --85.181.149.76 (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Well, don't know if Aleister Crowley qualifies or whether he was over acting but as the poster says above, he was flamboyant about it (being the Great Beast, Satan et al). And fictional though he is, I've got a soft spot for Scarface saying thanks to him, everyone could say, there goes the bad guy. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

@ AQuestforknowledge, Charles Manson might be an exception. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be interesting to address the issue of why nobody powerful will publicly state that their goals are evil. I suspect that the reason is that they wouldn't be able to stay powerful, if they did. We tend to think that people in power can remain there through violence, intimidation, and wealth, but they really do always need an inner circle of loyal people they can trust. If the inner circle is afraid they will be killed at any time, they are likely to decide they would do better to kill their leader than follow him. It always bothers me when I see a movie featuring an evil criminal kingpin, who kills his own people at random. If he did that, he'd find a knife in his back in short order. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You can dream on, StuRat, but it's historic that wicked rulers get paranoid and start picking off their own people/loyal henchmen and do not die soon enough themselves. Julia Rossi (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they kill members of their inner circle who really have betrayed them, but leave the rest alone, that could actually help them to maintain power. However, in too many movies they just kill members of their inner circle at random, for fun. This would not inspire loyalty, and anyone who behaved that way wouldn't last long. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well... Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and Pol Pot all lasted long enough. The Night of the Long Knives wasn't exactly a big Nazi group hug, though it pales in comparison to the purges of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Hollywood rarely gets it right, but still, a leader's ability to kill their own people depends entirely on the political and social climate within the leadership. It probably has a lot to do with ideology and government structure; oddly enough, a large, powerful bureaucracy seems to do more to secure the future of a dictator than does wealth, influence, or control over the military. Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brazil spring to mind. --Fullobeans (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture of a Nazi person

Does anyone know who this person is? http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4696/67gr5.jpg --Emyn ned (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but it comes from the Google LIFE photo archive so you could search on there for Nazis. --140.247.253.176 (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you assuming he's a Nazi? Unless there's some clue in the uniform, he could just as easily be a regular non-political conscript. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a regular Wehrmacht officer (i.e. regular German army) and NOT part of the SA or SS or any other Nazi party paramilitary organization. My guess is that this is a Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) of some sort. Compare to this google search: [28] The facepunch.com link claims its a Obersturmbannführer, but that was an SA rank, and the equivalent to a Wehrmacht Oberstleutnant. This page shows another Oberstleutnant, and the uniform matches very closely. Note the 3 bars on the collar insignia, which I believe is the rank indicator, and the stripe at the second button, the Eagle over the breast pocket, etc. etc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The "original" at Google is here, and here is another photograph of the same officer. Google says the photos were taken in 1942 but the man is "unidentified." --Cam (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I always figured that stripey ribbon signified an Iron Cross. Anybody know for sure? I second the opinion that this guy is a boring old Wehrmacht officer; the collar tabs are the giveaway (compare). The dizzying array of WWII-era shoulder boards and waffenfarbe makes it hard to tell what the fellow's particular position was, but odds are he was nobody special, and, as Clarityfiend says, may not have been a Nazi at all. If you believe Wikipedia, the German army was relatively apolitical and even skeptical of Nazism, unlike other branches of the military. What struck me about this photo, incidentally, is the shirt the guy is wearing under his tunic. It looks non-regulation, to say the least, and I can't recall ever seeing a shirt collar sticking out so prominently. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The shirt also struck me - clearly not military issue - and I wondered if it didn't mean that the person pictured was playing "dress up" in someone else's uniform. - Nunh-huh 08:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The collar tabs identify him as regular army (Heer, i.e. not navy or air force). The background of the collar tab would identifies which command (which part) of the Heer he would have been in, but I can't tell what color they are (my monitor is lousy too). Armor if dark green, medical if dark blue, black if engineers. The ribbon probably indicates Iron Cross Second Class. The one stud on the shoulder board indicates Feldwebel, i.e. the third lowest NCO rank (3 Stripe NCO := US E-6). As for his field cap,.. the shape of the insignia's patch, its color and the cockade all mean something too. Dunno what though. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than the Google LIFE images archives cited above, I'd suggest you contact the archives of Life (magazine) itself, possibly through its LIFE.com official website. Otherwise, are we sure this image isn't a photoshopped fabrication? -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Structuralist/intentionalist Holocaust sources

Where can I find, online, extracts from works by structuralist and intentionalist authors which show their opinions on the Holocaust? Thanks, --AdamSommerton (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is not sufficient information in the article you have linked, then perhaps clicking on the names shown as supportive of each perspective will give you on-line sources. You might also consider googling each of the names to find materials beyond WP. // BL \\ (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bookcases in Jewish cemetery

The article on the Austrian town Krems an der Donau contains a photo of some bookcases in a Jewish cemetery there. The photo is not captioned, unfortunately (I think it should be). But the bookcases look a bit odd stuck there in the middle of a cemetery like that. Is this a common sight in Jewish cemeteries? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a caption. It is artwork by Clegg & Guttmann installed in 2004. Here is further information in German. --Cam (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

According to [29], this seems to be an art installation. In November 2000 the gravestone of Rabbi Nehemia bar Jakob, who died 11 December 1380, was found in exterior front of Piaristenkirche in Krems/Stein, restored, and moved to his final resting place in the cemetery of Krems. A contest was held for ideas on how to use the empty space left behind in the Piaristenkirche. The winners were the artists Clegg & Guttmann, who wanted to use the space to continue their 1991 project called “Open Public Library”.

Clegg & Guttmann, however, could not obtain the required permissions, and so did not erect the library in the Piaristenkirche, but rather in the Jewish cemetery of Krems. "The artists created a bookcase in size and shape of a gravestone with glass doors. It holds a carefully chosen collection of books, which is devoted to the Jewish philosophy and history of death. The choice consists of German, English and Hebrew texts." The work is now less a memorial for a missing gravestone and more a memorial for the formerly flourishing Jewish community of Krems. Visitors are invited to increase the library with books related to the subject. -- Nunh-huh 04:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has an article on the cemetery, with information about the art. Alas, it is in German too difficult this Englishman for. w:de:Jüdischer Friedhof Krems. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

By contrast, see the Judenplatz Holocaust Memorial in Vienna, a work by Rachel Whiteread. It consists of an inside-out library, and, while not in a cemetary, cannot but be linked with the death and absence of Jews in that city. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dacians, Getae, Venadae, Galatians

Click to enlarge

Danes and Goths in Latin? Is it possible that due to the fluidity of Germania as meaning many different things, that our modern version of who these peoples are, is not exactly black and white? Those peoples are identified as the same by medieval academics. The Goths, like the Getae, lived along the Greek frontier as far as the Ukraine (where the Swedish Rus later lived) before moving into the western part of Rome and generally taking over former Celtic spheres of influence. I assume the Danes and Dacians weren't extricated from one another until modern (18th-19th century times). The Venadae seem like a mix-up with the Finns. If you think I'm crazy to even ask, then explain Galatia to me as if it has no relation to Gaul. The French made Crusader states and all Western Europeans are called Franks because of this. Who says the French were not retracing Galatian steps? I assume you are going to merely state that all of those frontier peoples, barbarians, are simply too obscure to know for sure. I'll accept that answer and drop the question, if it's what you have. 68.231.163.38 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the connection between France and Gaul is that its the same plot of land, but the French are not really descendents of the Gauls. There were probably some descendents of the Gauls living in just about any part of France at any time, but the French who went on the Crusades were most likely descendents of Romans and Germanic Franks which migrated to the area from other parts of Europe some 500-800 years prior to the Crusades.

You must remember that the modern concept of nation-state which means a people AND government AND plot of land AND language all rolled into one is really only a concept which has existed for MAYBE 300-400 years at the outside, and really only got nailed down in the 19th and early 20th century. Prior to the Dark ages, most of the major groups of Europe had no definitive homeland; they were semi-nomadic or pastoralist. The broad groups we speak of (Germanic groups, Celtic/Gaulish groups, Slavic groups, "Scythians", etc.) weren't really tied to one area. We have a sense that the Germanic people came from the Denmark-Norway-Sweeden area, and that the Celts maybe came from the Halstatt culture of the Alps, however these people ranged and moved widely across Europe and the Mediteranean world throughout history. For the Celtic peoples, we have such far flung areas as Galatia in Anatolia and Galicia in Iberia. For the Germans we have Vandals in North Africa and Goths as far as northeastern Black Sea area. In fact, if we plot the movements of the Germanic and Celtic peoples over, say, the 1000 year period from 500 BC to 500 AD it would probably be hard to find a plot of land from Portugal to the Caucasus, or from Denmark to Libya, which had NOT served as a homeland, at different times, for BOTH Germanic and Celtic peoples.

There's really no evidence, either, that the 11th century French were particularly aware of this, and their motivation for taking on the Crusades wasn't to reclaim some "Gaulish" homeland in Galatia, it was a combination of religious duty to reclaim the Holy Land from the Saracens, and of personal conquest.

As far as the connection between the Danes and the Dacians/Getae, I am not sure there is any. As far as I know, the Dacians were a native Thracian people who had no known connection to the Germanic Danes, and any similarity in their names is purely coincidental. Their closest relatives are probably the Phrygian peoples of Anatolia, and those Phrygians, despite at some point populating an area that at a different time was populated by the Galatians, have no commonality with them either.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a map of 323 BC, and according to accepted chronologies, the Goths didn't move into the general Balkans-Ukraine area until about five centuries later. In 323 BC., the central Europe, northern Balkans, and Ukraine area was probably dominated by Celts, Illyrians, Scythians, and "Thraco-Phrygians" -- and not by either Slavs or Germanics. The Galatians were indeed Celts, who famously broke into Anatolia around 278 B.C. Not sure about "Venedae", but Veneti was an early word sometimes used by Romans to refer to Slavs (but probably not in 323 B.C.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it significant that the Goths and Rus followed the same orientation? It's almost that Germania (includes Finns acc. to Tacitus) and Scythia are the respective Latin and Greek name for the same mishmash, from different positions to judge? Obviously, many of the other peoples, especially those of Anatolia and Gaul, have a much more intimate connection to the Mediterranean world and its "in-crowd", so they are easier to understand. You know, I went to Oktoberfest this past year and they had a mix of Germanic and Slavic folk dances and music, going as far east as those -istan countries of Central Asia, like the Cossacks and Tajiks. I was stunned, but perhaps can't really be this estranged from knowing that the Germanic and Scythic peoples and their descendants have closer ties with each other than each might have separately with the Mediterranean world which they absorbed in the Middle Ages. 68.231.163.38 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are confusing the Rus, which were a Germanic people, with the Russians, who are a Slavic people. The land the Rus settled on became known as Russia, and then when the Slavs later moved in, they became Russians though they had no relation to the prior settlers. And the Finns are definately not Germanic in any way. They are a Uralic peoples who came from the same part of North-Central Asia from whence the Magyars and Samoyed peoples came. Tacitus may have assumed they were Germanic because they were found in his time intermingled in some of the areas where Germanic peoples were, but as I noted above with the Celts and the Germans, there were many unrelated groups of people marching all accross Eurasia for many hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Certainly there was contact and intermingling between all of these groups, as well as other Central Asian groups which moved into Europe or visa-versa (see Bulgars, Avars, Cimerians, Scythians, Sarmatians). Its not like these cultures remained isolated from each other while trapsing over each others land. There is, of course, some assimilation to happen; else how do the Franks, a Germanic people, end up speaking a Latin-based language or the Bulgars, a Turkic group from central asia, end up speaking a Slavic language. So yes, I would not be surprised to find the sort of cross-cultural connections you describe; however when you get down to the roots of these cultures, they often come from very different places, and cross-cultural exchanges are different from cultural descent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was really trying to get a sense of the similarity in the names and whether these are not really two different peoples, but two different versions of the same peoples. 68.231.163.38 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Two things: the Slavs were already there when the Rus arrived. The Slavs supposedly asked them to come intervene in some conflict, and they ended up with Rus overlords until the Rus were completely Slavicized a few centuries later. (Or, perhaps, the Rus were Slavs all along, depending on which side of the debate you are on. We have an article about this, naturally, see Rus' (people).) Secondly, the crusaders were called "Franks" because they mostly came from France, but also because they associated themselves with the more heroic age of the actual Franks, especially Charlemagne, who was thought to have had some interest (military or humanitarian) in Jerusalem. The leaders of the crusade were all descended from Charlemagne, of course. Sometimes chroniclers also used ancient geographic and ethnographic terms for contemporary people and places; thus in the First Crusade, "Franks", "Teutons", and "Alemanni" travelled through "Pannonia" and "Illyria" on their way to "Babylon". I don't know if this helps answer the question, but I wanted to clarify some of Jayron's answers. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

March 3

Does anybody know where is Pervez Musharraf?

Since he resigned I didn't hear from him. Does anybody know where **he is? (sorry personal opinion)... Thanks all! I read on his article that he is a speaker now travelling through the Middle East, etc. But does he live in Pakistan? Could he be judged?--Maru-Spanish (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted pejorative label at ** on grounds that BLP applies to the Ref Desk, too. // BL \\ (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Like many former heads of state, he seems to be travelling the world. Speaking in California in January[30], Paris in February[31], but the latter was to see a cardiologist, so maybe he should take things a bit easier. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Sub-saharan Africa had a Civilization?

Becuase all what civilization needs is:

1. Urban society: Living together in communities.

2. Religion: Beliefs that provide answers to “unanswerable” questions.

3. Literacy: The ability to read and write

4. Government: Having a set of rules, leaders or organization to society

5. Specialization: Using unique skills to benefit all.

6. Social classes: Groups of people with common characteristics.

7. Tool-making: The ability to problem-solve.

8. Concept of time: Understanding of patterns like the seasons, sunrise and sunset or tides can be used to your benefit.

9. Leisure: Recognizing the value of the arts and entertainment.

10. Education/criticism: Striving to improve as an individual or as a culture.

Sub-saharan only had religion, urban society, government, specialization, social classes, tool making, leisure and education.

The only thing it did not have was a "highly developed writing system" so does it still count as a civilization?--arab 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs)

Part of the problem that happens there is that you have a definition of civilisation that leaves out some cultures which can well be called civilisation, such as the Incas, who also didn't have writing (but did have a system of records through quipu. What you need to decide is whether that definition of civilisation (wherever it came from) is valid, or if you think you can call a subsaharan culture not a civilisation (for example, the Hausa kings, Dahomey, the Zulu empire, etc.). Steewi (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia counts as sub-Saharan, and it has its own ancient, indigenous, highly developed writing system. It has also historically satisfied all of your other criteria for civilization. Other sub-Saharan African civilizations have had writing systems based on Arabic, which I think qualifies even though it originated elsewhere. From the 14th to the 16th centuries, for example, Timbuktu was a major intellectual center, with such institutions as the Sankore Madrasah. The Sokoto Caliphate was founded by Usman dan Fodio, a scholar who wrote more than 100 books. In East Africa, the Swahili city-states (such as Malindi, Mombasa, Zanzibar, and Kilwa Kisiwani) were also literate. Other sub-Saharan societies had indigenous writing systems with more limited application, such as Nsibidi. Marco polo (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Civilization?" Nazi Germany clearly had 1 through 10, and were hardly civilized. Some sub-saharan groups likely achieved a higher level of civilization at a less industrial and militaristic level of development than some European groups. Edison (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Call me sentimental, but to me the central aspect of civilization is humane treatment through love. The rest is just baubles and bangles. Wrad (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was undoubtedly a civilization by all other interpretations of the word I have seen. "Civilized" has taken on quite a different meaning; a civilized person is generous, polite, and good-natured, and is not a group of people organized under a leader with a writing system. On the other hand, division of labour, leadership, and relatively advanced arts/science are what most people think of when they hear "civilization". Good human rights is not a requirement.

Ward: your statement is very ironic considering that the first civilizations were based on inequality, in contrast to the earlier egalitarian tribes and clans. By your definition, these tribes would be civilizations while the early city-states would not. --99.237.96.33 (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sub-saharan Africa had numerous "civilizations" which were contemporaneously on par with similar civilizations around the world. Besides the ones already mentioned, don't forget Great Zimbabwe, the Mali Empire, the Songhai Empire, Kanem-Bornu, Kingdom of Kush, etc. etc. Sub-saharan Africa wasn't completely populated with savages until the Europeans showed up, you know. See also Ancient African kingdoms for a discussion of more... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical about the writing system requirement. The Inca, for one, lacked a writing system, and they still managed to have quite an empire. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

All civilisations go around killing non-/differently-civilised people. I doubt that "civilisation" ever connoted love. It could even be one of the criteria: the subjugation of people outside the civilisation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd question some of those characteristics of "civilization". Writing is only a few thousand years old, and I'd say many civilizations existed before that. As for religion, that's hardly an identifying characteristic, as religion likely goes back to cave man days. I might add other characteristics, too, like agriculture and architecture. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that no one has referred to the civilization article yet. "A civilization is a society or culture group normally defined as a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in towns and cities." and "The word Civilization comes from the Latin word civilis, the genitive form of civis, meaning a "citizen" or "townsman" governed by the law of his city." While I am not an anthropologist, this matches my understanding of civilization - that is to say, the only criteria that truely define a "civilization" are your 1) and 4), with 5), 6), and 7) being effectively a background requirement for living in a "city" (versus a "village"). While Merriam-Webster uses the keeping of written records (almost, but not quite your 3) as the key criteria for civilization, the OED does not, instead using the presence of laws and "citizens" (people living in a city, and thereby possessing rights and privileges) as the defining features. I'm not sure where you got 2), 8), 9) and 10) from, although admittedly any group which would build a city with a specialized workforce would likely be in possession of all four. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Propensity to consume: Economic standpoint of saving and consumption?

In my Economics class my professor either told me that if save increases then consumption decreases or that is save increases then consumption also increases. I have both written in my notes but I know one of them is wrong. This would be an easy-self explanatory question if I know what save means. Does it mean savings as in having more money on hand or physically saving more money and spending less?-- penubag  (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In a simple model, consumption and investment both consume capital; savings preserve capital for future use. Savings is a potential investment (if the money is saved in a bank it might be lent out) or a potential consumption (if it is put under the mattress for retirement) if it is more likely to be consumed in future.

The marginal propensity to consume is the share of an increase in income that is consumed. If income rises by $100, and $65 is spent on consumption (the remainder being saved or invested), the propensity to consume is 0.65. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And: 1 - (the marginal propensity to consume) = (the marginal propensity to save) . Which means that each dollar a person gets today either goes to savings or consumption. This makes sense if you think about it in an regular, every day sense. When you receive your paycheck, sometimes you have something to buy with some of the money. Any money that you don't spend, you hold on to, to buy something in the future. Usually in a bank account, but sometimes in other sorts of "investments."

But, of course, savings today is consumption tomorrow.

Any money that you save usually produces interest too. So if you save $1 today in some investment account, you might have $1.05 next year.

Your professor might have been trying to make the point that everything in society that is produced is also consumed (or eventually depreciated away). When you save, you're really just creating more of a special resource called "capital." If the return on that capital (in a perfect market, the "interest rate") is relatively high, savings today might mean more consumption for everybody tomorrow. (see Exogenous growth model, which is more of a second-year thing)

But more likely, the thing you want to remember is that, in any period, income = savings + consumption. If income is held constant, an increase in savings means a decrease in consumption, and vice versa. NByz (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for such a concise answer. I understand it now. -- penubag  (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bear market and Bull market

Why are they called bear and bull? SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Market trend#Etymology notes some speculation as to why these terms are used, but it is unreferenced, and thus of dubious reliability. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And they didn't have the version of the story I'd heard, that "bear" means people are "bearing" stocks and bonds, that is, trying to sell them, while "bull" was used to contrast with "bear", based on the abbreviation BU for trying to buy stocks and bonds. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Electoral tie provisions?

I know that the US government has a scheme for deciding the president & vice president in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. But what if there was a tie at the state level, and the people of the state were evenly split on who to award their electoral college votes to? Does any state have provisions for this event? More generally, can someone tell me of 'any' tie provision for a government election involving more than a hundred thousand voters?

This question is important to me because a rational agent votes according to the chance of his or her vote swaying the election. If states don't have provisions for tied elections, that suggests that no one actually takes the idea of a very close election seriously, and that we only vote for social reasons. --Tigerthink (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but I'm intrigued by your view. we only vote for social reasons. Here in Australia, even if the election was not close at all, we individually vote to avoid being fined.

That may be true for you, PalaceGuard, but not for me, and not, I suspect, for a significant proportion of Australians. Just because it's compulsory doesn't mean that many people wouldn't vote anyway. I certainly would. It's also true that many wouldn't if they didn't have to. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But more generally, isn't voting in an election a bit of an equilibrium strategy situation? Each voter has very little information about the intentions of every other voter in his or her electorate to vote or not. All you can go by is opinion polling. If you see that your party is going to win, and therefore you don't vote, you run the risk of everyone else thinking the same and your party thereby losing? Conversely, if you see that your party is going to lose, then by voting, you are going for the chance that other people won't turn up. All in all, since you can't see whether other people will turn up to vote or not, you can't really assess with any accuracy how valuable your vote is.

Does this have anything necessarily to do with the likelihood of a "close" election? Assuming that everyone in the community thinks the same (faces the same payoff matrix?), en election would never be close: either many people vote or hardly anyone votes; either everyone votes for the Reds or they vote for the Blues. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But candidates respond to pre-election polls, and the losing candidates will iteratively revise their platforms to get more votes until everyone converges at the center. "Ideally", by election time the vote will be evenly split but it will no longer matter who wins (obligatory link to Kang and Kodos). In practice I don't know if that convergence ever happens—there often seem to be enormous differences between candidates at election time, not to mention that they often have no intention of following through on their campaign promises. But I think that is how it's supposed to work, and it is the reason elections are so often close.

Tigerthink, regarding your last sentence, I don't know about legal provisions for exact ties, but people certainly take close elections seriously because they happen. The 2000 Florida presidential election is legendary. The 2008 Minnesota Senate election is still ongoing with Al Franken leading by less than 0.01%. -- BenRG (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As to the "more general" question, if the election for any seat in the Canadian House of Commons is a tie, there's no winner. The government calls a byelection the same as they would if someone had been elected and then died. See section 318 of the Canada Elections Act, which is online under canada.justice.gc.ca (sorry, I can't post a direct link). --Anonymous, 06:22 UTC, March 3, 2009.

"The electoral tie, a fashion must for every man. It's reversible, blue on one side, red on the other, and can be worn as a bow-tie if some weird third party every manages to win. And, no matter which side turns out, you're absolutely guaranteed to be sick of it in 4-8 years." StuRat (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you knew your vote would be the tie-breaker, you'd still be voting for "social reasons" unless you thought that one of the candidates would benefit you personally and directly.

Nothing wrong with that of course. If people didn't instinctively do things for social reasons we wouldn't have a society. APL (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

USSR invades USA, occupies east coast

I seem to remember this as a graphic novel. Google searching not fruitful. Anybody have any ideas? (NOT Red Dawn, pls--I distinctly remember the eastern seaboard clearly "red"-ed out). Thanks!--75.157.250.4 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming! Not. Do you have any idea when it was published, or when you read it, at least? Also, was it actually a book-format graphic novel (or trade paperback), or was it a regular ol' comic book? --Fullobeans (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In Judge Dredd (originally published in 2000AD) the sovietesque city "East Meg 1" (a megalopolis encompassing much of western Russia) poisons, nukes, invades, and (for a time) conquers "Mega City 1", another megalopolis which encompasses the eastern seaboard of the US. The prologue to this was the "Block Mania" storyline, and the war itself is the "Apocalypse War" storyline; BM and AW are published as graphic novels in the UK by Titan, and presumably (by someone) in the US. The AW story regularly featured maps of Mega City 1 being turned red by large invading sov-blok arrows. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unusual library

(Thread moved from the Language Desk. --Anonymous, 06:25 UTC, March 3, 2009.)

There is a library, in Europe, I think, that is housed in the home of its former owner, who is now dead. It is run as a public service IIRC. The books are arranged into four sections, not by the dewey system, but by an obscure schema that the owner came up with that locates books next to other books that the owner thought would be interesting or useful. I have forgotten the name of the library - can anyone help me with it? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.100.62 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the Cotton Library, although that no longer exists. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty impossible question. There are many private libraries that remain in the homes of their previous owners, as libraries, museums, research institutes, etc. And it's not really typical for old/small/private libraries to use an established cataloging system either. --Pykk (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - the Cotton Library is not the one, although that is interesting. I understand that there are many, let me try to be more specific in details. It was organized into four rooms, with a theme for each room that had some sort of visual (a woodcut carving iirc) that distinguished it. There was some notion about the arrangement of the books being its own form of literary art. Thanks, I know it is a long-shot! I am pretty sure it is in continental europe, too, maybe Austria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.100.62 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the four rooms, but your description of the associative method of "organization" reminded me of the library of Aby Warburg in his Hamburg house. I believe that his actual collection of books is now in the Warburg Institute in London but that his library has been partially recreated in Hamburg. Deor (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - that is really interesting, and the right line of thought, but the one I am looking for is one house, and it has a website which explains it that I can't find. I appreciate the suggestions, I know I am being infuriatingly vague! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.95.28 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also the St Deiniol's Residential Library, which is in William Gladstone's old home at Hawarden. Website here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian novels

Why are there references to "X crossing Y"? Is that something in the Orthodox Church, or is it also Catholic? Also, it's worth noting that X is rarely a priest in those Dostoevsky novels... 203.188.92.71 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you are referring to, but "X crossed Y" can mean that Mr X opposed Mr Y, or disagreed with him, or thwarted him. Nothing to do with religion. If X "crossed himself" that would probably be a religious ritual - see Sign of the Cross.DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Plotting graphs? A quote giving the context would help us help you.--Wetman (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your question, but an R.C. priest X (or a parent) may well make the sign of the cross, typically on the forehead of the person Y. The most common example would be the procedure of baptism. I have no idea if this is also customary in the Orthodox church, though. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I never became a member myself, but I was married in a Russian Orthodox Church, my sons were baptised there, and I attended a number of other church services. I can't say I ever saw one person crossing another, except at baptism. I might have seen the priest cross the forehead of a body at a funeral (the coffins are open, and we all get to kiss the body), but I couldn't swear to it. I never saw it happen in my earlier long transit through the RC church either, except at baptism, confirmation and Ash Wednesday, where in every case the priest (or bishop, in the case of confirmation) would cross the adherent's forehead (with ash on Ash Wednesday). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

stanford or havard??

which one is the best university for engineering education(m tech/phd)??

SAMEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameerdubey.sbp (talk • contribs) 10:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

if youd like to become a billionaire handsdown stanford. Millionaire, handsdown Harvard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.149.76 (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, neither school has much of a reputation for engineering. If I was to choose the best Engineering school, I would go with Cal Tech instead of Stanford and MIT instead of Harvard, and at that point, your decision will probably be based on non-accademic criteria (location, campus life, suburban vs. urban setting, etc. etc.) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

whether you prefer it to be sunny all year 'round or under a foot of snow for 3/4th of it... --140.247.243.40 (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Boston's (well Cambridge, axully, but close enough) is actually not that snowy. It's near the ocean, so does not receieve nearly the accumulation of inland New England. New England as a whole, on average, receieve far less snow than other parts of the country, say Upstate New York or the Midwest. While winter does tend to be rather long (probably late october through mid march) it's not all that terrible. Unless you are used to Southern California weather, then it will probably seem like the arctic to you. I have lived in both the Boston area and the Chicago area, and Chicago has FAR worse winters. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty snowy when compared to Pasadena. Or really anywhere else in California, for that matter. The choice here isn't between Boston and Chicago, it's Boston and California. There is quite a contrast. I speak as a native Californian since transplanted East. That Chicago is colder does not affect how cold Boston is. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, we should probably say "whether you prefer it to be sunny all year round or under a foot of snow for days at a time which quickly compacts to ice because the college kids don't shovel and shortly thereafter melts and refreezes into black ice which then gets snowed on again and then rained on so it turns to a heavy grey slush, which then freezes once more and then melts suddenly during a warm snap which dries out the ground and brings clear, sunny days which make you happy to be alive for about five minutes before a cold front blows in from Canada and brings sub-zero wind chills for two weeks, followed by a week of freezing rain, followed by another snowstorm, after which beautiful spring weather makes the crocuses bloom and a sudden April cold snap quickly kills them, until finally temperatures stabilize for a week or two before giving way to three or four months of sticky heat and thunderstorms, after which a beautiful autumn comes and goes and the process repeats itself, plus or minus six nor'easters." --Fullobeans (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"...or how nasty every other season is except autumn," is what I should have added. "Pasadena — basically better weather all the time than Boston ever gets, except maybe August and September, which are pretty swell." (Don't get me wrong—I think Boston as a city has way more going on for it than Pasadena as a city, and is a lot of fun to live in. Whoo, basically good and reliable public transportation! But the weather...... just miserable. All the time. Except the fall.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me defend my home city here for a minute. The choice between Pasadena and Boston is a choice between bland suburb and vibrant city. As for the weather, it is a choice between weather (Boston) or not (Pasadena). If you don't like weather and don't mind a bland suburb, go for Pasadena. However, if you don't mind weather and want a more stimulating environment, come to Boston. Certainly, not all of our weather is enjoyable. I don't like it when snow is followed by cold rain that creates deep slush. However, I like most of it. At the moment we are having crisp, cold, sunny days. The sun is all the brighter for the snow on the ground. Soon we will have spring, with fragrant blossoms everywhere, which is a delight after all of those months of cold, though the winter weather has its pleasures. After spring, we get a good hot summer, with some really sultry days, perfect for the beach or a shady spot on one of Boston's Harbor Islands, to enjoy the cool sea breeze. And then the glorious fall. It's all good if you know how to enjoy it. Marco polo (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Group Decision Making Method

I have a group of 10-15 people that need to make a group decision out of as many options (each person can out forward one option). We have discussed it, but it is hard to come to agreement because each participant tends to pull to its own side, which is understandable because they would want their option to be accepted. As it is now, it is obvious that most vocal side will win, through pressure it exerts on everybody else. I am looking for democratic decision making process here everyone's option will be considered and only most popular option will win, not the option that has best "campaign". I figured I could call a vote but I am unsure how to go about it. Should there be several rounds with elimination of least popular option? Basically, I am looking for established group decision making method, if such thing exists. Does it?

After first decision is made, there will be another one or several more, where previous options might be present, depending on if participant chooses to resubmit it. I know of DKP systems in MMORPGs, I guess I am looking for something like that. Fair way to make most people happy or at least understand that decision was made on sound unbiased foundations.

Am I making any sense?--Melmann^(talk) 10:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In this situation, I would call for a "secret ballot" vote with the caveat that no one could vote for their own proposal. You could also do a "Top 5" vote, and assign points to each proposal (5 for a first place vote, 4 for a second, etc.). Those votes or a combination of the two may help weed out the "self-vote" problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The obvious problem with the secret ballot is that there's no way to actually tell if people vote for themselves, if the vote is really secret. So, I'd go with the idea of having people get two or more secret votes (which can't be identical). Make sure each person writes all their choices on the same piece of paper so you can verify that none of them voted twice for the same idea. You may also want run-off votes, where it comes down to the top two vote-getting ideas. By eliminating many of people's own, inferior ideas, each will then be forced to choose from the between the best ideas. I'd also have everyone submit their initial ideas anonymously, in writing, so that the popularity and public speaking abilities of the authors don't influence the decision. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instant-runoff voting would be a good technique. Or take a look at the many types of voting in the single-winner voting system--Eriastrum (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Source of quote?

"Know your heart, it is your North Star." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.98.141 (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the central metaphor of Martha Beck, Finding Your North Star, 2005. See "Finding Your Own North Star". That one's own instincts are the most trustworthy guide is a basic assumption of Romanticism. --Wetman (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also an important part of Aristotle's philosophy. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Strategy game

I played an interesting and thought-provoking strategy game on a work-related training course recently and I wonder if anyone recognizes it and can tell me who devised it. Basically, each individual represents a corporate department, with the group as a whole standing for the whole company. Each individual is asked to decide which of two strategies, A or B, to pursue, and to write A or B on a piece of paper which no-one else is allowed to see. The strategies themselves are not part of the game; the point is that there are financial consequences, both for the individual departments and the company as a whole, based on how many departments go for strategy A and how many for strategy B. For example (I may not have got the figures right, but the principle is clear): if every department chooses A, then every department gains $3000 but the company as a whole loses $1000. If fewer departments choose A than choose B, then each department that chose A gains $5000, each department that chose B loses $1000, and the company as a whole loses $10,000. If every department chooses B, then each department gains $1000 and the company as a whole gains $10,000. (I hope this is making sense.)

The game goes through several rounds, with the scores for the whole company being totted up at the end of each round. At the end of some rounds, the company has a meeting in which it can decide collectively which strategy/ies to pursue. What we found was that individual self-interest trumped the good of the company. At one of the 'meetings', we collectively decided that we should all go for B in order to maximise the gain for the company, but in the end one or two people still went for A, thereby gaining for themselves but making the company as a whole lose out. I'm not saying it's necessarily representative of what could or would happen in the real world, but it was still fun to play. Has anyone else come across this game? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a variation on the prisoner dilemma. --Tango (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As with most corporate-based strategy games, a part of the problem is scale. Whereas $3,000 may be a lot of money to an individual in the game, any company large enough to be able to afford such group actvities is not likely to be much affected by a $10,000 cost. In a game setting, I'd go for the maximum personal gain, too, even having previously said that I would vote for the better corporate atrategy. I hate everything that playing such games says about a company. // BL \\ (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional reading for the OP are articles such as Game theory and Nash equilibrium, a nobel-prize winning concept. The whole idea of modeling complex human behavior as games like this became something of a hot idea in economics in the 1980's and 1990's and still holds some important ideas across the social sciences. See also brinksmanship for Game theory's application to international relations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(Assuming you've remembered and explained this correctly.)

All A : $3000 each. (-$1000)

50/50 : $2000 (avg) (-$10,000)

All B : $1000 each (+$10,000)

It's pretty clear that a split is never good, and if your company has more than five departments, than the All-A strategy is the clear winner both overall, and individually.

The only dilemma is for companies with five or fewer departments.

In any case, I'd choose A every time until word came down from the top not to. My department can't do its job without proper funding. It's not like we'd spend that money on pizza parties and beer. APL (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a little unclear what it means for the departments and the company to be making money. Surely if 5 departments each make $3k, then the company makes $15k, it can't lose money if none of its constituent parts has lost money. I think there is some part of this game that I'm not understanding... --Tango (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Valentine's Day as a rest-day

looks like our article does not show whether Valentine's Day is non-working somewhere. is there any country where february 14 is officially a rest day? 85.132.54.5 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

February 14#Holidays and observances tells me that it's "Communist Martyrs Day" in Iraq, but I don't know whether it's a public holiday. No other countries are mentioned as having a day off on 14 February. This suggests there's no country that has Valentine's Day - as such - declared as a public holiday. And I'm not the slightest bit surprised. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a holiday in Iraq this year[32]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a public holiday in Lebanon this year, but they were marking the anniversary of the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri; I'm not sure if it's a holiday every year[33][34]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were, it has nothing to do with Valentine's Day. But I wonder why they'd let the whole country have a day off to mark someone's murder (says he, remembering Good Friday). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic

Where can I find a website that interprets this quote: "It is certain that Paleolithic man never wanted to decorate the cave walls: in the darkness of the cave, with the glow of the lamps, he celebrated a rite of evocation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on cave paintings has a section on theories and interpretations and lists Henri Breuil, David Lewis-Williams and R. Dale Guithrie (no WP entry) as anthropologists / archeologists who have engaged in interpreting the paintings. You may check Google, or a local library / bookshop for relevant publications by these scientists. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Athens

How the main ideas or principles of Athenian democracy are reflected in Athenian political institutions and prcatice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds so like a homework essay that few Wikipedians will feel at liberty to provide answers.--Wetman (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Athenian democracy is quite extensive and may provide you with some tools for analysis, synthesis and further research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did but it didn't say anything about Athenian political institutions and practice. Please, help me.unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.65 (talk)

For that you might consult our articles on the History of Athens and Classical Athens. LANTZY^TALK 00:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

why financial charts plotted on logarithmic scale

Removed to mathematics desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered here. --Tango (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable people with illiterate parents

I think it was Napoleon or Mao or someone who said that the way to raise a good army was to start with the soldiers' mothers' mothers. That applies to education as much as to nutrition. The mother of Stalin, for example, was a serf, but surprisingly (or so our article on Ketevan Geladze says) had had access to schooling, and could read and write Georgian (though not Russian); I contend that he would not have come top in his class at school without the explicit example or osmotic effect of having a literate home life. Can we come up with a list of the world's achievers (scientists, politicians, academics, writers, etc.) who were raised by illiterate parents? I need to clarify this: I exclude anti-intellectuals such as Pol Pot, and those who have achieved prominence as the leaders of oppressed and illiterate groups (e.g. Rigoberta Menchu, Malcom X). Let us limit our enquiries to the last hundred years or so, from the time when mandatory education began to be established (geographically variable, I realise). An interesting related question is second language learners, but let's leave that out for now. If either parent could and did read and write in any language (not just laboriously scrawl a signature, but read newspapers, hold down or at least aspire to a desk job, etc.), then that counts as a good example for the child. Who suceeded despite having no such example? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thinking back on my ed psych classes in Grad School, I do remember that we were always taught that the greatest correlative factor for how well a child would do in school was their mother's education level. Regardless of the father's schooling, children whose mother had, say a PhD tended on average to do better than those whose moms had a bacthelor's degree who did better than those whose moms only graduated high school. This does not answer your direct question, but it does confirm the sentiment at the start of the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Douglass is one of my favorite literacy stories ever, but I guess he's excluded. Wrad (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fidel Castro was the son of illiterate parents, but he learned to read at a Jesuit boarding school. Mao Zedong's father was illiterate, but I don't know about his mother. Kirk Douglas is the son of illiterate Russian Jews from Belarus. Abraham Lincoln's parents were illiterate, as were those of his successor Andrew Johnson. Paul Lawrence Dunbar was the son of ex-slaves, who were not surprisingly illiterate. The ultimate example is probably Shakespeare. Not only were his parents illiterate, so were his wife and children. This fact has sometimes been used by anti-Stratfordians to cast doubt on the authorship of his plays. LANTZY^TALK 19:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not surprising that his wife was illiterate, being as she was of that generally illiterate time. But it is EXTREMELY surprising that any of his children were illiterate, if he was the writer he's claimed to be. As Charlton Ogburn writes in The Mystery of William Shakespeare: "If his failure to have had even one daughter taught to read and write strikes the professors of English as in any way odd they do not confess it". Without getting into a side debate about the authorship of Shakespeare, there's plenty of evidence that the Shakespeare from Stratford was illiterate himself. The Shakespeare who wrote the plays and sonnets - now, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. He was obviously far from illiterate - and even that's a hell of an understatement - but it's not generally agreed exactly who his parents were, because it's not generally agreed exactly who he himself was. That's all I'll say. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of straying into speculative territory, I'm not particularly surprised that Shakespeare's children were illiterate. For one thing, he wasn't exactly a family man. He spent most of his time in London, far from his family in Stratford, so it's unlikely that he took an active interest in his children's upbringing. For another thing, he was first and foremost an actor and certainly didn't consider himself a writer in the current sense of the term. His work existed on stage, not on pieces of paper. Another thing to keep in mind is that he completely abandoned his literary pursuits after retiring. LANTZY^TALK 04:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Carson is a leading surgeon in the field of separating conjoined twins. His mother only revealed to him that she was illiterate after she had "supervised" his many years of primary schoolwork with a very firm hand. --Sean 20:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare and his family don't count by the criteria I laid out, as they lived long before quasi-universal literacy. Douglass is a former slave famous as a former slave, a liberator of his people. Mao and Castro I didn't realise had illiterate parents, but it is not overwhelmingly surprising given their characters and times. Lincoln and Johnson surprised me. I'd not heard of the others -- Dunbar is a very good example; Carson too, although I can't see any proof (just a passing assertion) of his parents' illiteracy; and Douglas I'm not so sure about. The article says his parents were illiterate Russian Jews, but as "people of the Book" wouldn't the men at least have been literate in Hebrew, and thus his childhood would have had books in the house and examples of people learning by reading? So we've come up with a handful so far, for which I thank you, but any more would be very welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'People of the Book' carries no implication of general literacy. It merely comments on the fact that Abrahamic religions are based on written texts, in contrast to the pagan traditions they supplanted. But direct experience of the text has never been a prerequisite of belief. If it were, there would be a hell of a lot more infidels running around. It is true that Jewish men have always enjoyed a higher rate of literacy than their Christian countrymen, but never to the point of unanimity. Nor would a knowledge of Hebrew imply literacy: one may be illiterate in two languages. In the Russian Empire, the literacy rate was abysmally low for both Jew and gentile, and Kirk Douglas' father was a ragman, not a rabbi. LANTZY^TALK 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(OT) Lantzy is correct about "People of the Book" not carrying an implication of literacy. But "Book" here connotes revealed texts, not necessarily written ones. In the archaic sense, "writing" meant "making words immutable", as contrasted with "spoken", which of course changes with each telling. Hence also the Rabbinic distinction between "Oral Torah" and "Written Torah", or the Ulemaic distinction between religions with a "real" prophet and those without. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mughals extended the status even to their Hindu subjects, at least intermittently. My goodness, how far from the topic we've wandered! LANTZY^TALK 19:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Using a PhD abroad

If someone has a PhD and travels abroad (for a conference or something similar), how can he use his title? Shouldn't he have his title formally recognized before he can use it?--217.12.16.53 (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Within the EU, all member states are required to recognise the qualifications of all other member states. Elsewhere, it will vary. Some countries won't have any restrictions on who can call themselves "Dr." (the UK doesn't, for example). Others will restrict it, but accept PhDs from other countries automatically (well, I expect such countries exist, I don't have an example). Others will require registration (Germany did before the EU rules were introduced, and I think still does for non-EU PhDs). --Tango (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A PhD is not like a legal title. It merely states that some university has granted you a doctorate. How much weight anyone (at a conference, say) wants to give to that title is entirely up to them. In practice, they care far more about the institution itself than the country. A U.S. conference, for instance, would be more interested in hosting someone with a PhD from Oxford than one from a U.S institution called "Big Al's House o' Doctorates."

In the end, a PhD is just a title that one institution has decided to give you. In that respect, it's no different than being given the title "Master Mason" from your local Freemason guild. — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Oxford does not award PhDs; it awards DPhils. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case in all countries. Some countries do restrict the title "Dr." to only those with PhDs (or other doctorates and perhaps non-doctorate medical qualifications) from recognised institutions. --Tango (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I believe you, but it would be great if there were something about that in the PhD article! Care to add it? ;). Anyway, that aside, at the very least in the U.S. and the U.K. the title "PhD" has no legal meaning, as far as I am aware (although not having one could prevent you from being an expert witness in some cases, I'll bet). So a person could call themselves a "PhD" in those two countries if they wanted, although generally people will only respect that if it comes from an accredited university. — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Having a degree (or not) is only one factor when the court considers the question of a person's expertise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be in Doctor (title), although I can't see it mentioned there. A brief mention in PhD wouldn't hurt. --Tango (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the field that you are appearing as an expert witness for, you may need to be "certified" by a group within your field. For example, in the US you need to be a Professional Engineer (PE) to give expert testimony on engineering matters. A PE requires that you pass a test and have several years work experience and is controlled by an agency independent of your university. So while a PhD PE would be more "expert" then say a BS PE, it's the outside agency that certifies that you've at a specific level regardless of whether you went to Oxford or Big Al's House o' Doctorates.Tobyc75 (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Germany limit the "Doctor" title to those who received a Ph.D. from a German university, or was that past practice? Edison (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't mean it as legal advice, however, you should take care if you are planning to use your Dr. title in Germany. See here. "Under a little-known Nazi-era law, only people who earn PhDs or medical degrees in Germany are allowed to use "Dr." as a courtesy title. (...) Violators can face a year behind bars."--Mr.K. (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it's those who received it from an EU university, by EU law. Others can apply to have their PhD recognised if they want (I'm not sure how easy that is). --Tango (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Buy stocks in a person, or a person's output

Seeing the odd question above, 'how can I invest in a "race"', I have an odd question of my own: Would it be possible (legal) to invest in a person, or a person's output? Has this been done?

Buy this I mean, say, I give a person a million dollars to buy 10% of his output for the rest of his life. (I assume I couldn't legally by 10% of the person himself -- that would probably count as slavery). This would be similar to a loan, except that I own 10% of his output whatever it is -- whether it pays back 10 times or not at all.

Would that be possible? — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If that person was self-employed (possibly working for someone else as a contractor) and had their own company, you could buy shares in that. You could always just write up a contract between the two of you (well, get a solicitor to, this kind of thing needs to be done just right), you can have contracts for pretty much anything - as long as there isn't anything explicitly illegal and there is consideration (which there is in your case), it's all good. --Tango (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you had a contract, I don't think it would be legally enforceable - the 'seller' could walk away - but that would probably make them liable for the money you gave them in the first place. So no, I don't think youcould do that, except if they have a particular career in mind - like acting - and so you could say '10% of the money you make from acting' and that might be enforceable. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What a topical question - made me think straightaway of this, which I was reading just over a week ago. Karenjc 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In less money-focussed contexts, it's certainly possible to invest in a person. Sports coaches invest their time and effort in training someone they believe has the talent to be a champion. There might be some emolument involved, but many coaches go way beyond what the money pays for. Music teachers do the same for their special students, sometimes giving them years of free tuition. They wouldn't do it for Mrs Smith's little girl Patty, whom Mrs Smith says is very bright and will one day play at Carnegie Hall - just because Mrs Smith says so. Patty would have to display special talent of a rare kind that needs proper training and lots of it, in many cases far more than Mrs Smith can afford. The payoff for the coach or the teacher is not money, but the joy of seeing a rare talent nurtured and brought to fruition, and the carrying on of their own teachings by someone who knows what they're talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be enforceable? A contract is a contract, I can't see anything that would invalidate it so you could sue for breech of contract. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Such an investment would simply be called a 'loan', with repayments being priced as percentage of earnings. In our law at least, contractual breaches attract expectation damages, so in principle, you can claim for what you expected to receive under the contract, not just the money you put in.

In certain cases, equity may intervene to prevent enforcement of the contract, but that would depend on how unfair the contract is taking ino account all the circumstances, including the relative bargaining positions of the parties at the time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bowie Bonds. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Also Justin Wilson. And this link doesn't work for me but it might have some other examples in it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• See also Scott Gibson. I believe that this is common among beginning and lower-level professional golfers—investors (sometimes friends and relatives) put up money to cover the expenses (travel, etc.) of participating in a professional tour and receive dividends dependent on the player's earnings. Deor (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The examples above are all limited - I think it would be the 'rest of your life clause' you'd struggle with. In the UK a precedent would be needed really (it's not set down in law already, as far as I'm aware) but there hasn't been one. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would the 'rest of your life' clause be a problem? Properly drafted, it is clearly far from being void for uncertainty.

People enter into contracts that run for the duration of their natural lives (or something similar) all the time. Think life insurance contracts, or annuities, or those schemes where the buyer pays a certain amount per period to the seller until the death of the seller, in exchange for the property upon death. Obviously you can't have liquidated damages over such an indeterminate period. If they wish to terminate, then damages will be assessed by the court. So long as the contract was not obtained with duress, undue influence, oppression, or some other kind of unconscionable conduct, I don't see any problems with it.

PPP - Principle, precedent, policy. Precedent only comes into play if principles are muddy. In this situation, contract law principles are fairly clear and the outcome of such a dispute being brought before a court would be fairly predictable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Montana House of Representatives

In the article on the Montana House of Representatives it says "In the event that the parties have a tie in number of members, the speaker and other officers are elected from the party who holds the governor's seat."

What is the basis of this? Is there or a constitutional provision giving the governor a casting vote in the House? Or is it just a custom? Sam 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

Like many constitutions, the Montana State Constitution does not address political parties, so it must be a house rule of some kind. --Sean 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Socratic Philosophers

How these early philosophers began to elaborate a naturalistic model of the universe by using the concepts of one vs. many and being vs. becoming? This is not a homework question and if the Wikipedia doesn't have any article on the question, please, refer to me to any website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.65 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out the origins of ontology. LANTZY^TALK 03:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Imprisonment of people judged in The Hague, Netherlands

People judged by the ICC, for example, where do they go, are they in solitary confinement? --190.49.115.132 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

People who are undergoing trial at the International Criminal Court are held at the ICC detention center. People convicted at the court ar transferred elsewhere to serve their sentences. - Eron^Talk 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit more checking and it looks like other tribunals at The Hague, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, use the same detention facility. Still no luck on figuring out where those convicted go to serve out their sentences. To date, there have been no convictions from the ICC, but there have been several from the ICTFY. - Eron^Talk 06:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

After more digging, it looks like there is no one place where persons convicted at the various tribunals in The Hague are sent to serve their sentences. Those convicted by the ICTFY have been sent to various prisons around Europe, including prisons in France, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. - Eron^Talk 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Metafiction - Paul de Man

Does anyone have a citation for the following passage on the ‘Metafiction’ article page?

“According to Paul de Man all fiction is metafictional, since all works of literature are concerned with language and literature itself.[citation needed]”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichyPrior (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I encountered an Ommundsen, paraphrased by Virginia Lowe in her essay "Little Fur Coats of Their Own: Clothed Animals as Metafictional Markers and Children as Their Audience" in Writing the Australian Child, edited by Clare Bradford, UWA Press, 1996: "all works of fiction are metafictional, in that they all, in one way or another, draw attention to their constructedness." She credits Wenche Ommundsen, Metafictions?: Reflexivity in Contemporary Texts, Melbourne University Press, 1993. I was unable to get into Ommundsen's book to get a direct quote. Googling on "'de man' metafictional" produced an unreferenced line from Literawiki that is suspiciously similar to the line in Wikipedia: "However, some chritics [sic], such as Paul de Man, argue that all literature is in fact metafictional, since all literaterary [sic] works are concerned with language and literature itself." The other 1,709 hits I leave for others to winnow (many repeats and great variety leading nowhere in the first few pages). --Milkbreath (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy Quote

Can someone please give me the full version of robert kennedys quote about small ripples adding up to to create a large splash or somthing? It is in refrence to small acts creating large change. I checked wikiquote and Braniy quote and both dident have this quote.

Google + "kennedy ripple" = [35] --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kishoreganj District

According to Nilphamari District (and this map), this (nortwestern) district includes an upazila called Kishoreganj, but the Kishoreganj article redirects to the (northeastern) Kishoreganj District. Are there two different places called "Kishoregang" ? Should the Nilphamari District article rather send to (northwestern) Kishoreganj Upazila ? Perhaps we also need a disambiguation page? I didn't make changes myself because it's often difficult to find reliable sources and maps, and there are also transcription problems. Apokrif (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New Jewish Publication Society of America Version

Hi. Does anyone know of a free online source with this Biblical translation? The only one I can find is the slightly antiquated 1917 version. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What percentage of porn stars are on drugs?

How common is it for porn actors and actresses to be on illegal drugs, tobacco and alcohol? I heard it was really common. Any statistics or reports, anecdotes?--I Want To Do This (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

90% was an estimate I heard, but I don't know really.--I Want To Do This (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You probably need to be a bit more specific. Seriously, what percentage of the general population are 'on alcohol'? 80%? 90%? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

White Male Masculinity

Hello :) I have a movie on how black female's see themselves as, I have a movie on how black male's see themselves and I have a movie on how white female's view themselves. I'm having a terrible time trying to find a movie on how white males see themselves. I want to show it to my Sociology class, but I can't find anything. It doesn't have to be a full length movie... 10-15 minutes max probably but I'm running out of ideas. Any suggestions?

Thanks a million in advance! --Zach (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know the names of the movies you are using for the three points of view you have listed. // BL \\ (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Diner (film) is a very touching and funny exploration of the lives of a group of young white males in 50s America. By the way, I'm a bit shocked that a teacher of any kind, even a sociology teacher, doesn't know how to use the apostrophe. Oops, it just occurred to me that "my sociology class" could mean you're a student rather than a teacher. You should still know how to use the apostrophe, though. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's a foreigner. Don't suppose that anyone here is American.--Mr.K. (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, America isn't the only country that speaks English... for a start, there's this little place called "England" - you may notice a similarity between the names, that's not a coincidence. --Tango (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mee-ow. LANTZY^TALK 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to find a film that addresses how white males see themselves is when their masculine identity is threatened. And nothing threatens white male masculinity like the idea of guys getting it on. The first film that comes to mind is actually a scene from Gods and Monsters where Ian McKellan, playing a depressed James Whale, grabs Brendan Fraser's crotch just so Fraser will beat him to death. It almost works. However, this leads me to the overall concept of masculinity and gender roles in film, and a documentary was made about it in 1995 called The Celluloid Closet that addresses how Hollywood has portrayed gender and sexuality in the history of film. Check out Celluloid Closet. It's actually really good. --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are looking for a film in which the whiteness is identified explicitly as part of the men's identity, and therefore something they have to construct, or a film set somewhere where everyone is white and so that aspect is taken for granted. If the latter, and you don't mind a feature film, what about The Full Monty, set in industrial England? A bunch of men, mostly working class and one sort of middle class, are laid off or otherwise without work. Their identity as providers to their womenfolk and children is threatened. They adopt a novel solution, stripping for money, and some find it challenges their conception of themselves. ("Real men don't do this!" -- "Oh yes they do!" is one of the unspoken subtexts.) Very funny, to boot. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

99% of films are about how white men see themselves. But I suppose that isn't helpful. So I suggest Fight Club. LANTZY^TALK 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just beware of believing that whatever answers we give you will necessarily represent how all white males see themselves. Some exult in their individuality, as do some women and some non-white people. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For questions of white male culture rather than the individual, this is a nice read. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it doesn't represent all white masculinity, but Fight Club is considered representative of a good proportion, and more representative than most movies. If you're picking a single movie, that's a good one. Steewi (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between the United States and Canada?

Please excuse my extreme naivete, but I really don't know why the U.S. and Canada have such different "clout" in the world - militarily, politically and culturally. In my view they are approximately equal sized countries with a high level of economic development and equal opportunities for personal growth. Why is it then that the U.S. is "the" world power but Canada is rarely in the news. The U.S. election was such an important world event but not many know who the Canadian Prime Minister is. I hope you get the drift of what I am asking here... The U.S. military strength is well known, everybody watches U.S. TV shows and U.S. movies; U.S. has the world's most advanced space program, the U.S. is the prime target of the terrorists (Ok that's not a good thing, but still), the U.S. dominates the world's most significant geopolitical alliances, the U.S. patent office is the most crucial for filing patents, the list goes on. I used to think that the prominence of America in comparision to other developed nations is due to its size. But Canada is larger; what did Canada do differently due to which it pales in comparision with America. Please understand this is the view of a distant Indian national who just follows the news, so please correct me if I am mistaken in any of my assumptions. Thanks. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a big broad question.. you might look at History of the United States and History of Canada to start with. Friday (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

o.O --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Canada is physically larger, but the United States has about ten times the population. And that's just for starters. The fact that Canada is so close to the United States, and so closely coordinated with the United States on the international stage, leads it to vanish into the shadow of its neighbor. However objectively powerful Canada may be, it is always shouting over the roar of the United States. This leads to the paradox that countries poorer and less powerful than Canada attract far more attention. But just because Canada is quiet doesn't mean it isn't influential. Canada's relationship with the United States gives it a special, subversive kind of influence that no other country enjoys. But why not study the issue for yourself? We have a big-ass article on Canada – United States relations. LANTZY^TALK 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'll give me some latitude in answering this Q, I'd say it's because most of Canada is too far north to support a large population. If Canada had a comparable population, it would have comparable clout. Perhaps global warming will change this, though, as Canada stands to be a big winner, with most of their major cities inland and thus protected from rising oceans, warmer climates opening up vast areas for agriculture, and the opening of the Northwest Passage to shipping. For a similar example, look at Alaska versus California. Alaska is bigger, but has much less of a population and economy because of the climate there. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I think two of the larger differences are the population (306M versus 34M) and GDP (14T versus 1.4T). The US has had enough financial clout to pursue hegemonic policies. The same option has not been open to Canada. Physical area - roughly equal - is not a good indicator for the issues your question concerned with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC x2)Actually, the populations are quite different. Canada has 1/10th the population of the U.S. and less people living there than there are in just California (33 million in Canada and 36 million in the Cali.) By economy, Canada has a per capita GDP (PPP) of 38,000 USDollars, while the US has a per capita GDP (PPP) of 47,000 US Dollars. By GDP (PPP), the U.S. has the largest economy in the world, at just under 14 trillion US Dollars. Canada has the 13th largest economy, at 1.2 trillion US Dollars, just behind Spain. Just on those factors, it is easy to see why the US gets more of the worlds attention than Canada does. And though, as you note, Canada is larger in area, it is only JUST larger in area (by about a 1-2% difference). By population, I would say that Canada actually has an economy and an influence GREATER than its place. Consider that it is a member of the G7, and as I noted, the 13th largest economy, despite having 36th largest population. It certainly has much more worldwide clout than does, say, Vietnam, the 13th largest country by population. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And the US - by far the largest economy in the world - control's the world's primary reserve currency and has a military budget larger than the next sixteen countries combined, with bases in dozens of foreign countries. Many consider it the hegemonic power of our time. NByz (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Population and wealth are definitely the main factors, but it's also worth noting that the US gained independence from Great Britain in 1783 following a violent revolution, which was in turn followed by a series of wars (the Barbary Wars, the Quasi-War, and the War of 1812) to confirm that independence, and a bloody civil war to establish national unity. Canada, meanwhile, attained independence from Britain gradually and peacefully, becoming fully independent only in 1982. It's not as though the history of Canada is all wine and roses, but the United States' violent beginnings, violent westward expansion, isolationism, and history of aggressively defending its interests have given rise to a particular cultural mythos that Canadians simply do not identify with. The US has only really been a world power since World War II, but it was self-important long before that, and this is reflected in the nation's culture and foreign policy. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the reasons Canada became unified was to present a common front against American expansionist ambitions. There were many Americans for whom Manifest Destiny extended north as well as west. LANTZY^TALK 18:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First: agreed with the "only ...[a] world power since WWII". The policy of isolationism and a weak navy composed of coastal-defense ships and monitors (the U.S. had Civil War monitors still in servce at the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898...) assured that the U.S. didn't rise before then; they couldn't compete with anyone abroad without a navy!

Second: It may be of interest to people here that right after WWII, the U.S. and Canada were one and two when it came to the title of "wealthiest nation in the world"...and Canada also was somewhere in the top five in size of their navy and size of their air force. I can't remember where I read that, but... food for thought. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that you read it right here at the ref desk, Ed? Deor (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First woman in the Swedish academy

Who was the frist woman in the Royal Swedish Academy of Arts? I do not know, and it would be interesting to know. This would be sometime in the 18th century. --85.226.44.201 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Still looking but so far, there's Wendela Gustafva Sparre in 1797 Ulrika Pasch in 1773. Here's an incomplete listing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bannister Fletcher's History of Architecture

I should apparently buy a copy of this book, but it seems there are many different versions and I'm not sure which to get. Would it matter much if I were to get an older version of the book? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's reasonable to suppose that older editions will lack additions made in later additions. These may, judging by its contents, include architects & projects. And so the question is, do you particularly mind a contemporary shaped gap in your education? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And the 20th edition - the current version - is being pimped as a thorough reorganisation - "The timid modernizing, the anxious realignments of the past fifty years are over". And the editor, Dan Cruickshank, is an estimable sort of a chap. I'm sold on it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The earlier versions also seem to be a lot cheaper, so would it be viable to buy one of them, and another book on more recent events, and does anyone know of such a book? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fletcher's tome is certainly not the only source of info on newer architects & works; and I'm kinda hoping you have access to an academic library which would have the 20th edition, so could work out what was missing from an older edition. I think there's a risk that the mindset of the 70s or 80s or whichever decade you end up in might not be quite the same as the contemporary analysis, but there's a strong "best driving out the good" argument to be made, which is that any edition is so very much better than no edition ... and you'll not be relying solely on one book to understand the history of architecture. How far wrong can you go in settling for the older book if this is the case? Whilst you;re about it, btw, I've heard that the very best way of fixing all this information into your head is to write detailed NPOV wikipedia articles, which would be excellent! --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

St. Patricks Day trivia

How many men of Irish Ancestry signed the declaration of independence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midaberg (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish Flag/ New York City

What building is the Irish flag flown on in New York City during St. Patricks Day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midaberg (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Hell

Of all religions of the world, past and present, which threatens the worst fate for non-believers? --79.79.253.232 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of religions make no distinction between believers and non-believers. Buddhism, for examples, reserves only a special fate for those who are enlightened. Only a very small subset of people would become enlightened. Everyone else, believers or not, go through reincarnation. Likewise, in Taoism, everyone gets judged in the underworld after death, except those who've achieved immortality. And you achieve immortality by meditation, taking funny drugs, and breathing excercises. For the great masses who get judged, whether you get eternal damnation or just a shadowy existence in the underworld depends on your deeds in life, not how much you believe in one thing or another.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(econ):For the afterlife, as in hell fire and brimstone, then possibly fundamentalist or puritan Christianity is a contender. The article has Bible and Q'uran references. For the past along these lines, Dante's Inferno or first canticle of his Divine Comedy describes the fate of hell-bent people (who also didn't impress Dante). Writer's revenge comes into it then, but is that a religion yet? Islam has some pretty snappy solutions for some present life transgressions. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lookin for American Merchants Syndicate of Chicago around the time of 1917 AD

Found grandfathers old stock and wonder about the history of this company. Scripopoly.com does not show any of these shares and am interested in knowing if this became the Chicago Board of Trade or the like.

TNX,

jackbeck@frontiernet.net

Do not understand your instructions an inquiries.