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

December 30

Statute of limitations and extradition

When Spain requested the extradition of Josias Kumpf from Austria for Nazi war crimes in September 2009, Austria stated that there was no legal basis to extradite him because Austria has a statute of limitations for Kumpf's alleged crimes [1] [2]. Based on this, is it generally the case that one cannot be extradited from country A to country B to stand trial for alleged crimes which fall under statutes of limitations in country A? TML (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on the terms of the extradition treaty between the two nations. The extradition article discusses the general topic at some length, but unfortunately it does not appear to specifically discuss the statute-of-limitations scenario. It does, however, suggest that international tensions can arise if the parties to a treaty disagree about the terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kumpf: generally, war crimes and crimes against humanity may be prosecuted forever; that is, there exists no statute of limitations (see 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity). This is decided on a state-by-state basis. Thus, it's likely that Austria has simply not acceded to the above convention. Regarding extradition: it is a much more complicated subject that you suggest. I advise reading some introductory international law sources. (Though I'll note that yes, states sometimes have extradition treaties with one another, and states are sometimes bound by international law to extradite or prosecute certain crimes--e.g., genocide and torture.) Yukongiraffe (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

World citizenship

I've just read much of the Statelessness article and was wondering... I've heard of dual citizenship but have not found a limit to the number of States in which one might claim citizenship or if is possible in fact yet to become a World Citizen by taking up residence in every country in the world within one's lifetime? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all states place certain restrictions on obtaining citizenship. If you are not a natural born citizen of the U.S., for example, the process of becoming a citizen (called Naturalization, see also United_States_nationality_law#Naturalization) requires being a continuous permanent resident of the U.S. for at least 5 years (3 years in some cases). Many other states have similar requirements. The Naturalization notes similar requirements for other countries, such as 3 years in Canada and 5 years in the Netherlands). Likewise, many countries disallow "dual citizenship" entirely, and others only grant it in limited circumstances. So it would be impossible on several counts. First, you could not possibly live in all 193-ish sovereign states long enough to establish the residency requirements for citizenship in each of them. Secondly, many of these states do not allow multiple citizenships; you must renounce other citizenships before become a citizen of your new country. Third, some of these countries do not allow naturalization at all, or only in very limited circumstances.

Even living in every country of the world would be difficult. Lets just say you wanted to do so; you couldn't spend longer than 6 months or so in each country, and even in that case, consider that doing so would take about 95 years of your life. 95 years ago, something like half of the current list of sovereign states didn't exist, so 95 years from now I wouldn't even begin to guess what countries will or will not exist, further complicating your plan. --Jayron32 06:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well you don't become a citizen just for being a resident in every country, so even if you could become a resident in every nation state (which would be difficult in some, such as North Korea, and ill-advised in others, such as Somalia) you wouldn't really be a citizen of everywhere. There are ethnic Koreans in Japan, for instance, that do not have Japanese citizenship despite having lived there for generations. There are also countries that require you to give up citizenship if you become a citizen of another nation (multiple citizenship gives China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and India as examples of these). So in short, there is no limit in some countries, but it would depend which countries you have in mind, and becoming a citizen of every country in the world does not seem possible. TastyCakes (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if residency requirements were achievable, many countries require you to renounce citizenships of other countries (or at least of some other countries) before you become a citizen of them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I more or less expected as much but what about becoming a "citizen" of a world body like the UN under the same concept as one is a citizen of the US, they may only reside within the State of New York. 71.100.6.153 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations doesn't give citizenship -- it issues diplomatic passports which confer limited diplomatic immunity (United Nations Laissez-Passer), it also assists refugees, and that's about it. However you could look at Nansen passport and Travel document, World Passport, World citizen, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Person with most citizenships

Who is the person with the most citizenships? --84.62.197.235 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(Title changed - there is no point in having a title that is not specific to the question). I doubt whether there is anywhere that holds this information. --ColinFine (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir Sean Connery was born Scottish, but has since been Irish American, Spanish, English, Russian, Greek, Saudi, Berber and a whole load of other nationalities - even "Brutal". Surely that takes the biscuit. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to start an argument here, but is Scottish a type of citizenship? Irish-American? Berber? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he was born Scottish, his passport will have said "British". In any case, Dweller was making a joke, rather than attempting to help the person asking the question. Dweller is listing characteristics of characters Sean Connery has played, rather than any citizenships he may have held. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Well, I'll lock me in the cupboard and kick myself stupid! There's me thinking it was a real answer! Gosh! :) --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, Russian is wrong. The character was from the Lithuanian SSR. --Anonymous, 20:29 UTC, December 30, 2009.

Gnash! My mistake. I had a feeling he wasn't Russian, but couldn't pin it down. Thanks for the correction. My gag wouldn't have worked so well if I'd used British, as it would have covered two of the nationalities I used. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are quite right, because while not mentioned in the film, he had a Russian passport in the book because of his father. Googlemeister (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but in the book he was not played by Sean Connery! --Anon, 20:16 UTC, January 1, 2010.

I think there are two different ways to interpret the question; 1) highest number of different citizenship held during a lifetime and 2) highest number of different citizenships held simultaneously. In any case, I think it would be impossible to judge. In the case of 1), perhaps finding a person that lived through tumulteous years of wars in Central/Eastern Europe of WWI and WWII, later obtaining a Western European citizenship, later US and/or Canadian, then Israeli. In the case of 2), such people generally hold low profile regarding 'reserve citizenships'. --Soman (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible for a person born in Lvov in the early 20th century, before 1918, to have been born an Austro-Hungarian citizen and then become successively Polish, Soviet, German, Soviet again, and finally Ukrainian - all without ever leaving their home town. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth the Second. 122.107.207.98 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's about as wrong as you can get. The monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis is not a citizen of any of those places -- the monarch is above such things as "citizenship". --Carnildo (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

French Guiana and the freedom of panorama

Has French Guiana the freedom of panorama? --84.62.197.235 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that the laws in French Guyana are more or less the same as in France, and apparently France doesn't have freedom of panorama, so my guess would be no. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

French Guiana is an intergral part of France, analogous to the relationship between Hawaii and the rest of the U.S. It is fully part of France, and subject to the same laws and regulations as Paris or Lyon would be. See Overseas department for more info. --Jayron32 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Inverted price elasticity of demand

Can anyone supply some actual examples of this and indicate where I can read more about it? Minor point - could such a product have different price elasticities at different price ranges? Thanks 78.149.161.55 (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that both Veblen goods and Giffen goods exhibit this property; those articles can get you started. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes,assuming you want +ve PEDs, Veblen and Giffen. I would be very surprised if these goods didn't exhibit varying PEDs, since virtually all goods in the world do. Anything with a normal demand curve in fact. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact by definition Price elasticity is different at EVERY price. Consider A straight line demand curve (like this one) [[3]] At the points in the top left elasticity is high and at points in the borrom right elasticity is low. This is because elasticity is a ratio of percentage changes not absolute changes. Before you delve into the confusing (and probably non-existant) Giffen Good, try and understand what elasticity is actually measuring. normal good and inferior good are also good reads. Jabberwalkee (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

EUROPEAN HISTORY: THE IMPELLER

There was an ancient European Monarch who was said to have executed a lot of people by impelling them. Please could you help me with the name, country and period of his reign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.209.90 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler?--Jac16888^Talk 16:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think you're looking for an impaler, not an impeller. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Death by impeller would also be painful, but at least swifter. Edison (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ivan the Terrible had something of a reputation for it, as well, and he was a monarch rather than a mere archduke (or whatever Vlad's aristocratic rank was). Tevildo (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vlad's article gives his title as Prince--Jac16888^Talk 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regnant princes (and dukes) are monarchs too. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HISTORY

There is said to be an ancient Egyptian monarch who abandoned polytheism in favour of monotheism. He is said have established or move the capital city of Egypt to a new location. Please help me with the name of the monarch, the period of his reign and possibly his activities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.209.90 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Akhenaten, aka Amenhotep IV. Marnanel (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wire and the Life and Death of the American Stevedore...

I'm currently rewatching The Wire from start to finish (I had 60 or so hours to kill, and thought, hey, why not?) and I have a question about season two. One of the major themes of this season is the decline of the blue collar American working man, exemplified here by the stevedores of the port of Baltimore. All throughout the season, the leader of the local stevedore union is working like hell to keep his guys employed, but each year fewer and fewer of them can get enough "days" to get by.

Here's the thing: I don't buy it. I mean, certainly the American blue collar worker is having a very tough time, it can't be very fun to be a steel-mill or auto worker today. But those guys are involved in manufacturing, a sector which is rapidly moving overseas. The longshoremen that The Wire portrays are not in manufacturing, they make their money from ships coming in and delivering crap to Americans. And it seems to me like that sector is doing just fine (not counting the annoying economy we have right now, as the season is set in 2003). I mean, the more manufacturing moves overseas, the more stuff has to be shipped to the US, right? I suppose that you could argue that more automated ports is losing jobs for the stevedores, but the specific reason that the shows give is that fewer and fewer ships come in each year.

Is this just a convenient fiction on the part of the writers of The Wire? It seems out of character for the show that's this realistic to portray a societal shift that isn't really happening, at least not in the way they portray it. Or is it just that the port of Baltimore, specifically, is hurting? Belisarius (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a significant lockout of longshoremen on the West Coast in 2002. My understanding was that, in labor's view, automation was a threat to their jobs despite the amount of cargo coming in. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed that you sort of addressed the automation issue in your question... but this page suggests that imports are declining in Baltimore. This may reflect a shift in the origin of goods, from Europe to Asia (which you would expect to make land on the west coast). Compare Long Beach. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the message is at all that stevedores per se were declining, but that the port of Baltimore was. I seem to recall they talk at a number of points about the fact that the boat traffic is being siphoned off to cheaper ports. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly true that, if the trade volume at a given port is constant over time, increasing automation will mean fewer jobs for stevedores. So, automation is one dimension of the decline in blue-collar jobs in America (but also elsewhere). However, the trade volume in Baltimore has been declining, as Coneslayer has shown. This partly due to the shift in trade to the West Coast. However, this itself is a symptom of the deindustrialization of the United States. Trade has shifted to the West Coast because more and more of the goods that are consumed in the United States are produced in Asia rather than the United States. At one time, the port of Baltimore was busy exporting steel and manufactured goods from Pittsburgh and Ohio. Those goods are no longer made in Pittsburgh and Ohio. Instead, they are made in Asia and shipped to the United States via the West Coast. So, I would argue, the plight of Baltimore stevedores is emblematic of the decline of blue-collar labor in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Automation does not affect all ports equally: it requires considerable investment to set up, and large volumes to pay off. Thus the busiest ports are also the ones that use the most efficient automation. Along with containerization and the use of larger container ships, this effect has contributed to the centralization of traffic to fewer, larger ports. Of course it isn't wrong per se to say that the reason there is less work at Baltimore is that there are fewer visiting ships. 85.156.190.227 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember one subplot being that the port is not deep enough for certain ships and there were some machinations to get the city to pay for dredging it deeper. --Sean 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus translation

1. I understand Jerome's De Viris Illustribus was written around 393 AD. It was translated in 1893 to English. Obviously the translator did not have the original, so about how many copies down would the ultimate copy translated have been?
2. The original was written in ancient Latin. Of the copy translated, would it have been all that much different a kind of Latin than the original Latin (i.e. "ancient" Latin vs "modern" Latin)?
3. How much would you imagine would have been "lost" in this 1500 years of copying by the monks and "lost in translation" into English from what Jerome originally intended.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost no works from ancient times are attested in original autograph form (with some very limited exceptions such as graffiti, etc.). How much a particular work would have suffered in the copying process depends very much on the specific circumstances of transmission and preservation connected with that work. However, there was generally no attempt made to intentionally "update" classical Latin to medieval Latin (with the exception of a few spelling conventions, such as "e" for "ae", etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If I am following you correctly there probably would be degradation, however it would be indeterminable because each monk would have their own style of writing. Would you guess that perhaps it got recopied somewhere between 15 and 150 times downline in the 1500 years. Then you are saying the English translation came probably from a medieval Latin copy, but that copy was of the classical Latin?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The copy would have been in what the copyist(s) thought was classical Latin, i.e. they would not intentionally have altered it. But it's entirely possible that some of the errors introduced by copyists might have cause it to drift towards mediaeval Latin. --ColinFine (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I have no knowledge of this particular work, as a general rule modern (i.e. post-mediaeval) translators try to compare as many different copies of such a work as are available, as part of the process of Textual criticism, in order to detect any inadvertant differences that have crept into different 'lineages' of manuscript copies, and deduce the most likely correct original version. Some such differences are doubtless due to the evolution of Latin, but more problematic are are mistakes such as misread and/or incorrectly copied characters, omissions due to skipping a number of words (which were if detected at the time sometimes added back in the margin or between the lines), and inadvertant inclusions of marginal/interlinear notes (themselves sometimes factually incorrect) mistaken for such corrections; deliberate insertions of spurious material (for religious motives, for example) may also sometimes have occurred. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a scholarly translation, it should give details about the Latin edition from which it is translated; even better, the Latin edition will almost certainly have detailed information about the textual transmission (of course, if it's from the 19th century, the intro might be in Latin too...). I can't seem to find it after a quick Google search, but there are some references to this being a particularly troublesome text. The more popular the text, the more it is copied in the Middle Ages, and the more chance that there are major errors and differences. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

From De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) at the bottom is the Wikisource translation. Wikisource says it is From the Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers series, published 1893. It was translated by one Ernest Cushing Richardson. Apparently he had a Phd in library science from Princeton UYniversity. So what you are saying is that he translated it from Classical Latin that probably had some medieval Latin "overtones" accidently or intentially entered in.
Taking a wild guess would you say it got recopied somewhere between 15 and 150 times downline in the 1500 years. If it was copied every 100 years, then it only got recopied by different individual copyist(s) some 15 times. If it got recopied somewhere around 150 times (every 10 years) downline by different individual copyist(s), then it is a copy of a copy to the 150th recopy. Maybe it got copied every 5 years to make sure this important document got to posterity centuries into the future. That would make it the 300th recopy downline. I would think that would enter in a lot degradation from what Jerome originally intended in 393 AD. Take a wild guess as to how many recopies there might have been going through these 1500 years. Not holding you to anything. Certainly it has got to be over 15.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how many copies were made, it's really impossible to guess. You'll have to check the introduction to the book, if you can find it (it's apparently not online in any useful way). It wouldn't have been recopied for 1500 years though, at least not by hand. Google says Günther Zainer printed it in 1470, which is very early, and makes sense for such a popular work. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Will agree with you that it was not written by hand for 1500 years - my mistake on that! Using Jerome's date of writing of 393 AD to Günther Zainer printing it in 1470 would make it a little over 1000 years. Guessing it was recopied every 10 years then from the beginning, then that would produce some 100 or so downline handwritten recopies before it was printed. Could you agree with me on that? There would be no record how many times it was copied and recopied. It looks like in 1893 it was then translated into English. So far, so good?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you agree with me that from the time Jerome wrote it in 393 AD that it must have been recopied by copyist(s) at least a few times by hand by various different people (none knowing the other) in a type of classical Latin with medieval Latin "overtones" accidently or intentially entered in; until it finally got printed and from there printed copies were make?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Or would you say Ernest Cushing Richardson "translated" it from Jerome's original? From what language?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there would be no record, but we could tell from the number of surviving copies, as well as the textual variants which may point to a number of lost versions; a good textual critic could tell roughly how many different manuscript traditions there are, and perhaps even a rough number of actual copies, surviving or lost. All this should be in the introduction to a standard Latin edition, if there is one. As for classical Latin, Jerome didn't really write classical Latin himself, since the 4th century is not exactly "classical" anymore, but it was at least still a natural spoken language at that point. Medieval copyists could have introduced medievalisms, but aside from spellings and abbreviations I don't think that would be a major issue. We'd have to find more info about a) what Zainer printed (a particular manuscript, most likely), b) if anyone else printed it, c) if there is a Latin critical edition, d) what Richardson translated, whether a particular manuscript or a (or the) Latin critical edition. Tracking down Richardson's translation in book form would be the most helpful step (since Wikisource doesn't include any of the introduction). From more brief Googling it seems that there were continuators of Jerome, and it is possible that in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, someone had already compiled a rudimentary critical edition, which may then have a manuscript tradition of its own. It can get very complicated! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see it could get very complicated! Thanks for all the detailed response above. Let me work on all that for awhile and if I need more I'll put up another question later or contact you at your Talk. Thanks again.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want someone to take a "wild guess", I would assume that the chains of transmission which led from Jerome himself to the attested manuscripts which have survived into modern times are much more likely to involve 5 to 10 sequential recopyings rather than 15 to 150 recopyings... AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the "wild guess". Now I have a better idea. That would mean about one recopy from a different person sequentially downline from various copyist(s) every 100 to 200 years, assuming it began from the 5th century to when it probably was started in printing in the 15th century.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it means that those are the ones that survive. The number of manuscripts of this text that ever existed is much different than the number of ones we know about, and this is true for probably every ancient and medieval work. There could have been 150 recopyings, but some of them could be lost or were destroyed somehow, through fire, bugs, rot, someone else scratched the text off and reused the parchment, etc. A poor copy is less likely to survive than a luxury copy. But as AnonMoos says, the chain of tranmission of the surviving ones should be relatively small and relatively simple. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks again for the detailed explanation. The copy that Ernest Cushing Richardson translated into English in 1893 from in all likelihood was probably Latin, wouldn't you guess? Verses say German, French, or Italian.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, any translation into a modern language will be made from the original. And we're in luck! Saint Wiki (an actual Wiki as opposed to the patron saint of wikis) has a full edition of Richardson, which is actually Jerome plus Gennadius of Marseilles' later continuation. Here is Richardson's introduction, which, just as I had hoped, answers all these questions, and is not too lengthy. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha, Richardson says he was using the edition of Wilhelm Herding, which is on Google Books, here. Of course, as I suspected earlier, the introduction itself is also in Latin. Curse those 19th century Germans! Adam Bishop (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You are definitely the first man and an authority on matters like this.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well here are the basics of what Herding and Richardson said: According to Herding, the three oldest manuscripts are from the Vatican (7th century), Verona (8th century), and Vercelli (7th-8th century), but Herding only had access to the Vatican one (transcribed for him by the Bishop of Bamberg). He also used a manuscript from Bamberg (11th century), Bern (11th century), and Nuremberg (14th century, and damaged). He used the Vatican one as his base, since it was the best and oldest.

Richardson said he saw 84 manuscripts of Jerome, 57 of Gennadius, and knew of at least 25 and possibly 45 more. "It is certainly within bounds to say that there are more than 150 mss. of Jerome extant and not less than 100 of Gennadius." The earliest printing that he knew of was actually 1468. Erasmus printed a popular edition, but Vallarsi in 1734-42 was a better critical text, based on a manuscript from Corbie, which Migne also used for the Patrologia Latina.

Richardson did not translate Herding directly, since he didn't think Herding made the best critical text. He compiled a new edition, but it was unpublished at the time of the publication of the English translation, and I don't know if it was ever published. In addition to the manuscripts used by Herding, Richardson also used ones found in Paris (7th century, the "Corbie" one mentioned above), Montpellier (8th-9th century), Monaco (8th century), Vienna (8th-9th century), another one in Paris (9th or 10th century), Cassino (9th century), Florence (11th century), Toledo (13th century), and "Guelferbyrtinus", wherever that is (10th century).

He didn't make a "family tree" of the manuscripts, since that would have been too complicated, and apparently outside the scope of this kind of translation (honestly, I've seen discussions of manuscript transmission that take up many more pages than Richardson's entire introduction...)

I hope that is more helpful. Basically, the point is the oldest manuscripts are still from 400-500 years after Jerome, and while there may be 150 of them in total, only a dozen or so of the earliest ones are actually helpful to find Jerome's original text (all others being obvious copies of another manuscript). A Latin edition would try to recreate what Jerome actually wrote, by comparing the manuscripts and trying to find everything in common (which would, we assume, mean that is what Jerome actually wrote), and trying to reconcile the differences (to find what, we assume, Jerome probably wrote). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-empiricism in medieval thought?

I have the idea that philosophers were generally against the scientific method and the power of observation in medieval Europe. Am I right in thinking that position is called 'scholasticism'? - the scholasticism article doesn't quite say so explicitly. In any case, I'm hoping for some direct quotes from the time that put forward the anti-empirical position. I'm especially hoping for some quotes from St. Augustine.

Thanks in advance Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scholasticism does not mean what you think it means. What you're describing is what Richard E. Rubenstein has called the "origin myth of modern science" and the "fable of medieval ignorance" (Aristotle's Children, 272). —Kevin Myers 22:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See particularly Roger Bacon, Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme for counter-examples. Tevildo (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Augustine lived in the fifth century, a very long time before the mediaeval period. True, his writings were influential, but so were those of Aristotle. Tevildo (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The senses were generally held to be limited by most philosophers of the time. Here's a quote about Augustine from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[4] that might shed some light on the matter:

"Augustine, especially in his earlier works, focuses upon the contrast between the intelligible and the sensible, enjoining his reader to realize that the former alone holds out what we seek in the latter: the world of the senses is intractably private and isolated, whereas the intelligible realm is truly public and simultaneously open to all [De Libero Arbitrio II.7] ; the sensible world is one of transitory objects, whereas the intelligible realm contains abiding realities [De Libero Arbitrio II.6]; the sensible world is subject to the consumptive effects of temporality, whereas the intelligible realm is characterized by an atemporal eternity wherein we are safely removed from the eviscerating prospect of losing what and whom we love [Confessions XI.xxxix.39; see also Confessions IV.xii.18]. Indeed, in the vision at Ostia at Confessions IX.x.23-25, Augustine even seems to suggest that the intelligible realm holds out the prospect of fulfilling our desire for the unity that we seek in friendship and love, a unity that can never really be achieved as long as we are immersed in the sensible world and separated by physical bodies subject to inevitable dissolution [see Mendelson 2000]. The intelligible realm, with God as its source, promises the only lasting relief from the anxiety prompted by the transitory nature of the sensible realm."

-Pollinosisss (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much everyone - all extremely enlightening and helpful. Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can't America make homosexuality legal in Afghanistan

After the war, homosexuality was made legal in Iraq, because in the dark times of the Hanged Tyrant homosexuals (along with shias and Kurds) were brutally murdered. Why can't America make homosexuality legal in Afghanistan if the Taliban Government is gone since 2001? --SouthAmerican (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can't America make it all better?--Wetman (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The United States does not (officially...) govern Afghanistan or Iraq. Any laws made either country are (de jure) passed by the legislature of that country. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As J. delanoy correctly points out, the United States does not have the legal power to change the law in either country. It can only exert pressure on the governments of those countries. You seem to assume that the United States government would want to pressure the Afghan government to legalize homosexuality. I doubt that this is one of the objectives of the US government in Afghanistan. (I also doubt that the US government applied much pressure on this issue in Iraq.) Its top priority in Afghanistan is to establish a stable and friendly government and to defeat the Taliban. Because Afghanistan is a much more culturally conservative country than Iraq and most of its people are probably not ready for toleration of open homosexuality, US advocacy for homosexuals there would be likely to either alienate or undermine the government. It would also probably increase support for the Taliban among Afghans offended by that US policy. Marco polo (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Basically we've got a war going on there, and that kind of issue is way down the totem pole of priorities, if it's even on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, is homosexuality even technically "legal" in the USA? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to make a workable law against being someone. Laws against certain practices commonly associated with homosexuality have fallen in the last few decades, partly because legislators gulped and noticed that heterosexuals did that stuff too. PhGustaf (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Those laws are typically now only used in the context of a crime, e.g. when forced. It's not so much that it's legal, though, but only that it's not enforced. Kind of like those laws still on the books in some places, that you have to have someone out front of you holding a lantern when you drive a car. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill James did a riff on blocking the plate some years ago, and concluded that, in the modest context of baseball, that Johnny Bench and Sammy White spent most of their lives cheating. He went on to suggest that rarely-enforced laws are evil, and mostly serve to give cops excuses to bust people they don't like anyway. PhGustaf (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The (ironically-named, for this section) Gaylord Perry even admitted to cheating, and he's in the Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything to suggest that Perry knew anything about candlepin bowling? And the HOF selection process is not unflawed.PhGustaf (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Gaylord was into bowling. Probably more into activities like squirrel hunting. Murder at a bowling alley? That's crossing the line of decency. And in another odd connection to this section, the perp was living at the Y. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(@BB) Lawrence v Texas. True, that just established that one can't be prosecuted for sodomy; does that constitute "legalization", especially when it's done by the courts rather than the legislature? Tevildo (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a case I was trying to recall specifically, because I wasn't sure how it turned out. Seems like it was decriminalized, which is almost the same thing, i.e. they won't bother to enforce it because it would be tossed out anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't even make homosexuality fully legal in the US. Contrary to popular belief, don't ask, don't tell has not prevented service members from being discharged. The US also allows private organizations to exclude homosexuals and others under the freedom of association. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason Afghanistan can't make eating pork illegal in the US. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that argument doesn't totally work, since Afghanistan has not (to my knowledge) recently (within the last five years or so) overthrown the existing U.S. government and replaced it with a system more similar to its own government. Presumably if Afghanistan had done such a thing, it would be able to influence whether Sharia law was used in the U.S., which might have something to bear on the pork issue. But of course the general point—that the U.S. does not have and does not claim dictatorial powers over Afghanistan, especially on domestic issues—is true. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My point was intended to be many-faceted. The main one is Soman's point below - the US can't actually dictate the writing of laws, despite the huge amount of pressure they can apply to Afghan leaders. If they force Afghanistan to pass laws they don't want to, they pretty much violate their own standards of democracy. The other main point is that laws have to be generally accepted by the populus to have any chance of being effective. Even if Afghanistan were to overthrow the US government and ban pork, the population would probably resist the ban by, I don't know, throwing beef into Boston Harbor or something. If the US forced the Afghan administration to pass laws the huge majority of Afghanis didn't agree with then it would give ammunition to those that oppose them. The US tends to frown on overtly and directly imposing their rules on other countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Formally, US can't write the laws of Afghanistan. In practice, they have a wide range of options to pressure the puppet politicians in states they occupy. See for example the Iraqi Oil Law, which no-one in Iraq really wanted but was passed anyway on orders from Washington. Now, the objective of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq isn't to promote LGBT rights, but rather to secure control over natural resources and geopolitical influence. Regarding the question here, there was a bit of a similar question regarding Iraq and Israel. A group of U.S. congressmen sought to pressure Iraq to recognize the state of Israel through passing a bill in the U.S. congress. Needless to say, this initiative went in completly opposite direction of the official 'win hears and minds' strategy in Iraq. On the contrary it was a symbolic gesture that iraq, as a subordinate entitity to the U.S., must adhere to the foreign policy of the U.S.. I'm not sure whatever happened to that bill in the end, my guess is that the State Department plugged some plugs and explained to the gentlemen responsible that they can't treat Iraq like Puerto Rico. --Soman (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

man shaking hands with woman

i am a man. when i meet a woman ive never met before, is it etiquette for me to put my hand out for her to shake, or is it etiquette to allow the woman to do this, and if she doesnt carry on conversation? ive been told you wait for the woman to shake your hand, and you only offer handshakes to men, giving respect to women.--Good5567 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You can always say with a smile what can be said by offering your hand in a handshake. And offering your hand in a handshake to a woman who may not be receptive might introduce a moment of slight discomfort. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The traditional form is that one should wait until the person one is being introduced to offers their hand. If you're introducing yourself, then you should (therefore) always wait, irrespective of the gender of the other person. If the introduction is being done by a third party, then males should be introduced to females (not vice-versa), so the male should be the one that waits in that situation. See Debrett's on the subject. Tevildo (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking a business setting or an informal occasion? Handshaking is pretty common in a business circumstance, in the USA at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Silly Air kisses are sometimes used as a man/woman greeting. Edison (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in my office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mwah! Edison (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

December 31

Truth or myth about reading ability

I heard that, after you pass a certain age range (approximately between kindergarten and grade 5), it's very hard (some sources said even impossible) to obtain a high level of essential reading skills like recognizing an article, prose or book's main idea, recognizing author's purpose, tone, approach, and point of view, drawing conclusions, and so on because it has something to do with the development of the human mind. Is this a truth or myth?

Also, I wasn't taught any of these skills in K-12 and I never read a book annually on my own when I was K-12 (excluding the books required by school classes). So most of the time, I can't state the main idea of what I read. If the above is a myth, then what is the best way of obtaining these skills as a college student? Will it be the same advice as for kids in K-5, which is to just read a lot? I've recently started making it a habit to read some books daily to eventually gain these abilities, but this seems to be useless, because no one is standing by my side to go over what the main idea, author's purpose, etc. are and I can't figure those out by myself without any guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysk1 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Our article Reading skills acquisition may be of use. What you suggest seems unlikely to me, the ability to read and dissect what the 'point' of a book/text is is something that can be improved and is (in my experience) developed in your teenage years and just takes work. In terms of yourself you may want to check out Reading comprehension and the links therein. I'm not sure how helpful it'll be but it's a skill you'll acquire through reviewing what you've read and thinking about what the author is trying to say. Reading up on things like Symbolism and Metaphors etc may help too. Critical thinking is perhaps a useful link too. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking the content of a movie as gospel is always risky, but one point made in the recent film about Michael Oher is that he was deprived of proper teaching during that window of opportunity the OP is talking about, yet once he had the opportunity (with a tutor) he was able to succeed in high school and then in college. For studying literature, something like Cliff's Notes might be helpful. I have the same problem sometimes, of trying to figure out what an author is getting at, especially in fictional works. But there's usually someone else who has worked it out, and why re-invent the wheel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not strictly utilitarian, but spotting underlying themes and metaphors while you're actually watching or reading a work usually adds to your enjoyment and appreciation of it. Despite being a voracious reader of fiction for pleasure over the last 47 years, I often get so caught up in the superficial story that I miss such deeper levels, and have 'D'oh!' moments when a subsequent comment by another reader or critic reveals what, in retrospect, seems both obvious and interesting to me also. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

After I wrote what I wrote about Cliff Notes, it occurred to me that the OP should read something and simply try to answer some of those basic questions. Even a whiz-bang is not going to think of everything. The guys who write Cliff Notes put a great deal of time and research into these things. And when a teacher seems to know a lot of stuff about a novel - of course they do, they've taught it dozens of times. I would just see what I could do with it, and then read the Cliff Notes to see how much I got right - and learn from that, as to their approach to these things. Learning is a layering process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at reading comprehension sheets aimed at children, like these. You'll either find that you actually are better at this than you thought, or you'll find them useful practice at this sort of thinking. If it's the second, remember that you can ask for guidance here if you're stuck (more likely on the poetry ones than the ones based on press-releases about pizza). Other than that, lots of reading should help.

Remember that the internet is your friend: there are plenty of online book groups if you can't find a real one near you. There are forums dedicated to discussing all sorts of books, so if you find a genre you particularly enjoy it should be easy to find people to discuss the books with. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While some things are easier to learn at certain ages, I would be very surprised if you can't learn to read better at any age. I think reading a lot (and reading varied things - novels, short stories, newspaper articles, magazine articles, popular science books, etc., etc., etc.) is the best way forward. You might like to join a book club - that would involve reading a book each week or fortnight and then meeting up with other people that have just read that book and discussing it. That discussion would help you understand the book better and you will probably find that you contribute more and more to that discussion as the weeks go on and you get better at interpreting the books. One thing to remember is that there often isn't a "right answer" to these kind of things - good authors often write very thought provoking books where it isn't at all clear which characters were morally right, etc.. --Tango (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with a lot of college students trying to teach this very skill. It is certainly teachable. It is a skill and a habit of mind, not some sort of fundamental neurological activity. It is something you can get better at over time. I see no reason to suspect it is something limited to a certain age range. Some people are going to be better at it than others, to be sure, but the idea that your brain turns off the ability to synthesize written material seems highly unlikely to me, assuming you weren't raised as a feral child or some other sort of extreme situation. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the article on hyperlexia relavant? ~AH1^(TCU) 19:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Eutropius is this?

That one.

I assume this bust (Ephesos, dated to around 450 AD) depicts Eutropius (historian), but possibly it is Eutropius (Byzantine official) or another Eutropius. Can anybody help me identify this guy? Thanks,  Sandstein  09:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at Google Images, and this is the first one I found.[5] How's your German? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This one looks like Portugese:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The museum website says that the bust was accompanied by an inscription naming him the sponsor of the city's road paving, and that the style is typical of that of representations of higher officials. So I assume that we are dealing with the official here, not the historian.  Sandstein  11:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleasant-looking chap, eh? Reminds me of my mother-in-law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's an odd modern-looking feel to that bust, almost as if it were created in the 20th century or later. Woogee (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Some clarification for the wikipedia article on Christmas.

The article in question says "The Restoration of King Charles II in 1660 ended the [Christmas] ban, but many clergymen still disapproved of Christmas celebration. In Scotland, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland also discouraged observance of Christmas. James VI commanded its celebration in 1618, however attendance at church was scant." How is it possible for James VI to commend the celebration of Christmas without lifting the ban on it? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.31.180 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The ban was in the 1640s and 1650s, during the English Civil War, while James VI (of Scotland) and I (of England) died in 1625... AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, thanks! I read the article wrong. --86.159.31.180 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright exceptions

In Swedish copyright law, there is an exception stating that you may copy music, videos, images et cetera for your own personal use, but also to give away to friends and relatives. The copyright infringement does not occur until you spread the copyrighted material for public use. Is there anything like this in other countries? I am mostly interested in United States copyright law, but also others. Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In US copyright law, certain actions are permitted under Fair use. I do not believe that copying for friends and relatives is something that's permitted under fair use. If you're asking for any reason more than curiosity, consult a lawyer. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Under US law, the applicable law that defines fair use is, you'll notice, incredibly vague, so unfortunately it takes knowledge of many court decisions to shape an opinion on whether a particular act of copying is "fair use" or not. Our Fair use article is pretty good about US law in this area. Giving copies away to friends and relatives isn't, I think, fair use in the US — but this has probably not been tested in court; a copyright owner is unlikely to launch a court action against anyone for this, because the $ damages are so tiny. And without a court action having happened, we can all opine over whether it's fair use or not, but it's all opinion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be fair use in the U.S. at all. It's true that you need a court case to pound out the finer details, but there's no reason to think that simply making copies and distributing them would fall under fair use. It took rather fine argumentation to even make it clear that you could make copies of media for personal use. Later rulings have gone pretty far against the idea of file sharing as non-infringing use. Nowhere has there ever been a distinction about "friends and family," though. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian copyright laws are similar to what you describe, it is (so far) permitted to share files with friends and relatives, provided that you have acquired the files legally. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Geography Question

I am looking out for the place

1. Named after its founder who is an European with false claim to royal lineage 2. where a war Prisoner camp was built 3. It is related to one of the major wars world war I or II I have extensively searched Wiki and else where but with no luck. would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.111.75 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any clues about whether the prisoner camp was World War I, World War II, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 达伟 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you first specify the source of this question? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to identify the place, but perhaps you might make some headway using the list at Pretender#False pretenders or those people in Category:Impostor pretenders. My first thought for the dubious lineage was Pierre Plantard, but I can't find a POW camp in a place named Plantard or Saint-Clair or anything similar. Karenjc 16:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Karl Wilhelm Naundorff and Schwarzheide (which has a district named Naundorf, a factory which "used Sachsenhausen concentration camp forced labor", and a "hydrotower build in 1943/44 by french prisoners of war")... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believeOz fits the bill...hotclaws 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama asks moms to return to school

Having seen a plethora of "Obama asks moms to return to school" advertisements, I just saw "Obama asks dads to return to school..." Does all of this have any origin in US federal policy, and/or has the government made any response or encouragement? --达伟 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of the ads for that (and all of the Google hits for it) are pretty much the same company trying to get people to enter a contest for a "scholarship". What they get out of it, I don't know—my totally unfounded hunch is that they will start spamming people who enter with student loan offers. (Student loans are a huge business in the U.S.—they have a number of exploitive loopholes in them that other types of loans don't have. Once you have an audience of people who are looking for $10K to go back to school, you have a pretty good shot of finding people who would be willing to take out a $10K student loan.) They don't seem to correlate at all to anything other than generic federal student loan policies, and they don't seem to have anything to do with the Obama administration in particular. I suspect it is just a scam trying to capitalize on low-income people who are thinking about getting advanced education. (Which is not to say that all student loans are bad... but I wouldn't trust an organization that advertised in a misleading way over the internet. Student loans are trouble enough even when they are from legit organizations.) Be aware that much of this reply is speculative and I could be totally off the mark.--Mr.98 (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exchange Rates in Germany 1930

What was the average exchange rate between Pounds Stirling and the German Mark in 1930? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This link may be of use to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! That's EXACTLY what I wanted! --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isnt the European Union regarded as a country?

We do have a European parliament, European laws, and people can go and live and work in any part of the EU they choose, so why isnt it regarded as a country yet? Surely its not that otherwise it would put the USA in 2nd place in a league table of GDPs? 89.243.151.121 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, if a person were asked "Which country are you from?", and answered "I'm from Europe", they'd then be asked "Yes, but which country?". Europe is seen as a single administrative unit but not as a single country. There may well come a time when answers like "I'm from Europe" will be accepted without further question. Or maybe not. Look at the UK. After over 200 years, people are still likely to answer "England", "Scotland", "Wales" or "Northern Ireland" as much as "the United Kingdom", in answer to "Which country are you from?". And all those answers are correct. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

People may identify themselves as English, Scottish, or Welsh, but the UK is still a country. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but only in certain contexts. At the United Nations and the Oscars and in diplomatic and legal senses, the UK is certainly a country. QE2 is Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". At the Commonwealth Games, however, the UK is not recognised (all the home countries field separate teams). At the Olympic Games, it's not recognised (the team there is "Great Britain", a geographical term that excludes Northern Ireland, but the team includes people from Northern Ireland). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is rare for people to make a distinction betweeen Great Britasin and the United Kingdom as you have done, but the same reasoning applies to GB as to the UK. 78.146.210.81 (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rare? Not sure what you mean by that. Does anyone ever answer the question "What country are you from?" with "Great Britain"? I certainly hope not. It would be like claiming to be from the country of California. So, people regularly make the distinction. "Britain", on the other hand, is a common name for the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think most people within GB would answer "British" rather than Scottish, Welsh or English. We put British on out passports for example rather than Welsh, English, or Scottish. 92.24.69.222 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a different issue. We're talking about which country they say they're from, not what they say their nationality is. But if WP is any guide, it's far less common than is generally supposed that people from there regard themselves as British first and foremost, and their individual nationality second. The reverse is very often the case. Category:English novelists has 1,024 entries, but Category:British novelists has only 414 (Category:Scottish novelists has 152, Category:Welsh novelists has 83). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are making distinctions to suit your arguement. 92.24.69.222 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not. Terminology of the British Isles is a whole world of people complaining that other people are using the wrong word, for various different reasons. See the article linked further down this section. English people are much more likely than Scottish or Welsh people to say they are British, but they're still pretty likely to consider themselves English followed by British. 86.177.121.171 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I've lived in Britain all my rather long life, but of course people who are living on the other side of the world and who may never have actually visited Britain must know far more about being British than I do. 78.146.22.20 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, you must be the only Briton in this whole encyclopedia. Oh wait, you're not. If you want to know how broad chunks of the population feel about something, try reading some of the tabloids. Or read some of Kate Fox's anthropological work on the English. Or get to know some people who have considerably lower educational attainment/expectations than you. Either way, you will find that "English people are much more likely than Scottish or Welsh people to say they are British, but they're still pretty likely to consider themselves English followed by British." 86.177.121.171 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This has become tedious, but I regard mysellf as British first and English second, and I would expect most people except Scottish nationalists or many people in Northern Ireland to have the same view. You are greatly mistaken to try to gauge public opinion from British newspapers as they often describe things like this in hysterical terms to generate controversies to keep their readers entertained and fill the pages - I recall when personal computers started to appear that according to newspapers these were very bad things that would put people out of work. Never heard of Kate Fox. Anyway you are forgetting that Parliament covers all of Great Britain. See this http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/08/22/cartoon-how-the-internet-brings-us-together/ 78.146.54.230 (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and not just all of Great Britain, but all of the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the individual nations retain their individual character and language, people will still tend to be identified by their country. The question can be revised, though, to (1) where are you from? and (2) where do you live? Speaking from the American side, there's a richness about the diversity in Europe that would be sad to have disappear. (As long as its persistence doesn't lead to more wars.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a very interesting question. From 1648 until recently, the Western World usually operated according to something called the Westphalian system. The world was divided into puzzle pieces called "states" and everyone belonged to a single state. You were Belgian or Dutch or French or American or whatever. You might live in a province with its own legislature, but sovereignty clearly belonged to the nation-state. Federalism made things a bit more complicated within states, but between states there were clear borders; you were either in Austria or Yugoslavia and that was that. Then the EU came along and threw political scientists for a loop because no one can quite describe what it is exactly. It's clearly more than an international organization because it has so many powers and such an impact on the everyday life of its citizens. Yet it has not quite reduced its member states into mere provinces -- they retain their own militaries, diplomats and in some cases their own currencies.

A common definition of a "state" is an entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If we're going to use that definition, the EU member states are clearly still the sovereigns because not only do they have their own militaries and police but they are the ones who decide when how and when force may be used in the course of state authority (through criminal law, e.g.). And if push came to shove, a member state could always (in theory) withdraw from the EU and use its national military to ensure its independence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See also, Terminology of the British Isles The Ministry (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm not the OP) I don't think the original question has been answered. You all seem to be going on and on about the UK but have not mentioned the EU. Mwalcoff seems to have given the question a shot but still there isn't an answer. So, could some political science major please answer this? I agree with Mwalcoff, it's an interesting question and I'd like to see an answer. Dismas|^(talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple, and not very helpful answer is that it is not a country because it doesn't claim to be one. If (somehow) the EU managed to pass a declaration through the EU parliament that EU considers itself a country (i.e. a sovereign state), that would put it most of the way to being a country. But that is very unlikely. There are far too many political and social divisions for that to happen. IMHO, it's more likely that countries will become smaller units rather than combine (no evidence, though). Were the EU parliament to pass such a bill, what it would require to be a country would be international recognition - i.e. that other countries recognise it as a country - and political relations with other countries - i.e. treaties, embassies, etc. Sovereign state lists the currently accepted requirements for being considered a country, as per the Montevideo Convention. Steewi (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional: State (polity) is also very relevant, here. Steewi (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there the requirement of issuing your own currency for official country status (UN, possibly)? Of course, we do have the euro, but that's a rather large way off being an EU-currency, for a number of important reasons (not to mention the fact that quite a chunk of the EU hasn't even adopted it yet). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not a requirement. The independent nations of San Marino and the Vatican City do not have their own unique currency, but use the Italian lira. Nauru is an independent nation but uses the Australian dollar. The Tuvaluan dollar and Kiribati dollar are used in those places alongside the Australian dollar, but they are not independent currencies, are fully interchangeable with the $A, and exist mainly for purposes of national pride, I guess. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No they don't - even Italy hasn't used the Italian lira for about ten years now :) (San Marino and Vatican did, of course, follow Italy into using the Euro, likewise Monaco when the French Franc ceased to exist) --Saalstin (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Tks for the correction, Saalstin. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is Russia still so heavily involved in space despite a comparatively low GDP?

Russia, according to the tables given on Wikipedia, has somewhere between the sixth and ninth highest GDP in the world, yet despite the Cold War ending it still seems to spend a lot of resources on activities in space. Understandable when the cold war was active for military purposes, but now that has ended it seems like a luxury or a very expensive way of getting prestige. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're making a false assumption that space actiivities are primarily for national prestige. While there was a strong element of that during the cold war - and still is for countries developing their space industries - there are many more important reasons for it, and once a nation has established a presence in space these become more important. Given that Russia already has the fundamentals of a space industry in place, these other reasons (scientific research, technological advancement, and the like) are an impetus for keeping an active presence beyond the Earth. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "making a false assumption" thanks - note the use of the colloquial phrase "seems like" rather than "is". De-whaffled, you're saying that space is a sunk cost for Russia. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)89.243.151.121 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the space industry was turning a profit for Russia. A lot of the launches they do are paid for by other countries, or by private corporations. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that much of the Russian space effort today involves putting things in orbit for others for cash. Our article on the Russian Federal Space Agency seems to support this view: The 1990s saw serious financial problems because of the decreased cash flow, which encouraged Roskosmos to improvise and seek other ways to keep space programs running. This resulted in Roskosmos' leading role in commercial satellite launches and space tourism. While scientific missions, such as interplanetary probes or astronomy missions during these years played a very small role, Roskosmos managed to operate the space station Mir well past its planned lifespan, contribute to the International Space Station, and continue to fly additional Soyuz and Progress missions. So they used it primarily to put up satellites for others, some space tourism, and do a little bit of science on the side. It's not the worst model for a space program. The article continues to say that the Duma used some of their copious oil/gas profits to fund it even more—probably a mix of interest in future profits, national prestige, and probably national defense (Russia has been long working on rockets that would subvert any U.S. missile shield in the region). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an instance of punching above their weight, like Spain, France, Turkey or Great Britain still pretending to be a major world power. Edison (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Until very recently Britain had the 4th. highest GDP in the world, so I don't see why it shouldnt be a world power. In GDP terms it has far more right than Russia. 78.146.210.81 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the GDP can show a nation is an economic world power, but a nation's leaders might have nostalgia for the days when it was a military superpower. Edison (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by military expenditures says the UK spends the 4th most amount on its military. It may not be a military superpower, but it is a military world power. Only the US spends significantly more (France and China spend slightly more). The UK is also a permanent member of the UN security council, a nuclear power and has one of the biggest financial centres in the world (London). The UK isn't pretending anything - it really is a major world power. --Tango (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yer! Wave that flag! 92.24.69.222 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The misconception is that a space program is expensive. The US spends more than 100 times the amount on Social Security and Medicare that it spends on NASA's budget. NASA's budget is around two-tenths of one-percent of US GDP. Wikiant (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, it's still expensive. The social programs you cite are, in turn, super-expensive. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Poorer countries such as India have a well-developed space program, so I can't see why Russia wouldn't, even after its economy nearly collapsed in the early 1990's. Russia's space program is developed enough for it to propose knocking asteroid 99942 Apophis out of orbit, even as NASA has assured that it poses very little risk (and knocking it out of its orbit would probably make it worse).[7] ~AH1^(TCU) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It does make sense to practice on a Apophis so we know what we're doing if there really is a risk. Hopefully they'll double check their maths and make sure they push it in the right direction so as not to increase the risk rather than decrease it! --Tango (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

January 1

US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit decisions

In opinions of the Ninth Circuit such as this [8] there are page numbers on the documents that indicate the document is part of a publication, i.e. the page numbers don't refer just to the pages in the particular document. What is this publication these pages are from? Nomad2005 (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain. Lexis has different page numbers assigned. FindLaw shows the page numbers in your link. The official U.S. F3d citation that should be used to cite the opinion is not ready yet. My guess is that FindLaw has its own pagination system. All the caases for a particular court or courts are collected. The fifth page of a United States Supreme Court decision might be page 690 of all the opinions reported. Some jurisdictions have public access reporting on the internet. The page number helps lawyers find a particular place in a decision. I hope this helps.20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)75Janice (talk)75Janice.

They refer to the pages of the current volume of the Federal Reporter, Third Series, or "F.3d" for short. Look at Federal Reporter for some details. They are published by Thompson West (also the publisher of Westlaw) and are the "official" reporter for the federal appeals courts. The Supreme Court has its own reporter, refered to simply as "U.S.". The citation format is typically "<Case name>, <Volume> F.3d <Page> (<Court> <Year>)."

You can buy the whole set for $7,500[9], or download it for free. Shadowjams (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This has info too. Shadowjams (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Janice and Shadowjams, but I don't think these are pages from the Federal Reporter. They are too high. The example I linked too had pages in the 16,000 range, far too high for a volume of the Federal Reporter. I don't think that Findlaw supplied this pagination. It appears in the opinions on the Ninth Circuit's website. Any other thoughts? Nomad2005 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The page reference is not to F.3d, the official reporter for Court of Appeals decisions. As I stated earlier, Lexis, the main commercial reporter, reports the case with different page numbers. The FindLaw opinion looks exactly the same as the document you cite. I never learned the entire process for publication of opinions. FindLaw Pro would be the place I would go to find answers. Maybe FindLaw supplied the page numbers. If you would explain why assignment of pagination is so crucial, it might help provide better answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lexis isn't the official reporter, and while West and Lexis are neck and neck, I don't think there's any consesnsus that either West or Lexis are the "main" reporters. Obviously together they are, though. I don't see how findlaw would factor into it at all.

Perhaps they're slip opinion page numbers? I'm not familiar with 9th circuit practice so I'm at a bit of a loss, but I'll do a bit more indepth research. You're right, 16k is too high to be a page number within a volume. My guess is that it's some internal 9th circuit reporting; this PDF does come off of their website after all. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Other courts of appeals don't do this format either. I'm as curious as you are at this point. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not suggest Lexis as the official reporter. Lexis, Westlaw are the main commercial reporting services that lawyers use. Both Lexis and Westlaw report the official F.3d paginatoin when it becomes available. It is permissible to cite to either until the F.3d pagination is available. FindLaw pro reports this case exactly as shown in the example, including type face, spacing, the enitre document. My feeling is that FindLaw may supply its own pagination. If I knew why the assignment of pagination is so important, I believe I could help more. I am pressed for time now. Going to FindLaw and asking them for support may very well yield a definitive answer.17:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)68.81.42.101 (talk)75Janice

My guess is that FindLaw is just republishing the public domain release PDF from the court. The very first link is from the court's website. A good way to tell is find another case from outside of the 9th circuit and see if they have that pagination. The 8th circuit, for instance, does not have that kind of crazy pagination on theirs.

Like the OP, I'm still at a loss. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The version is the one the Ninth Circuit uses for its public domain cases. Frankly, I graduated law school long before public domain cases were available on the Internet. I do not recall if the public domain case is the slip opinion. The Blue Book or ALWD might supply some information. As long as the citation is consitent, does it truly matter? I skimmed the case. It is fairly interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bordeaux Diligence revisited

I have now been able to provide an answer to Lit Scholar's query on 14 December 2009, and have added it in the archive [10]. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Forces of darkness"

Moved from Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. If this question is not appropriate for the reference desk, it can be removed.

On a train from Tampere to Helsinki, I saw two elderly couples, allegedly all Protestant Christians, discussing a pamphlet published by Jehovah's Witnesses. One woman called it "the work of the forces of darkness". Now being an atheist, I don't know much about how these religion-related things are supposed to work, but isn't it a bit too much to call another denomination within the same religion as yours "the forces of darkness" just because, although they believe in all the same deities in the exact same mythology, their belief happens to differ in some details? JIP | Talk 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

_{The Devil is in the details. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)}

If you read the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and compare their beliefs and practices with those of, say, Lutherans, you will see that the religions differ quite radically on some points. If you read the "Criticisms" section of the JW article, you will see that some Christian critics find JW beliefs and practices disturbing. I don't think that most Protestants would consider JWs "another denomination within the same religion". JW's rejection of the Trinity puts them outside of mainstream Protestantism and other mainstream varieties of Christianity. Their belief that Armageddon is imminent and ultimately desirable is disturbing to many other Christians. Finally, the authoritarian structure of the JW community—forcing members to obey the dictates of religious leaders and punishing those who don't with shunning—is a radical departure from the freedom of individual conscience that was at the heart of Protestantism's original split with Catholicism. Marco polo (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

An enemy within is much more dangerous than one without. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't consider myself Christian, so I don't see JW as an enemy within, or any kind of enemy for that matter, nor, I think, do most Protestants. Marco polo (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has studied Biblical Hebrew, I have a problem just with the name, since the word "Jehovah" itself is based on a mistaken form which never existed in ancient Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See Sectarianism and Heresy. On the specific point, JW's don't follow "exactly the same mythology" as mainstream Protestantism, but I'm fairly confident the people in question have similar views on the Roman Catholic church, even though the doctrines are much closer. In any ideologically-charged environment, _corruption_ of the True Way is generally regarded as more objectionable than mere _rejection_ of it - an Arsenal fan will hate a Spurs fan far more than he'd hate a fan of Sporting Lisbon. Tevildo (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, mainstream Christians seem to regard the JW's as mostly-harmless eccentrics, and not infrequently an object of ridicule due to their unconventional ideas (starting with their fake/obsolete name, as AnonMoos points out). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and hated it. A New Testament college course led a clear path away from their teachings. Despite my hatred of the group, they are not "forces of darkness" anymore than any other group. They possess many positive attributes. The Hugenots massacred in France probably saw a dark force and vice vera in England. The Witnesses are disdainful of any power other than their own. Worldly status is rejected. Wikipedia has an article on Christianity that shows a flow chart for what most Christians believe. The Witnesses are divergent. Countless thousands died during the struggle between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The divergent points were minor compared to the areas of agreement. My family suffered much from antiWitness persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Augustus word game

I'm playing a word game with someone and trying to get the correct words to fill in the puzzle. The bold italicized words are the key ones and I need the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. These are my guesses for those words. Do you have any further suggestions?

Rules of the Game

The basics to decode it are to use opposites, for example:

• With the use of the capitalized adjective On, the word it modifies is a coded word.
• With the use of a comma directly BEFORE the conjunctions "and" or "but" then that segment to the next comma is a true statement, otherwise it is the opposite.
• Other meanings of the Biblical words have EXACTLY the same number of letters with a key word ending with the same letter and fits correctly to the historical record.

(allegory)
Chapter 107 (Photinus the heresiarch)
Photinus, of Gallograecia, a disciple of Marcellus, and ordained bishop of Sirmium, attempted to introduce the Ebionite heresy, and afterwards having been expelled from the church by the Emperor Valentinianus, wrote many volumes, among which the most distinguished are Against the nations, and To Valentinianus.

Puzzel solution:
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), of misericordia, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of kingdom, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced some history records among which the least humble are for himself and no organizations.

Thanks for any help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any other criterion that the words have to meet? Does the final text have to be gramatically correct (which it isn't at the moment)? Does "no organizations" fill two gaps or one? Tevildo (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Part 1 - no.

Part 2 - no.

Part 3 - fills two gaps.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... I don't see, in that case, how any answer can be "better" than yours, as there's no way of assessing it. Is it just a question of picking (using "kingdom" as an example) a random seven-letter word ending in "m" and hoping it's the right one? Your choices have as much chance of being right as anyone else's. I _was_ going to suggest "Capita Bubula" (the villa in which Augustus was born) as a replacement for "misericordia", but it's two words - I suppose that makes it invalid. Tevildo (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for input. I believe my guesses fit the description of Augustus however.

• misericordia - mercy, compassion
• movements - a progressive development of ideas toward a particular conclusion.
• kingdom - related to the new creation of Roman Empire.
• opposite - from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.
• founder organizations - founder of the Roman Empire.
• no organizations - in some instances he was not humble.

Is that pretty close to Augustus' description?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, to be honest. Augustus wasn't particularly merciful or compassionate (see Caesarion), "kingdom" is a very inappropriate word to describe the Roman Empire (one of the reasons for Julius Caesar's unpopularity was the suspicion that he intended to make himself king, even though his assumption of dictatorial powers was accepted), and Augustus was successor to the Second Triumvirate rather than the republic - by the time of the Battle of Actium, Rome had quite definitely passed from republican to oligarcic government, but it continued to be a de jure republic for some centuries - Diocletian was the first emperor to officially rule as an autocrat, rather than primus inter pares. On a more practical point, I don't think that the "right answer" will have _two_ "organizations" in it - you should change one of them, at least. Tevildo (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and ideas and history lessons. After thinking over what you had to say, perhaps one of these words would be more appropriate in these positions below?

• First key definitely is a 12 letter word ending in a. Perhaps one of these apply better: hypochondria, bibliophobia, cerebrotonia, pseudolunula, respondentia, kleptophobia, coenesthesia.
• Third key definitely is a 7 letter word ending in m. Perhaps one of these apply better: problem, freedom, uniform, program, perform, conform, confirm, stratum, blossom, heroism, egotism
• Last key definitely is a 13 lettter word ending in s. Perhaps one of these apply better: opportunities, peculiarities, complications, modifications, contributions, ramifications, nationalities, deliberations, contingencies, preliminaries, proclamations, anticipations, civilizations.

Keeping the sentence that way, since that is the way the old historian gave it to me. He is also giving me history lessons in ancient Romans. Which might be better words of the suggestions I provided for those key words or others if you can think of them that use the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. This is the "rules" of the game.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Puzzel solution with revised possible replacements of key words:
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), of hypochondria, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of egotism, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced some history records among which the least humble are for himself and no ramifications.

• If you feel "misericordia" is not an appropriate word, perhaps "hypochondria" fits better.
• Looks like to me "egotism" fits better than "kingdom."
• Perhaps "no ramifications" works better since he seemed to have absolute control.

Does that look better and fit his description?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 107 (Augustus, the emperor)
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), unconcerned with hypochondria, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of uniform, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced many history records, separate from the least ordinary are for himself and to peculiarities.

Above is another alternate.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Julius Caesar

(allegory)
Chapter 112 (Cyril the bishop)
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem often expelled by the church, and at last received, held the episcopate for eight consecutive years, in the reign of Theodosius. Certain Catachetical lectures of his, composed while he was a young man, are extant.

(puzzel solution with same rules as above):
Julius Caesar, (100 BC - 44 BC) Dictator of modernize rarely received by the optimates and at last received, held the lower positions for eight separate times (military tribune 73 BC; quaestor 69 BC; aedile 67 BC; Pontifex Maximus 63 BC; praetor 62 BC; governor Hispania Ulterior 61 BC; consul 59 BC; governor Gaul 58 BC) in the life span of traditions (cursus honorum). All occupational praises of it dispersed while it was an older item and are no longer existing.

Then does this look O.K. using the same rules as above?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As Tevildo said, it's very difficult to judge whether anything is correct if the resulting paragraph doesn't have to make grammatical sense. You could stick anything in there, really. (Why doesn't it have to make grammatical sense, anyway?) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, using grammatical sense and keeping the just of the ideas and the key words, how might "Julius Caesar puzzle" look to ya'alls?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Humor me! This is the way I was given the sentence, so I would like to follow through. The key words seem to fit, as far as I know of this ancient history.

• First key word must be 8 letters and end in e.
• From my understanding of the material in the Julius Caesar article at first he was not received by the optimates, then later he was when he became dictator.
• The next key word of traditions seems to fit as the traditional method of progress for the ranks then was by cursus honorum. To my understanding this procedure went though the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, a very long time. After this time then, the procedure was no longer followed.
• The next key word of occupational seems to me to be appropriate as it was their occupation and eventually the occupational procedure was not followed.

Its just a game with certain "rules" he is playing with me for a teaching tool to learn ancient Roman history. It seems to work, as I have had to study up on these articles to see what he was talking about to fill in the key words. To me only certain words will work, not just any words. They must fit the ancient history or ancient character properly and have a certain number of letters with the last letter being a certain letter. Any further help would be appreciated.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have his original statement of the "rules", or an example of a "correct answer"? I think we're missing an essential compoment of the excercise. Tevildo (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, do not have his original statement of the "rules" as a written set was not given to me. What is it you are lacking to complete the Julius Caesar puzzel? The words I put in the key words seem to make sense to me, however I am the student, not an expert on ancient history as you are. Just looking for the correct key word. The other parts are immaterial as to correct grammatical sense. Are you saying it makes no sense at all? What is not correct as to the basic historical parts?

Domitian

(allegory)
Chapter 134 (Sophronius)
Sophronius, a man of superlative learning, wrote while yet a lad, In praise of Bethlehem and recently a notable volume, On the overthrow of Serapis, and also to Eustachius, On virginity, and a Life of Hilarion the monk. He rendered short works of mine into Greek in a very finished style, the Psalter also, and the Prophets, which I translated from Hebrew into Latin.

Below is another example with the key words I filled in.
(puzzle solution):
Titus Flavius Domitianus (51 AD – 96 AD), a man of ruthless teaching, did not write a history record while yet young, in lack of attention of criticism and long before a vague history record on the support of friends and also to principles, on having some previous experience and a time of children, the one by himself with no mother or siblings. They removed long history records of his from black out of a ruthless style (Damnatio memoriae), another chapter also and the numerous which he rendered from shadow to taken.

From the article on him it seems to make sense to me of the key words I put in. What part, in the way of the key words does not make sense to you?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus

(allegory)
Chapter 133 (Amphilochius the bishop)
Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, recently read to me a book On the Holy Spirit, arguing that He is God, that He is to be worshipped, and that He is omnipotent.

Here is another I have recently worked on that I filled in the key words of the last letter being the same and fits the ancient history.
(puzzel solution):
Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus (d. 69 AD), procurator of problem of the rule of the United Kingdom long time ago wrote from him a history episode on the very object (unusual punitive policies), agreeing that it is bad, that it is to be despised and that it is unrestricted.

This one to me seems obvious and simple. Do you see this incorrect in any part as to the history?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This one, if nothing else, illustrates the difficulty we're having - this sentence just doesn't make sense, no matter what possible "keywords" are chosen. It looks very much as if it's been machine translated. We're really going to have to see an example that the person who set the problem thinks is right, and even then I doubt if there's much we can do to help. I'm sorry. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, right. We now have some rules and some other examples - we're getting somewhere. Where did you get them from? If we're going to get any further, we'll need the _full_ set of rules (including the basic statement of the problem - what is the end result supposed to be?) and a _complete_ question and _complete_ answer. I think the problem is still that we don't really know what's happening. Tevildo (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus

(allegory)
Chapter 108 (Phoebadius the bishop)
Phoebadius, bishop of Agen, in Gaul, published a book Against the Arians. There are said to be other works by him, which I have not yet read. He is still living, infirm with age.

(puzzel solution):
Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus, (f. 48 BC) overseer of town (Cordoba, Spain) in coal, published a history episode for the troops. There is said to be the same history by them, which they have likewise produced. It is still surviving strengthened with time.

This one to me also seems obvious and very simple. Apparently the town of Cordoba is known for coal mining. Do you see this incorrect in any part as to the history?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone can make sense of the history, when the grammar doesn't make sense. Has your professor made any corrections that you can show us? That would help us figure out what he wants you to do. Perhaps it is supposed to be like a cryptic crossword where the answers are anagrams or something unexpected like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do believe you are correct. It is some sort of a cryptic crossword puzzel, maybe in the line of an allegory.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically he wants me to find the key word that plugs into the sentence. No, he has not given me any corrections. The history seems to be in the articles, so should be easy to decipher. The history does not change, even if the grammer is not perfectly correct. So, is the history correct, ignoring the grammer? Seems correct to me, however I'm biased.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tevildo, now that we have the basic rules, we also have some more information from a discussion on Doug's talk page. As far as I understand it, it seems that Doug (or the person who made this puzzle, or both of them) have the idea that Jerome's De Viris Illustribus is an allegorical reworking of Plutarch's Lives. It seems also that Doug believes that De Viris Illustribus was not written in the 4th century, but the 14th, and in English, or that the 19th century English translator made it all up? It's entirely likely that Plutarch was an inspiration for Jerome, although this is not what I would consider "allegory". As for the rest, hopefully Doug can explain that better, because the way I've explained it is obviously impossible and I assume I've misunderstood something. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh - so this is a Bible code sort of thing? Or - er - that chap who, about 30 years ago, interpreted Nostradamus by forming anagrams of the text (and leaving any inconvenient letters out)? (Who was he, and do we have an article on him?). Let's see how it develops. Tevildo (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's see how this develops. The "Rules of the Game" I figured out on my own. Yes, the allegory came from Jerome's De Viris Illustribus which is on WikiSource. Yes, these examples we have been working on and all 135 "characters" follow these same Rules. Yes, some of this is from Plutarch, however most is from Livy's Histories and Polybius Histories. When all are decoded, it happens to follow a chronological timeline starting in the 4th century BC and going to the 1st century AD. Hopefully ya'alls think I have this kind of knowledge to plug it in this way somehow. Yes, I believe this was written originally in the 14th century in English. That's the reason why the English flow looks rough to us, since it came from Midaeval Middle English. No, I do not believe this was written originally in Latin in the 4th or 5th century. Reason being, then why in the English version we have today does it follow this allegory pattern for all the "characters"? All you have to do is follow this set of Rules of the Game on these above examples we are working on and it works, as it does for all other chapters. Ask me some specific questions on the Rules of each of these examples we are working on and I will give you detailed logical answers. The questions must be specific and logical. Without asking me questions, then you are not seeing how this develops out. Then you have your eyes closed to a new idea. Below are some more examples I am fine tuning. I have already done them all.

Who's Who of ancient Roman commanders

Chapters 101-134

Chapter 101 (Mithridates VI, the inheritor)
Mithridates VI of Pontus (b. 134, d. 63 BC), a Persian by birth, learned inherited power off name over the ruling individuals and in a very young age, preventing themselves from suspicion away from secret produced history episodes for girls, produced off propaganda style and definite communications episodes which could be understood by the common local people. Hellenism then produced difficulties for the citizens.

Chapter 102 (Marcus Valerius Messalla Rufus the consul)
Marcus Valerius Messalla Rufus (c.104/3 - 26 BC) augur of enigma, in the life span of the rulers vision and exertion produced vigorous episodes for the reflections and some other things. It lived over charms.

Chapter 103 (Skilurus the king)
Skilurus, king of Scythia (f. 2nd century), overseer unconcerned with size, had a bad talent for making children and produced a brief work in selfish rhythm (mausoleum at Scythian Neapolis; it was used from ca. 100 BC to ca. 100 AD). It lived in the life span of the chamber ceremonies after the duration unconcerned with having eighty sons.

Chapter 104 (Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, the magistrate)
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 54 BC), overseer unconcerned with vendetta from dogma, a junior unconcerned with the dictator, withheld themselves in their established time from indifferent negligence unconcerned with rhetoric and afterwards produced a special history episode on the body conditions (diludium, rest, suspension, intermission), lived in the life span of the bladder conditions. There are existing thirty minutes of them for recovery, which are rarely considered as among the worst of their rest period.

Chapter 105 (Appius Claudius Pulcher, the scholar)
Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul 54 BC), overseer unconcerned with enigma from dilemma, published though from a young age, composed traditional viewpoint argument of polemic language and an elegant history episode on watch (‘augural’). It is said to have died.

Chapter 106 (Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus the consul)
Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus (consul 53 BC and 40 BC), overseer unconcerned with peninsula, from the previous relations, a man of poor reputation and as distinguished by his life as by his speech, produced one long history record of support from beginning for the Caesar/Octavianus party, among which are one pair and for the notorious and died in the life span of another revolution around moderate convention.

Chapter 107 (Augustus, the emperor)
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), of misericordia, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of kingdom, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced some history records among which the least humble are for himself and no organizations.

Chapter 108 (Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus, the witness)
Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus, (f. 48 BC) overseer unconcerned with town (Cordoba, Spain) in coal, published a history episode for the troops. There is said to be the same history by them, which they have likewise produced. It is still surviving strengthened with time.

Chapter 109 (Marcus Lollius, the governor)
Marcus Lollius, (f. 25 BC) of cordillera, left rational when older and therefore ignorant of the rudiments of learning, displayed such a lack of intelligence as to teach partial advice and even angles, skill which especially required listening. It produced many horrible history episodes: difficulties on some of the places, difficulties on the various of mudflow and ruin, on the learning of specific things, also two history episodes for the German tribes, and one history episode on the gray effect which he extracted in taken, eighteen history episodes on speech, three history episodes of commentaries on extra addressed to him, and five history episodes on patriarch brought into being at his desire, also there are commentaries on Ode and many other things (of Horace Odes), to take an account of then would be a history episode of himself (Odes iv.9) . It is now finished and has already passed its 83rd Ode (88 odes Books 1-3 with first 6 odes of Book 3 as a single sequence of 1 Ode known as Roman Odes make 83 odes. Book 4 as additional odes).

Chapter 110 (Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, the statesman)
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (c. 63 BC - 12 BC) the workman and overseer of temples, during the life span of the numerous contributions and fields, produced records in behalf of the domestic party six history episodes (Battles) for the praise of the creation party, in which they assert that the good deeds of the creations is truly charged upon the liberal party.

Chapter 111 (Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, the Roman senator)
Aemilius Lepidus Paullus (ca. 77 BC-14 BC) of chain of the family of that appears to whom afterwards two history episodes of branches are overlooked, disarranged a family history of disjoined poetry and prose which is a sort of guide history episode to his whole life. This it called ancestry or royal. It lived in the life span of acquaintances.

Chapter 112 (Julius Caesar, the Dictator)
Julius Caesar, (100 BC - 44 BC) Dictator of modernize rarely received by the optimates and at last received, held the lower positions for eight separate times (military tribune 73 BC; quaestor 69 BC; aedile 67 BC; Pontifex Maximus 63 BC; praetor 62 BC; governor Hispania Ulterior 61 BC; consul 59 BC; governor Gaul 58 BC) in the life span of traditions (cursus honorum). All occupational praises of it dispersed while it was an older item and are no longer existing.

Chapter 113 (Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, the dupty as Master of the Horse)
Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir) (b. c. 89 - d. 13/12 BC), as an older man was apart from anxiety, deputy of sovereign as obtained by directions the spokesperson at insignia, and afterwards when deputy of the same city (Rome), with little cheer succeeded to restore the triumvirate (Second Triumvirate) dispensed by modern movements which had soon aided benefits. At last, in the life span of the similar revolution, they were brought into the group. None of the political alliance of theirs are together and one may easily become acquainted with them.

Chapter 114 (Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the statesman)
Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (f. 58 BC), kinsman of umbrella in others, wrote a history episode for a heresy and one other which is eagerly listened to by the learned on account of its subject matter (Caesar’s Will) and also by the plain people on account of his wording. The issue of Caesar’s Will is now dead and in its extreme old age composes various brief results.

Chapter 115 (Publius Clodius Pulcher, the leader)
Publius Clodius Pulcher (93 BC - 53 BC), leader of the group of people at stigma, composed a few historic episodes in the erotic language and became so distinguished that his writings are repeated publicly in some groups of people before the writings of the principles. He many times wrote in trick large history episodes by them on the lady secret, which he had converted to the erotic and recognized even in translation the incompetent weakness of his negative personality. It lived in the life span of ladies.

Chapter 116 (Aulus Gabinius, another general)
Aulus Gabinius (f. 49 BC), overseer of vendetta in Cinderella, the area always called stigma, comprised deplorable reckless history episodes for finances, a large history record on the stay effort (Egypt), and nine homilies (Sibylline Books) on the six times of creation (6 books burned before Tarquinius would pay the exorbitant price wanted by the Cumaean Sibyl), also a work on intimidate and long treatises on various subjects. They lived in the life span of arguments.

Chapter 117 (Marcus Licinius Crassus, another politician)
Marcus Licinius Crassus (ca. 115 BC - 53 BC), politician of exception, a conventional man and my instructor in the principles, comprised a history episode amounting in all to some thirty thousand portions (entertained families of 10,000 tables with grain given to last each 3 months). Other history episodes are: on the life of his relatives’ qualities, on liberty, from praise of the faculties, from praise of pattern, from praise of properties, from praise of becomes the thinker before they had been sent to deployment (decimation). This latter however, many write additionally with the disguise of enigma, since there are other history records by society, complimenting other members as if one might praise and compliment the other person at the same time or as necessary as the occasion may require. Another work of his is a history episode in hexameter (captured 6,000 slaves alive), including some discussions around immoral acts and separation (slave rebellion), two history episodes for citizens of Rome, one history episode in the duly result (Crassus ultimately elected consul in 70 BC), and one for the whisper reason (First Triumvirate). He was a leader of passion in his style of producing history. Wanting approved their success in the family’s position, separate from their own life events, they were entertained from the public where they lived the life of locals and received three months of more future in the realm of quantities.

Chapter 118 (Lucius Marcius Philippus, the praetor)
Lucius Marcius Philippus, (f. 60 BC) overseer of the baron party after principles, held the neutral position (waiting out Caesar's Civil War) with participation of the group of people at cinderella (i.e. Cicero), during the time of the chamber traditions by whom they were associated with. Certain special instructions of his on the passing over of Octavius’ inheritance are still existing and a few short history episodes of opportunities propositions.

Chapter 119 (Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus (died 55 BC), the proconsul)
Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus (died 55 BC), overseer of troops enjoyed a great reputation while he was still commander of selfish. Commentaries of their’s (Pompey and his troops) on the instructions (to leave island of Crete) are still existing, as well as one other history episode in the manner of colonies the great of quota, whose meaning they had not followed (Pompey prevented Creticus’ triumph), but whose eloquence he could not imitate on account of his ignorance of civil treatment.

Chapter 120 (Quintus Hortensius Hortalus, the advocate)
Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (114 BC - 50 BC), overseer of matters and member of the brain party, willingly went into such secret behavior towards their corrupt politics as to proclaim privately what the others displayed. It is said to have lived in cornucopia and to write much against the organized group of people. Inquires from him have been made by arrangements, various, rival of vendetta, already suspicion, and clearly of extra.

Chapter 121 (Vercingetorix, the chieftain)
Vercingetorix (c. 82 BC - 46 BC), chieftain of dogma, belonged to the party of numerous and villages and was put to death at powers by the tyrant members. They published one long writing (Commentaries on the Gallic War), most of which has limited him. It is still absolved by many of being enhanced with enthusiasm while being with the conformity of religious work, of which narrator conveys while his representative ("third-person") maintains that he was of this way of thinking.

Chapter 122 (Terrasidius)
Terrasidius, regarding taken, a Knight of little teaching, and in the matter of versification worthy to be compared with the poets of ancient time (Titus Terrasidius was sent among the Esubii; Marcus Trebius Gallus among the Curiosolitae; Quintus Velanius, Titus Silius, amongst the Veneti), was also brought to life with powers of opportunities, arrangements, numerous, and orchestra, co-achievers with them of association. One type of vegetable (corn) of their ineptitude written in a single segment are no longer existing (negotiate provisions for winter of 56-55 BC for Julius Caesar).

Chapter 123 (Lucius Calpurnius Piso, "the Pontifex")
Lucius Calpurnius Piso (consul 15 BC) (48 BC - 32 AD), the solution in call from praise that they shared the same thinking of composition, wrote a history record of achievement in modest and various positions (consul 15 BC, proconsul 14 BC, governor 13 - 11 BC, legatus 11 BC, other possible positions). But before the death of his friends (Augustus and Tiberius), submitted to the interesting work of being a civil servant (AD 13-32). They continued his thinking as it is spoken in this statement "the man came to his calling" as he was a member of the Arval Brethren (worship of goddess Dea Dia), an experienced man devoted to his work.

Chapter 124 (Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives, the consul)
Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives (consul 14 BC), a consul of Roman, at that time produced no written political history. He put out his judgment of them (father and grandfather), because they were already dead, not fearing either to praise nor blame lest in either event they should not be blamed for excessive devotion to career and in the other for speaking the truth (he was adopted by Marcus Licinius Carrus Dives).

Chapter 125 (Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives, the consul)
Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives (consul 30 BC), consul of triumph, a man of remarkably keen body, while he was not yet an official office holder entitled, presented himself for various victories which he had already then produced. They retained also the same of the conquered country (Balkans) from the slack of principles into their way of thinking.

Chapter 126 (Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, the follower of republicans)
Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus (b. c. 83 BC - 43 BC) of biblioteca, teacher of letters, wrote a short history episode on policy for republicans and as some one has lately informed me arrangements on mob. It is now passed.

Chapter 127 (Manius Aemilius Lepidus, first ignoramus, then overseer)
Manius Aemilius Lepidus (consul 11 CE), the ignoramus, died at biblioteca, appointed consul at administrative (governorship of Asia) and denied as "lazy", but as "mild" by the Roman Senate, produced unremarkable history records on lack of faith for the powers and received them from the similar relations at command.

Chapter 128 (Lucius Gellius Publicola, son of Lucius Gellius Publicola, consul of 72 BC)
Lucius Gellius Publicola (consul 36 BCE), overseer of dogma, the sister of equal of hysteria, some years before wrote records from history formation and itself a history episode for numerous. It (conviction) is recorded to have also written one other history episode (coins struck with title Q.P.) and dogma to be still writing history episodes.

Chapter 129 (Publius Cornelius Lentulus, the conspirator)
Publius Cornelius Lentulus (Sura), one of the chief figures in Catiline conspiracy of the organized group of people at anguish, a leader of thoughts of extra articles, is said to have composed only one main history idea (to overthrow existing government), but of these I have only read his on the leadership of the conspiracy to overthrow government.

Chapter 130 (Lucius Caninius Gallus, the politician)
Lucius Caninius Gallus (d. 44 BC), politician of hysteria in advantage (Lex Acilia) before members, is recorded to have written history episodes more or less in unfinished styles, but not to publish his works of history episodes to completion.

Chapter 131 (Titus Statilius Taurus, the consul)
Titus Statilius Taurus (f. 29 BC), consul of praefectus urbi, in formula, has produced lengthy and serious systematic expositions (held multiple consulships), from the form of Octavian’s "share the honors" program in olden style of the old Roman Republic. He speaks that the old Roman Republic no longer wrote more history episodes after that.

Chapter 132 (Titus Statilius Taurus (II), son of Cornelia Sisenna then praefectus urbi prefect)
Titus Statilius Taurus II (f. 1st century), creator of articles whom he mentions below, hardly known in their generation (Sisenna Statilius Taurus, Statilia L. Pisonis and possibly Statilia) and devoted to the formation belief, did he write a Single Historical Record (history records that he was only a monetail, one that physically makes money coins, also known as moneyer), which is the only record he has produced for history.

Chapter 133 (Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus, the procurator)
Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus (d. 69 AD), procurator of problem of the rule of the United Kingdom, long time ago wrote from him a history episode on the very object (unusual punitive policies), agreeing that it is bad, that it is to be despised and that it is omnipotent.

Chapter 134 (Titus Flavius Domitianus)
Titus Flavius Domitianus (51 AD – 96 AD), a man of ruthless teaching, did not write a history record while yet young, in lack of attention of criticism and long before a vague history record on the support of friends and also to principles, on having some previous experience and a time of children, the one by himself with no mother or siblings. They removed long history records of his from black out of a ruthless style (Damnatio memoriae), another chapter also and the numerous which he rendered from shadow to taken.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Who's Who

Chapter 101 talks of secret of possible murder of Mithridates V by his wife queen Laodice and of the incest marriage of Mithridates VI to his sister, also named Laodice.

Chapter 103 talks of mausoleum at Scythian Neapolis; it was used from ca. 100 BC to ca. 100 AD. It also speaks of Skilus having 80 sons.

Chapter 108 points out that the town of (Cordoba, Spain) mines coal.

Chapter 110 talks of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as the workman and overseer of temples. Click article to see several example pictures of temples he worked on.

Chapter 117 there are 17 coded words, all of which when the decoded word is put in - fit perfectly. It talks about the event Crassus did giving away 3 months supply of grain to 10,000 families for public entertainment. It also talks about the 6,000 slaves he captured and about the First Triumvirate. It also talks of the ancient Roman army technique for motivation called decimation.

Chapter 131 is Titus Statilius Taurus the 1st. Then next Chapter 132 is Titus Statilius Taurus the 2nd . It also talks about him being a monetail or moneyer as the only history record he left.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Odes (Horace)

In addition to Plutarch, Livy, and Polybius, there is references to Horace Odes. Chapter 109 in particular. Note here the Roman Odes. It is a set of 6 Odes that are often referenced to as one, therefore there are 83 Odes when first published as requested by Augustus. Note the reference to 83 in Chapter 109. The decoded part fits exactly to that of Horace Odes.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Q & A section

Sorry to be a pain, but if this is homework, why are we helping you with it? Scrub that, I've just answered it. But am I the only one getting a bit weary of this line? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not homework as I am 65 years old as of tomorrow. Have not been to school for some 45 years. Just something I stumbled into.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Question from above:
...the _full_ set of rules (including the basic statement of the problem - what is the end result supposed to be?)...
Answer to this question:
Since it came from the Middle Ages I believe it to be one of many of Allegory in the Middle Ages as apparently this was popular then. The end result I believe to be that it teaches one about ancient Roman history - a teaching tool. I sure have learned a lot of ancient Roman history over the last couple of years. Now I have answered the questions with specific logical answers, please ask your questions for each of these examples we are working on (in that character's level position) as specific logical questions and I will give you specific logical answers. Just throwing around generalities doesn't do any good. You want some new ideas? Well here they are, IF you can take them. Notice the big IF.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you frequently defend the ungrammatical sentences with the defence that the game is very old, implying that these are written in an older version of English. I see here you say it came from the Middle Ages, suggesting that you think the game is written in Middle English or Early Modern English at best. In that case, the spellings of the words are completely up for grabs: knowing the number of letters and final letter will be quite insufficient. 86.177.121.171 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To make sure I am understanding your point I will point out a couple of things. The spelling on the decoded key word can be any way, as long as it has the same number of letters as the Biblical word and matches correctly to the historical record and, of course, ends in the same letter as the Biblical word. The other "Rules of the Game" still apply, for example if there is an "and" directly after the comma THEN that segment to the next comma is true, otherwise it is the opposite. A little rewording to our American English of today (for better grammer, better flow, or better understanding) can be done as long as you follow those basic ideas.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But if, as you say, it was written in the 14th century, what possible relevance is the number of letters in the standard modern spelling of a word? --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OUR American English? Some of us are British. I've read all you've written here and on your talk page, but I'm not sure I understand: do you think the person who wrote this and set up the 'clues' for you to decipher was writing in Early Modern English, such as the King James Bible was written in? Or Middle English, as would have been used in the 14th century? Or 19th century American English? Because older forms of English spell many words quite differently, without 'standardisation' in the way you would expect today. This means that if you think this was written in an earlier form of English, I could make all sorts of words 'fit' the word lengths and final letters, just by adding extra letters. 86.177.121.171 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say "sorry" to the British - as I feel I misspoke here. The mss involved where I feel it came from originally was from England and from Oxford University and from the 14th century. I feel the person that wrote this was a professor from Oxford University and wrote it in the middle part of the 14th century - whatever English that is. It so happens that all the key words used in the deciphering was in use at that time. I have done all 135 chapters and it works out that the key decoded word that replaces the Biblical word always has EXACTLY the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. I do not believe that you can ...make all sorts of words 'fit' the word lengths and final letters, just by adding extra letters... as you say AND have it fit the ancient history involved for the character decoded and / or his related history. Of the ones I have shown of chapters 110 - 134 please give me some examples. Better yet, show me where my key decoded word does not apply. Keep in mind with this exercise that the key decoded word MUST fit the recorded history. Are you saying my decoded key words do NOT fit the recorded history? Examples please!!! Since you have here a couple of dozen decoded characters of ancient Roman commanders, this will be a good chance to prove your point and disprove my point. No generalities, but specifics will be needed here. On average there is about 5 decoded key words per these couple of dozen decoded ancient characters. Multiply 5 times 24 and you get over 100 chances to DISPROVE my point. What an excellent question and point. Lets see how this pans out and develops. This is such a good point it will most certainly PROVE my theory that this is DEFINITELY an allegory. Now show me "proof in the pudding" of what you say. Let me say in advance, thanks for your help in proving my point.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Copies before 14th century

Doug, forget about the "key words" for a moment; there are manuscripts of De Viris Illustribus from the seventh century, and dozens of other ones all dating from before the fourteenth century. Other medieval authors from before the fourteenth century had access to these, and used them, and quoted them, and knew they were written by Jerome, all in Latin. How would this be possible if De Viris Illustribus was not written until the fourteenth century, and in English? This is all in Herding's edition of Jerome, and Richardson's translation, which I described above (I can post it again here if you missed it). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, got it. I'll respond here, then you can help 86.177.121.171 as he is going to need a lot of help from ya'alls. I like your question and point made here. A good point IF you could prove it. I believe you are saying something to the effect that Richardson and Herding said this. Thought about that question for the last year, so did a heavy duty investigation. It turns out no matter who I talk to worldwide, nobody today has a copy before the fourteenth century. The oldest copy I could find is held by the British Museum and it is from the 15th century. Others have pointed out to me a copy held by the General Theological Seminary in New York supposedly from the 12th century. It turns out they no longer have it AND don't know where it is AND rethought about it and concluded its from the 15th century. I contacted them and here is what they said

“ September 8, 2009 9:49 AM, Hi Doug,

This manuscript is no longer owned by the General Theological Seminary, as it was auctioned off by Christie's October 1, 1980. Regarding the manuscript's provenance, the auction catalog reads: "The script which has been dated as early as the twelfth century, is more likely of the early fifteenth century." The current whereabouts of the manuscript are unknown. Regards, Patrick Slaven Reference Librarian St. Mark's Library, General Theological Seminary, 175 Ninth Avenue, New York, NY 10011, slaven@gts.edu, 212-243-5150 x323

”

.

So, what you say is hearsay. If Judge Judy will not accept it, then I don't either. Unless you can come up with proof, then it is just hearsay. In this case, not good enough since you haven't gone through as much investigation on this point as I have. Can you now give 86.177.121.171 a helping hand, as he is having a little trouble backing up what he said - proving my point! --Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's one manuscript, out of over a hundred that Richardson knew about, and that was a hundred years ago. I think the oldest manuscript listed by Richardson was in the Vatican, dated to the seventh century. One problem that we are having here is that we are only using the books we can find online. A quick search through my university library catalogue shows that there are more recent Latin editions and English translations, and the editors and translators of those will likely have better information. In any case, what language are those fifteenth century manuscript in? Latin, surely? There should be plenty of people who quote Jerome in Latin prior to the fourteenth century, too. I could try to find some, I suppose. But there are other problems. You don't know the difference between Middle English and nonsensical Modern English, and you don't know Latin or Greek to read Jerome, Plutarch, Livy, Polybius, etc., you don't know what allegory means, you have no academic training. And if this goes the way it always goes, nothing we say will convince you. Why should anyone spend any time helping you? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I say hearsay. Don't need any further help as I have decoded all 135 chapters already. Looks to me like 86.177.121.171 needs a helping hand, as he is having a little trouble backing up what he said - proving my point! Do know that there is definitely a set of "Rules" to this historian's system as can be observed through logic. I have given't it to you already above AND so far ya'alls haven't even come close to disproving it with specific details. Remember generalities don't count, but specifics do. Logic and common sense is all that is required. Beside, ya'alls haven't even asked who this 14th century historian is that wrote this - and I have given ya'alls many clues already. Look through what I said and try to figure it out. Its so obvious, IF you had paid attention. Here, I'll give you a couple more clues:

1. How many books in the Christian Bible? The one most people know of.
2. Now look in Chapter 10 of Acts of the Apostles and tell me who is spoke of.

I'm betting you are afraid to answer these simple questions. I'll be surprised if you do.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cornelius the centurion? And there are 73 books in the Bible? I don't know what that means to you. I suppose a 14th-century person you would know of is either Chaucer or Wyclif, I think you've mentioned them already.

Anyway, some more thoughts; what did Gennadius of Marseille expand, if not Jerome's De Viris Illustribus? Why did Ildefonse of Toledo say that Jerome wrote that work, and why did it inspire him to write his own work in the seventh century? (The English translation is on Google Books, here.) You can also see where the Venerable Bede has quoted from DVI, here. And this is just from a few minutes of Googling. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I should also note (if I haven't done so already) that the only code you could possibly have found is between the English translations of these works. None of this would work in the original languages. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Original language I say is English. It works just fine. Yes, you are correct that it doesn't work in these other languages as they are copied for the original 14th century English version. Surprised you answered the above questions. I believe you got one right and one "debatable." Cornelius the centurion is correct. The debatable one is, as far as my understanding is, that most people think it is 66. This could go on debating this issue forever, so I leave it at "debatable." According to the article on the Bible it says the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon and that Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon. I find it interesting that "Cornelius" is Chapter 66. Chapter 67 happens to be Hannibal when decoded. Two more questions, IF you care to answer:

1. How many books to Acts of the Apostles?
2. How many Famous Women did Boccaccio write of?

Note that I have given you chapters up to 134. Add the two up above. Coincidence? You will say so. The last chapter is sort of a "signature" saying what he did (so is not one of the characters), however completely different when decoded. Yes, I believe Wycliff wrote up Jerome's De Viris Illustrius that we are taking about.

So, do you have any specific points to debunk the "Rules of the Game"? So far I haven't seen any. No, its not just one manuscript we are talking about that "might" be before the 14th century. There are none before the 14th century. Give me proof other than hearsay.

I believe 86.177.121.171 has a really good point IF he could prove it. So far, haven't heard from him. Perhaps you could help out as this pertains to specific details that could disprove what I am saying - otherwise he has proven my point!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But you're not using 14th century English, you're using 19th century translations into modern English. What does that have to do with the 14th century?

What do you mean "books to Acts of the Apostles"? How many books come before it?

Boccaccio wrote about 106 famous women.

The rules of the game don't make any more sense than the stuff you've decoded. I guess that's convenient; they can't be debunked.

86.177 only said what everyone else has said, that your English makes no sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Should have made it clearer. How many books of Acts of Apostles? Note in Jerome's "Chronicle of Universal History" in chapter 135 as to how many homilies.

Boccaccio answer is correct. Seems like an odd number, wouldn't you have to agree.

Scipio Africanus is also called "Cornelius Scipio", the arch enemy of Hannibal.

(Note: "Cornelius" is Chapter 66 of Jerome's "characters" AND in Chapter 10 of Acts of the Apostles. 66 books to the Bible. Just more coincidences I suppose.)

So, no specifics I see. Only generalities. Proves my point.

However every decoded key word used that replaces the Biblical word in the decoding process was used in the 14th century.

Another interesting note you should be aware of is that when the completed process is done of Chapter 1 - 134 it is in chronological order going from the 4th century BC to the 1st century AD. Ya'alls think I could pull this off somehow? Please say, yes. You can see the chronological order in the "characters" I have already given ya'alls.

So take note there are 134 "characters". That is 106 plus 28. Coincidence. Perhaps.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there's only one book of Acts, although it has 28 chapters, if that's what you mean. And nothing here proves your point, why do you keep saying that? It only proves that no one has any clue what you're talking about. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are still the basic problems I mentioned above. Gennadius, Ildefonsus, and Bede knew about DVI in the 7th/8th centuries, and the English you have come up with is not 14th century English, just nonsensical modern English. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to disprove. Everything you are finding, you have put there yourself, because your 'rules' are so flexible they let you do so. You are playing with a Bible code, but a rather freer one than most. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Food for thought. Don't you find it interesting, or at least noteworthy, that I mentioned that Jerome's "Chronicle of universal history" has 28 homilies AND Acts as you say has 28 chapters. Yes, I can see now I am way over ya'alls. Somebody sometime I imagine will ask me about "Cornelius". And what's this of Scipio. How does Scipio enter in the picture? Maybe someday somebody will be curious enough to ask me. But then that is another chapter - and I'm not sure if Wikipedia has enough memory in their servers to follow all that. So, for now I'll drop this and wait until others have read this over and ask me later of some specific questions. All I can say for now is that the cat is out of the bag.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine you think it's a big secret that Scipio was from the gens Cornelia. By the way, don't you also find it curious that over the past few weeks, whenever you asked if the key words you were plugging in made any historical sense, and everyone agreed that they did not, you didn't care and insisted they did anyway? Why did you even bother to ask? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Scipio being from the gens Cornelia I don't believe is any big secret. But, the point I hinted at, apparently is as it went right over your head. Guess again. By the way did I mention that 106 and 28 add up to 134 which just happens to equal the number of "characters" of Jerome's Illustrious Men. Curious, wouldn't you think?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Anyway, since we know that as early as the 7th century, the work was available in Latin, and you haven't come up with anything in middle English, all else is just a bunch of random numbers. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Well, let's drop this for now and let Wikipedia's servers take a breather. I think we used up all their memory.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ava Gardner article in Esquire Magasine

I am trying to find out if "Ava: Life in the Afternoon" by Rex Reed was published in the may 1967 issue of Esquire magazine. The Ministry (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so [11].--Cam (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ThanksThe Ministry (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2

"FDR HIDES PLANE"

I have a family picture of my father circa 1928-1932 reading a newspaper and pointing to the headline "FDR HIDES PLANE" Is there any way to date the photo from historical info?? The picture was taken in the summertime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.44.21 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you narrow it down for us by confirming in what English-speaking nation of the many in the World this photo was taken/the newspaper was published? While the USA would seem to be the most likely possibility, it would be tedious to work on that assumption if it were in fact wrong. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, can you tell (either from the picture or by general knowledge) what newspaper it is? If it still exists, the newspaper's offices may be able to locate the date for you easily. At a good public library or a university library, especially in the city where the newspaper is from, it may also be possible to locate the paper by the headline. --Anonymous, 04:20 UTC, January 2, 2010.

Can you read any other headlines? Maybe his dramatic flight to the 1932 Democratic National Convention? Don't know why he would be accused of hiding the aircraft, but newspapers sometimes print strange things during an election.—eric 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wild-assed guess here, but is it possible that the headline actually reads "FDR Rides Plane"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a ProQuest search on all multiple terms, multiple newspapers relating to Roosevelt and planes. I found no obvious candidates. I would also inquire as to whether you can be sure that is what the headline says, and if you could perhaps scan the newspaper part of the photograph for us to inspect on our own. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with our anonymous contributor's savvy guess, if the flight was dramatic. "Hides" would be odd: in a barn at Campobello?

No results at Google News Archive for eithr "Hides" or "Rides." I agree that "rides" is more probable. It is hard to hide an airplane while confined to a wheelchair. A high def scan of the newspaper would be helpful. Edison (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

???? It is hard to hide an airplane while confined to a wheelchair. Those with the full use of their legs go around hiding planes with consummate ease, do they? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Mebbe push it into the barn, or pile branches and camo netting over it, if the legs are working. Edison (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1932#Campaign says: "After making a dangerous airplane trip from his Hyde Park estate to the Democratic convention, Roosevelt accepted the nomination in person. ... Roosevelt's trip to Chicago was the first of several successful, precedent-making moves designed to make him appear to be the candidate of change in the election." The 1932 Democratic National Convention started June 27. Could there be a bad pun in Hyde Park and hides? Probably not. Maybe he had hidden that he was going to make the flight? Maybe he didn't give reporters access to the plane? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above ideas and requests, but I will note that, if you're sure of the dates 1928-1932, I think we must be looking at 1932. Roosevelt, while prominent prior to the election of 1932, would (in my opinion) be very unlikely to be referred to casually as "FDR" in a headline prior to the election. I just don't think he'd be well known enough that the nickname would be instantly recognizable. I may be wrong, but a little jumping around looking at headlines involving Roosevelt from the late 1920s/early 1930s suggests to me that a headline using the initials FDR would have been almost unheard of. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How much the public would have recognized "FDR" before the 1932 presidential campaign, and how often FDR would have appeared in headlines, are semi-objective questions to which I don't have the answer, but there are reasons that the initials might have been relatively familiar before that. (1) Once his name started appearing, "Roosevelt" had to be distinguished from Theodore Roosevelt (President 1901-1909, Presidential candidate 1912, died January 1919), often identified with the initials "TR". (2) In both cases, "Roosevelt" (like "Eisenhower", usually headlined as "Ike", and unlike "Ford", "Bush" or "Obama") was too long a name for many headlines, so editors would have been partial anyway to using "TR" and "FDR". (3) FDR had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Josephus Daniels during World War I (hence his "former naval person" exchanges during the Second World War with Winston Churchill, a former wartime First Lord of the Admiralty), and had been the Democratic Party's unsuccessful candidate for Vice-President in 1920 running with James Cox against Republicans Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding. (4) New York newspapers (then as now read well beyond New York) would have been running many headlines about FDR since 1928, when he was elected Governor, so if the newspaper's a New York one, "FDR" might well have been natural as early as 1928. ¶ But, unlike the previous responder, I haven't yet done any actual sampling, so this is just informed speculation. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FDR was the Democratic Party candidate for Vice-President in 1920. That should have drawn quite a bit of national attention, even though he and Cox lost the election. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask how recognizable the were the initials for the Republican VP candidate in the 1996 election, but considering that Jack Kemp's initials were JFK, the point would not work well. Googlemeister (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I tried doing a Google News archive search for "FDR" but unfortunately the old scanning techniques make such searches difficult. "fdr" in the majority of the old cases is a bad scan of "for". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

English governance

I am trying to learn more about governance in England. I know the broad outlines of what a parliamentary system is, but I want to learn more nitty gritty things like what causes an election to happen and what are all these different types of elections, who picks the prime minister, how are the districts determined, etc. The general articles like "Parliament of England" are all too broad. Any advice on where I can get some more specific information? 24.20.200.67 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The general articles, such as House of Commons of the United Kingdom and Elections in the United Kingdom, really are the best place to start. Not only do they answer some of your questions ("The actual election may be held at any time before the end of the five-year term (...) The timing of an election is at the discretion of the incumbent Prime Minister"), they also have links to articles that may treat the nitty gritty things, for example the article on the Boundary Commissions that determine the constituencies (electoral districts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The first thing to point out is that there is very little governance in England, specifically. There is UK governance and there is local governance in regions of England of various size, but there is very little that covers all of England without covering more than just England. There have been calls for a devolved parliament of England, but there are no signs of there being one any time soon. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Prime Minister of England". The Prime Minister of the UK is the person who forms the UK government (covering Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England) at the request of the monarch, and is usually the leader of whichever political party wins the majority of seats in the House of Commons after a general election. Where the leadership of the party changes between elections, as when Brown took over from Blair, the monarch invites that person to form the government and become PM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, a UK citizen who is on the electoral register of a polling district in England is eligible to participate in three types of elections:

• European Parliament elections to elect their Member of the European Parliament.
• UK elections to elect their Member of Parliament.
• Regional and local elections to elect local councillors at various levels, and, in London, to elect the London Assembly and the Mayor of London.

The European and UK elections may be part of a general election, or may be a by-election triggered by the resignation or death of the sitting MEP or MP. In addition, UK citizens in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland are also eligible to vote in elections for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, as appropriate. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you don't have by-elections for the European Parliament. MEPs are elected by regional party lists. When a vacancy arises, it is filled by the next person on the party's list. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan and the Decendent Line of Cain

I recently watched an episode of John Safran vs. God where John tried to "join" the Ku Klux Klan. In the segment, the Grand Wizard showed John a chart and stated that Able came fro the union of Adam and Eve but that Cain came from a union of Satan and Eve. I read the artical on the KKK but I didn't see any reference to this. Can anyone help me to understand where this idea came from and what "evidence" there is to "support" it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.117.26 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

see: Christian Identity, Serpent seed.—eric 06:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A little bit about the possible origin of the idea can be found in the second paragraph of the article Cain and Abel. Deor (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Do these - ahem - fringe theologians have any position on Seth? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

They regard Seth as the first - er - legitimate son of Adam and Eve (after Abel), and hence his descendents to be of pure blood. The _main_ problem with the theory is the position of Noah - either they have to reject the Flood (or, at least, claim that it wasn't a worldwide flood and/or the "sons of Cain" survived elsewhere - on floating mats of vegetation?), or try and come up with a theory that only _Ham_ had tainted blood, and the other two sons of Noah were pure - difficult on any theory of inheritance, even the most irrational. But, coherent thought and extreme racism tend not to be found together very frequently. Tevildo (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Midrash has a story about Og surviving the flood, by hanging on to the outside of the Ark. I don't recall Og's genealogy, or if it's given, but it's possible he's a descendant of Cain. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Utilitarian value of existence

Why does utilitarian ethics assign positive value to Earth's continued existence and to the average person's life, when most people seem to suffer from material existence more than they enjoy it, and to have more to fear than to hope for in this world? NeonMerlin 07:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps utilitarians do not share your premises ("most people seem to suffer from material existence more than they enjoy it" and "most people seem to have more to fear than to hope for in this world"). Life can be fun too you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I also require some citations on your two premises, but Kurt Vonnegut wrote that it was a pretty common combination for a human to be miserable yet have an iron determination to continue living. Possibly the assigning of a positive value to the survival of Earth and humanity is an extension of the survival drive. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

From a hedonist point of view, both egoism and utilitarianism (though not always interwoven in harmony) share positive values to human existence. At the sometime, I agree that utilitarianism is the subset of positive political theory that can only move things in a democratic society. It does not mean that individual egoism cannot be hidden in a positive political theory; minimum in a highly developed democracy. I think OP is saying that most people do not see (or enjoy) what they have but suffer from material existence and have more to fear than to hope for. Couchworthy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

Those who don't fear, don't survive. That was true of the dodo bird, anyway. The business world equivalent of that is, "If you snooze, you lose." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that it is possible to value the survival of oneself as an individual, and the Earth, but not humanity. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because a person gripes constantly to themselves or to others that life stinks, it doesn't mean they really feel that way deep down. If they truly did they would commit suicide. "Death is the only sincerity." Vranak (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica and the freedom of panorama

Has Antarctica the freedom of panorama? --84.62.205.233 (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "freedom of panorama"? Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably he or she means Panoramafreiheit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no government in Antarctica as such; its occupants co-exist under treaty arrangements. I don't see anything in the article about the subject of picture-taking. Freedom of panorama seems to figure mostly in the area of paintings and statues, and I doubt there are many paintings and statues in Antarctica (probably not even a brass monkey). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Would this be covered by the Antarctic Treaty? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any specific mention of it, and it's probably way down the priority list in such a hostile environment. But it does say that the criminal laws of the individual nations apply to their citizens who are stationed there. So, theoretically, if an American citizen violated the American rules restricting freedom of panorama, they could be held accountable for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation isn't usually criminal, it's civil. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the copyright laws of the various nations of people who are in Antarctica still apply to them. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be guessing that people are allowed to take pictures of places in Antarctica, since there are very few people living there, and there are plenty of photos on Wikimedia Commons of the place (including research stations of different countries). ~AH1^(TCU) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama only usually comes up in very limited circumstances anyway. National monuments, giant art exhibits, buildings done by great architects, etc.—and only in situations where there's the possibility of somebody making some money. It seems rather unlikely that the types of man-made structures in Antarctica would run afoul of that. It's possible, of course. The South Pole is not devoid of artistic flourish. The station certainly is distinctive looking. But yeah, I doubt anyone really cares about the copyright of the structures themselves, at least not enough to make a nuisance about it in such situations. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercury-vapor lamp usage

I understand that streetlights many times use mercury-vapor lamps. What type of areas or towns or cities favor these type of lights, verses say sodium-vapor lamps or other gas-discharge lamps that use an arcing mechanism? Put on Science Desk instead. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This might not be entirely relavent, but mercury-vapor lamps contribute to more light pollution than sodium-vapor lamps do, so I'm guessing it's the areas that do not have legislation to mitigate light pollution. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the answer and noticing the question on the Science Desk.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What type would you guess are these in Street light interference?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

long live king who?

In January 1901 did the world welcome the new King Albert until he said "Naw, let's make it Edward," or had he made his preference known (at least to Downing Street) during his mother's lifetime? —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edward VII of the United Kingdom, for those who don't get the reference). Edward announced his desire to be known as "Edward" during the sitting of the Accession Council on 23 January 1901, before the official proclamation was made. See [12] for the London Gazette entries. It was a matter of public knowledge that he didn't like the name "Albert", but I don't think there was any official announcement before the actual accession. If he had died _before_ the proclamation (and after Victoria's death), it's quite possible that he'd be down in the lists as "Albert I", as well as holding the record for the shortest reign. Tevildo (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Victoria was first proclaimed as "Alexandrina Victoria"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Prince Charles has apparently alreadey decided to be George VII [13] Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that. What I would say is that, according to that article, unnamed "family friends" have said that Charles has considered using George VII rather than Charles III. That's a BIG difference between THAT and saying that Charles has decided to be George VII... --Jayron32 03:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pedantically, he'd be down in the lists as "Albert", as Kings and Queens don't acquire a numeric suffix until there's a second instance of the same name. Hence, Queen Victoria has no "I" after her name. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

January 3

Startup license

In order to start an investment bank/security brokerage, does the entrepreneur have to be licensed as an individual?--LastLived 03:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In which country? The rules surely differ, and we are going to be unlikely to look up the rules in each of the 192 countries in the world. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the laws of the United States, the investment bank/brokerage must be registered as a broker-dealer and must be a member of FINRA. If the entrepreneur is to have a senior position with the broker-dealer, then he or she must be a registered principal. John M Baker (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to as I live in the United States. And by senior position, do you mean as an officer, or as a director? Or both? Do you need such a license to start any kind of financial institution, for that matter (in the US)?--LastLived 02:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Banks are highly regulated in the U.S. (and pretty much everywhere else for that matter.) Banks can be registered either as state or national banks, depending on the laws of the state, but almost all state banks, and all federal banks, are FDIC insured, which essentially brings all banks under the umbrella of federal banking laws.

If you're trying to start some sort of finance business, it should be painfully obvious that you're going to have to talk to a lawyer; navigating these sorts of regulations would not be easy. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Both directors and officers of a broker-dealer must be registered principals, if they are actively involved in management. Other employees generally must be registered representatives, unless they have only clerical or ministerial responsibilities. Licensing requirements for financial institutions in the U.S. depend on the kind of financial institution, but most U.S. financial institutions are subject to some kind of licensing requirement. Hedge funds are not, but that may change under proposed legislation. John M Baker (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why you removed certain material that made the US look bad but was true?

Why have you removed the references you had on Fedel Castro that stated he was backed by the US Govt and after his take over proclaimed he was a communist and turned his back on the US? Did you bend to pressure by our Govt to remove the fact they helped a communist take power?70.157.230.88 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The above note is your only edit. Please provide a diff of what you're specifically referring to. And FYI, wikipedia does not censor publicly-available content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You can look for a diff in the page history of Fidel Castro. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is here:[14] Maybe the OP could point out the specific date and time the info was removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Content discussion needs to take place on the talk pages of the articles themselves—take this to Talk:Fidel Castro. As for why it was removed (if it was): controversial information must be cited to a reliable source. If it is not, it can be removed at any time. The U.S. government has occasionally edited Wikipedia, but never in a truly official capacity, and Wikipedia does not as a policy "bend to pressure" (and to my knowledge pressure has never really been put on it), though since "anyone can edit" that means that information can be added in and be removed by basically anyone. If the information is reliable and cited, though, it should stay in the article as long as people are watching over it. Wikipedia includes many things that are not favorable to the U.S. government, among other governments, which is why it is periodically banned in China, among other places. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Is NEW Delhi really the capital of India

As I can not find a provision in the constitution or a law nor a presidental decree making New Delhi the capital, but there is reference in the constitution to Delhi, it seems to me that Delhi is the capital of India -- as it was of British India from 12.12.1911 on -- and New Delhi just happens to house all supreme institutions of the republic (president, parlament, prime minster, supreme court).

But my changes in the article are opposed because there are semi-offical sources stating that "the capital is New Delhi".

Could you please find a legal text to silence me (or suggest some wording that respects the LEGAL situation and the generally affirmed believe). --85.178.127.159 (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. My 2010 edition of The World Almanac states that the capital of India is just plain Delhi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the Sixty-Ninth Amendment to the Indian constitution just establishes Delhi as the "National Capital District", and there's no other provision that makes New Delhi the capital city. Tevildo (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The question is interesting. I'm sure you noticed the current Constitution does officially name Delhi the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which is a pretty strong implication, but I, too, don't see the statement "New Delhi shall be the capital of India" in the current Constitution. I haven't attempted a search of the laws of India to look for this. To be clear, the "semi-official sources" you're citing are the website of the Government of India and the CIA World Factbook, which are considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia; and you can avoid accusations of original research by avoiding inserting this sort of material in the New Delhi article until you can find a secondary source, other than yourself, that states the same questions as above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)This kind of gets to be hair-splitting. New Delhi is basically a "neighborhood" and is entirely within Delhi. It's a little bit like Washington, DC, is the U.S. capital. Washington itself used to be just a portion of the District of Columbia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, New Delhi is just a neighborhood. The whole of Delhi is divided geographically into nine areas of which New Delhi is one, and divided functionally into three municipalities, one for New Delhi, BUT the census of India attributs persons of ALL nine areas/districs to the Delhi municipality and persons of FOUR areas to the New Delhi municipality. So New Delhi does not even have a separate existence from Delhi.

Another parallel that comes to mind: there are a number of districts (Bezirke) in Berlin. ALL highest federal institutions are placed in Berlin-Mitte, but that does not make Berlin-Mitte the capital, nor is Whitehall the capital of the UK. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we must give some weight to the fact, that we do have a legal document. Emperor Georg declared Delhi the capital, not New Delhi. Since we do not have a legal text changing the capital, the capital is clearly Delhi. Between 1912 and 1931 the branches of government were physically in the Delhi Cantonment -- could one say "The seat of government was the Delhi Cantonment."? IF YES, we can speak of New Delhi being the seat of government, whereas Delhi is the capital. ??? --85.178.104.139 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Government of India has published that New Delhi is the Capital, the CIA factbook states the same. Neither are semi-official sources. [15] explains how the capital and the capital territory were chosen during the British Raj. -SpacemanSpiff 08:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your source, the Common Law Abroad, is not correct, in the beginning there was no national district of Delhi, but the "Delhi Imperial Enclave", so much for its accuracy. "India at a glace" is a web site run by the Indian Government, not an legal text.

Please read Government of Delhi. As i see it, there is no city of New Delhi with clear borders, a mayor and ..., it can not be the the capital of anything. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like splitting hairs. The question is whether New Delhi is a "city" or a district of a city. People have always said "London," not the City of Westminster, is the capital of the U.K., even when there was no Greater London municipal government. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's pure original research. No mayor, so it can't be a capital? Please show sources that say that New Delhi isn't the capital. The two sources showing that it is (one a Govt of India website, another the CIA factbook) are credible enough. -SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I do not understand what the implication of saying "This looks like splitting hairs" is. Do you want to say: Both "Delhi is the capital of India" AND "NEW Delhi is the capital of India" are correct? Or do you suggest: only the first sentence can be correct, since New Delhi is not even a city -- no matter what people (and web sites) say? --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, mayor is not the ONE and ONLY criteria, but one of many. From the point of you of the republic of India there is only Delhi, no Old Delhi, no New Delhi. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just an indication that something is wrong with "New Delhi, capital city":

In New_Delhi#Culture one can read: "The Qutub Festival is a cultural event during which performances of musicians and dancers from all over India are showcased at night, with the Qutub Minar as the chosen backdrop of the event." But the festival site is in an old part of South West Delhi.

An other one. Maybe enterprises give New Delhi as their seat, but the street given is in South, South West, or North Delhi. It's just that some people -- including government officials -- think that "New Delhi" sounds better than "Delhi". --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Or even better. In New_Delhi#Economy one can read: "The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi does not release any economic figures specifically for New Delhi but publishes an official economic report on the whole of Delhi annually." and the rest is about Delhi. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To make things clear: I do not say: Because New Delhi is not a local authority with well defined borders it can not be the capital. If there is a Indian law or presidential decree making New Delhi the capital, it IS the capital, but in the absence of a legal text -- and presence of government web sites -- the fact the New Delhi, is not a city, not a town and not a borough with the trapping of a proper local authority, is a strong indication that it is not the capital of India, but just a special part (seat of governemnt) of the National capital. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Lot of confusion here, which is understandable given how many entities in India are referred to (loosely) as Delhi, both historically and at present. Let me see if I can clarify the situation:

• Historical: The capital of British India was shifted from Calcutta to the Delhi (then part of Punjab Province) in 1911. A new city was designed and constructed in the area by Edwin Lutyens, and formally inaugurated as "New Delhi", the designated capital, in 1931. Following India's independence in 1947, New Delhi remained the capital of India, while Delhi became a Union Territory following the States Reorganization Act of 1956.
• Current: In 1991 the Government of India reorganized the administration of the region, creating a National Capital Territory of Delhi (National Capital Territory, or NCT, in short; or loosely Delhi), which is a Union Territory and consists of Delhi (bulk of the area), New Delhi (<5% of the area, and the capital of India), and some cantonment areas. The NCT Union Territory is governed by a Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi ("Delhi Government" in short), while its three components are administered by the Muncipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal Council and Delhi Cantonment Board (which falls under the Ministry of Defence of the Union Government), respectively.

As you can see, there are lots of Delhis floating around above. But, bottom line to the OP's question: New Delhi is certainly the capital of India, and has been so since 1931. Hope that helps! Abecedare (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare, I disagree, New Delhi was definitely not the capital of British India, and it is not the capital of India. It is just an illdefined part of the capital of India, i.e. of Delhi. New Delhi is at least three things:

• the new Delhi build by Edwin Lutyens
• the disctrict of Delhi that houses Rashtrapati Bhavan, parliament, secretariat and the Supreme Court of India...
• the new parts of Delhi, parts anyone chooses to call "New Delhi"

Your are wrong, when you state that the three municipal bodies (one called "corporation", one "council" and one "board") are components of the NCT and adminster distinct areas. When you study the census of India you will see that there is no geographical separation between these statutory towns, they are no local authorities; they just provide services to persons (no to its resp. inhabitants) --85.178.75.15 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Union Territory does not consist of Delhi, New Delhi, and some cantonment areas. The NCT consists of Delhi full stop. If you go to the web site of the Muncipal Corporation of Delhi, you see there logo: it shows the whole area of the NCT (without a hole in the middle), and the Census of India states that persons from all nine disctricts (including New Delhi) are counted as somehow belonging to MCD. --85.178.75.15 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Abecedare, allow me a question: What was the capital of India in 1930? --85.178.88.110 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertions above that the confusion is about the borders of New Delhi or Delhi. I interpreted the OP's assertion as: New Delhi was made the capital before Indian independence, but upon independence, nowhere in the Indian constitution does it actually proclaim New Delhi as the capital, and therefore it is not. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OP: You misunderstand me. On 12.12.1911 DELHI was proclaimed the capital. Soon afterwards the viceroy and the administration moved to the Delhi Cantt, later to New Delhi. New Delhi was just an area within the "Delhi Imperial Enclave" -- just as the Delhi Cantt. New Delhi became the SEAT of government, but Delhi was and is the capital. It is not only the constitution (which refers several times to Delhi, but not to New Delhi) that is relevant, but the absence of ANY legal document (law, decree) that establishes that part of the center of Delhi as the capital. Excuse me for repeating this: Many inhabitants of South Delhi think New Delhi sounds more modern, richer, better, so they tell you -- in good faith -- that they live in New Delhi, but they do not. It's the same with the capital (unless someone comes up with a legal text proving me wrong). --85.178.88.110 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Taj Mahal - True History?

Is Taj Mahal build by Shahjahan?

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/true_story_of_the_taj_mahal.htm

Are the points noted down by P. N. Oak has been taken into consideraton? Gurugsk (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that present a divergent view, then please begin a discussion on the talk page, preparatory to adding the view into the article in an unbiased way. But a self-published website is not considered a reliable source. Furthermore Exceptional claims require exceptional sources --ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Uninterpretable question

What is the nearest MRT to NUS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.196 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please use a descriptive title in future questions. Heading added

If you gave us some hint of which MRT or NUS you meant, or even what country you are in, there might be some chance of answering you. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The user geolocates to Singapore, so the question could be "which is the nearest Mass Rapid Transit (station) to the National University of Singapore?" --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To which the answer is Buona Vista MRT Station on the East-West line. Tevildo (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And, if that interpretation of the question is correct, this page (which was the first google hit for MRT NUS) may be of interest. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I only hope the OP isn't stuck on a mountain in Greenland waiting for an answer! Grutness...wha? 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of situations in which I turn to Wikipedia for an answer... I'm not sure stuck on a mountain in Greenland is one of them! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

African writing or literature from early 19th. century

I'm reading a memoir by someone who lived in Africa during the early 19th. century, and he says that people could commonly read and write. Besides reading the Koran, they were fond of writing things as well. Have any writings like these survived to today? And if so, where could I read them? From his description, an African town he visited was very similar in work and industry to a european town of the same time. 78.146.54.230 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Africa's a big place...in some places literacy is completely normal. Where did this person live? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And which African languages were written in the earl 19th century?--Radh (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably quite a few West African languages were written using forms of Arabic script (see Ajami script). Also Amharic in Ethiopia. --ColinFine (talk)

(ec) I think the place you're looking for is Timbuktu, where a vast library of medieval texts is in the early stages of being preserved. See The manuscripts and libraries of Timbuktu --TammyMoet (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hausa was almost never witten before the British asked the local leaders to correspond with them using "Ajami script". People spoke Hausa, but wrote Arabic. -- Similar to west-northern India, where many Muslims spoke Hindustani, but wrote Persian (sometimes even Arabic). --85.178.88.110 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what country the man was in, but he lived at a place called Kambia at the mouth of the River Pongo, which was near Cape Verga. The town he visited was called Timbo. 78.146.54.230 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Kambia, in North-West Sierra Leone near the border with Guinea. There appears to be a rivier Pongo in Guinea, as well as a town called Timbo, which "was formerly an important religious centre and is still known for its eighteenth century mosque". Whether there are any non-Arabic records there I do not know. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Any language will do, if there is a translation. The book-learning goes back a surprisingly long way "The tariks of Timbo (annals in the Peul language but written in Arabic script) noted that in the year 1105...." - perhaps more advanced than European culture. 78.147.11.181 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but I may have some leads. Timbo was the capital of the Kingdom of Fouta Djallon, which, from the earth 18th century to the end of the 19th, was a bit of a Mecca (pun intended) for Muslim intellectuals in West Africa and beyond. The main local ethnic group was the Fula people, who developed Ajami script, seemingly a modified version of the Arabic alphabet, in order to write in their own language. Our Fouta Djallon article names Tierno Muhammadu Samba Mombeya, Tierno Saadu Dalen, Tierno Aliou Boubha Ndyan, and Tierno Jaawo Pellel as accomplished writers from this period. - Fullobeans (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

After more Googling: this book has some good information, but mentions that most of the writing you're interested in is hard to get one's hands on, as it hasn't been published and/or is in private collections. The French Wikipedia has an article on Tierno Aliou Boubha Ndyan, if you know any French. - Fullobeans (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Book about entire human race existing to give an alien/robot a piece of metal

I remember hearing about this book many months ago and I looked it up on Wikipedia because of its interesting premise, I just don't know the title of it. It's premise is something like a character who has a broken spaceship creates or somehow uses our universe/earth to get a piece of scrap metal to fix his spaceship. I am dying to figure this out, so please post anything that comes to your mind, thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.188.225 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, although in a sense it's the same idea. Somehow I'm thinking it's a Vonnegut story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sirens of Titan --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Man Who Fell to Earth co-opted world technology to assemble his ride home.--Wetman (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its Sirens of Titan; thanks to all three of you! --71.245.188.225 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New Journalism

I am working on the article The New Journalism, a would like the access this article The Review of Politics, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 306-309. Also trying to find and access the article, The New Journalism, 1: Not Necessarily What is New in Journalism. By Don R. Pember in Journal of Communication Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 185 - 189. 1975. Thanks in advance what.is.the.1404[at]gmail.com.

Do you think you could help me find when the article Gear by Richard Goldstein was published in the Village Voice, the article Timing and a Diversion: The Cocoa Game by George Goodman (under the pen name "Adam Smith") was published in New York World Journal Tribune, and when Beth Ann and Macrobioticism by Robert Christgau was published in New York Herald Tribune? Thanks in advance.The Ministry (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On the first one, I was going to suggest you file a request on the resource request page, but I see you've already done that. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In the rather unlikely event that you haven't done so already, have you tried searching the archives at the Village Voice? That might give you one date. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The online archive only goes back to 97. And I live in Sweden so I can't visit the archives at american libraries.The Ministry (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics too leadbelly song

Does anyone know the lyrics to, or where i can get the lyrics too "scottsboro boys" by leadbelly?? Its for a Project. I appreciate the help!! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Most modern song lyrics are still under copyright, and so cannot legally be posted anywhere on the web. Links to illegal sites are not permitted in Wikipedia, so I'm afraid we can't help you. You may be able to buy a copy of the song somewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Call me a rebel... Go to Google, type in [Lyrics Scottsboro Leadbelly] and you'll get dozens of sites that have the lyrics. Dismas|^(talk) 00:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Leadbelly is sixty years dead, but a certain evil person, inspired by an inked rodent, got some really horrible copyright laws passed. Tread softly. PhGustaf (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

musical instrument key/scale

What makes a "B flat" clarinet "B flat"? How does the clarinet player know what note to play when the conductor says "play Concert C"? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.192.104 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All explained at Transposing instrument. In brief, the basic scale of the instrument, that you get by uncovering the holes one by one, is the scale of Bb. Many instruments are conventionally written at concert pitch, so a C is written as a C; but some instruments, particularly those that come in families, are written as though their natural scale was C, even though it is actually Bb, or A or Eb. This has the advantage that a clarinet or saxophone player can switch to an instrument in a different key and play the written notes exactly the same, even though they sound different pitches. Contrast that with recorders, which are in different keys but are conventionally written at concert pitch (though sometimes at the wrong octave): if you change from a tenor recorder (in C) to an alto (in F) you have to change the fingering for the notes on the page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention all those other times, but that's the clearest and simplest explanation of this hitherto baffling practice I've ever read, Colin, so thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. The king of transposing instruments was Adolphe Sax, who when he put a large single-reed mouthpiece on an ophicleide to make a saxophone planned them in a huge range of sizes and pitches: B-flat and E-flat intruments for bands, and F and C instruments for orchestras. (For some reason orchestras like instruments with sharps in them whilst bands like instruments with flats in them. The F horn is a modest anomaly, with only one flat in it. Orchestral trumpets and clarinets are more often in C or A than the bandish B-flat. The CC contrabass tuba is likelier to be in tune than the BB-flat model.) The F and C saxophones never caught on (though a few still play the C melody model). Adam Carse wrote one of the best books about this, but the reader should be aware he didn't like jazz much. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So when the conductor says "Play concert C" the F horn player plays his G. Presumably the Bb clarinet player plays his D. This has never made any sense to me. Edison (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The conductor doesn't often say that. The players with transposing instruments just play the notes as written, and it more or less works out. Long ago I played parts written in E-flat on an F horn, which involved adding or subtracting three flats from the key signature. I forget which. I mostly got the note as close to right as one might expect from a horn. Musicians have to know how to shuffle keys around. PhGustaf (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It astounds me that the questions and answers in the post make any sense to anybody :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I could have written a much longer bit about banjo tunings.PhGustaf (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All the above answers are pretty much true from my experience in High School band, but the simplest answer to the How does the clarinet player know what note to play when the conductor says "play Concert C" part is, that's what they were taught as musicians.Aaronite (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

January 4

Leveraged Buyout (LBO)

My understanding of an LBO is that an investment bank raises debt on ITS OWN balance sheet and invests it as equity in the acquired firm. the terms of the debt however require the acquired company's cashflows to be used for repayment of the debt which is TAKEN BY THE INVESTMENT BANK. therefore no debt exists on the acquired company's balance sheet. can anyone please clarify with a source.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.34.195 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that sort of practice you are describing, that is a larger firm taking out debt to acquire a smaller profitable firm, and counting on the smaller firm outperforming the debt in order to justify the merger, is basically what fucked the newspaper industry in the U.S. There's been a lot of arguements made that the changing media climate has killed the "small town paper", but I am pretty sure if you look at the numbers, truly independent small town papers are still surviving OK, in that they are profitable, just not as profitable in the past. The papers that are getting shut down are those which were acquired by huge media conglomerates like The McClatchy Company. McClatchy tried to consolidate the newspaper industry by acquiring huge numbers of papers from small-to-medium sized markets; they often leveraged their acquisition of these newspapers with debt which was not repayable based on the diminishing (but not negligible) profits made by those papers. I don't have print sources at my fingers now, but I have seen and heard several TV and radio reports which make the case that, based on the numbers, many of these papers which have since been shut down by groups like McClatchy and The Tribune Company would still be in operation had they not been bought out. In other words, the papers would have been self-sufficient, but not profitibale to justify the leverage that was used to purchase them. Supposedly, consolidation leads to decreased cost due to reduction in duplication of services, but in this case, it seems quite likely that consolidation actually was less profitable to the industry than had it not happened. --Jayron32 05:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely the problem there is simply that the newspapers were overvalued. Had they realised the profits were going to reduce they wouldn't have paid as much for them and then would have been able to service the debt. Levering increases risk, so the slightly lower than expected profits had a massively increased effect (causing the companies to go under). It's not the profits diminishing that caused the problems, but the profits being lower than expected. --Tango (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but the end result is undeniably that it was the buyouts that led to the closing of the newspapers, not their lack of profitability in general. --Jayron32 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read our article, Leveraged buyout? Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've read the article, but there is no clear answer to my stated question.

LBOs can have a variety of structures, but they normally are financed in significant part through loans that are to be repaid by the target firm and, if secured, are secured by the target firm's assets. So, no, it typically is not the case that there is no debt on the acquired company's balance sheet. Also, it is not necessarily the case that there is any equity investment by an investment bank. John M Baker (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Interactive fiction

I am looking for an interactive fiction book which I read years ago involving Sherlock Holmes. In the book, one can solve the mystery with occassional help from Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson. The reader is provided choices at the end of each page so that he can make his/her own decisions. I tried searching the net but couldn't find the name of the book. Does someone know anything about it.-Shahab (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds broadly like either a Choose Your Own Adventure book or a knock off. There are over 200 official releases at List of Choose Your Own Adventure books, including 185 in the main series, and several in offshoot series. We have Wikipedia articles on several dozen of these, but it is hard to tell from the title alone if any of these may have had Holmes and Watson as protagonists. At least its a start! --Jayron32 06:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Gamebook.org (which lists a number of gamebooks) show that many Holmes related books were available in English, French and Spanish including these three [16] [17] [18]. You might like to dig around that site further to see if you can find any books you remember. Nanonic (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is Chess popular geographically in some areas but not others?

Just saw the headline about the Norwegian superkid, congrats to him. It made me wonder - perhaps this is selection bias, but I really do feel that Chess success at the highest levels is disproportionately dominated by people from Russia, ex-Soviet countries, and Scandinavia. Even if we confine our geographic borders to places traditionally considered "Western" and thereby omit China, Japan, and India (who maintain excellence in other boardgames), there still seem to be distinct pockets of Chess Awesomeness for lack of a better word. I've skimmed the Chess article and didn't see anything immediately obvious about the historical development of intense Chess participation in particular cultures/nations. Can someone shed some light on this for me? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. has had its share of Chess grandmasters. Consider Bobby Fischer and Joshua Waitzkin. Fischer didn't go farther in Chess mainly due to his unmanagable personality rather than chess skill. Additionally, countries like Japan may not play "western" chess as much, but they certainly have their own versions which are similar, and thus they may be more likely to play a game like Shogi, which is a very similar game, than Western chess. Category:Chess grandmasters has its share of eastern europeans, but also has many people from other western countries. --Jayron32 06:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chess was reasonably popular among Russian intellectuals before the Bolshevik revolution, but not really more so than in comparable groups in other European countries at the time. Soviet thinkers, beginning with Lenin, felt that chess was ideologically compatible with socialism, improved the mind, and taught thinking that helped people with other modern activities like maths and engineering. So the Soviet Chess School was established, chess became part of the core school curriculum, and successful chess players were celebrated and rewarded (in the way that sports stars are today). This thinking was reflected in the greater sov-blok, which explains the relative chess power of eastern european and central asian countries. This article has a bit more. I'd guess that the soviet thinking was copied in turn in China and India, but I don't have a reference for that. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

meat, trial, manufacturer, 1906-1910

In his book À travers l'Afrique published by Fayard, in Paris, 1910, the French soldier Baratier wrote : « Pendant six mois nous allions toucher journellement 300 gr de ce conglomérat de viande rougeâtre coupé de filaments graisseux. À cette époque nous pouvions encore avoir l'illusion que le corned beef était du bœuf ! Depuis le fameux procès intenté à l'usine américaine, je me suis souvent demandé de quoi nous avions vécu et pour quelle proportion dans ces 54 kg, tous ceux qui se trouvaient à la colonne avaient droit au titre d'anthropophages sans le savoir ! »

He was speaking about a "famous trial" against a USA corned beef manufacturer. I think this trial became after the parution of The Jungle of Upton Sinclair, thus between 1906 and 1910. I am searching references about this trial but do not find. Can you help me please ? Many thanks in advance. --Égoïté (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that this was the "Beef Court", a military commission of enquiry held in 1899, covered in United States Army beef scandal. Warofdreams talk 10:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic ! Thank you very much ! --Égoïté (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I used this to create an article on the WP fr: fr:Scandale de la viande bovine dans l'armée des États-Unis but I need always information about a special trial against a precise manufacturer (" le fameux procès intenté à l'usine américaine"). So if you have an idea… Happy to read you again, --Égoïté (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Plan

How did Ireland get into the picture? Being a non-combatant, I can't imagine it suffered any significant wartime damage. I could see strengthening Turkey, another neutral, to stave off the Red Menace, but Ireland? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Germany bombed Dublin a few times, possibly by accident. This certainly wasn't as significant as their purposeful bombing of Belfast, which was part of the UK and certainly a combatant. There seems to be some literature on the subject, such as "Ireland and the Marshall Plan, 1947-57" by Bernadette Whelan, if you can find that. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, Ireland probably fell victim to blockades intended for the UK. --Tango (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ireland was in a very poor way, there was the Anglo-Irish trade war before the war, then the war, then afterwards Britain had to pay back loans to the US and had rationing and charged imports from Ireland, meat from New Zealand which was part of the Commonwealth and been allied in the war became cheaper than meat from Ireland. The money went everywhere including Germany. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The genius of the Marshall Plan was that it was availible to all parts of Europe, even to the defeated nations of Germany and Italy. One of the problems with the end of WWI was the "screw the losers" mentality of the victors. There was an attitude of punitive retribution against Germany for starting and ultimately losing the Great War, and the act of isolating Germany economically and punishing them for the war was one of the prime causes of creating the atmosphere that would allow for the rise of Nazi power. Where the Marshall plan differed was an honest attempt to rebuild ALL of Europe, not just say France and England, with the recognition that an economically and socially stable Germany would actually be better for world security. The same could be said for all nations in Europe, even those that were officially "neutral" during the war. The Marshall Plan was not just about rebuilding the war torn areas, but about providing economic stability to every nation to reduce the likelyhood of future wars. Ireland, especially during most of first 3/4ths of the 20th century, was a poor and violent place, and I am sure that the Marshall Plan money was intended to stabilize it just as it was for the rest of Europe. --Jayron32 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, well. Britain finally paid off the loans from the US for the war in 2006. At the same time they were giving money to Germany they were dismantling its industry and took control of Germanys patents and methods. Dmcq (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Where can find a list of nations by gender income gap?

Where can find a list of nations by gender income gap? I would prefer the format be in ratio form eg 100:77 dollar earned by men relative to equivalent for women.

--Gary123 (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you try Income gender gap? I'd think that would be a pretty obvious first step. It leads immediately to a UN source from 2005, too. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Economics Prize + John Forbes Nash, Jr.

How could there be legitimate dispute regarding the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences given to John Forbes Nash, Jr. (portrayed in A Beautiful Mind) for his anti-semitic leanings if the prize is for "those who ... shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind"? Seems to me that, if politics is really left out of it, and Adolph Hitler had contributed something other than death and destruction, that he should have won a prize too in whatever realm he contributed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Do you mean to ask "could there be?" or do you mean to imply there was a controversy surrounding Nash?
2. The will itself further delineated that the prizes are to be based (roughly) on the greatest advancement in each field - the "on mankind" bit is just a flowery way of describing them all - and not necessarily the net benefit.
3. Moreover, the Nobel in Economics is technically NOT an official Nobel award, as apportioned in Nobel's will; that is stated pretty clearly at the top of the article.
4. Godwin's Law aside, there is a disgustingly enormous difference between Hitler and "leanings," especially for a man who spent his life delusional. It's also worth mentioning that in the 50s, when Nash was particularly active, anti-semitism wasn't as unpopular as it is today.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Amory -- I'm sort of surprised that a seasoned editor as yourself would have misinterpreted my question (then again, perhaps I wasn't clear). Each of your points target either an irrelevant issue or one that makes my question stronger:

1. Nash's article indicates that there was some controversy -- you can search for "anti-semitic" in his article to find it.
2. My point was that the greatest achievement in any particular field is blind to the greatest achiever's political or religious (or anti-politica/anti-religious) leanings
3. The article on the Economics Prize sort of suggests, if it does not state explicitly, that it was established with all of the rules and regulations (as close as it could have) similar to the actual, bona-fide Nobel Prizes. The easiest and simplest rule to follow (and certainly easier than getting the Royal Swedes to give it out for a multimillion dollar price) would be to give it to those who make the greatest contribution in economics.
4. Your assertion reinforces my question. I am not questioning Nash receipt of the prize -- rather, I am questioning why his anti-semitism created controversy, because the prize is awarded based on merit of contribution, not, as I said above, based on political or religious leanings. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nash's article just mentions that he made some anti-semitic remarks, and that they were left out of the movie. The Nobel article mentions it briefly, although if you actually read the sources it is a gross misinterpretation. The controversy surrounding Nash's prize was overwhelmingly focused on the idea of giving the Economics prize for game theory, with his mental history a fading second. His anti-semitism is barely even discussed (in fact, I hope to later re-read those chapters because my quick skimming just now didn't see any mention of it). Anyway, I think we're in agreement here mostly. Theoretically, the prize should be just based on a laureate's achievements, but it would be ignorant and irresponsible of the committee to turn a blind eye to other aspects of their life. Winning is considered an endorsement, so any controversy usually causes controversy. This tends to happen more often with the Peace Prize (for obvious reasons), but looking at Tookie, who was nominated (clearly didn't win), it seems relatively clear they were willing to take everything in as part of a whole picture (possibly utilitarian, as I mention above). It is, after all, a committee. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring my complete ignorance of this particular case...I agree entirely that awards should be awarded on the merit of what is being assessed (and not other things), but life is more political and complicated than that. By giving an award it is (in the eyes of many) tantamount to approving of that person and their ideas (relevant and irrelevant). The fact that this isn't what an awarding party are trying to say is largely irrelevant, what matters is how their decision is received...The awarding party has to consider the implications of their being associated with that individual. Does it tarnish their 'image' more to reward or ignore a specific (worthy) individual? Think of how others would view that award if it were to be given to Hitler (as in your example)? Do you think that it wouldn't lead to people questioning whether they approve of his views? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a celebrated dispute in the late 1940's between two democratic leftists, George Orwell and Murray Kempton, over whether the Bollingen Prize should be awarded to Ezra Pound, a giant in 20th-century poetry with vehement anti-Semitic and pro-Fascist sympathies (see Pisan Cantos), who had broadcast in wartime against the Allied war effort from Fascist-ruled Italy. (Pound narrowly escaped being tried for treason by being declared insane and confined for many years to St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C.) Orwell decried letting politics interfere with artistic decisions, while Kempton asserted that moral criteria were relevant to the Bollingen Prize. ¶ Shortly before his death, Pound had a cordial but rather strange visit at his Italian home from Allen Ginsberg, a major American poet of Jewish origin who followed an idiosyncratic variation of Buddhism. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Cnut the Great in Flandern

A cry for help. I am from Denmark and trying to find out, when/if Cnut was in Flandern and when in Holland/Nijmegen. his daughter Gunhilde (later also called Kunigunde as Cnut's mother) was married to Conrad II's son, Henry, and that was in Nijmegen. In which church??? But the wedding took place after Cnut's death, so he did not participate. But did he go to Nijmegen??? I think he was in Flandern at a time, because it is said in some un/or/reliable source, that "he walked from Flandern to Rome." A long walk in my opinion, and I presume, he sailed some of the way, but don't know. All comments/answers on these questions to me, please: <email adress redacted> - thank you. Jan Eskildsen87.57.196.132 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this book, the marriage was celebrated at the royal palace - perhaps this was at a royal chapel there. Cnut died in Shaftesbury, so he did not travel to Nijmegen on this occasion. This book covers Cnut's trip to Rome. The only detail comes from an Encomium, not a very reliable source. It states that he travelled via Flanders, Gaul and Italy, and visited St-Omer. If this is true, then he might plausibly have visited Nijmegen, but unless there are sources not covered by that book, there is no way of knowing. Warofdreams talk 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Social class

Please help me on some queries about social class.

1. some examples of typical Lower middle class occupation?
2. does an inspector belong to lower middle class or working class?
3. does an elementary school teacher belong to lower middle class or working class? --Qoklp (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that there is also an article on Working class. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lower middle class occupations tend to be White-collar worker, which means generally office jobs. I assume you are talking about the US, in which case an Inspector's position, and therefore wage and class can vary between law enforcement agencies. An elementary school teacher would be lower middle class, due to the level of education required and wage. Chaosandwalls (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Teaching is graduate-entry in most places, which means it is definitely a middle class occupation. I would think a middle-to-high ranking police officer would be middle class, but the isn't a precise definition of the term. Background can be more important than occupation is determining class (more so in the UK than the US, I think) - if your parents are middle class then you'll probably be middle class, even if you have a less well-paid job. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are really no sharp lines between classes; it is something of a continuum. Particularly between lower middle class and working class, it is difficult to know where to draw the line. Analytically, the clearest criteria for defining socioeconomic classes were those outlined by Marx: People who are dependent on selling their labor power to earn a living belong to the proletariat, or the working class broadly defined. (By this definition, most people are structurally working class.) People whose income comes mainly from investments, by contrast, belong to the bourgeoisie. There are of course gray areas, mainly consisting of entrepreneurial professionals, such as most lawyers and doctors, or the owners of small businesses (the petit bourgeoisie) who live from a combination of investment and labor. These Marxian criteria are out of fashion, but once you move away from them, it all becomes rather fuzzy and subjective. Marco polo (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Many Americans would consider "lower middle class" and "working class" to be the same thing, especially as Americans tend to think of their country as having three classes (poor, middle class and rich) as opposed to four (poor, working, middle and rich). Rather than use these fuzzy terms, social scientists often talk about people in income "quintiles," that is, the poorest 20%, the next-poorest 20%, the middle 20%, the second-richest 20% and the richest 20%. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd second that. In America, middle class means "people with jobs" to most people; i.e. if you "work for a living", regardless of whether you are a manual laborer or office worker or doctor or lawyer, you'd be considered "middle class". In America, the attitude is that neither the poor class is the class that doesn't work, or only does so sporadically, while the rich don't work because they do not have to. That leaves just about everyone else middle class. It's been said before, "In America, everyone is middle class"... --Jayron32 04:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

ritual video

In a video entitled BARACKA there is a scene about 14 minutes in of two groups of men all with black hair (some with gray and one or two partly bald) and lean, tanned bodies, a red flower behind the left ear, wearing no shirt (or it may be the black, white and red cloth down around their waists), black coolot slacks and bare feet siting in a half circle in about ten rows (which splits into two quarter circles which then face each other) doing a sort of monkey chatter ritual with their hands level and then above their heads and moving from left to right, with their chatter leader distinguished only by age and command and three white stripe marks on his face (one in the center and two down the cheeks) in the courtyard of what looks like an ancient Hindu temple. What is this ritual and where can I find more information about it and the participants? 71.100.1.76 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

this scene? Kecak.—eric 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, amazing. Thanks. 71.100.1.76 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

John H. Johnson's wife

Is John H Johnson's wife black or white. Since on Google image shows John H Johnson's wife as white.--69.226.43.41 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have link to such a photograph? According to several bios, the only info on a wife I can find is a 1941 marriage to Eunice Walker. I have seen no images of Eunice Walker, so I don't know if a) she is the woman you are seeing b) she was his only wife or c) if the woman you are seeing is his wife... --Jayron32 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions like this are difficult if not impossible to answer, because different individuals and different cultures have different definitions (or possibly none) as to what "black" and "white" mean. For example, many people who would be categorised as "black" in current US culture would not be so categorised in current UK culture, which incidentally would categorise the large majority of the World's population as neither. Since we cannot know for sure what your, or any other questioner's, definitions are, we cannot give answers that are necessarily meaningful to you/them. The best we could do, sometimes, would be to confirm (if published evidence existed) whether or not a particular named person, or (if the circumstances are favourable) the majority opinion of a particular culture at a particular date, considered themselves or a third party to be "black/white/whatever." You might also, perhaps, bear in mind that many people consider such questions unimportant, and undue interest in them a little suspicious and distasteful. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

anyone recognize this movie?

I have only a vague memory of it, so this question may be pointless, but anyway: years ago I saw an American Movie on TV, either from the late 40s or 50s, b/w, set in some vaguely military bureaucracy (possibly the allied administration in Germany). One of the protagonists, some James-Stewart-ish lady killer, in one scene finds himself alone with one of the Deborah-Kerr-ish typists in some office with an awful lot of filing cabinets in it. He starts making passes at her most insistently and manages to drive her into a corner. To avoid being kissed, the typist starts reciting some poem. I saw the movie dubbed in German, and I believe in that version she recited Schiller's "Die Glocke." At some point I started wondering which schoolmarmy poem she actually recited in the original version (Paul Revere's Ride? O Captain, my Captain?) but by then I couldn't remember anything else about that movie, or what it was called...--77.186.222.63 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Good guess there! It seems that the film was A Foreign Affair and the poem was indeed "Paul Revere's Ride"—see here (click on "Read full synopsis"). The "Deborah-Kerr-ish typist", however, was the desirable Jean Arthur; how could you forget that? Deor (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you so much, you just solved a qusetion that's been haunting me for years! As for Paul Revere, I guess no other American poem has been so often forcibly memorized in schools, ever ("Die Glocke" is the German equivalent, or possibly the "Zauberlehrling"). --77.186.222.63 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Also, I do in fact remember Marlene Dietrich singing "The Ruins of Berlin", I just had no idea it was the same movie. --77.186.222.63 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

DAN BROWN NOVEL HINDU THOUGHT EXERCISE

I think it was Susan Fletcher in DIGITAL FORTRESS. I don't quiet remember, but the Protagonist of the novel was using a cognative tool where you 'IMAGINE KNOWING ALREADY' the answer or outcome to a problem. And then it comes to you. Dan Brown did reference the hindu term in the novel. I'm currently imagining knowing already. I imagine that you'll give me the heads up. Cheers, --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this questions has been answered.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::Ok!, I'll follow the words and flat out ask the question, 'What was the hindi word to describe this already-knowing-state-of-mind? --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

January 5

Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence

Lionel's second marriage was to Violante in 1368. At this wedding were Jean Froissart and Petrarch and Geoffrey Chaucer. Is there details how Chaucer might have met these other two and what kind of literary ideas they may have exchanged among themselves?--LordGorval (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, and it is not 100% certain that they were all present together. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chaucer is said to have "passed at Dover" on 17th July 1368 and was out of the country for no more than 106 days. It is presumed that this means left the country but it could even mean arrived back. So it is considered possible that he may have attended or came upon the tail end of the celebrations but then again he may have gone no further than France. There are tantalising suggestions that Chaucer may have met either Petrarch or Boccaccio on his Italian journey of 1373 and the reference in the Clerk's prologue to learning the tale from Petrarch in Padua is sometimes seen as Chaucer's own history. As to what was learnt in those possible meanings, it was after this time that Chaucer began to write in a more Italian style rather than the imitations of the French style he had used before, he developed rhyme royal quite likely from Italian verse, and he drew inspiration from Italian literature. All of which could have been done without meeting the literary superstars and was likely in part learnt from the merchants in his home city before he even left the country. 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lance Ito's wife

how old would Lance Ito's wife Margie Ann York be. She is white, non-asian so looks like she is in the 50s, or she is about the same age as ito. One of my bus driver is japanese (FR US came over 1974) and he have a white wife born in New york and they both born in 1951.--69.226.34.161 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, she already had a son from a prior marriage before she married Ito, and they married in 1981, when he was 31. I would say she would likely be of similar age, though I have no reference, she may be a few years younger, but not decades younger... --Jayron32 04:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this bio she joined LAPD in 1968, and in this it says she retired as Chief of LA County Police in Jan 2009. 87.112.68.96 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

She may, of course, be older than him. It does happen. +Angr 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chairman and CEO

What is the difference between Chairman and CEO of a corporation? Both the articles say they are the highest ranking administrator. Then where is the difference? For example the Chairman of Microsoft is Bill Gates and the CEO is Steve Ballmer. Does it mean that the owner of the corporation is called Chairman and the highest ranking officer employed by the owner is called CEO? --Qoklp (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how the corporate governance is structured, but broadly speaking the "Chairman of the Board" of a company is the chairman of its Board of directors, which is the group empowered by the shareholders to represent their interests. The Chief Executive Officer is the person whose primary role is to organize the running of the company. The CEO and Chairman of the Board are often combined into a single person, but this does not have to be so. Your idea that the "owner" is the chairman is almost right. The "owners" are the investors who own stock in the company, and the Chairman is the person who represents their interests (or presides over the body, the Board of Directors, who does). The CEO is an employee of the company whose job it is to run the company. If a company is a single-owner corporation, there is no need for a board of directors, since there is only one "interest". The owner would still be able to hire people to help him run his company. --Jayron32 06:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I would like to ask a follow-up question. Do the chairman and board of directors typically get paid a salary by the corporation for their work? If not a regular salary, then what kind of remuneration is typical? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 06:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be hard to imagine a "chairman of the board" who was NOT a major investor in the company. Indeed, in many cases, "The Board" is the top 5 or so biggest investors, and the Chairmen ends up being the biggest investor of all, since voting strength is based on share strength. Thus, the Chairman has it in his self interest to maximize his own share value. This is different from the CEO, who is an employee, and thus is earning a salary... I could be wrong, but I don't think that board members are typically "paid" for serving on the board, unless they also hold executive positions. There are many companies in the U.S. where the board is also the executives of the company (thus the CEO and Chairman are the same person, and the CFO and CTO also serve on the board), so they get paid as employees but not necessarily as board members. I believe that in Europe this is not allowed by coportate governance regulations, and that executives cannot serve on the board. --Jayron32 07:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is how it should be, of course. There is a very basic conflict of interest between the chairman and the CEO, since often the shareholders will want something that the executives don't. The European separation between the two is a good example of corporate governance as it should be. I'd love to hear the arguments that are put forward in the US for not keeping the two separate. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The chairman is not always a major investor - sometimes he can be someone appointed by the investors, especially if the investors don't acually have experience of running a company themselves. Historically a chairman was sometimes appointed as a figurehead to give the company credibility. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify some of this:

• The chief executive officer is the leader of the management team. He (or she) reports only to the board of directors, and all or virtually all of the other employees report, directly or indirectly, to him. The CEO title is usually combined with that of the chairman of the board or the president. If the chairman of the board is not also the CEO, he or she may be referred to as a "non-executive chairman," and monitoring the CEO and the rest of management is considered a major part of his duties.
• A corporation is owned by its stockholders. The chairman may or may not own stock. A corporation must have a board of directors even if it is owned by a single individual, in which case any other directors largely serve simply as advisers. In the case of a public company like General Electric, where the shares are owned by a large number of investors, the board of directors represents those public investors in monitoring management.
• Directors usually do get paid for their service as directors, although this may not be the case with, say, a small family corporation. However, if a director is also a member of management, he or she may not receive any additional compensation for serving as a director. John M Baker (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Median compensation for directors in the 200 biggest U.S. companies was $190,000 in 2007, not including compensation for work on board committees. Source: [19] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who decided to count decades beginning with "0"

Wikipedia's listing of the centuries and decades lists the first century AD as begining with the year 1 and going till the year 100. It notes that there was no year "0". This is correct. The listing for the first decade counts only nine years, 1 through 9, and the following decades and centuries begin with the year ending in "0" and ending in "9". What did you do with the missing year? Why are you now part of the herd mentality that miscounts decades, centuries and millennia? Do you just go along to get along or are you interested in accuracy?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.35.160 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing discussion here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a question of accuracy, but of convention. Do you say "eleven" instead of "oneteen"? Why is it "fourteen", but "twenty-five"? Wikipedia documents the exiting conventions, it does not aim to right past wrongs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider this question... is 1990 in the eighties or the nineties? 87.112.68.96 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Millennium#Counting years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually counts centuries and millenia from 01 to 00 and decades from 0 to 9, but there may be exceptions in some articles. A decade is a period of ten years. Decades are usually not given an ordinal number, for example the 1990s are not called the 200th decade. It seems most sensible to follow the common convention that the 1990s are 1990 to 1999 and similar. Many of our readers would be confused if we didn't do what they are used to from everywhere else. The 10s have a note but it seems unneeded for modern time. Wikipedia is more interested in the terminology generally used by reliable sources than what a given individual considers most correct based on their preferred argument. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Common names. We don't rename the Hundred Years' War because it wasn't exactly 100 years, or millipede because it doesn't have 1000 legs, or Bill Clinton because it's not his given name, or North Korea because the official translation is Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or Rome because it's Roma in Italian, or Alzheimer's disease because others had described it earlier (see List of examples of Stigler's law), or Fermat's Last theorem because he (probably) didn't prove it (see List of misnamed theorems), and so on. The English Wikipedia is written in English which is a human language and not mathematics. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. As a parallel, consider someone's age. Once they hit 20, they are likely to say, "I'm in my twenties." The wouldn't feel the need to wait until they're 21. Yet we don't have a year 0 either, unless you want to count the time in the womb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

By the same token, that person would not, and could not, say "I've entered my 3rd decade", until they complete their 20th year and reach their 21st birthday. (Which, ORly, may have something to do with why the 21st birthday and not the 20th was the age of adulthood in days gone by.)

Hold up a minute, I think everyone would call that their 20th birthday, not their 21st. (It is, of course, their 21st birthday counting the day of their birth as number one; but that's not what our species does). Until the day which we call the 20th birthday, the person will be called a 19-year-old, and no way would admit to being in their 3rd decade. The day after they turn 20, they are in that decade. Sussexonian (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That is "everybody except 1.2 billion Chinese", or at least that's what learned from the very reliable juvenile adventure novel Big Tiger and Compass Mountain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just on the absence of the year 0: that's usually cited as the fly in the ointment, but what person in their right mind who was devising a new era would start out with anything but Year 1? As Bugsy says, humans start with year 1, not year 0. Books start with page 1, not page 0. The first day of each month is not the 0th of the month. So, why would anyone expect the first year of an era to be year 0? The very mention of this supposed lack still baffles me. I understand that there's a discontinuity with the previous era: it finishes at 1 BC, not at 0, which is inconvenient for those who want to represent time periods spanning the era change on a continuous number line. But blame that (if blame there must be, which is dubious) on whoever came up with the BC system and called the last year of that era "1 BC" and counted backwards. If it was necessary to have continuity, the last year of the previous era should have been called "0 BC". Don't make it the fault of the Christian Era and pretend it was somehow supposed to have had a Year 0 and someone stuffed up, because that wasn't the case at all. (There was also a discontinuity of 10 days between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The day after 4 October 1582 was 15 October 1582, and the dates 5-14 October 1582 simply do not exist, except in the proleptic Gregorian, which has only arcane and esoteric applications. That's never bothered anyone.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - surely it's high time the Give us back our eleven days campaign was revived. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the Mayan calendar things often start with 0... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do troubled British football clubs face tax bills?

Surely they aren't generating profits, so why are they often wound up due to the tax bill? Thanks. 67.243.1.21 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

VAT and employer's national insurance contributions. A well run business keeps money aside as the trading that incurs these happens, so that when the bill is due they've got the money in hand. But football clubs are often not very well run. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus there are often cases where a business claims something is a valid business expense, but the tax man disagrees. Or the business thinks that, by clever bookkeeping, it can defer a tax liability into the subsequent year, but the tax man disagrees. And when the taxman disagrees (and particularly when their opinion is sustained by a court) this generally unravels several years of the now-shown-wrong accounting practice, which often means several years worth of taxes (the thing the club thought it could save but couldn't), interest, and penalties all become instantly due (with the interest continuing). A number of business owners claim the taxman is particularly intransigent when it comes to payment schedules. UK insolvency law, which treats the taxman as a special (first-come) case before other creditors, often makes it in the taxman's interest to petition to wind up a business in circumstances that other creditors wouldn't. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous famous writers like Salinger and Pynchon

If they really wanted to be anonymous, why didn't they use a pseudonym? --Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The image the media likes to give of them is "reclusive", not "anonymous". And when the media says they're "reclusive", that mostly just means they don't like talking to the media - there's no evidence that either lives in alone cabin in the forest, talking to no-one. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Without speaking to these particular cases, It is not unlikely that some writers have begun by publishing under their real name, and only then discovered that they dislike some of the drawbacks of fame that they had not anticipated. Probably rather more writers begin their career under pseudonyms, for various reasons but sometimes to avoid their less accomplished journeyman works from adversely affecting their hoped-for mature reputation under their real name. Some writers become so renowned under a pseudonym that they adopt it as their legal name. Salvatore A. Lombino legally changed his name to one of his early pseudonyms "Evan Hunter" because he thought it more commercial and achieved some literary respect with it, but became even more successful under another of his noms de plume, Ed McBain. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Passenger Ships/ SS BUTNER and SS PATCH

In about 1956, as a Army Brat of five; I traveled from the US to Germany aboard an old passenger ship the SS BUTNER. In 1959 my family returned to the States aboard the SS Patch through "the worst hurricane in fifty years." From the pilot house I personally witnessed a mean sea state of 70' seas with many 90 footers present! At 8 1/2 years old my memory was indellably imprinted with memories of that voyage. After running with the storm, having abandoned course for many days; we put into drydock for a week at Liverpool England to check the ship over for damage before proceeding to NY,NY. I have often wondered about those two great old ships and particularly about that storm. What information is available to refresh my memory and fill in the blank spots. My dad was a Captain at the time and served as Provost Marshal aboard the SS Patch in charge of four prisoners He held in the ship's Brig (which was down in the hold on the lowest level - those four tough guys bawled like babies to get out of there - to no avail!). Dad's name was Capt. Alton T. Phipps. He was accompanied by my Mom, Eva B. Phipps; My sister Sharon and myself, Mark. What can you tell me of those two vessels and those voyages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.128.9 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if your SS Butner is USS General H. W. Butner (AP-113). The profile fits fairly well; troop transport ship which in 1959 may well have been doing Europe - New York work. Can you give us dates for the 1959 return for the meteorological question? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Down in the "Later service" section, the article says that the General H. W. Butner plied a "regular schedule from Brooklyn, New York, to Southampton and Bremerhaven" from sometime in 1952 until 1960, so it does seem a likely candidate for a 1956 U.S.–Germany crossing. Deor (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Googling for "USS Patch" turns up many relevant hits, including mentions by servicemen who traveled on it to or from Germany in the '50s and '60s. For the hurricane, you may want to look at the article 1959 Atlantic hurricane season. (If the ship ran into the hurricane in the mid-Atlantic, as is suggested by its seeking port in Liverpool rather than continuing to the United States, Hurricane Hannah seems the most likely prospect. Was your crossing in late September – early October?) Deor (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could also be Hurricane Flora if it was earlier in September. Googlemeister (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hannah was much more intense, though—125 mph winds vs. Flora's 75 mph—which seems to fit the OP's description better. Deor (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but in the middle of the ocean, 75 mph winds would still be a sight to behold, although a learned person would not call it the strongest in 50 years I suppose. Googlemeister (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a picture of the USS Patch here. --Xuxl (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, we do not have Patch on List of United States Navy ships: P. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First commissioned as USS Admiral R. E. Coontz (AP-122)[20]?, it's a redlink.—eric 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

civil appeal motions

When an appeal court takes a long time (past the extent of an injunction for instance) to render a decision is there a deadline or if not is there a motion which can remind the court of the need for a judgment to be rendered... or is this not the route to go? 71.100.15.198 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on the jurisdiction, of which there are literally thousands (and in the case of the USA alone, at least 51). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So then if it is jurisdictional related then can it be broken down into two groups... one group where a such motion is available and necessary and another group of jurisdictions where it is not? 71.100.15.198 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The traditional common-law remedy was the writ of mandamus, and it still exists in some jurisdictions. However, it would be unlikely to be available for an appellate (as opposed to first-instance) decision, as there's already been a legally-binding ruling on the issue; the courts have done their duty, even though the first-instance decision may be overturned. Of course, if your question is about a case that you're involved in, you'll have to consult a lawyer - we're not allowed to offer legal advice here. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Iraq's war of independence

I had a cultural anthropology teacher who told us that Iraq was the first British colony to gain independence from Britain. And they did so using force rather than peaceful means like India. I tried looking on wikipedia for this, but I didn't find anything. Is this true? ScienceApe (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty absurd. Our article British Empire states that Britain didn't gain control of Iraq until 1919, whereas the USA gained their independence at the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War, which was somewhat earlier. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Although technically, The USA was 13 colonies, not just one. Googlemeister (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now before everybody jumps on the bandwagon, I believe that it is true that Iraq was the first EASTERN colony to gain independence, sometime around 1929-ish. Wrad (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The British Mandate of Mesopotamia (not strictly a _colony_) came to an end in 1932 - until 1920, the area which is now Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. Your teacher may have been thinking of Afghanistan, which achieved independence from the British Empire following the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919. Tevildo (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It should also be noted that Iraq wasn't independent before 1919 either. It was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire from about 1350 or so, and before that as part of the Mongolian Ilkhanate from 1250 or so, and before that as part of the Arabic Abbasid Caliphate from 850 or so, and before that as part of the Iranian Sassanid Empire and other Iranian/Persian empires before that, and ancient states such as Assyria, Babylon, Sumeria, and Ur. Iraq has really only existed as an entity since the 1930's. when if was formed out of the British Mesopotamia, which was more properly a "Mandate" or a "Protectorate" than a "Colony" (the British didn't try to send people to populate it, they were given the responsibility of protecting it militarily). --Jayron32 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, the British made up the boundaries of Iraq, without taking proper account of the inhabitants, as mentioned in 20th century history of Iraq. Thanks a lot, guys. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Egypt's status at different times has always been rather murky to me. Perhaps she could qualify as the first (or one of the first) eastern British possessions to gain independence. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mystery,Word of God,King of kings,Lord of Lords

As I am said being The Threasher being my Holy Name. Which has been well notified throughout uk gov.m.ps. Whitehall and home office easecially dhss etc. Over many years,Verifiable. I need to give the world the facts about Almighty God's plans etc. But since have been destroyed by Queen, obviously, and agents such as psychologists social workers backed up by police. I need to explain all of the written accounts in the Book of Revelations and give accurate interpretations, as the words"I never tell lies ever". Does apply. as has throughout my life,and always will.. However, I do point out that the mysteries and knowledges written, will, not now be revealed due to the extreme criminal and lunatic offences of said agents and government, who think they have a right to murder, obviously no repentance there! My brother Ivan, my mother Joyce being only two victims, out of hundreds.. Also it must be known that I still suffer greatly,isolated,alone yet not breakable. To this act Almighty God will snuff out the world and is doing so. The liars and decievers actually thought even that was a clever thing to bring about, please refer to Mr Jones social services Berkshire, or any psychological service in same area. Beware though, these persons are known as pathological liars. Ok! Films etc. Yes, there is a problem, the perpetraters will do time elsewhere' for the insult is too great. Word of God on that matter. So my question is,"where do I write and place my editorial, or what heading will the artical be read"? Ie under 666? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice carter (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, what??? --Jayron32 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Such an editorial would not be something to post on Wikipedia. Does anyone know if the onion does editorials? Googlemeister (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Editorials are not appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, and articles are required to be written neutrally. Furthermore, anything like the above in an article will likely be deleted as patent nonsense. --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the articles at 666 (disambiguation) look like good candidates for the OP's text. Edison (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This type of editorial is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but you can host your own website for free at places like Google Sites or Blogger, if you feel it is important to publish your editorial where others can read it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell

The article about George Orwell says that he was a socialist, but his two most well known books, Animal Farm and 1984 are clearly against socialism. How is this? --70.250.208.85 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They are not against socialism: they are against the travesty of socialism that he saw in the Soviet Union. Orwell was one of the few prominent socialists in the West who spoke out against the Soviet Union. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But socialism says that people should have no freedom or individual rights. --70.250.208.85 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who says that? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The questioner's IP address appears to locate him in the United States, a country which has little direct experience with socialism - yet there are examples: US Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a socialist, but certainly defends freedom and individual rights. North Dakota had the Nonpartisan League which was certainly socialist at its inception as a split from the Republicans, and held the Governorship at one point. This Governorship failed but not for reasons of individual rights. (One is reminded that US Representative Vito Marcantonio, who was frequently held up as a Communist fellow traveller, began as a Republican too.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing socialism with totalitarianism. Orwell wrote:

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for socialism, as I understand it.

Unfortunately, "socialism" is a word that doesn't actually mean much anymore — the Nazis called themselves "socialists", and so do the Red Chinese, and so do the British, but those three countries and societies are really different about their approaches to freedom and individual rights, aren't they? Not to mention approaches to health care and social safety nets and workers' rights and other politicized topics that are important to socialists. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that "socialism" in the U.S. has become just a buzzword for "totalitarianism". That is not what the word means literally but has been used this way since the 1930s as a way to condemn anything other than an imagined libertarian ideal of free-market principles (one which the U.S. has never actually embraced but continues to be a great source of its political jingoism). If you just read the intro to the Wikipedia article on socialism you'd probably know more about "socialism" than most Americans right off the bat. There are many varieties of socialism—some are totalitarian, some are very far from it. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a line from 1984: "In Oceania the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self. The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)