Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 14

Riddle

Hi. My friend told me a riddle that I am still at a loss to figure out, and Google has not helped me much either. Here it is, exactly as he told it: What is sweeter than honey, clearer than water, and more potent than any wine? FOr some reason my friend won't tell me the answer no matter how I ask. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've heard that one before. For some reason "love" comes to mind. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have two ideas. Something esoteric like love, or kindness, or the exact opposite something dangerous like a poisonous gas such as Mustard Gas. I have read that some poisons like this can smell sweet, can be clear and are certainly potent.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected... it is scripture. [1] page 492.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The closest thing I can find shows up in a poem called Goblin Market. See here. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the entire poem:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Aparently I don't think to deeply. My first thought when I read the riddle was Aguardiente, which seems to match on all three counts. --Jayron32 01:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

From the article, it seems unlikely to be "sweeter than honey". --Trovatore (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the variety. I had an anisette aquardiente from Coluoedit: corrected spelling mistakembia that was sickeningly sweet, more like a liquer than a vodka. --Jayron32 02:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Geez, and here I was thinking LSD. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you don't really mean aguardiente from Columbia, do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Whups. Thanks for catching that. Now fixed. --Jayron32 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a story that when they were considering a name for what is now the state of Washington, one of the proposals was Columbia. Supposedly it was rejected out of a fear that it would be confused, not with the Central American country, but with the District of Columbia. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Colombia is in South America :P (Though I believe it used to stretch a bit further north) —Soap— 12:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

B minor mass: NBArev vs NBA vs BGA

Is there a list anywhere of changes between the old NBA edition of the B minor mass and the new NBArev edition? Likewise, is there a list of changes between the BGA and NBA editions? -- BenRG (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are referring to Bach's Mass in B minor, no doubt? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why antisemitism is the most common nationalist attitude?

What is the reason for antisemitism to be more common than other nation-based hatreds?--89.76.224.253 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism isn't a nation-based hatred; it's hatred against an ethnic group or a religious group. As Bugs says, I'm not sure anti-semitism is the most common hatred of this kind; antiziganism or prejudice against Gypsies/Romany/Romani is very common still, as is anti Muslim/Arab feeling. My wild guess for the wide occurrence of antisemitism and antiziganism is because the groups are found in many countries, and although some assimilate, many hang on to their customs/religion/language/etc (as appropriate). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Prejudice against gypsies had come to mind immediately, although I didn't bring it up. I think you're onto it - that it has to do with how widespread a minority group is. Ironically, the lack of acceptance tends to encourage clinging together and resisting assimilation. A Jew once remarked to me that the general acceptance of Jews in America, and consequent assimiliation, actually undermined their customs and traditions. I guess you can't have it both ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And if by "nation-based hatred" you mean hatred of the nation-state of Israel... see: Anti-Zionism. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what "nationalist attitude" really means in this context, but over most of Europe, nation X was generally only significantly hated by other nationalities directly bordering on X, while Jews were present in every European country, and could be made convenient scapegoats for the rise of finance capitalism, communism, modernism, secularization (perceived de-Christianization of everyday life), etc. etc. Three of the most influential thinkers during the ca. 1850-1950 period were Darwin, Marx, and Freud -- and some of those who didn't like Marx and Freud's ideas seized on the fact that they were of Jewish origins... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's fair to say that there's a perception that the Jews are the most-targeted group. In part that might be because, especially since WWII, they are no longer willing to put up with it, and will vigorously fight anti-semitism. I doubt the gypsies are so well organized. That persecution-perception and reactions to it are reinforced, I'm sure, by comments made by public figures. After Obama won the Presidency, Don Rickles said, "The next President is going to be one of ours, and then we'll declare war on everybody!" Also there's this, from Tom Lehrer's 1965 song about "National Brotherhood Week": "Oh the Catholics hate the Protestants / And the Protestants hate the Catholics / And the Hindus hate the Moslems [sic] / And everybody hates the Jews!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to say categorically why it is so and most theories put forward are demonstrably easy to object to, with examples where it wasn't true. Advocates of the "rich Jews" phenomenon must bow to antisemitism against impoverished Jewish communities. The religious / separate arguments fall down because of the persecution of secular and assimilated Jews. The "involvement in Christ's death" argument falls down because of antisemitism among non-Christians. The Marx/Freud/Darwin argument above falls down because of the many many centuries of antisemitism preceding their lives. There may be elements of truth in many or all of these, but, in short, many have argued causes, but there's no one overall successful argument. Sometimes, Jews have undoubtedly been handy scapegoats, but that's hardly a rigorous tag to hang probably tens of millions of deaths. --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

During much of the 19th century and the early 20th century, anti-Semitism underwent a complete transformation from traditional medieval-style theological "Christ-killing" and blood-libel accusations combined with peasant dislike of anyone different, to become instead a "modern" racial-based and allegedly "scientific" theory adopted by many (such Adolf Hitler) who were neither fervent traditional Christians nor insular uneducated rural-dwellers. The theories mentioned above only "fall down" if you're seeking one simplistic overall single explanation for very different phases of anti-Jewish sentiment all down the centuries (something which no serious historian would do). AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They've tried. And the OP seems to be looking for one overarching theory, too. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dweller says, "The religious / separate arguments fall down because of the persecution of secular and assimilated Jews." But are they "secular and assimilated"? I think perhaps in a very real sense they are not. (Of course, sources are what we go by in actual practice in article space, and if sources say "secular Jew", we should probably say "secular Jew".) Were they truly "secular and assimilated", arguably you would not know that they were Jews. I think one would have to maintain the understanding that "secular and assimilated Jews" have retained ties to more religious Jews. If this were not the case, would they even be called Jews? Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No they wouldn't (necessarily), but that didn't stop, for one example, the Nazis persecuting people who did not identify as Jews in any way, but had a Jewish grandparent. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is actually one overarching explanation, and it's not limited to Jews, it's the source of pretty much all violent conflict: "Us vs. Them. They're different from us, and we're right, so they must be wrong, and therefore they must be exterminated." You might call that the Dalek Principle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dweller says, "No they wouldn't (necessarily), but that didn't stop, for one example, the Nazis persecuting people who did not identify as Jews in any way, but had a Jewish grandparent." But it may be appropriate to assume that after 3 generations devoid of any manifestations of Jewish identity that all traces of Jewish identity are eliminated—meaning that the widespread understanding is that Judaism is persistent and long-lasting, but that it does not last forever—probably not beyond 3 generations. Disclaimer: this is just original research.

My above paragraph is unclear, therefore I am striking it through. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is foolish and ahistorical to treat the specifics of the Nuremberg Laws as having to do with a "widespread understanding" — they correspond with the specifics of NSDAP politics and Hitler's own predilections. They are explicitly not meant to be "cultural" laws but "blood" laws, based on ridiculous notions of biological race. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Western world, anti-semitism was actually originally based in economics. Both Jewish and Christian laws prevented usury (lending money to people at interest) for people of their own faiths, so devout Christians turned to Jews as money-lenders when they needed loans. This is (in part) why Judaism spread so widely through Europe, and also why there was such animosity towards Jews - like bankers and money-lenders everywhere, Jews were viewed as becoming wealthy off of other people's labor, and obviously had to take forceful (resentment-inducing) action to recover loans that were not properly repaid. Add that Jews and Christians did not intermarry much, and there was a strong perception that Jews were outsiders who took from the Christian community without giving anything back. The religious objections to Jews (as unsaved, or as 'murderers of Christ') came later, and have never had the same kind of power as the cultural/economic objections. Note that even Nazi propaganda (in its original forms) focused on Jews as a cultural/economic problem - blaming much of the collapsed German economy after WWI on them - with the racial/genetic arguments appearing later as the party sank into its own insanity. --Ludwigs2 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, I don't think antisemitism to be the most extended hatred, I suspect that Anti-Americanism may be more widely spread. Israel is a local power, but the United States is a global power, and there is more people around the world that may resent specific actions by the US or by their people. Cambalachero (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that prejudice against people of Black African descent is far more widespread and deep-rooted than anti-Semitism globally. Racism against Blacks is widespread across the Americas, Europe, Middle East, large parts of Asia, etc.. --Soman (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

However, most Europeans living in Europe during the pre-WW2 period rarely had any significant direct personal encounters with blacks, and for them anti-black sentiments were based on somewhat remote long-distance stereotypes and cliches. By contrast, many more Europeans regularly encountered Jews in their ordinary lives, so that there was a problem of Jewish-Christian relations within Europe (the so-called "Jewish Question"[sic]), and anti-Jewish sentiment was often affected by personal experiences. AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you honestly come here and ask the question without expecting anything else of an answer to be tolerated, than the "because western people are evil and racist and evil"? The question is so loaded, that it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion, and every answer which is not "everyone is extremely prejudicial without any reason at all" has a very high chance to be deleted as "trolling". In this ideological debate both sides call themselves the incorruptible pure pureness of good, and their adversaries the most evil of all evils... Better spend our energy for more meaningful topics, than such a flame-bait. --87.169.26.197 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Who was right in the Wars of the Roses?

Which side had more rights for the throne and was more legitimate in the war - Yorkists or Lancastrians?--89.76.224.253 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

War of the Roses may offer some information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a question that can be answered definitively. A lot depends on how you define "legitimacy". Both the Yorkists and the Lancastrians felt that they had more right and legitimacy to the throne than the other side (hence the war). And modern historians often disagree with each other over the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the lines of descent from Edward III of England, you will see that the Yorkists had the stronger claim as they were descended from the second son, Lionel of Antwerp, while the Lancastrians were descended from the third son, John of Gaunt. Henry IV had usurped the throne from the rightful king Richard II of England (son of Edward's eldest son, the Black Prince). After the latter's death, the throne rightfully should have passed to the Mortimers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cognatic primogeniture was not yet established in England at that time, so the claims of Lancastrians and Yorkists were equal; the former claimed the crown according to agnatic primogeniture, while the latter claimed it citing cognatic primogeniture. There was no precedent for succession via females when the King had legitimate agnates. However, King Richard II recognised Lionel's descendants as his heirs so that fact might go in their favour. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It also depends on what you mean by "legitimate". England had long held that the Right of conquest was a legitimate means to claim the throne; both before and after the Norman Conquest, proper "primogeniture" could be seen as of secondary concern than the ability to hold and/or seize the throne via military means. Just piecing through the Kings of England from the few centuries leading up to the Wars of the Roses, I count numerous examples of the non-primogeniture king succeeding by right of conquest, or only retaining his throne because of defense of an attempt to seize it militarily. See Sweyn Forkbeard, Cnut the Great, William the Conquerer, Henry I of England, The Anarchy, the First Barons' War, etc. --Jayron32 17:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A possibly telling detail: Lionel's daughter Philippa inherited her mother's title (countess of Ulster) but not her royal father's (duke of Clarence). —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody was right. The rightful king in theory, at the beginning of the conflict, was Henry VI, but he was a pathetic failure. Once he was overthrown, the legalities became ambiguous. Looie496 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(putting on my anarchist hat) There is no such thing as a right to rule others. —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Insects in Mythology

I cannot seem to find an article detailing the role insects have played in mythology. Could someone direct me to this page? Pinguinus (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a category called "Fictional insects" which might help. Also, I googled [insects in mythology] and a number of items came up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an overview article on the role that insects have played in mythology... If there are reliable sources upon which to base such an article, you might consider writing it. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It might make an interesting article, but you'll run into difficulties around the definition of "mythology". For example, I think Scarab beetle would be an indisputable and fascinating addition, but deciding if this account is mythology, folklore or history will lead you into awkward territory. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just off-hand, the only insect I can think of that has a strong presence in mythology is the spider (which technically isn't even an insect). Spider appears as a prominent character in several Native American and African mythos. Scarab beetles (like butterflies and moths) aren't so much mythological as deeply symbolic. There are also things like ants which appear in fable and folklore but don't really rise the the level of mythology the way that Spider does. Can anyone think of any others? --Ludwigs2 18:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Plagues of locusts. And I think scarabs count as mythological in the Egyptian context — see, e.g. Khepera. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Loki transformed himself into some sort of biting/stinging fly to disrupt some dwarfs from completing their end of a bargain. Matt Deres (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We do have Bee (mythology). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Pinguinus (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

About thirty five years ago, a series of children's stories were being broadcast on Belize radio about a spider character named "Anansy" (my phonetic spelling based on local pronunciation). The stories were said to have originated in Africa and transported with the slaves to the Americas. Anansy was a particularly Amoral character engaging in every conceivable deception. don't know if that would be any help.190.56.107.170 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're probably thinking about Anansi the Spider. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Pliny the Elder usually included every myth known in the Hellenistic world concerning each animal he covered in his Natural History (Pliny) (which can be read in English here). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The fly in the Sumerian myth of Inanna's descent to the underworld comes to mind. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Tithonus; Arachne. —Tamfang (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We also have Gadfly (mythology). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Plagues of Egypt – described in the Book of Exodus, part of the well known book of mythology known as the Bible – included gnats and locusts. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Beware of the locus of control ! :-) StuRat (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to indulge your D&D fantasies, but that should be 'locust of control' for proper comic effect. --Ludwigs2 06:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a pun, since there is no actual locust of control. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There's lots of folklore about bees if that's any help.http://tribes.tribe.net/b9b544af-89e5-4aa7-8dec-c917f83c3bd7/thread/4b0c62fc-0f5d-449a-8b6a-12c9767accfe..Hotclaws (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Central Asia

Is Dilip Hiro the only writer that deals with Central Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.93 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In what context? There are LOTS of books that deal with, in part or in total, Central Asia, at just about any point in history. It also depends on whether you mean native writes (of which there are likely too numerous to list here) or, say, English Language writers. Also whether you are looking for nonfiction (say history and politics and stuff like that) or fiction; whether you seek historical fiction, modern fiction, or fantasy. If you are looking for recommendations you're going to have to narrow down your criteria as to what sorts of writing about Central Asia you are looking for.. --Jayron32 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, I'm guessing the IP is US. For some reason I haven't yet figured out, American schooling on all levels (up through graduate study, even) is oddly blind to everything in central asia. Our cultural perceptions seem to stop at the Balkans and pick up again in the Indian subcontinent or in the coastal regions of eastern asia. It's likely that Ambrose Bierce nailed it on the head when he said "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography," and since we've never committed ourselves to war in central asia the entire region is just not on our radar.

With the tiny little exception of Afghanistan. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So yeah, lots and lots of people write about central asia. you're just not going to find them talked about in the good ol' US of A. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the IP is Canadian. One should not assume that everytime a question comes forward that indicates a lack of knowledge of something that it must be an American asking it. --Jayron32 18:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but it's just so natural to do so. And yes, I'm American, so I can get away with saying that. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

All questions indicate a lack of knowledge of something, otherwise why ask it? (Trolls excluded.) It's a lack of knowledge of geography (or simply that there is a world outside the US) that indicates an American is asking. It's not infalible, but it's generally a pretty safe assumption. --Tango (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Chinghiz Aitmatov comes to mind. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.eurasianet.org, which has many different authors writing about lots of issues going on in Central Asia. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The OP may be interested to know that there are people of all sorts in central asia, and many of them are writers. Many of these writers write about central asia. We have categories Category:Kyrgyzstani writers, Category:Uzbekistani writers, Category:Tajikistani writers, Category:Uyghur writers, Category:Mongolian writers, Category:Kyrgyzstani writers, all subcats of Category:Asian writers Staecker (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP meant is that is Dilip Hiro the only writer who deals with Central Asia affairs. That is good question. Is there any other writers who books about Central Asia affairs in English?

Allies' strategy for victory over the Axis powers

the Allies' strategy for victory over the Axis powers in Europe after the United States entered into the war (December, 1941).

a. Allies' strategy against Rommel in Africa b. Russia's strategy against Germany c. The invasion of Normandy

I need info on what the allies strategies were, and what russias stagegies were. What their plans were, what the wanted to happen, anything would help! My text book does not cover this (it says use internet or resource books) I havent been able to find anything much on the interent :/.. Thanks! Ekkm4 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Katy

Have you looked at a) North African Campaign, b) Eastern Front (World War II), and c) Invasion of Normandy? If you click on the blue links in those articles, you will find more information on the details of each campaign. Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also have a look at these articles that show how the Allies came to agreement on their strategic aims:

• Atlantic Charter
• Arcadia Conference
• Combined Chiefs of Staff
• Casablanca Conference
• Tehran Conference

Good hunting! Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

On the off-chance you get interested in the Allies against Japan, see the Yalta Conference as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Leroy by shea in "the voice"

In the late 70.s early 80s. a belizean news paper named "The Voice" featured a series of strip cartoons about a character named Leroy, entitled "Leroy by Shea". The cartoon stories enacted a collection of Belizean cultural proverbs. The news paper defunked many years ago. Does anybody know anything about that?190.56.115.3 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Best-selling book of all time?

I thought that it was the Bible, but my history teacher said that it's Mao's Little Red Book. --70.244.234.128 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Different numbers have been estimated, and many copies were given away and not sold so it also depends on your definition. The lead of Bible says "The Bible is the best-selling book in history with more than 6 billion copies published". See also Mao's Little Red Book#Publication number and List of best-selling books. The bible does appear to be the most printed book. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Many Bibles have been given away (i.e. by the Gideons) too, but they probably bought them to give away. Some publishers probably give away a number of copies, but not enough to likely have much statistical significance. Kansan (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That claim of 6 billion Bibles is hardly from an independent source. It's from the the Bible Society, a body clearly determined to promote that book. I see it as part of the philosophy of "My religion must be right, and all the others wrong, because look at all the people we've given Bibles to." I'd be interested in an answer to equally difficult to answer question of "How many people have ever bought a Bible for their own personal use?" HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it's worth noting that the number of copies doesn't correspond with anything more than the number of copies. The Little Red Book is no more coherent or accurate for its millions than is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. (If we wanted to be wry, we might suggest that there isn't a single non-fiction work in the top ten, except, I guess, that Chinese dictionary thing.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, ISTR that many copies of Mao's "Red Book" were also given away. As OR, I myself obtained one in the 1970's merely by writing to the Chinese Embassy and asking for it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I paid for mine! (But I don't pretend that proves anything in this discussion.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any idea what book that isn't a religious text or political manifesto ranks highest? Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cities or some Xinhua dictionary apparently, according to the List of best-selling books mentioned above. Who'd've thunk it? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing everyone is ignoring is that the Bible (with a few modifications between various versions, c.f. deuterocanonical books, apocrypha) has been published in its current form for something like 1,700-1,800 years (the Muratorian fragment dates from the 2nd or 3rd century, and represents the earliest known reference to the modern canon). Admittedly, prior to about 1450, all of these copies were published by hand; still even handwritten, 1250 or so years of writing can produce a LOT of copies. Add to that another 500 years of mechanical printing, and perhaps the past 70-80 years of more modern automated printing techniques, and you've got a lot of copies. I find it hard to believe that, given the head start that the Bible had in terms of time, that any book written in the past century could have overtaken it. --Jayron32 03:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes but, the Diamond Sutra was first published in approximately its present form in Chinese in 401 AD (and had existed in India for centuries before that). The present-day Christian Bible did not reach its approximate present form until at least 400 AD. And that was not in English. Even just counting the Chinese version, we know that it was published from 401 AD, the earliest surviving complete printed edition (in the British Library) is dated 868 AD, and is still in print (and is available for purchase) and is sometimes given away by religious organisations. I'm not sure when the first English bible was published, but if we are comparing like-to-like, then it'll have to be Chinese sutra against English bible, or else all language versions of the Diamond Sutra against all language versions of the Bible. For one thing, we know that China, Korea and Japan, at least, all had printing technology from very early times. I'm not sure what age proves in this debate, but if it proves anything then the Diamond Sutra surely trumps the Bible. It's just that no "Diamond Sutra society" has ever bothered to prove the superiority of their beliefs based on how much paper they've used in the last few thousand years. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would it have to be Chinese Sutra against English Bible? We're not just interested in English-speaking readers of the Bible, and the language of Christianity was overwhelmingly Greek for a few centuries, followed by being overwhelmingly Latin for a lot of centuries, and is popular in a wide range of countries with a wide range of languages which are acknowledged as different languages. Would the Sutra have to be written in a form of Chinese that was readily readable to a modern speaker of Mandarin before we counted it? Count your Sutra back as far as the contents were the same, in whichever language, and compare it to the Bible including both Old and New Testaments (I'll let the Deuterocanon slide for the purposes of counting modern Bibles, if that's okay?): I'd be interested in the results, but I'm fairly sure the Bible would win: Christians have considered it more important that more people read the text for longer. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of Bible manuscripts are not full Bibles, they're just a few books, like the Gospels, or some collection of the more interesting books. They didn't bother copying the entire thing every time. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm about to do a no-no, not really sticking to the subject, but what the hell? It can always be edited out. It seems that no matter what medium of communication we use there's always one predominent constant throughout the ages of humanity. People statistically love fantasy. Bearing in mind that the most fantastical book ever produced has to be the bible, it stands to reason that through the ages that it would have to be statistically the most popular.190.56.105.148 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

April 15

Tax status for legislators' incomes?

Are Senators and congressmen required to pay income taxes and FICA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.12.177 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To expand upon this: Yes and yes. Congressional salaries were never exempt from federal income tax, and since 1984 members of Congress have paid the FICA tax. See here (House Democratic Caucus); Question 5 here (Social Security Administration), here (Snopes), and here (FactCheck.org from the Annenberg Public Policy Center). However, note that members of Congress are treated as nonresidents of their state for the purposes of state and local income taxes under 4 U.S.C. § 113. For an example, see here (Virginia Department of Taxation). Neutrality^talk 04:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that Virginia may be an exception when it comes to the residency status of members of Congress who represent that state. For example, Massachusetts does not offer an exemption from state income tax to members of Congress domiciled in Massachusetts. (And all members of Congress representing Massachusetts must be domiciled in Massachusetts.) Marco polo (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are state tax issues. They have no bearing in this case on federal tax status. Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tonsils

i have 3 huge indents in one of my tonsils. I am pretty sure that they arent tonsil stones, though, because they never form white stuff or get food stuck in them. They also make my voice weirded than it used to be because their so large. What are they and what should i do about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavilier0359555 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at the top: The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinion. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question: "what should I do about them?" ... "discuss them with your doctor". Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Korean Minjok Leadership Academy

I've heard a lot about the impossible difficulty of getting into this prestigious high school, but I've been unable to find reliable information on what is required for admission to this academy. The school's official website speaks of interviews and tests, but doesn't specify. Could someone please tell me what exactly the school requires for admission? Thank you, 61.72.131.105 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Need sources related to a bible documentary

I caught a part of a documentary on National Geographic about King David of Israel. They describe an incident where David "crucified nine of Saul's grandsons", indicating that this was done to exterminate King Saul's bloodline to prevent a challenge to David's legitimacy as king. I'd never heard of this. The only close mention on Wikipedia that I can find comes from Gibeonites#Other_references:

After David became king of the United Monarchy, he handed over Armoni and Mephibosheth, two of the sons of Saul and the five sons of Merab (Saul's daughter) to the Gibeonites, who hanged them. (2 Samuel 21:8–9)

There seems to be no mention of this in David or Saul. The biblical record doesn't seem to mention anything about purposely eliminating Saul's descendants and as far as I know, crucifixion was invented by the Persians some 500 years later. So I guess what I'm looking for here are scholarly papers or books that discuss this event in greater detail; and they don't necessarily have to be online-accessible, though that's always a plus. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, we have to be careful with Mephibosheth, since there were two different men of this name in the family of Saul; they were uncle and nephew. David showed the nephew great favor, who quite understandably feared for his life (2 Sam. 9:6–8) when David called him into his presence. The incident of the Gibeonites is the only situation in which we see David participating in the deaths of any of Saul's family members, and that's for a reason totally unrelated to dynastic issues. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That was my first thought, it doesn't seem like David was at all interested in killing Saul's family, given his friendship with Jonathan. So I'm trying to figure out where this documentary was basing these ideas. Sorry, I'm still in the process of tracking down the documentary and don't have the title. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

For the background here: According to II Samuel, Chapter 21, Saul had killed some Gentiles called Gibeonites in violation of an oath the Israelites had made not to kill them. After David came to power, there was a famine in Israel, and the Lord told David that it was because of Saul's actions. So David asked the Gibeonites how he could make it up to them, and they asked David to hand over seven of Saul's grandsons so they could hang them. David agreed and did just that. Perhaps David had an ulterior motive, who knows. Anyway, there were seven grandsons who were killed (David spared an eighth); they were hanged, not crucified; and it was the Gibeonites who did the hanging, not David. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

They might have been impaled, as Haman was, even though it was called "hanging". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood

Why capitalists are portrayed in negative light in Hollywood movies? Why from science fiction films like They Live, Resident Evil or Moon to politico-economic thriller like Wall Street depict corporations as villains? Why Hollywood is so pro-communist? --D and Elephant (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me mention in passing that one can be anti-corporate and not anti-property. —Tamfang (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood is run by capitalists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Because they make good villains. A good villain in a movie should be believable, so they need to have believable motivations for doing bad things. Greed and money are two pretty believable motivations. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 05:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Union bosses can also make good villains, trying to misguide employees for personal gain. A socialist state leader imposing large amount of taxes/forcefully nationalizing private property can also make good villain. Why these issues are blackouted by Hollywood? --D and Elephant (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Corrupt unions and union leaders are villains in lots of films, e.g. On the Waterfront, Hoffa. They're just not as glamorous as corporate bosses. As for a socialist leader imposing taxes or nationalizing property, that's not quite so dramatic or interesting. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Watch the second season of The Wire. (If you haven't seen it, you really should. Great series.) A corrupt union boss is at the cruxt of the story line. Also, check out Paul Reiser's character in the Alien (film) franchise for a perfect example of why capitalism is "sexier" as a motivation for evil. I think the difference is that capitalism allows for the "anything can happen" approach to the story line. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 05:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And an addendum. Take for example the old James Bond movies, where, more often than not, a secret Communist organization plotted together on how best to take control of the world. Were they doing it for the money/power? Sure. But they generally thought they were right. But, capitalist villains, on the other hand, don't care about right vs. wrong. They just want the money, and are willing to kill you me and your grandma to get it. Somehow that is more evil than a dictator who, right or wrong, wants to rule the world. At least they believe what they are doing is right. Most times, capitalist based villains know that what they are doing is wrong...and do it anyway. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 06:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean the James Bond stories. The villains in James Bond movies are SPECTRE, which is an independent (and capitalist in outlook, after all they want to make money!) terrorist organization. In the novels and short stories, the villain organization in many of them is SMERSH. SMERSH makes only a few appearences in the movies, and never as the enemy. (Rosa Klebb is described as an ex-SMERSH agent, but she is clearly working for SPECTRE in the film From Russia With Love.) --Jayron32 12:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Power in general makes for a good villain. So big corporations, big unions, big dictatorships, big government, big whatever show up all over the place. It's completely false to say that only big corporations or industrialists are the only (or even disproportionately) the villains. They are, sometimes. The real question is whether they are ever heros — that's quite unusual, I think, whereas you do occasionally have the unionizing hero. In any case, this has nothing to do with being "pro-Communist," which is an idiotic category to use most of the time. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there are several problems with the premises posed by the OP. First of all the claim that capitalists are portrayed in a negative light in Hollywood. If that is supposed to be a claim that all capitalists appearing in Hollywood movies are portrayed in a negative light, then that is clearly wrong. It would be more correct to say that some are, and as such following human behaviour, are actually portrayed in a nuanced way. Secondly the claim that criticism of capitalism automatically makes the message pro-communist seems awfully skewed. The concept of criticism is actually fundamental to modern Western type societies, and criticism does in no way imply political partisanship. To point out flaws or errors in parts of a system or in general is actually very normal behaviour in democratic societies, and people from all over the political spectrum participates in it, including people that in general is in favour of capitalism (the majority of the population in the Western world). --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Billionaire capitalists make much better movie villains in America than would communists, simply because most Americans work for a living and can relate to feeling oppressed by fat cats. Commies have no significant presence or power in America, so we really can't relate to them in conventional dramas... in short, such movies wouldn't draw flies to the box office, and as I said, the folks who run Hollywood are capitalists. Action/adventure, especially involving a foreign enemy, sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong Bugs. According to this article, conservatives are the largest political group in the US. And American conservatism is characterized by opposition to big government, socialism, taxation and support for free market capitalism and entrepreneurship. Even many people who identify as Democrats, are opposed to many aspects of socialism like social security, universal healthcare etc. And American conservative generally see no distinction between communism and socialism. So the Hollywood film studios can easily target the largest political group in America. Isn't it? If they produce films depicting an honest capitalist fighting a repressive socialist government, or a lone employee fighting a big union, or an underground resistance against unfair taxes, those films are not going to be box office bombs. So the claim that films portraying capitalists as protagonists don't have market is wrong, as there is clearly a large market for this. For example, Atlas Shrugged: Part I is a highly publicized film and will be watched by both the right and the left, I believe. In fact the movies depicting capitalists as villains are also watched by conservatives (but they don't like what they watched, and don't watch the film for a second time or keep a DVD copy). Because people watch films for entertainment, not for political enlightenment. So we can conclude films depicting socialists as villains will be also watched by the left. Am I right? Then why such films are not made more often?

From this analysis the only reason behind this Hollywood culture, as I can see, is that Hollywood is trying to implement a social engineering formula to turn the public opinion against capitalism and big business. It may be also possible that the directors are left-leaning, and are interested in expressing their personal opinion through their work, i.e. films. In any case, it is hard to believe films showing capitalism is positive light do not have market. --D and Elephant (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What statement, exactly, of Bugs's is wrong? I disagree that American conservatives — at least, the ones that have gotten elected — are actually against big government. That is lip service. More importantly, I also disagree with your implication that American liberals are anti-capitalist, and therefore that films with a businessman as the villain have a liberal agenda. Advocating universal health care and social safety nets does not mean that American liberals believe "everyone must work for the government", or "corporations are inherently evil", despite what Rush Limbaugh may have you believing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the people who buy movie tickets are not in office; it may well be true that a large fraction of those who vote conservative (whatever that word really means) are sincerely "against big government". —Tamfang (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming fairly obvious that your purpose here is to foment an argument or a debate (as hinted by your user ID), and that's not what the ref desk is for. You need to find an internet forum someplace, where arguments are welcome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @D and Elephant: Um, I call on the "will be watched" fact for the Atlas Shrugged film. Its being screened on 300 screens nationwide in the U.S, which is an insignificant portion of the movie viewing public. People who are Ayn Rand fans are a highly motivated and vocal group, so support of the film is likely to be loud if not widespread. Most of the American public is apolitical and is mostly interested in a good action film; the nuanced political philosophy of the enemy doesn't really play into the appeal of a film. Look, I've voted Libertarian my whole life, and I have read a lot of Rand's work. I know there's a lot of Rand disciples looking at the Atlas Shrugged film, grinning giddly and saying "This is the year when we win! Everyone is going to watch this film and finally get it, and the Truth about objectivism is finally going to be widely known and accepted." No, it isn't. Strongly ideological films have little appeal, both critically and popularly, and films based on works by fringe authors with a fanatical and dedicated following similarly tank and the box office. (see Battlefield Earth for a parallel example). I find a lot of appeal in much of Rand's philosophy personally, but I am also a pragmatist and recognize that the past half century of Libertarian/Objectivist thinking hasn't made much headway among the general population as a widespread political philosophy, and this film isn't going cause a major paradigm shift among the population. I'm not saying its not a good film. I'm not saying that I personally disagree with what it has to say. It's just that you aren't going to see the American movie going public all that excited about rooting for Dagny Taggart and John Galt to take down the mean old collectivists... --Jayron32 15:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

They're making a movie about Atlas Shrugged? First I've heard of it. (And yes, Jayron, you are right about the James Bond films. That was a bad example on my part.) Quinn ^☂THUNDER 15:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

They made it. It was released today. Didn't you notice all the trailors and commercials? The product placement? The merchandising deal with McDonalds and Hasbro Toys? No? Neither did I... --Jayron32 15:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you know that McDonald's is a commie-front organization? Serving only prepared drinks and bottled water that are probably loaded with flouride, to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids??? While at the same time fattening and softening up Americans whose budgets are limited, having been laid off by corporations that are also commie-front organizations and only appear to be capitalistic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the OP has been sucked into this so-called "conservative" idealism. In practical terms, people are all in favor of cutting government spending as long as the cuts don't affect them personally. Also, the GOP had their chance when they had a monolithic government for 6 years... during which time government spending and the public debt went stratospheric, a point the current complainants seem to have conveniently forgotten. The fact is that so-called "conservatives" in America aren't conservative at all - they just disagree with liberals on who to give the tax money to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that the movie is being shown almost exclusively in "red states" (an ironic term if ever there was one). Surprise, surprise. Can you say "Preaching to the Choir?" I'm waiting for the critics to summarize it in two words: "America Shrugged". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As of this morning, rottentomatos.com was reporting that the movie got a 6% approval rating from professional critics (some of them notably conservative) and an 86% rating from the public. The movie had not been shown in public at the time. Can you say "preaching to the choir", or "selection bias"? PhGustaf (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If even conservative critics don't like it, that does not bode well for Part 2. Hopefully for them they already have it in the can, else it might never see the light of day, so to speak. I suspect it's fair to surmise that the Harry Potter finale Part 2 is being anticipated more eagerly than Atlas Shrugged Part 2. It's too boring a title. They need to call it Atlas Shrugged: The Revenge, or Son of Atlas Shrugged, or Atlas: The Spy Who Shrugged Me, or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Building on the answer of Mr.98, who I think gets it right: a villain is pretty much by definition a person, because there's no dramatic tension in fighting a committee. Movies where Reds are the villains tend to be war movies (and there are plenty of them), because once you have a singular, distinctive socialist villain, it almost always becomes much less about the socialism and much more about the personal quest for power (which spans ideologies and renders them meaningless). The most horrifying communist villains in all of fiction still needed to have a queen grafted on in order to make them any more than a scary but ultimately boring mindless horde. How many true villains are there in a zombie movie? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Hollywood" itself is built on capitalism. Movie production is an excellent example of capital investment, so I certainly wouldn't call Hollywood pro-communist. The content of movies however is a reflection of culture. Friedrich Nietzsche made some interesting points about Western morality in Beyond Good and Evil. I recall that he discusses the concept of a hero in Western in the context of morality, saying that a hero cannot be all three of the following: intelligent, powerful and ambitious. I would struggle to find an example of a Hollywood movie which has a hero who is all three. Hollywood villains typically have all three of these qualities. Objectivism extols these as virtues, but is not the dominate cultural framework. Nietzsche would blame this on Christianity. --Daniel 16:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the question only about this year, or the past decade, or all of Hollywood's history as a center for movies and TV? Just around the corner a 1938 Shirley Temple musical had the lovable curmudgeon capitalist Samuel Henshaw as a millionaire whose enterprises will restore prosperity, especially for Shirley's formerly rich but temporarily broke architect father. Sam Henshaw is conflated with "Uncle Sam." The rich banker=the government. (Get out of the capitalist's way and everyone will have a job again. Sound familiar?) Union Pacific (film) (1939) glorified capitalists who got government backing to build a railroad. The Story of Alexander Graham Bell (1939) and Edison the Man (1940) portrayed major capitalists of the late 19th and early 20th century in a favorable light, teaching movie goers that some rich men got that way because they were smart and worked hard, with any shady dealings swept under the rug. These "innovative productive" men as portrayed in the movie, might have been models for Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I Led Three Lives aired from 1953-1956 and the Commies were the enemies in every one of the 117 episodes, to the best of my recollection. Desk Set was a 1957 film set in a fictional US broadcasting network. The network boss, Mr. Azae (likely modelled after NBC head Sarnoff and CBS head Paley) is portrayed in a very favorable light. The F.B.I. (TV series) ran from 1965-1974, based in part on the 1959 movie The FBI Story. Today's F.B.I. aired 1981-1982. They chased Commies far more often than they chased "capitalists." The biggest fictional capitalist was Oliver "Daddy" Warbucks, featured as a good guy in the 1982 movie Annie (film). More recently Donald Trump has been glorified on TV as a supposed multimillionaire capitalist on The Apprentice (2004-present). Edison (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To address Jayron32's point: You said, "Strongly ideological films have little appeal, both critically and popularly, and films based on works by fringe authors with a fanatical and dedicated following similarly tank and the box office."

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was ranked fifteenth-highest-grossing documentary film ever made (at the time when it was released). Although I don't support the message of this film because I accept evolution as a fact and opposed to creationist nonsense, it proves films presenting what you call "fringe" view can be a blockbuster too. --D and Elephant (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I would brag about a film that made less than 8 million dollars. Overall, Plan 9 from Outer Space has probably earned more than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In the field of literature, Ayn Rand's books are certainly continually successful. Kansan (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what percentage of the annual sales are from kids compelled to read it at some point in high school and/or college English classes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently, communists just aren't much of a threat. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and most of it's former members are now capitalist. China remains communist in word only, being more of a capitalist dictatorship these days. Cuban communism is probably on it's last legs, and isn't a threat in any case. North Korea is about the only remaining communist threat. So, the search for villains will likely move on to more current threats, like Islamic fundamentalists or capitalists who, through reckless behavior and outright fraud (Bernie Madoff, Enron, etc.) seem to be the major threat these days. Of course, period movies could still target communists, but it's less exciting if you already know the outcome (that the commies lose in the end). StuRat (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The original Back to the Future might be on the cutting edge of that genre, having specifically referred to "Libyan terrorists". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Batman and Iron Man are billionaire industrialists and superheroes. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To me the interesting thing about those guys (and super heroes in general) is that they almost never use their powers for personal gain, that is the job for the villain. Batman and Iron Man got their wealth outside of their hero status. --Daniel 21:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It was their wealth that gave them the chance to be superheroes. That's pretty much the hallmark of American superheroes: they do what they do for the betterment of society. Kind of a mix of Hercules and the Rockefellers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that there are many, many films with government bad guys, such as E.T., The X-Files, Star Wars, Enemy of the State and, arguably, Animal House. More are listed here. From the movies, one would get the sense that the government is just out to get you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Using partisan blog sources you can just as easily make a case that Hollywood is pro-establishment. I am sorry, but I just don't buy the anti-capitalism or anti-government Hollywood based on a few examples mentioned. You can possibly establish some trends based on a thourough investigation of a representative number of movies, but I doubt that anti-capitalism or anti-government is going to be the major themes. Although this is of course, like the rest of the examples here, just a guess, most likely based on personal opinion rather than fact. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The OP seems to have disappeared, but it occurs to me that when watching It's a Wonderful Life, folks with his point of view would probably be rooting for Mr. Potter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

George Bailey is a small businsess owner, so probably a lot of conservatives/libertarians/Republicans/Objectivists root for him. Progressive Democrats, to be ideologically consistent, must of course root for the bank examiner. ;-) —Kevin Myers 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Would so-called conservatives root for Walmart, or for the small businesses that they defeated? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Walmart of course, which began as a small business. Sam Wainwright, George Bailey's friend, is the Sam Walton character in It's a Wonderful Life. —Kevin Myers 17:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Potter equates to Walmart: Raking in big bucks, and overseeing the lowering of the general public's standard of living. Sounds very familiar somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Those who doubt that common people have the wisdom to make rational free market decisions would certainly agree with you. Walmart thrives because customers like the prices and selection; mom & pop stores suffer as a result, and the overall economic effect is mixed. Potter thrives because the government does his bidding. ("Tell the congressman to wait!") Potter is not Walmart; he's Goldman Sachs. That's why progressives must root for the bank examiner: give him more power and independence, and he can use government regulation to keep Potter in check. —Kevin Myers 18:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What in the movies corresponds to how Walmart and other formerly-small businesses take advantage of, for example, eminent domain? —Tamfang (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Eminent domain#In popular culture has some examples. We could probably think of more. —Kevin Myers 22:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Each of those examples is for a road (or airport), not what I was looking for: seizures to transfer to a private developer (as ratified in Kelo v. New London). —Tamfang (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not disappeared as suggested by Bugs, it is just I have nothing new to say in this mess. Anyway, I found some interesting information and will recommend others to read these:

• Jay Richards, Hollywood’s Prejudice Against Business, The American
• 10 Best Business Movies, The American, "Hollywood tends to take a jaundiced or actively antagonistic view of business. In fact, business is one of Hollywood's favorite villains."
• Why Does Hollywood Love Fidel Castro?, American Thinker
• Why is Hollywood Rehabilitating Totalitarianism?, Townhall.com
• And the book Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony’s Long Romance with the Left --D and Elephant (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dorbick?

A character in Digimon is called a "Dorbick" (ドルビック). His comrades are designed after various mythological or legendary figures; for example, one is a "Zamiel", after the demon in "Der Freischutz", and another is an "Oleg", after a legendary Viking. This guy is some kind of red dragon - can you point me toward his mythological basis?12.53.10.226 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a myth, but "Dorbrick" (with an added R) was apparently a concentrating camp during the Second Boer War: [3]. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The correct spelling was also originally part of the song the Whos sang in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas": [4]. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

April 16

Matriarchical alternate universe films?

I wonder are there any films set in a normal, contemporary world except for the fact that the social power of males and females has been reversed? A sort of matriarchical White Man's Burden, so to speak. Preferably 20th century, American. Related suggestions welcome. Thanks! Skomorokh 15:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well they may not have cars or aeroplanes, but Galadriel seems to be the brains of the operation in Lorien. Vranak (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for works more close to our consensus reality than that of Unfinished Tales, and a broader power distribution than one matriarch, but I appreciate the Tolkien nod nonetheless (though my own preference of matriarchs from that universe would without question be the spy queen of cats!). Skomorokh 17:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

3/4 of Oz seems to have been run by witches. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Skomorokh -- I know some books falling under that general description, but no movies, sorry. However, you could look at Riker's outfit in Angel One... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not just Riker's outfit in "Angel One"; the whole premise of the episode. —Angr (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the rest of the episode didn't rise all that far above semi-cheesy 1950's depictions of square-jawed he-man explorers/astronauts stumbling across a matriarchy, but Riker's outfit shows that somebody on the show did spend a little bit of time seriously thinking through what the implications of a matriarchy might be.... AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an episode of Sliders? —Tamfang (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember one episode of Sliders where they went to a parallel Earth that was almost entirely female. The few males were kept locked up and permitted to breed with only a few select females. Our heroes managed to find refuge in the house of a sympathetic woman, but were given away when the police saw the toilet seat left up! —Angr (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There were a number of gender-reversal episodes on Sliders. You're thinking of the episode "Love Gods", and Tamfang is probably recalling the episode "The Weaker Sex", where Hillary Clinton is president (as opposed to the then-president Bill Clinton) and the plot revolves around Maximillian Arturo breaking the glass ceiling by running for public office. There's also the episode "The Prince of Slides", where men are the ones who get pregnant. See: List of Sliders episodes. -- 174.21.254.3 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at our pages on two TV films, Planet Earth and The Last Man on Planet Earth, though both depict futuristic matriarchies rather than alternate universe ones. And you've probably already thought of and rejected She. --Antiquary (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The closest I could find is Zeta One. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wicker Man, FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions, Bees in Paradise, Sexmission, America 3000, Star Maidens (saw this on AFN in Germany around 1980). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How do I put a new page up for one that has been deleted?

I've written a page about Norfolk writer Sue Welfare. It's Currently a sub page from my user page. When I went to move it into the wiki I found that there had been a page in 2010 that has been deleted. I can't find the old page to see what the problem was. When I follow the links of the removal notification page there's just a mass of links with very poor descriptions so I can't see the page they've deleted.

I believe I've created suitable citations (BBC, University of East Anglia) and she has written about 16 novels published by legitimate global publishers. (I've seen articles about authors who have much less detail with much less significant careers.) I have also found an article in Wikipedia (Roy Waller) that refers to her so I can link my article so it won't be an orphan.

I'm new to Wikipedia. What do I do?

User:Kotch5/Sue_Welfare#Writing_career

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sue_Welfare&action=edit&redlink=1

Roy_Waller

Kotch5 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Kotch5 -- The previous articles under that name were deleted for copyright infringement, so as long as your effort doesn't infringe on copyrights, it won't be deleted for the same reason. However, this question should probably be asked on the help desk... AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is it possible to get a link to the help desk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotch5 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem I've found it. Kotch5 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Silvio Crespi

Silvio Crespi signed the treaty of Versailles . who was his wife?and did he have children, if so what are their names? My great grandmother Lina Crespi was an accomplished opera singer and painter and was related to him according to mothers records . Ii am trying to get the order down. I have many of her oil paintings !and I am searching for a provenance. Thank you so much. Sonia Lovett. Granddaughter of Elsie Gunn Crespi Ricketts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.9.53 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• He has a biography in the Enciclopedia Italiana. It confirms he did have children - one son is named, Benigno (b. 1895) and as he's described as figlio primogenito, eldest son, there were probably others - but there's no mention there of his wife's name or the names of any other children. Shimgray | talk | 22:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There's information on the early history of the Crespi family on this English language site and this Italian language one. It appears that Silvio Crespi's wife was called Teresa Ghiglieri, that she married him on 3rd January 1893 and died on 9th September 1944. I'm afraid I don't see any more on their children than Shimgray has discovered. --Antiquary (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just remembered that there's a useful source of facts called Wikipedia. Italian Wikipedia's page on Silvio Crespi says he and Teresa had seven children, but doesn't name them. There are also pages on Silvio's father Cristoforo Benigno Crespi at Italian Wikipedia and here at English Wikipedia. --Antiquary (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Seringapatam

Does anyone know where I can find the text (preferably online) of the Treaty of Seringapatam? Thanks... ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 21:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• There's a copy as Appendix i (p. 275 onwards) in this book - it should hopefully be visible to you. Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image used in the article Nightclub

I have noticed this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Okinawa_club.JPG

This image features mainly black men and Japanese women. This is clearly not a normal nightclub in Japan.

What is up with this image?--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that actually the image features mainly American men and Japanese women. Okinawa has large American military bases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

African-American men then. Same difference. I understand Okinawa is south of the main parts of Japan.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In the same rough sort of way that Alaska is west of the main parts of the USA, yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Novels about Canadian inuit

Can anyone name any novels about Canadian Inuit or by Canadian Inuit authors? Or can anyone name any novels about Natives in Alaska? I don't want childrens' books or non fiction. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sanaaq, the "first of all Canadian Inuit novels", written in 1955 or 1956 by Mitiarjuk Attasie Nappaaluk. Also Harpoon of the Hunter (one review calls it a children's book, but another acclaims it as "for all ages"). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack London was not an Inuit, but did write several stories about Alaska. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of the title for a particular book, but the plot goes like this:

1) A native kills a white man, in self-defense, I believe, while in town, then returns to his distant igloo.

2) White officers (police ?) go there, arrest him, and attempt to bring him back for trial.

3) They fall through the ice due to not knowing the signs of thin ice, and the native rescues one officer. The rest die.

4) The native takes the surviving officer back to his igloo to help him recover. This includes "laughing with his wife" (having sex with her).

5) Once recovered, the officer has the moral dilemma of whether he should still take in the native for trial, knowing it will not be fair, due to racism.

So, can anyone help me with the name ? Something to do with Land of the Midnight Sun, perhaps ? StuRat (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We have Category:Inuit writers. Farley Mowat wrote about the Inuit sometimes, but he's not one himself (and he's often accused of just making stuff up). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Though not originally a novel, Nanook of the North may be of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Atanarjuat is a movie, not a novel, but may also be of interest anyway. —Angr (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying no kids books rules out Michael Kusugak. Try James Archibald Houston who wrote, among others, The White Dawn (that's the move link not the book). Kevin Patterson wrote Consumption about an Inuit woman with TB in Montreal. Depending on how you feel about things Inuit myths has traditional stories and there are plenty of books about Inuit mythology. Alootook Ipellie has written at least one book of short stories and drawings and been featured in another. The Incomparable Atuk by Mordecai Richler. Rankin Inlet by Mara Feeney. Jean Craighead George has written some for "young adults" so that might work. Try looking further through here, I just went to page three. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Kabloona, a 1941 novel by Gontran de Poncins. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's non-fiction though. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agaguk is a classic novel by Yves Thériault about the Inuit in Quebec. The movie version is generally considered terrible, though. --Xuxl (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

April 17

How do machismo people bullies deal with their boss?

One of the fundamentals of everyday machismo is that the person who lives by that creed believes in being dominant. Yet even machismo people can have bosses. How do they relate to their boss? Are they in fact even more submissive to their boss than the non-machismo person would be, since they are more conscious of and sensitive to matters relating to dominance?

I'd prefer answers based on research or personal experience rather than on imangination or movies please. Thanks. 92.15.8.229 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The word 'machismo' suggests that men are dominant, not that you, as an individual, are dominant. I suppose that some of those men would have a strong time accepting a female boss. Quest09 (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring mainly to men, even though I ommitted to specify gender. I do not think Quest09's take is true, but let us not get sidetracked please. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Domonance involves control, in this context but machismo involves an exagerated show of masculinity. Not quite the same thing, although one sometimes involves the other.Phalcor (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A reminder - I'm specificaly asking how machismo people deal with their bosses, not about machismo in general. Thanks. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem for answering your question is that 'machismo' is badly defined. Do you need a certain appearance? Is it enough to discriminate woman? Do you have to put up fight with people who crossed your path? I suppose lots of wife-beaters don't have any meaningful problem with their males bosses. Quest09 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Try the first definition here (parts 1 and 2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machismo or what it says in the machismo article about the English meaning of the word. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I live in a notably machismo culture in Central America for several years and I see no employee/employer problems cause by the machismo attitude. If anything it seems to foster a sort of male comaradary. A common bond base on presumed superiority over, and to, the exclusion of women.190.56.17.69 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the aspect of machismo I mean is that of the bully. Rephrasing the question, how do bullies deal with their boss? Are they in fact even more submissive to their boss than the non-bully would be, since they are more conscious of and sensitive to matters relating to dominance? The particular people I once encountered were aggressive bullies to men but charming to women. 92.24.177.71 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Previously (190 56 17 69) My experiences tell me that if a man is a bully with men then he is a bully. period. and he will in all likelyhood be a bully with any woman once his charm has acheived it's goal, eventually.Phalcor (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again I didn't fully answer your question. If a man wants to keep his job he will usually submit but I think not be more submissive than non bullies. behaviour patterns in the work place are usually well established. he knows what he has to do to keep his job. If not he looses it, which I've seen happen more than once.Phalcor (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullies are often bullied themselves. At school age it can take the form of a kid who is bullied by his parents and/or teachers and/or siblings and then takes it out on other kids. As adults, being bullied by the boss may then result in that person taking it out on his wife and kids, and thus continue the cycle. In the military (or quasi-military organizations, like the police), the higher ranks often bully the lower ranks, on down to new recruits, who must go outside the military to vent their frustrations, say by picking fights in bars. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is just a stereotype or cliched story. I've never experienced or observed that myself. I expect there is some research about that somewhere. 92.15.12.17 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, keywords searches for 'machismo'/'macho' and 'employer'/'workplace' in the journal databases I have access to yielded nothing particularly relevant. A small number of articles came up with each combination of terms, but they were mainly talking about women entering traditionally male-dominated fields, especially those fields with a physical labor focus (construction, the armed forces, &c.). I didn't read each article in depth, but none seemed to directly address your specific question. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullies become subservient to bigger bullies further up the hierarchy.Hotclaws (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There may be some split developing in macho (such as "macho management") and machismo having different meanings. 92.28.241.233 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Official brochure for UK May 2011 referendrum

The government is/was supposed to be putting an official brochure through everyboy's letterbox regarding the upcoming referendrum regarding AV. But I have not received one. Where could I download it please? I have tried looking for it without success. Note that it is only the official government brochure that I am interested in, not other brochures about AV. Thanks 92.24.177.71 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

choose your country and hit download. Nanonic (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient language

I know that French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese came from Latin and Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Sinhala, Divehi, Gujarati, Marathi, Assamese, and Oriya came from Sanskrit. What about Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam?-Which ancient did they come from? What about Kurdish, Pashto, Tajik, Pashai, Nuristani, Baloch, Persian, Lur, Gilaki, and Mazandarani?-Which ancient language did they come from? What about English, German, Danish, Icelandic, Swedish, Dutch and Norwegian?-Which ancient language did they come from? What about Turkish, Azeri, Qashqai, Turkmen, Uzbek, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz?-Which language did they come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.147 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer your questions in order: Proto-Dravidian, Proto-Iranian, Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Turkic. Incidentally, it isn't strictly accurate to say that the Romance languages came from Latin, the refined and elite language of Cicero and other classical writers. Instead, those languages are descended from Vulgar Latin, the spoken language of the common people, which differed in some ways from its elite, literary counterpart. Likewise, the Indo-Aryan languages are not directly descended from the literary and religious language that we know as Sanskrit. Instead, they are descended from Proto-Indo-Aryan, of which Vedic Sanskrit was one variety. That ancestor language was spoken about 3,500 years ago. The modern vernacular languages evolved alongside Sanskrit, which did not reach its classic form until more than 1,000 years later, around the time of Pāṇini. Marco polo (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To quibble: "Romance is descended from Latin" is not as false as "Bengali etc are descended from Sanskrit"; both Vulgar and Classical Latin are descended from something that was already called Latin, I believe. —Tamfang (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Tamfang, but not exactly textbook or dictionary Latin, which are based on the classical standard. Marco polo (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

World War One memoirs

What other non-fiction memoirs of experiences in WW1 are there apart from those of Robert Graves, Good-Bye to All That; Edmund Blunden, Undertones Of War; and Siegfried Sassoon, semi-fictional Memoirs of an Infantry Officer? Is there a list anywhere of all the WW1 memoirs? I believe many were published. Thanks 92.24.177.71 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a list of WW1 memoirs at World War I in literature#Memoirs and diaries. --Antiquary (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although I believe there were many more than that published, but most of those not by literary authors have been forgotten. 92.28.241.233 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

nature film or something else

Back in 1979, when I was in second grade, I took a field trip with my class to the Lawrence Hall of Science. In one portion, there was this place which looked like a small cinema. On the movie screen, there was this film. It featured a man who lived with his dogs inside a cabin somewhere in the woods. From time to time, the man would go canoeing on the river. Whenever the man was relaxing at his cabin, sometimes his dogs would make a little mischief. He'd say, "I told you to quit rocking that chair!" Does anyone know what type of film I'm trying to describe?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There's lots of film of a man (Richard Proenneke) who hand-built a cabin in Alaska and lived there for many years. I recall a canoe. I don't recall him having dogs, but he may have. Could this be it? StuRat (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. The film you're talking about was released in 2004. The one I saw with my class was shown at the Lawrence Hall of Science in 1979.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The 2004 movie consists mainly of home movies he made himself, starting in 1968. Those may have been made available to Lawrence Hall of Science before they were included in the film. StuRat (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's any help, I remember reading a paperback about an American man who lived in isolation on the banks of a river somewhere. I think it was around the 1960s. 92.24.176.164 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Could be the book by the same guy I mentioned above. (One Man's Wilderness: An Alaskan Odyssey came out in 1973.) StuRat (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how the Lawrence Hall of Science could've obtained the home movies. What does a paperback have to do with the film I'm trying to figure out?24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the Proennecke film. No dogs or rocking chairs, as I recall. That's right. He was off his rocker to live alone like that. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I must be referring to another film, right?24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

April 18

Prince of the Land of Loud tale

I'm thinking of a story about a land where everything was loud. The doors didn't close; they slammed. The people didn't speak; they yelled. Etc. Then, for his sixteenth birthday, the prince of the land decided to get all the citizens into one room and have them scream at the top of their lungs. Each individual or married couple independently decided that he/she/they would be silent while everyone else screamed, but since everyone else was screaming, no one would notice that he/she/they was/were being silent. Then, when the moment came, the prince heard only silence. It was so beautiful that the people of the land decided they would be quiet from then on. What story is this? Wiwaxia (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Christians who reject the Sermon on the mount?

I was reading John F. MacArthur's gospel according to jesus, where he referred to certain extreme Dispensationalism teachers who claimed that the Sermon on the Mount does not apply to Christians since it is Law instead of Grace and thus still part of the old covenant. The statements of the Sermon on the Mount "have no application to the Christian, but only to those who are under the Law, and therefore must apply to another Dispensation than this. Does anyone have any info about specific individuals or sects who accepted this interpretation? --Gary123 (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Such theology is not prominent in any "mainline" christian denomenation, either protestant, catholic, or orthodox. I do not doubt that some people hold such theology; if one person can imagine it someone earlier started a religion about it. But it is not likely a widespread belief. --Jayron32 00:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting essay here about varying Christian attitudes to the Sermon. I quote;

"Dispensationalism, first developed by the Plymouth Brethren, divides human history into a series of ages or dispensations. Today we live in the period of grace where living up to the teachings of the sermon is impossible, but in the future, the Millennium will see a period where it is possible to live up to the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, and where following them will be a prerequisite to salvation." Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

More here; "One of the most significant threats to the central role of the Sermon on the Mount in Mennonite thought and practice has been the influence of dispensational theology, especially in North America but also to a considerable degree among the Russian Mennonites at the beginning of the 20th century... God was seen as working in different ways in each dispensation. The age of the law preceded the age of grace, which was the age of the New Testament church. Characteristically the dividing point between the two ages was seen as coming with the crucifixion. Christ, at the beginning of his ministry, offered the kingdom of God to the Jews until they rejected it, and Matthew 11 was often viewed as marking the point of rejection. Christ's earlier ministry, including the Sermon on the Mount, was therefore still kingdom preaching with an emphasis on the law rather than on gospel." Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can historians point to a specific period when NATO surpassed WarPac for the final time?

I've seen it mentioned in various places that when the Iron Curtain fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO(primarily American) military strategists were rather shocked to see that many of their estimates of Soviet technical level and ability were wildly off the mark. Specifically that what they really had/could do was inferior (in some places vastly so) to what NATO believed they had/could do.

But things weren't always this way, as evidenced by Sputnik. So, looking back from the 21st century, can historians now clearly identify a period when the balance of power shifted conclusively to the West? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an extraordinarily complex question. The section on stagnation and declining growth in our article on the Eastern Bloc economies outlines some of the Soviet bloc's decline relative to the West: From the end of the World War II to the mid-1970s, the economy of the Eastern Bloc steadily increased at the same rate as the economy in Western Europe, with the least none-reforming communist nations of the Eastern Bloc having a stronger economy then the reformist-communist states.[ While most western European economies essentially began to approach the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) levels of the United States during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Eastern Bloc countries did not, with per capita GDPs falling significantly below their comparable western European counterparts."

See also Era of Stagnation. There are also many more detailed scholarly examinations of the Soviet decline: Easterly and Fischer 1994; Odom 2000; Ellman and Kontorovich 1998; and Stayer 1998 are a few. Hope this helps! Neutrality^talk 01:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

When they retreated from Afghanistan, that to me was evidence that their military was not as powerful as it once had been. (Under Stalin they would have just massacred any town that showed any signs of resistance, and won in that way.) StuRat (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As for why the economic decline was delayed, I believe that the long term problem with communism offering no incentive to work was at first offset by communism being able to educate masses who were all illiterate peasants in previous generations, and the ability to force rapid industrialization. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would contend that Sputnik did not indicate that the balance of power had shifted to the East. It indicated that the East was further ahead in at least one particular scientific and technological area. (And not that much ahead — in a few months the US was scheduled to do the same thing.) The Soviet technological infrastructure was generally behind the US even in that period; they just beat them to one milestone. It was an important one, because it showed that the USSR was not so "backwards" that it could not catch up with concerted effort (as did their "early" detonation of an atomic bomb) in specific domains, but it didn't indicate that Russia had the upper hand generally, or with actual, in-field military technology. The reason the US was behind on Sputnik was not that they couldn't do it, but because they had spent far more of their research and development money and effort on long range bombers. The Soviets wisely reasoned they could not catch up with the US in this regard and invested vigorously in rockets from 1949 onward. (The decision of the US was also heavily influenced by inter-service politics.)

It was only much, much later — e.g. the 1970s and 1980s — that the Soviet Union actually matched the West in terms of its technological weaponry. This chart, while not everything (raw warhead counts are less important than delivery vehicles, for example), is a nice indicator of this. The West was really, really, really ahead of the USSR for quite a long time in really every important measure. The idea that the USSR was ready to take on NATO for most of the Cold War is a myth perpetuated by the people who were in charge of the defense budget. (Which is not to say that the USSR was defenseless or good intentioned or anything like that — just to say that the risk of American loss of superiority was highly exaggerated by people wanting to err very much on the side of caution, not coincidentally because their budgets depended on such estimates. The only thing the Soviets had to their advantage was raw numbers of mediocre-technology conventional military, but it's not at all clear what benefit that confers in an age of nuclear weapons.) --Mr.98 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Both Eric Hobsbawm (The Age of Extremes) and Tony Judt (Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945) suggests that the Soviet Union never even came close to matching the West economically or militarily, but that they did succeed to some extent in the 1950's and early 1960's to make it seem like they were to outside observers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There was also some suggestion that the US space program was intentionally delayed (by picking the less advanced rocket project to fund), so that Congress would then fully fund the space race, and the Soviet Union, having already flown a spacecraft over US territory, would have no basis to object to US flights over their territory. StuRat (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Space Race notes that Eisenhower desired a civilian satellite booster, but Project Vanguard was not sucessful; Vanguard TV3 failed spectacularly resulting in a loss of prestige. Explorer 1 launched using the Juno I booster based on the PGM-11 Redstone missile. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't read this, and find it very unlikely as a theory. It requires far too much prescience on the part of policymakers and even scientists, too much knowledge about what would happen and what the results would be. The fact is that most US scientific advisors (e.g. Vannevar Bush and Robert Oppenheimer) were pessimistic about rocket development well into the early 1950s — there were too many unknown unknowns, whereas long-range bombers were things where the US had verifiable and reliable experience (and an edge above the rest of the world due to their herculean efforts on the B-29 during WWII, which cost more than the Manhattan Project). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

General Sir John Hackett, a former commander of the British Army on the Rhine, wrote a book in 1978 called The Third World War: The Untold Story. In it, he postulated that the Soviets would calculate that after 1985, their large numerical advantage in terms of troops, armour and combat aircraft would be nulified by NATO's introduction of new high tec weapons like Cruise and Patriot. They therefore found an excuse to launch a huge armoured assault against West Germany in that year. Presumably, his book reflected at least some of the scenarios that NATO had planned for. In the event, the First Gulf War showed that the best equipment that the Soviets could produce wasn't up to much. However, it doesn't do to underestimate your enemy; assuming that Japan was backward militarily cost us all dear in 1941/42. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

True. From a military standpoint it wouldn't do to underestimate your enemy, which is at least part of the explanation that Western (mainly US of course) generals vastly overestimated the capability of the Soviet Union, at least in terms of overall technological development and economic capability. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the Warsaw Pact did have a HUGE numerical superiority in armoured vehicles. See Tank formations during the Cold War. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The common fantasy of the Cold War is the USSR rolling across Europe using just brute force. This is one of the reasons the US arsenal got so huge in the 1950s and 1960s — a large number of those weapons are tactical nukes meant for leveraging that difference (so that the US could take out entire tank formations with one plane). Now things obviously get more complicated once Russia has an ability to retaliate in kind. But just having large numbers of troops does not make one "ahead". North Korea has a military that is approximately the size of the current United States', but does anyone think that this means that the DPRK are at parity, military or otherwise, with the USA? And I would further postulate that erring so far on the side of caution as to be ridiculous is not a prudent strategy; the US had pretty good indications at various points that the Soviets were more bluff than reality (even during the missile gap, US intel was aware that it was nonexistent), but our policies were always about more, more, more. I do think that the amount of money spent on new high tech gadgets (most of which were never, ever used, thank goodness) was a poor use of our own capital. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to add one important quibble about Mr.98's claim, "The West was really, really, really ahead of the USSR for quite a long time in really every important measure." Right after Nazi Germany fell, Stalin, if he felt like it, certainly could have ordered his armies to continue to roll west, defeating the Americans and British and the French, who were hugely outnumbered, and could have established the Warsaw Pact across all of continental Europe. I'm having trouble finding a quick Wikipedia citation; our origins of the Cold War article doesn't really mention this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that's strictly true. The USSR was stretched just as thin as the west, both militarily and economically. After marching a few thousand miles on boots stuffed with newspaper and old rags, I'm not sure that the Soviet military would have appreciated fighting on much farther than where they got to. While Stalin may have wanted to have done so, there's a certain pragmatic limit when even monomaniacal dictators take an honest assessment of their military assets and say "Maybe now is a good time to take a breather". Stalin may have not cared two shits about the welfare of his troops, but that's quite different from recognizing a military at its breaking point, which the Soviet Army clearly was by the end of the war. --Jayron32 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin certainly realized that he was about at the limits of his empire building. There is no indication in the historical archives that Stalin seriously thought about taking Europe after WWII — he wanted "breathing space" from his enemies, he wanted politically-friendly states nearby and under his control, but he didn't actually want total control over the world, run from Moscow. (Or, at least, he wasn't actually willing to try and take the steps to get there.) Stalin's goals — security and prosperity — were the same ones the US had; it was his means of getting them that distinguished the two states (the US was pretty nasty in some instances towards those goals — coups, assassinations, propped up dictators, giving RPGs to jihadists, etc., but it's pretty hard to match Stalin for unpleasantness). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin had large but largely decrepit conventional forces. They won in the East by essentially throwing everyone they had at the Germans, losing two of their own men for every German on the aggregate (but far higher percentages in some battles). It's unclear what a post-WWII confrontation between US, UK, and France would have looked like against the USSR, but it wouldn't necessarily have been a walk in the park, especially given the US superiority in new weapons systems (long-range bombing, firebombs, nuclear weapons, radar). Again, it depends how you track "ahead" or "behind" but I don't put raw numbers as de facto "ahead." The Soviet economy was in tatters, the Soviet homeland was burnt to a crisp with massive civilian dead, and the Soviet Army was exhausted and stretched thin. The US by contrast had essentially zero damage on the home front. I would count immediate postwar US as being significantly better off militarily and economically than the USSR, by quite a long stretch. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think nuclear weapons probably stopped Stalin from considering an attack on Western Europe. It's true that early on the US had no immediate nuclear weapons they were capable of delivering to the Soviet Union, but Stalin didn't know that. And US stockpiles quickly started to grow, so that soon the threat was real. So, the only way I see Stalin attacking was before Hiroshima. Yes, the US had hinted at having nuclear weapons before then, but Stalin might have taken this to be a bluff. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a big historical question regarding whether Stalin really wanted to invade, whether the nukes deterred him. There isn't much evidence that he wanted to invade. Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project long before even Truman did; he didn't need hints from the US to know that they were building nukes, he had boffo spies. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not realistic to describe Stalin's conventional forces in Europe in May 1945 as decrepit, exhausted, or thinly-stretched. You have to remember that the next thing they did was travel several thousand miles to the east and effortlessly defeat a Japanese army nearly one and a half million strong. Before the advent of well developed jet fighters, nuclear weapons, attack helicopters and wire-guided anti-tank missiles, the state of the art was armoured forces backed by copious close air support. That's exactly what the Soviet military had, and exactly what their economy (relocated east of the Urals and not at all "in tatters") was optimised at churning out. Their heavy losses in personnel were the result of incompetent handling of the early months of the war, a total disregard for casualties, and spending significant parts of the later stages of the war using inexperienced troops of their own against veteran German troops in defensive positions.

The vast majority of the Western allies' tank strength in 1945 was the Sherman M4. This was significantly outmatched by the German Panther, Tiger, and even Panzer IV, but the Allies had overcome this by outnumbering the German tanks by at least 4 to 1 (both at theatre level and at the immediate tactical level) - around 50,000 Shermans against only about 6000 Panthers and less than 9000 Panzer IV, when many of the German tanks were deployed against the Russians anyway. The Western allies also had the advantage of total air superiority, and the Germans had the disadvantage of severe shortages of oil.

By contrast the Russians built a total of close on 60,000 T-34 tanks during the war. The T-34 outclasses the Sherman in every way except crew comfort, such that the Western allies would have had to rely on the British Sherman Firefly (about 2000 built) and the American M36 tank destroyer (1,400) as the only vehicles available in significant numbers that could take on the T-34 on almost equal terms. (All T-34s had markedly superior armour protection to the Firefly and the M36, and the upgunned T-34-85 built from 1944 onwards would have been a significantly greater challenge.) But these vehicles would be outnumbered more than ten to one!

What's more, the Russians had been building heavy tanks as well. The German King Tiger had been produced in tiny numbers (less than 500) such that the Allies had been well able to wait for them to run out of fuel, break down, be destroyed from the air or fall victim to a lucky shot from a 17 pounder tank gun or anti-tank gun. But the Soviet IS-2 tank and ISU-152 assault gun were every bit as dangerous as a King Tiger, and production of the two together totalled nearly 6000.

Air superiority would have been more evenly contested, but the Soviet airforce did at least boast vast numbers of ground attack aircraft. And the Soviets had absolutely no lack of oil or other raw materials. Strategic bombing cannot halt an offensive when the required forces are already in the field and have an overwhelming superiority in firepower. So yes, it seems almost certain that the Soviets could have rolled right across Western Europe as far as the English Channel - the distance from Berlin to Paris is tiny compared to the distance from Moscow to Berlin. The first nuclear weapon wouldn't be ready for several months.

So why didn't Stalin do it? Probably because there was no end game in such a scenario. Hitler had failed to invade the United Kingdom even when the USA had not yet joined the war. Stalin's air force was even less well suited to a strategic bombing campaign against the UK than Hitler's air force had been in 1940, and Stalin didn't have a submarine fleet, nor pocket battleships to act as surface raiders, to try to enforce a blockade. British and U.S. heavy bombers flying from England, northern Italy and Iran would be able to hit targets across vast swathes of the newly expanded empire. Hitler's conquest of France had neutralised the French navy and army, and gained him ports on the French Atlantic coast as bases and refuges for his U-boats and surface raiders. Stalin did not need to do either - all he would get from conquering France would be a photo opportunity at the Eiffel Tower to remind him that Hitler had done just the same five years earlier but come to a bad end anyway. There are no strategic resources in France, unlike the oil reserves that Hitler wanted from the Caucasus and the Japanese wanted from south-east Asia. (There's coal in West Germany, but the Soviets weren't short of coal.)

Thus there was no point in taking on the other new superpower and its allies, for no strategic gain. Instead Stalin joined in against the losing side as he had originally agreed to do, and secured more geographically limited gains in the Far East, but without the colossal risk. His conquest of Manchuria also facilitated his backing of the Communist side in the Chinese civil war, bringing a significant new power onto the Communist side of things, albeit not under Soviet control. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that "strategic bombing cannot halt an offensive when the required forces are already in the field and have an overwhelming superiority in firepower", I agree, but only with conventional weapons. Once nuclear weapons became widely available to the US, I believe they could halt, and then roll back, the offensive. And I do believe they would have been used, in this scenario. StuRat (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's defeat of the Japanese in Manchuria was a combination of overwhelming forces, surprise, and the fact that Japan was on its last legs anyway. I don't think one can take that as evidence for Soviet supremacy. In any case, all of this again depends on what you are gauging "supremacy" to be. They had incurred 40 million deaths; lost 1/4 of their capital resources; and required their satellite states to send them resources to prop things up in the immediate aftermath. There were certainly better off on some metrics than other European states, but they were still quite behind the US in these respects. In a wartime scenario the US could have had another atomic bomb by the end of August, and produced a few bombs a month thereafter. (The US bomb production fizzled out in the mid-1940s because of manpower shortages caused by people going home after the war, and because of confusion over the postwar atomic organization, which didn't get resolved until sometime after the Atomic Energy Act went into effect in 1947.) The US still had the largest scientific/technological infrastructure on the planet — Stalin's was still limited to sharashka labor camps. I'm just not seeing the parity there. Yes, large conventional forces. No doubt. But that's it. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Trifles Susan Glaspell and The Cask of Amontillado

(1) Trifles Susan Glaspell - In the play, which characters are round? Which characters are flat? Which characters are stock? What is/are the theme(s)? What type of irony is used in the play? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.147 (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(2) The Cask of Amontillado - What is the main theme in this short story? Which character is dynamic, which character is static, which character is round and which character is flat? What is the symbolism? What type of irony is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.147 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You will have to do your own homework, but I invite you to read our articles on Trifles, "The Cask of Amontillado," literary character, character arc, stock character, irony, literary theme, and so forth. Neutrality^talk 01:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked the same set of questions a few weeks ago, and I'll give you the same piece of advice I did before: Ask your teacher. If you go to your teacher after class, during his/her office hours, and say "Can you try to explain to me again the meaning of "round/flat" and "dynamic/static" characters. I really want to understand these concepts, but I am not sure I am getting it." The teacher should be willing to spend a few minutes trying to help you work through your troubles. --Jayron32 02:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What's up with the History of Communism article?

(History of Communism) It has headers, but no content, for 1957 to 1993, most of which deals with China. Shenanigans? The Masked Booby (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No shenanigans. Believe it or not, vast swathes of important topics remain unwritten about by Wikipedia editors; sometimes people put in headers to encourage them. You can check the history of the article to see its development.

P.S. For future reference, questions about problems with Wikipedia will get a better response at the help desk. Best, Skomorokh 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm expanding, this time with uncited stubs, for some areas of expertise I have. Citations can be gleaned out of the Main Articles of the organisations I note. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Had there been an assassination on Hu Jintao in 2006?

I see several controversial reports on epochtimes.com, which say there was an attempt to assassinate Hu Jintao, but there is no more information. Could anyone please help me verify it?--Inspector (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

According to The Trend magazine (November 2006), Hu nearly died in an attempted assassination when he secretly visited a navy base in Qingdao, Shangdong Province in May 2006. It has been difficult to verify the report, but circumstantial evidence continues to surface supporting the speculation; such as Hu's removal of almost all officials in Qingdao, sacking Deputy Navy General Commander Wang Shouye, and releasing Jiang's deadly enemy Chen Xitong from jail. China issue experts also believe the unsuccessful assassination triggered Hu to strike out at Chen Liangyu, which revealed the deepening factional war between Hu and Jiang Zemin.

— http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-1-28/51058.html

The Epoch Times is just about as unreliable a source as you can get when it comes to Chinese politics. They have been claiming for years that the Chinese government is about to fall apart, and the list of people they have published as having quit the Communist Party in China now outnumbers the entire membership of the Communist Party. Other interesting reports I've read in that paper includes an imminent invasion of the earth by space aliens armed with super lasers and a guide to levitation and travelling in time through practising Falun Gong.

The Trend magazine (I presume this is 动向 magazine) is slightly more reliable but they've also come up with lots of highly inaccurate reports over the years. I would suggest treating it as just an unverified rumour until a more reputable source verifies and publishes the story. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with PalaceGuard008. EpochTimes makes Fox News look “fair and balanced,” even to Democrats! DOR (HK) (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cat friendships

Do cats sometimes have friendships with other cats? Rarely, I've seen cats going for walks in pairs. The two I saw recently did not appear to be related, and did not appear to be doing any kind of mating or fighting. Thanks 92.24.176.164 (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. I have seen several examples of my cats being friendly and playing with the cat of one of my neighbours, not being territorial or anything, sharing each others gardens, but regarding the cat of my other neighbour it was very hostile and territorial with a clear "border" being the hedge between the gardens, conflict ensuing if either was caught by the other on each others territory. Purely anecdotal evidence, of course, but it has made me sure that cats are able to form relationships outside of mating and household. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what the gender was of the cats involved please? 92.28.241.233 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Gender? Maybe you mean sex. We still have animal sexers, but have not yet "transitioned" (ugh) to "animal genderers". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing that confuses us bipedal apes is that although cats are territorial, recognising their own territory, those of other cats, and extensive neutral territories between them, the boundaries of those territories have no particular correlation with our human notions. Consequently part of my garden, say, may be recognised as "my" cat's exclusive territory, part as a common area or thruway where all cats may socialise, and part as some other cat's exclusive territory. By contrast, dogs quickly learn the human-recognised boundaries of their owner's territory. Desmond Morris goes into this in Catwatching. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tsk. This obviously does not belong in Humanities. —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

About 3 of them ganged together and mobbed our chickens last year. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cats which are raised together seem to develop a sibling relationship, regardless of whether they are related, just like humans. Also like humans, some sibling relationships are friendly, while some are not. Cats introduced as adults are less likely to become "friends", but it is still possible, depending on their "personalities". If both cats want to be dominant, then expect constant fighting. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a cat in college who was let out during the day, and in summer we would keep the house completely open to the air as it was rather pleasant. She (spayed, btw) found a friend in the neighborhood and would have her over to share food and water inside our house! It was pretty awesome to come home from class and see our cat "with guests over for tea" :-) The Masked Booby (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As a confirmed dog lover, I assume that any "friendships" we may see between cats are merely temporary alliances, of the type that form in any group of co-conspirators. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you may assume that if you like, but you'd be quite wrong of course. I know cats that clearly love each other deeply, and get upset if the other one is missing.

Probably you've been influenced by the rampant anti-cat bias in animated films. Something really needs to be done about that. One good remedy is to read the works of Robert A. Heinlein, a man who understood cats. The best one for this particular issue is The Door into Summer. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The older of our two cats who have shared a house for 12 years died recently. Out vet warned us that the surviving one would miss the deceased one and show many predictable signs of stress. The vet was right. Obviously a well documented fact. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes... it can be stressful when a co-conspirator dies... the evil plan depended on the co-conspirator doing his part... now the surviving cat must start over! (and for all you cat lovers out there... of course I'm not being serious... well... mostly not.) Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously disinformation put out by the Brain. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that animals are capable of "love" in the human sense. Be that as it may, the stereotype is that dogs are pack animals and cats are loners. However, cats do display some traits of pack animals, just not anywhere near the extent of dogs' behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is OR, but I can tell you that in addition to the sibling-type relationship mentioned by StuRat, I have seen my neighbour's kitten following my older cat (he's 5) around EVERYWHERE. They're both ginger toms, so I wonder if the kitten thinks he's his Dad? Who knows? Anyway, not only are they friends, my cat does appear to be a role-model to the kitten and, in some respects, a mentor. --Rixxin (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullfighting

I think I heard somewhere that historically in bullfighting, it was traditional for the victorious matador, after having plunged the sword into the bull's neck, to (symbolically, at least) drink the bull's blood or lick it off his hands. Is this true? How widespread was it? Is it still practised today? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither our Spanish bullfighting article or this page mention it; but who knows? This sort of unpleasantness was banned in England by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 - IMHO it's time that Spain caught up with the rest of civilisation. Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you UK folks have finally done away with fox hunting, then.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fox hunting wasnt cruel IMHO. The things are now flooding the cities. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Where we are co-existing quite well it seems. Recent hysteria notwithstanding, there are precisely TWO verified fox attacks in the last ten years on humans - compared to the number of dog attacks in the same period which run into many thousands. Exxolon (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I grant you that. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Exxolon, I'm not sure your argument holds water. How many foxes are there, and what are their natural habitats? The answer: several orders of magnitude less than domesticated dogs, and not in people's homes. You cannot compare such things by a simple tally. It does seem that we are living well together, although if you put a wild fox in everyone's house that currently has a pet dog and then did a tally I'm sure there'd be far more attacks; foxes are wild animals! That's not to say that I condone them being chased by men, horses and dogs, and then ripped apart by a pack of dogs. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If Fox hunting involved putting a fox into a confined space and poking it with metal spikes for half an hour until it died, then the two things might be comparable. Also see Fox Hunting#Australia. Otherwise, please accept my apologies for the rant. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many similarities. Both the bull and the fox and put under immense stress, they both face a fight they can almost never win, they are pushed to the point of physical exhaustion, and they they are murdered. Bull fighting is sick, and so is fox hunting. The final death of the bull is (often) more humane than the death of the fox. I would rather be stabbed through the heart than get ripped apart by a pack of dogs. Having said that, that's no excuse for the pre-kill torture of a bull fight. For the record, I'm English, and all blood sports have always sickened me. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the fox often wins[5]. Not supporting fox hunting - just saying it's not in the same league as bullfighting. Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable reference. In no way does it support the claim "Actually the fox often wins". Besides the obvious linguistic error (the fox does not "win" s/he mealy escapes with their life), it is factually questionable. It was the experience of a single journalist who was told the outcome of the hunt by the huntsmen, at a very sensitive time. Even if it was all reported correctly; is the experience of a single journalist accompanying a single hunt really representative? It still says that around the year 1999 the official, i.e. legally registered, hunts accounted for around 16,000 foxes per year. I'm sure you'll try to say that "Spain kills far more bulls", but would you say that a murderer with three victims was less reprehensible than a mass murdered? I hope not. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea about fox hunting in Australia. It never gets any publicity that I've ever seen. Far removed from the huge hullabaloo that happens every year over duck shooting. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand the perspective of people who oppose fox hunting (or the other things for that matter). After all, packs of dogs and coyotes have torn up animals in the wild for time immemorial - is that a crime that has to be stopped? What makes it wrong for dogs to tear up their prey only when someone is following the dogs? Wnt (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course they both create many jobs; the one supresses a pest however which the other does not. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

People generally expect different standards of behaviour from humans and other animals, as humans are expected to have a greater understanding of the consequences of their actions. For example, animals killing other members of their own species in the wild is tolerated; the killing of humans by other humans is not. In foxhunting, the foxes are generally killed by the hounds (though I believe they are sometimes shot), but only because the hunters have bred and trained them for this purpose. You could argue that, in effect, the hunters are killing the foxes, using the hounds as weapons. (I am not making any claims about the morality of foxhunting, only explaining why it makes sense to see it as morally different from hunting by wild dogs) 130.88.134.103 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer the actual question asked, Bullfighting: art, technique & Spanish society by John McCormick says that in Mexico: "crowds of boys and young men throw themselves upon the animal with paper cups and soft drink bottles to catch and drink some of the blood." I don't doubt some matadors might do this after a fight, probably down to the individual matador's own style as they are showmen above all. meltBanana 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have watched many bullfights in Spain and I have never seen or heard of matadors drinking the blood of the bull. I have also read a number of books both narrative and encyclopaedic about bullfighting and have never seen a reference to this practice in Peninsular Spain. What they do in the 'colonies' is another thing. The reference to the book above is slightly odd and is possibly referring to years past. Nowadays for reasons of safety bullfights in licensed arenas have barriers separating the bulls and participants from the audience, it strikes me as very strange that the audience should have access to the dead bull. Possibly it is a reference to rural plazas de toros in Mexico where safety is often a lower consideration and the organisation is less restrictive. Richard Avery (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Religious Gestures in Danger

I've often seen in movies where Christians will cross themselves when dealing with dangerous events. I am curious if any other religions have similar gestures that they perform in similar circumstances? ^Avic_ennasis @ 19:12, 14 Nisan 5771 / 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside: The crossing that people do in movies is more often than not a pale shadow of how it's actually done. It usually looks like a rushed vague waving of the hand around the face and upper torso, rather than a deliberate touching of first the forehead, then the breast, then the left shoulder, then the right (or right first if you're Orthodox). I've often wondered why actors can't be coached in how to do it properly if they're going to do it at all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it as... pedantically... as you describe - and that includes ten years in a church choir. General waving is about as far as I've seen anyone go (and, of course, this discounts that by far the most people I know would never think of making a gesture like that, it's only the devout who'd even do the 'arm-down-arm-across' general wave) (disclaimer: this anecdotal evidence applies to a small island off the Belgian coast) For OP, the Sign of the Cross is the only religious entry we have in List of gestures, although that list is certainly incomplete--Saalstin (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with pedantry. Would you say that actually touching the floor with your knee when you genuflect is "pedantic"? Would you say that actually eating the host at communion is "pedantic"? Would you say that actually saying the words "Our Father, ..." instead of "Hey, Dad ...", is pedantic? Anyway, the Irish might have something to say about whether the UK is an island. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been to lots of Catholic churches around England, and Saalstin's description doesn't match any congregation I've met. Perhaps the Welsh or the Scots take it less seriously? The sign of the cross features a few times in the Mass, and the congregation in my experience nearly universally performs it as they were taught during catechesis: as Jack describes. It's nothing to do with pedantry or being 'more devout', any more than kneeling during the kneeling parts, or going up for communion. The gesture is basic practice: why would you even do it if you weren't actually going to make a sign of a cross? Perhaps Saalstin is in fact Anglican, which would explain it? 86.164.75.102 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are all this written in small fonts? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's an aside that doesn't answer the question, so we set it apart. It might add to the sum of undertanding, it might help contributors to remain motivated, but it should not be confused with actual answers. This is why the part of Saalstin's contribution which did answer the question is not small. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure ... I have read that Wiccans have a sign to avert evil, but I don't know whether what I read is reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Karana Mudra? Which is (apparently) similar to the common western folk sign corna to ward off the evil eye. Whether these count, since I'm not sure they're used in actual danger, I don't know. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

True but these mudras are not really used in real life (these days), they are more often used in icons and statues and other visual representations as a visual cue about what the statue or icon is "all about". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I once saw a Hindu acquaintance do some hand gestures that reminded me a lot of the Catholic crossing gesture. I wish I had asked him about it now, but I was on vacation in Nepal then and there were so many new experiences I didn't get to investigate them all, sadly. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

April 19

Blue Dog Coalition

Why are they called blue dog? --Neptuniaumnut (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer is in the first paragraph of the "History" section of the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Because they're cold-blooded boot-lickers? :-) ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Monastic Orders and Handwritten Manuscripts

I recently was in a discussion which touched upon the stereotype of medieval monks spending their time handwriting manuscripts, and I realized that I was unfamiliar with how closely that activity was associated with the various monastic orders. I understand that pre-printing press, a large number of the monastic orders were involved in copying the bible and other religious texts (among other things) out of sheer necessity. I was wondering if there was a monastic order that had a particular connection to the production of handwritten manuscripts. That is, is there a monastic order which has/had the production of (handwritten) books as part of its core mission, or was particularly know for its written output, or perhaps persisted the longest in maintaining the copyist tradition? To put it glibly, if I was to metaphorically refer to a person writing longhand, how would I complete the phrase "a _______ monk" to have the most historical relevance? "Carthusian"? "Trappist"? - I'm most interested in the western European tradition (so likely a Roman Catholic order), but I'd also be interested to learn about Orthodox or non-Christian monks with a particularly strong connection to producing handwritten manuscripts. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Copying of texts plays a big role in the life of the monestary in the novel The Name of the Rose, and the author, Umberto Eco, was known for his scrupulous research and attention to historical detail. The monestary at the center of that story was a Benedictine abbey. --Jayron32 03:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out here that prior to the enlightenment, literacy rates (pretty much everywhere) were exceedingly low. Religious orders were one of the few groups that prized literacy (unlike almost everyone else, they needed to be able to read, and had the free time to dedicate themselves to the task), and so monks were often used as scribes for large ranges of mundane tasks, such as reading and writing letters and documents. Transcription of religious texts was generally for monks who had withdrawn from more mundane aspects of the world, so it would have largely been left to orders that had cloister traditions (the biggest being the Benedictines and the Dominicans, I imagine). This is also true of other faiths that relied on written (rather than oral) transmission of doctrine - Buddhist monastics (particularly in the Chinese and Japanese traditions) spent large portions of their time transcribing religious texts, and even elevated calligraphy to a form of art (much the way that Christian monks created illustrated manuscripts). --Ludwigs2 05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

All the major orders copied manuscripts, I think...although for different time periods there were different orders. For example, in the early Middle Ages manuscripts were likely to be copied by Irish monks, or in monasteries founded by them on the Continent. But when you think of medieval monks living together in a big monastery with vows of silence and chastity and all that, you're usually thinking of Benedictines. They were the oldest order, and Cluny, Monte Cassino, Westminster, Malmesbury, etc, were all Benedictine. Others, like Citeaux, were newer foundations but based on the Benedictine order. The Franciscans and Dominicans, the other two orders that I would assume people imagine when they think of medieval monks, were founded much later, in the 13th century. They were originally intended to be preaching orders, but they also wrote and copied manuscripts like other monks. (I would associate this more with the Dominicans though; they were stern intellectual types, like Thomas Aquinas. Of course there were intellectual Franciscans, but when you think of Franciscans you either think of poor wandering monks talking to the animals, or Friar Tuck. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the early history of this practice among monks can be found at Cassiodorus#Lasting Impact. Deor (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What if... ?

I propose a question of Counterfactual history. What if Great Britain won the American Revolutionary War, and the Thirteen Colonies remained as British colonies? How would world history had changed afterwards? Would the Americans start a new Revolutionary War anyway at some point in the future? Cambalachero (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is said that the loss of its American colonies led Britain to send convicts to Australia. If that hadn't happened, the nation of Australia may not have been created, and I might not be here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you would be here instead. :) I wonder, if the colonies remained British, how the slavery question would have turned out. The British might have abolished it, and then the south might have seceded anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of excellent forums on the internet, both on the world wide web, and on USENET, which seriously discuss counterfactual history. In particular, searching soc.history.what-if might prove useful (this from 2006: [6]). There are a number of counterfactual books. Some tend to be science-fantasy nationalist clap trap, some are whiggish history nationalist clap trap, the best are deeply interrogative academic studies of a proposed actual causation and its reversal.

Regarding the ARW and counterfactuals—you may wish to consider the Irish or Indian revolutions and mutinies against British rule as models. The long standing disputes between certain British colonists in the Americas and the British government indicates that there was running disagreement, which could result in further revolts and revolutionary incidents. An issue to bear in mind is the failure of the revolution in the Caribbean, Canada and in Great Britain itself. Britain was going through a period of social unrest in this period which ended with Peterloo. The recurring social unrest in the UK (Peterloo, Chartism, The General Strike, The Winter of Discontent) indicates that capitalist social systems regularly go through local crisis. A UK which still possessed colonies in the central Eastern coast of North America would be no exception. The chief counterfactual question then is: would social discontent in British North America again result in revolutionary violent uprisings? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One would picture that America would have eventually gained its independence, though likely through the mechanism of Dominionhood through Responsible government, much as other Commonwealth nations had, rather than through war. Instead of having the U.S. and Canada being seperate nations, one would picture some sort of unified nation which would be composed of Modern Canada and the U.S. east of the Mississippi. Greater Louisiana would have remained a French posession; and likely would have become an independent state in its own right; so most of the Central U.S. would have been a French-speaking nation of Louisiana. Mexico would be much larger, as the Mexican cession would not have happened; Oregon would likely have been British, either as a seperate colony or as an appenage on British Columbia. Likewise, Russian Alaska would have remained Russian, and may have been a Russian territory until today. So, if I were to draw a map, I'd expect the modern Canadamerican States to consist of all of Modern Canada, plus the U.S. territory East of the Mississippi along with the modern U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (maybe some of Montana). In the middle would be the independent Francophone nation of Louisiana, and in the west Mexico would extend as far north as the northern border of California/Nevada and include all of Texas as well. --Jayron32 03:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The World Series would be a cricket competition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine. Cricket is an excellent gam. And most anything's better than soccer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Soccer? That would be the Superbowl. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. American and Canadian football are descendants of Rugby. So the Super Bowl might be a Rugby match. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Spelling arguments in this encyclopaedia would not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We would have a host of articles needing some quick editing! DOR (HK) (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the World Series not being of baseball; not necessarily. There are British antecedants to Baseball, and just like American Football decends not from Association Football, but rather from Rugby, American Baseball decends from its British cousins British baseball and Rounders. Cricket isn't related at all to Baseball, having a closer connection to the French sport of Croquet than to baseball. --Jayron32 05:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So we might have a World Series of Rounders. The so-called "Massachusetts Game" was fairly similar to rounders and was a bit more like cricket than the New York game was. The New York game won out, though. Maybe in this imagined alternate universe, the Massachusetts game would have won out. And then it would be the Boston Yankees with 27 Rounders World Championship rings. And Babe Ruth would have been the ultimate Rounders All-Rounder (in more ways than one, if he had the same eating habits). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

New York beating Massachusetts; doesn't that sum up a large part of American history in a nutshell? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yankees Suck. Sorry. I'm genetically programmed to say that. --Jayron32 05:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So it seems. So in this parallel universe, Boston might have had the Erie canal, too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries; I knew I had that coming. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that "Yankees suck" and "Let's go Yankees" have the same meter. Art imitating art. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought "Let's go Mets" had the same meter as "Yankees suck" Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron, except that I disagree about Louisiana. If Louisiana had remained in French possession, it is hard to imagine North America not becoming a theater of the Napoleonic Wars. Given the much greater population of British North America (including the formerly rebellious 13 colonies) at that point, it seems nearly certain to me that Louisiana would have ended up in British hands. Another issue would have been the abolition of slavery in the British empire. It was relatively easy for the British to abolish slavery within the empire when it affected only a few Caribbean islands. It would have been a much more serious matter if abolition would have threatened both a second rebellion in the southern colonies of North America while at the same time threatening a source of cheap cotton for the industrialists of Lancashire. I suspect that the British abolitionists would have had a much more difficult fight, perhaps culminating in something similar to the American Civil War in the mid-19th century, but with British troops doing much of the fighting against the colonists. Marco polo (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

While slavery would have been important to the southern "colonies" in 1807 (when the British outlawed the slave trade), it was not seen as being quite the economic necessity that it became later in the century. Cotton was not yet King. While the southern plantation owners would have been upset, I don't think they would have rebelled over the issue (especially if Parliament had approved a form of "gradual emancipation" and payment for freed slaves). As for Louisiana... even in our real time line, there was some question as to whether the French or the Spanish owned it. Yes, Napoleon sold it to the US, but he had to do some diplomatic maneuvering with Spain (then under French control) to make sure they went along with the deal. In our counterfactual time line, it is quite possible that Louisiana would have ended up remaining Spanish. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Living with unmarried partner in Singapore

I am an Australian about to move to Singpore with my girlfriend. My uncle seems to think that "living in sin" is not permitted in SG, but I cannot find any information to support or refute his claim.

Can anyone please shed some light on this topic?

Cheers Ballchef (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you really willing to trust your fate to anonymous internet users, to give valid advice on a legal question of this importance? You need to talk to a lawyer in Singapore and find out for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I live in a neighboring country to Singapore, have been there many times and yes, living together is permitted in Singapore. It is not a Muslim country and is pretty "open". You might want to check with a Singaporean lawyer just to verify, though. Bejinhan talks 10:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about the "no legal advice" bit. I was expecting personal experience responses though, and I'm quite sure my uncle is mistaken Ballchef (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Would still be a good idea to consult a lawyer about Singapore law regarding tax, residency status, visas, joint contracts for accomodation, joint finances etc. for unmarried couples. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume the OP has looked at the article on Law of Singapore, and all the relevant links leading from that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Most answers here suppose that the OP is a guy. Possibly, the OP is a gay girl, moving with her girlfriend to Singapore to live in sin, which could be deemed a serious offense in Singapore.

David Cameron's Attire for the upcoming Royal Wedding

On "Order Order" (a political blog) it says that Cameron will wear his "work clothes" to the wedding, despite being the Prime Minister. Link: http://order-order.com/2011/04/19/a-sting-in-the-tail-boris-will-wear-appropriate-attire/ What should he be wearing instead? --Rixxin (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Morning suit. i e tails. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Morning suit is not quite the same as Tails, which usually refers to formal evening dress. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The old tradition was that male guests to a wedding should wear a morning suit (or "cut-away") for a day time wedding, and white tie or black tie ("tuxedo") for evening weddings. Such traditions are (sadly) increasingly becoming seen as "out-dated". In normal society, it is more typical for a male guest to wear a dark suit and tie (ie "work clothes" for Cameron) as an acceptable alternative (for both day and evening weddings). However, the Royals are not "normal society". They tend to do things the "old fashioned" way... at least for ceremony. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

which is ill-mannered on David Cameron's part. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Boris will wear his best toga. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hand gestures

Hi. I am a forensics-type person and I have recently become interested in a new division, where we have to give speeches, but without aids except our own hands. I'm pretty good with the giving speeches part, but I don't know what to do with my hands. Whenever I see great speech-givers, in such as Cicero (played in films) or modern politicians, or (let's face it: he was one of the greatest orators in history despite what he did to the Jews) Adolf Hitler, or even more experienced people who also do this division, they use very animated hand gestures to get their point across. How do I use hand gestures to similarly communicate my argument? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's quite likely you already do - most people use hand (etc) gestures unconsciously when not constrained (by holding on to something, for example) and most people (in the same culture, at any rate) unconsciously understand them. You might initially try ensuring that you're not inhibiting your movement by, say, standing at a lectern, and just forgetting about them (easier said than done, I agree) - a video of the result might surprise you. It might also allow you to judge whether some of your existing gestures (assuming you are indeed using any) are effective and others counter-productive.

That said, the use of gestures is a formally recognised subset of the skills of Oratory or Public speaking, in which one can be formally trained, and as you will see from that last link, various organisations offer such training: some of the links towards the end of that article may lead you towards publications on the subject, if direct interaction with some organisation is not convenient for you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to take care; some people have idiosyncratic hand gestures which are uniquely associated with them and if you use the same gestures you may be seen to be deliberately copying their style, which could have an unfavorable effect on audiences. I think specifically about Bill Clinton, who used to "point" by using a closed fist with his thumb laid over the top, usually when trying to emphasize a point, as in this picture. What you will want to do is find what feels "natural" to you; insincerity will show through if it looks like you are doing a deliberate, artificial motion which is unnatural to you. --Jayron32 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• As one of the above people wrote, try recording a video of yourself and watching it. For some people, this can be squirm-inducing, but you'll probably notice things about your posture, tics, and gestures that you might not have caught otherwise. Usually, the best way to go is to try to make your personal quirks and tendencies work for you, rather than suppressing them or adopting new ones. Also, remember the size of the audience. Big, dramatic gestures often play better in big audiences; subdued gestures tend to work better when it's just you and a few co-workers. --M@rēino 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Patriotism is more important than Universal Brotherhood

This is a debate topic. Therefore you can be either for or against it. You might get a lot of point against it, i.e. Universal Brotherhood is more important. But if somebody has to speak for the topic, then what?Please contribute for the topic, i.e. patriotism is more important.

Some points in favor or the topic might be

• Consider a person in Police service. If he has the feeling of universal brotherhood, it will stop him from performing his duties properly as he would be lenient in his approach towards small crimes.
• You would forgive a person who speaks against your country because you believe in universal brotherhood.
• Even as a part of a family, you take care that no one tries to hurt your family members' sentiments.

 For that you would even be ready to go against your society members.

• Its like all people in the world are brothers and sisters. But at the same time our country is like our family and we have some respect for her.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.207.169 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, the Reference desk is not the place for debates. --M@rēino 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)