Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Proposal for guidelines

We are currently drafting a proposal for guidelines at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.
Get involved! Discuss the proposed guidelines, propose your own and help us reach consensus on the associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.

April 10

Giotto Painting

There is a painting of ... well somthing and he painteda fly on it and i can not find it anywere i was wondering if there was a link for that picture or beter yet put it on the Giotto page and to my user page here it is user:WrestlingManiac also it will be in my sig. i need it by tonorow by 6:30am (to just show my history teacher. If this pulls off THANK YOU SO MUCH > [[Wrestling Maniac]] 00:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think you're referring to the anecdote as reported by Giorgio Vasari, one of Giotto's most famous biographers.

"It is said that when Giotto was only a boy with Cimabue, he once painted a fly on the nose of a face that Cimabue had drawn, so naturally that the master returning to his work tried more than once to drive it away with his hand, thinking it was real. And I might tell you of many other jests played by Giotto, but of this enough." (from fordham.edu)

This was probably merely Renaissance's rehashing of the legend of Zeuxis and Parrhasius. The described work of art most likely never existed. The fly was a popular trompe-l'oeil motif in 16th century painting, when Vasari wrote his text. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The fly-painting anecdote I remember from school was about the Spanish painter Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. Our article has nothing on this, however. JackofOz 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So far i've found flies in the foreground of a portrait of Giovanni Agostino and Nicolo della Torre by Lorenzo Lotto in 1515, and on the frilled cuff of John Keteltas' sleeve in a 1767 portrait by John Mare. Nothing by the two artists already mentioned tho.—eric 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The fly motif in art, guys, is not completely dead. There is a hilarious portrait by Stuart Pearson Wright of the Duke of Edinburgh, of all people, nude with four strands of watercress growing from his index finger and a bluebottle on his right shoulder! The full title, mostly in Latin, is Homo Sapiens, Lepidum savitum and Caliphora vomitoria-Human, Cress and Bluebottle. You will find it here [1] and here [2]. When the Duke saw the painting and was asked if he thought it looked like him, he replied 'I bloody well hope not.' But it does: yes, it does! The strands of watercress, incidentally, are a reference to his four children. The fly, according to the artist, represents the Prince's mortality, since it feeds on decaying organic matter. 'It's a motif that has been used throughout history', Wright said. So, now you know! Clio the Muse 07:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

State Court Decision

I am taking business law, I do not understand what a state court decision is. From my reading I think that it is a law passed within an individual state but I am just not sure. Any help?

66.188.39.50 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty much right. Case law has a few things to say but the article doesn't look like the absolute cream of the crop. (See also, Statutory law, and Jurisdiction#State_level). Best regards in your studies. dr.ef.tymac 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In the US, a state court decision is where the state judiciary has decided on some interpretation of law. Such a decision typically only sets precedent within that state. The federal courts have the authority to overrule the state courts in many, but not all, cases. In some cases the US Constitution explicitly reserves certain rights to the states. In such cases, the federal government has no authority to intervene with the state courts' decisions. StuRat 05:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...only sets (binding) precedent within that state, but may also be considered as persuasive authority in other states as well...The federal courts have the authority to overrule the state courts derive their jurisdiction exclusively from the U.S. Constitution and must apply state substantive common law in resolving disputes involving citizens of more than one state. In some cases the US Constitution explicitly reserves certain rights to the states. States (and the people) reserve all powers not expressly delegated to the Federal Government. (See also, Subject-matter jurisdiction, Removal jurisdiction, Supplemental jurisdiction, and Pendent jurisdiction. None of which are directly relevant to the original question but useful clarification now that this stone has been turned over.) dr.ef.tymac 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The states do officially retain all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government, but that isn't always the reality. For example, road speed limits should be strictly a state matter, but the feds were able to get an informal national speed limit of 55 MPH at one point by threatening to withhold highway funds from any state that didn't comply. A more recent dispute also existed between California (which had legalized medical marijuana) and the feds, who went ahead arresting people involved with it in California anyway. StuRat 15:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Notorious abuses of the Commerce clause notwithstanding, I think the "reality" of the original question reflected a need far less subtle than those addressed by the issues you raise. Nevertheless, additional details are fine by me, so long as they are accurate. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that these answers are needlessly complex for a business law student. If anyone attended law school, Gilbert's never dumped data on us. In the United States, a federal government exists. The original jurisdiction established by the colonies under British rule transferred to the states. In 1789, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the states and their people carved out special subjects that they felt a central federal government could address better. Basic everyday law tends to be state law. Every state has a system of courts that mirrors the federal government. A state court decision is merely a case heard by a state court. If the jurisdiction of the federal government is threatened, federal law overrules the law of any state. A quick reading of the U.S. Constitution should help. This becomes very complex once lawyers get involved. The Commerce Clause, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, favored states rights until a constitutional crisis during the New Deal. The Court abruptly decided to favor the federal government by reading the clause more broadly. The proper reading of the Commerce Clause is a "hot" topic in law. Most Congressional legislation enacted uses the Commerce Clause as a justification for federal power. I am sorry that I cannot write a simple legal outline.75Janice 03:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)75Janice

This entire thread is needlessly complex for a business law student, which is precisely why my original answer was intentionally simple and short, see? Who asked for an outline *smacks forehead* sheesh! dr.ef.tymac 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don Juan, Byron

In Byron's version of Don Juan, at the end was Don Juan sold into sexual slavery to the wife of the sultan by the pirate girl? [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The last canto (XVII) appears to be incomplete, according to this site: [3]. bibliomaniac15 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Duan Juan was never completed because two months after beginning Canto XVII while in Italy in May, 1823, Byron left for Greece to aid the rebels in the War of Independence. He died at Messolonghi in April, 1824. Clio the Muse 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

yes

I was just watching the movie Jesus Camp, and noticed something a bit strange. Many of the children (and some of the adults) have extremely dilated pupils, like they were on MDMA or something like that. One of my friends recently became a born again christian, and I noticed the same thing happening to him... huge dilated pupils. When people feel this way, I'm thinking it must be the body releasing endorphins that make them feel that way, which allows them to feel like jesus is inside of them, and that leads to the dilated pupils. Has anyone else noticed this, or have any thoughts on it? 128.61.52.213 03:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you asked this before, and don't spam your question across desks. Splintercellguy 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes 3 different desks on which exactly the same question has been asked. JackofOz 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In 128's defence, this is a question that could cross many different disciplines. However, for the actual question, I would challenge the accuracy of the original observation. Could it not just be the case that the producers of Jesus Camp are using a certain kind of lighting that is dilating their pupils. In any case, the observation must be proved before it can be discussed. 82.36.179.20 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The rule is to post on only the most appropriate desk, even if it crosses several disciplines. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help finding quotation, possibly Aristotle

Can someone tell me which philosopher said: "You cannot convince a man beyond his will" or some similar syntax?

To the best of my recollection it was Aristotle, but I can't confirm. I also seem to recall that the quotation appeared on Jeopardy, so it is no doubt famous enough that someone hopefully knows it.

The other possibility is that I picked this up from Russian literature...

Thanks in advance!

Myzembla 09:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find this in Aristotle, Myzembla, nor is it familiar to me from Russian literature. The closest I can get to the meaning of these words is Jonathan Swift, who wrote "It is useless to try to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." Clio the Muse 10:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I remembered this couplet: "A man convinced against his will/Is of the same opinion still." In running a Yahoo! search and skimming the results in very slapdash fasion, I find attributions to Mark Twain, "a German proverb", Dale Carnegie, Benjamin Franklin, and Lawrence J. Peter. Maybe Aristotle stole it from one of those sources.  :) JamesMLane t c 08:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, Clio & James. I had asked the same question on Yahoo answers and got three responses trying to convince me that there is no free will. I am glad, even without finding the answer, that you two actually read my question! Aristotle has a similar quote: "Some men are just as sure of the truth of their opinions as are others of what they know." Maybe, I will try Socrates and Russian lit again. For some reason, I seem to associate it with _Correspondence Across A Room_. I'm sure the sentiment has had many permutations, but I'll keep looking for the one I have in mind. Take care.--Myzembla 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Persuasion is opposed to force and compulsion." (ἡ δὲ πειθὼ τῇ βίᾳ καὶ ἀνάγκῃ ἀντιτίθεται.) Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics 1224a38-39. This seems to be the basic thought, though perhaps you have another passage in mind. Wareh 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Crisis of modernity

I have heard many people discuss about the crisis of modernity. My question, where is the root of all such discussion ?

In 1539, latin loses it's official status in European parliaments because of an order from Francis I.

In 1604, Hugo Grotius writes De iure praedae on maritime and international law. In 1698, Locke writes Two Treatises of Government.

In 1690, Charles Perrault won a famous literary battle against Nicolas Boileau : that was called the Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns.

In 1710, Leibnitz authors his Theodicy.

In 1725, Giambattista Vico speaks of a new wisdom and promotes a cyclical view of history.

In 1761, Rousseau claimed that Agape had priority over Eros, which is a disputed view. He later wrote the social contract.

In 1778, Voltaire joined the Nine Sisters Lodge [4]. Revolution begins around the world.

In 1781, Kant wrote a book where he criticized metahysics, to which he subsituted transcendetal reason. D'Alembert and Holbach write their Encyclopedia.

In 1797, Chateaubriant writes Essai sur les révolutions.

In 1807, Hegel writes Phänomenologie des Geistes

In 1840, Schopenhauer writes Über die Grundlage der Moral.

In 1856, Victor Hugo composes Les Contemplations.

In 1860, Jacob Burhardt writes Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien. He later inspires Nietzsche.

In 1879, Leo XIII writes Aeterni Patris and laments the disapearance of thomism. He later inspires Fides Et Ratio by John Paul II.

In 1884, Dewey begins his work on education, psychology and philosophy.

In 1905, Separation of Church and State is voted in the National Assembly. The Radical-Socialist Party leads the left. At about the same time, Pascendi criticizes Louis Duchesne.

In 1910, Emile Faguet claims there is a crisis in grammar because Greek has been abandoned. [5]

In 1911, Husserl claims there is a crisis in Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft. He was inspired by Descartes.

In 1924, André Breton writes the Surrealist manifesto. Pablo Picasso follows up on his ideas.

In 1927, Sein und Zeit is the classical work of Heidegger.

In 1929, Emmanuel Mounier theorizes personalism. In 1939, Adorno continues his crtiticism of modern art. After the war, Hannah Arendt finds a dilemma in European society.

In 1947, Kojève is a famous disciple of Hegel. At the same time, Truman proclaims a doctrine on the ethics of peace and war.

In 1960, The Frankfurt School criticizes emancipation theory.

In 1967, Derrida becomes famous for his deconstruction, revealed in his book on Grammatology.

In 1970, Baudrillart writes La Société de consommation and predicts the rise of post-modernity.

In 1979, Paul Churchland speaks of scientific realism.

In 1998, Habermas writes Die postnationale Konstellation.

My question is : is the march of ideas perceived as an inevitable progress ? Have modern philosophers grown tired of their own ideas ? Where will the modern program go ?

Why do so many intellectuals appear to be pessimistic ? Can a single word change the course of history ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.232.52 (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not qualified to speak on behalf of the general population of intellectuals. But I'd note that your last two questions are easily answered: First, intellectuals are not all pessimistic, but certainly understanding more causes one to see smaller flaws in otherwise successful concepts, and the nuance and clear understanding which they aspire to by definition (often, part of identifying and fixing those small flaws) are easily misinterpreted as pessimism by those who think the only true test of optimism is short sound bytes -- that is, in a sound byte world of 30 second commercials, any position more nuanced is easily dismissed as "not in agreement" by those who mistake subtlety for full-bore unacceptance.

And, second, the word "no" changes history, every day, in a million ways both big and small. One might even say that all words change history, if they are heard and heeded. Jfarber 10:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see any point at all in your lengthy list of publications and events, some connected, others totally disconnected, just as I cannot determine in what manner this intellectual 'Tower of Babel' leads to your final questions. If you want to know all about cultural and intellectual pessimism I suggest that you take the time to read Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West, or you might, as an alternative, reflect on the the words of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist, who said "I am a pessimist because of intelligence and an optimist because of will". Most intellectual introspection leads to pessimism. Only the will forces one into practical action. And does history turn on a word? No, of course it does not. Clio the Muse 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this hard to say?

In the Saychelles

She sees

Sea Shells

She sells. DDB 10:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Our as-yet-unpolished article on Tongue twisters doesn't say where in the tongue-brain connection this problem might occur (is it muscular or psychological, or both?), but in a nutshell, the reason this or any tongue twister is "difficult to articulate properly" is that it it is difficult to switch so rapidly between and among "similar but distinct phonemes (e.g., s [s] and sh [ʃ]), unfamiliar constructs in loan-words or other features of the language." Jfarber 10:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks .. good ref :D DDB 11:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's Seychelles, too. bibliomaniac15 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfair exchange

Assuming that economics is a humanity subject:

The curent exchange rates mean that £1 (GBP) is worth roughly $2 (USD). Why, then, are most technology products (computer hardware, games, etc.) priced so the UK has to pay up to 50% more if both prices were converted into USD?

Example: I'm currently paying nearly £700 for a computer that costs about $1000 from American companies (but they won't ship abroad). 81.157.191.238 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rip-Off Britain | Shinhan 10:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but why does it happen? 81.157.191.238 11:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not solely the exchange rate you pay for. There is import duty, freight costs and a host of fees and charges that get paid for. You might find it cheaper to purchase the item in US dollars from a US based company, and pay shipping. However, as with all purchases, it is buyer beware. DDB 11:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But if the products are being manufactured in China (I assume) , why does the US pay less than the UK even including taxes, etc. on technology products? 81.157.191.238 11:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I guess that a manufacturer might subcontract to a manufacturer of a nation like China, but still incurs fees unique to their US base. Of course, maybe international trade is not fair, but skewed in favour of multinationals who profiteer for no reason other than to be evil. DDB 11:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar questions have been asked here before. There a number of reasons why the list price might be higher in the UK. These include the fact that UK list prices typically include VAT, which can add something like 15% to the price, whereas taxes are not included in the US list price, but are instead added on, sometimes only for purchases within the same US state or at a brick-and-mortar store. Other factors contributing to higher UK prices would include the substantially higher minimum wage, which increases the labor costs of wholesalers and retailers, higher land costs and rents, and much higher taxes on gas/petrol, which increase the cost of shipping. My guess is that higher taxes in general boost costs all along the UK supply chain, from importers to wholesalers. While taxes and higher minimum wages increase retail prices, however, they also result in better public health results (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.), possibly better-maintained infrastructure, and lower rates of poverty in the UK. Marco polo 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What Marco say is pretty much on the ball. Other things to consider are the economies of scale that US companies enjoy. This is diminished in the internet-age but a product bought at a company that sells 10,000 units per year (py) compared to one that sells 1,000 PY can offer the product at a reduced cost per-unit. Additionally there can be factors such as brand/impression. A product that is considered 'luxury' in the UK may not be luxury in the US (and vice versa). Brand names can remain the same but be considered different in other nations. This can also have an effect on price. It may be that the Uk market is willing to pay more and that there is a price-monopoly which has allowed the price to increase. Market forces have a strong affect on the cost of an item, as does all of the factors that Marco notes (though whether there is any evidence that increased taxes = improved services is obviously hotly debated politically and economically). ny156uk 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Monk's Haircut

Why did/do monks shave the middle of their heads?90.241.10.194 11:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

While it does not fully explain why this became a requirement, our article Tonsure has information on this.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the clerical tonsure is uncertain, but it is thought to have derived from the Roman practice of shaving the heads of slaves. To proclaim themselves the slaves of Christ some early monks adopted the custom. By the sixth century the practice was being copied by the secular clergy, though it was modified to leave a ring of hair around the crown. The shaved area grew smaller with the passage of time. You will find some additional information in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Clio the Muse 14:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mystics

I have researched hundreds of christian mystics and I found that many had one point in common : they all had a Eucharistic hunger [6].

In fact, many believe that communion is like the bread of angels. Pope Benedict agrees : he recently wrote a letter called Sacramentum Caritatis on the topic.[7]

Marthe Robin is problably one of the most famous people to have lived this way : she didn't eat anything for 50 years ! [8]. Alexandrina da Costa also did the same thing. [9]

My question is : why do all these mystics act alike ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.232.52 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

The answer is that they do not. Please read Mysticism and Christian mysticism for some in depth material on this subject. You might also consider reading St Teresa of Avilla by Herself and the Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis. Clio the Muse 14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See Breatharianism as well, if it may do you please. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

'ends'

Is the 'ends' which Utilitarianism seeks to achieve the 'greatest hapiness for the greatest number? -and if so, can it be challenged that this can never be achieved because it fails to take account of a)all individuals hapiness (for some is overriden), and b)becuase all hapiness is judged on the same scale, i.e no one's preference counts more than any others?86.1.13.36 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at a related question asked just a few days ago.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look but i still dont really understand what ends utalitarianism is trying to promote?

Please read the relevant article again and the additional information provided under 'Utilitarianism' on my talk page. This really cannot be reduced any further than it has already. However, here it is once more in the simplest possible terms: a collective 'good' is not compatible with human rights and individual concepts of justice. One is abstract; the other concrete and specific. Clio the Muse 14:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you clio!

Wow, some major university must be assigning this paper (or maybe one teacher, who has also taught students how to use wikipedia and the ref desk?) -- this is the third separate request for info on this topic we've recieved in just a few weeks! Jfarber 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's for a jurisprudence course. Unfortunately, the quality and helpfulness Clio's first response triggered a Bandwagon effect. Word got out, and now the Me toos are climbing into the life raft for free help. Expect future iterations of this very same question with an associated increase in slovenliness and urgency, as the deadline approaches. dr.ef.tymac 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Largest organized crime organization

My question is simple. What is the largest organized crime organization, in the world? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.239.172.228 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Do you mean largest in terms of number of members, revenue, geographical range , etc. ? I suspect that on the large end they are difficult to distinguish from insurgencies, as insurgents often use crime to fund their organization (like the Taliban and opium) and criminals often claim some type of revolutionary purpose to justify their crimes (like the Symbionese Liberation Army). I would expect that the largest criminal organizations would be involved in illegal drug production, like the Medellin Cartel, although this would depend on whether you include low level workers, like farmers, who could be considered members of the organization or victims of it, depending on your perspective. It's also sometimes difficult to distinguish one large criminal organization from many smaller ones. Is the Mafia one organization, or is it composed of many, like the Gambino family ? StuRat 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Street gangs might also be looked at as large examples of organized crime. Edison 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can trust the intelligence reports estimating the membership of the Russian Mafia at 100,000 members, this may well be the largest.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thunder Spirit - Native American legend

Thunder Spirit was mentioned in article under "honey locust" tree; stating according to native American legend, Thunder Spirit was able to recognize his son because of his ability to sit comfortably on locust branches despite the thorns. I have been unable to find this story or further info on this particular legend of Thunder Spirit and his son in a locust tree. Can anyone helppoint me in the right direction? Thanks.Jsc680 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a Cherokee legend, Jsc680. There is some information here [10], though not much. Clio the Muse 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Where in Russia do "the Russians live", and why are those other parts Russian?

Hello,

once more I have a couple of questions, this time yet again involving Russia and ethnic differences

1. Where do the "Russians" live, in Russia? I mean : people who speak Russian fluently and use it all the time in their daily life (I know that this is a rather vague question, but for instance : Grozny would not be on my map, Moscow would). Maybe this is a decent criterion : where more than half of the children go to school in Russian. I did find this map but it just makes all of Russia "Russian" [11] I am not asking you to give me a map (or make me one lol :) ) but for instance, Irkutsk, Samsara,.... which of these major cities are "typically Russian".

2. How come some parts of Russia, that have been part of the Russian empire for a long time, have become separate parts of the Soviet Union and now independent nations (like Armenia, Georgia,..) while others were always part of Russia "itself". I mean : the Yakut people or the Altay are pretty much unheard of in the Western world.

3. In fiction like Goldeneye or 24, "Russian separatists" (speaking English to each other) are often a handy way to get some villains. But apart from Chechnya, what other parts of Russia are reasonable candidates to become independent? (I mean : where lots of people are in favour of such a thing, and where an independent nation would actually be able to survive on its own)

Thanks!Evilbu 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The heart of old Russia was, and still is, in terms of culture and language, the lands of the Grand Duchy of Moscovy. Georgia and Armenia were incorporated into the Russian Empire only in the nineteenth century. Both had a long history of separate statehood, and quite different cultures and languages from Great Russia to the north. The Communists gave some legitimacy to their specific identities by recasting them as constituent republics of the Soviet Union. From there it was but a short step to full national independence. The Yakuts and Altay, and many other such nomad and semi-nomad groups, have a cultural identity, but one that falls well short of modern notions of statehood. In Siberia, I would imagine-though I cannot say for certain-that the dominant language in the cities is Russian, unlike the hinterland. The fear in Moscow is that the granting of independence to Chechnya would have an avalanche effect, though I do not know which would be the second peeble to start rolling. The real danger lies, it might be said, in the central paradox of Russian history: Russia was an idea before it became an Empire, and an Empire before it became a Nation. Clio the Muse 19:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'd characterize Clio's response as particularly accurate or informed.

• There are two Russian words for Russian -- Russkiy for the ethnicity (a very specific ethnic group) and Rossiskiy for the nationality. Russkiy are spread across all of Russia, making up the vast majority of the population in all but a handful of ethnic pockets. Moscow is the capital; although it's the center, it's not accurate to say that Muscovites are the real Russians. All major Russian cities (population over 1 million) are almost entirely Russian (both linguistically and ethnically), with the lone exception of Kazan, where Tatars make up a solid 40 percent or so (yet, still less than the Russians).
• Grand Duchy of Moscow isn't really the historical center either. It's an historical center maybe, not as important as the Tsardom of Moscow, but also not really any more important than Kievan Rus, or Vladimir-Suzdal, or Novgorod. St. Petersburg was the dominant center from Peter the Great to Lenin; indeed of the four best-known Russian novels Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina are both set there; The Brothers Karamazov in Staraya Russa and only War and Peace largely in Moscow.
• I'm not sure how the "cultural identity" of the Yakuts or Altay is somehow "well short of modern notions of statehood." Statehood is a political construct. Perhaps you meant nationhood; I'm sure Stalin might agree.
• The Yakuts and the Altay, for example, are both Turkic (not Slav). The only real reason they're not viable as nations is their small numbers. Through policies of forced-immigration, the Yakuts, for example, only make up around half of the population of Yakutia. It is their size that's the issue, not the validity of their culture.
• The difference between Chechnya and Armenia is primarily arbitrary classification. Chechnya was classified as an ASSR; Georgia and Armenia as SSRs. Again, the reason is one of political history, not one of cultural validity.
• Clio is right on one thing -- the domino effect fears. If Chechnya separated, Russia believes it could damage already uneasy situations in Dagestan, Ingushetia, and even Georgia's Abkhazia. Tatarstan also is cited as a potential breakaway, although less likely because it would be an enclave. --JayHenry 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JayHenry, that's a useful expansion of the main points under consideration. I appreciate your critique, and the depth of your knowledge, but I think I should add a word or two in my own defence. I was perhaps being over subtle, but I deliberately choose the Grand Duchy as the heart of 'ethnic Russia', before the acqusition of the Khanate of Kazan by Ivan IV. I did not really mean to imply that Moscovites are the 'real' Russians, if by this you mean the citizens of the city of Moscow. Clearly, that is far from being the case. It was not my intention, moreover, to go over the whole course of Russian history. You are quite right that Kievan Rus, Vladimir-Suzdal and Novgorod the Great all made important contributions to the formation of what we understand today as Russia, in linguistic, political and cultural terms. But it is it really accurate to say that Moscovy (Grand Duchy and Tsardom) was not any more signficant than these earlier states? A large part of the territory of Kievan Rus would later fall to Moscovy, though the western part would, for many centuries, came under the control of the Lithuanians and then the Poles. Though eventually reunited with Russia, the western parts of the Ukraine had formed their own unique indentity in the interval. Vladimir-Suzdal was indeed the most powerful Russian state to emerge out of Kievan Rus; but after the destruction of the city of Vladimir by the Mongols, and the political fragmentation that followed, Moscow became increasingly important, particularly after the Metropolitan moved his chair there in 1321. Novgorod was also of great importance, but gradually fell under the influence and control of Moscovy, to the point where it was annexed outright by Ivan III in 1478. Control of the old territory of Novgorod gave Moscovy access to the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea, the very area in which Peter the Great was eventually to lay the foundations of his 'window on the west', the future setting for some of the great novels you have identified. My essential point is that Moscovy, as an evolving political construct, subsumes, either in part or in whole, all of these earlier state structures.

As far as the Yakuts and Altay are concerned, yes, you are right, nationhood is a far better word than statehood, though I was attempting to avoid any attempts at political comparisons between them and the Armenians and the Georgians. I'm not quite sure that I accept the validity of your point that the difference between Chechnya and Armenia is entirely one of 'arbitrary classification.' Both as a state, and as an historical concept, Armenia has far deeper roots than Chechnya. Cultural validity, on the other hand, is a quite separate and distinct construct. Clio the Muse 08:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow what a lengthy discussion( thanks!) So I guess (in short) you'd say : all of Russia is predominantly Russia (the Caucasus as well?) But how many of those major cities (like Vladivostok, Samara, Irkutsk, Jekaterinburg have a long slavic history, like for 700 years?) Would it be alright to say that Russia is in fact a bit like the United States?Evilbu 10:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be safer to say that nearly all of Russia is predominantly ethnically Russian. I do think that there are some enclaves, particularly in the Caucasus, where ethnic Russians do not form a majority. You would need to look through statistics on nationality for each subdivision named after a non-Russian ethnic group. In some such subdivisions, ethnic Russians are in fact the majority; in others, however, a non-Russian ethnic group predominates. It just happens that no big cities have ethnically non-Russian majorities. As for your question about the ethnic geography 700 years ago, essentially, the Russian people had not yet acquired their current ethnic identity, which is distinct from those of the neighboring Belarussians and Ukrainians. In 1307, I think that the ancestors of present-day ethnic Russians, Belarussians, and Ukrainians would have identified as something like "Russkiy". That said, the Russkiy of 1307 were confined to an area west of the Urals that probably excluded the lower Volga basin, the steppes just north of Caucasus (and the Caucasus itself), much of the Black Sea coast, and the Arctic north. Also the area along the Gulf of Finland was probably predominantly occupied by Finnic-speaking peoples. Vladivostok, Irkutsk, and Yekaterinburg were outside of this area and did not yet exist, except perhaps as the sites of pre-Russian villages. As for Samara, I am not sure, but you should refer to the article for the history of that city. Finally, Russia can be compared to the United States in some ways. Of course, it is different from the United States in many others. Ethnic Russians define themselves by language, ancient traditions, and a presumed shared ancient ancestry. There is no comparable dominant ethnic group in the United States. White Americans are not really an ethnic group as such, nor are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or WASPs, really. WASPs in any case are not numerically predominant in the United States, and the United States is not formed around an ethnic kernel in the way that Russia is. Until recently, Russia has not absorbed successive waves of immigrants as the United States has. Finally, apart from some Indian reservations, and perhaps the bayous of Louisiana, the mountains of New Mexico, and perhaps South Texas, the United States lacks ethnic groups who have long historical roots in a rural region that they dominate. Ethnic minorities in the United States tend to be newcomers, dispersed across urban regions, and tending toward assimilation, whereas in Russia, most minorities are ancient and rooted in a distinct rural region. Marco polo 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which version of this painting is better?

Our version of Oath of the Horatii is pretty small; it comes from the ARC before they got better scanning equipment. I've found two versions of the painting which appear to be better. [12] looks good to me, but it's only 154k. [13] is slightly larger in dimension, and is 1157k... but it's yellow and doesn't look as good to me: kind of blurry at full size. My laptop's screen is pretty burned out, so I was looking for an opinion on which would be a better version to upload to the Commons. But they both look better than any of our three versions. grendel|khan 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The first, grendel, looks far better than the second on my computer, as the second seems to make the colours in David's painting look washed-out. Clio the Muse 19:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with that, then. Thanks! grendel|khan 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of Social ranks in the medieval age

I realize ofcourse that this question of mine may not be so easy for you to answer, but i wonder if you guys can help me figure out SOCIAL RANKS in medievaltime.

First and foremost in central europe; France, Germany, and the lands around this regiuon, and England ofc. to ME, these three countries, and especially France is the heart and centre of Medieval europe.. probably becoz of the crusades and these countries' part down in Jerusalem. And ofc, Rome is an important region as well, coz here was the pope, the bishop of thius and that and many important ranks in socialitiy.

So, can you help me get an idea then of social ranks and say who is "higher" than the other, and who is lower, and who is mediocre and so on - MAKE A LIST, from top to bottom, highest to lowest ! :)

we have :

Peasant, Baron, Duke, King/Queen, Chancellor, Bishop, Pope, Count, Steward, Mayor, a mere nobleman, General, clerk, clerics and various church-people, Knight, squire

(GENERAL: interesting to figure out how high he could stand in the social - outside and away from battle) (A LORD can be many things i guess, so maybe it shouldn't be in the list..) (A SQUIRE is a knight's apprentice and servant, he did not stand high in the social, right ?)

who is considered the highest, the most powerful, the most influential, the most respected, the most looked up to, the finest and so on... kind of like that. and I must say, maybe not all of the ranks i mention excisted at medieval time, or at the same time, but still one shud get an idea of what is higher and lower than the other.

Krikkert7 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Krikkert7

It was common in the middle ages to divide society into three. I don't think Wikipedia has any good articles about this, but try Estates of the realm for a look at the French system. There is no way to rank everyone without dividing them into their separate roles, as clergy, nobility, and everyone else. For clergy, there was the pope, then bishops and archbishops, archdeacons, and parish priests. But there were also powerful monasteries, where some abbots had as much influence as archbishops or bishops. Clergy was similar throughout Europe, but for nobility, it was different everywhere, even within France or England. Try reading through nobility, English nobility, Peerage, French nobility, Peerage of France, German nobility, etc. Adam Bishop 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Royal and noble ranks might answer some of these questions. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the information that you have already been given by Adam and Twas Now, Krikkert, you should look at the page on Feudalism, and the links to lord, vassal and fief. Also the page on manorialism and feudal society give good general background information on the social hierarchy of Medieval Europe. Now, if you will please bear in mind that I am talking about the practices existing in western Europe during the early Middle Ages, the whole social structure should be conceived of as a pyramid, with the king at the top and the peasant at the bottom. In theory all land was owned by the king, and was distributed to the senior nobility, earls, barons and, from the later Middle Ages, dukes in return for military service. In receiving these grants, the nobles pledged loyalty to the king, becoming his vassals by placing their hands together, which the king grasped in his. A vestige of this still remains in the modern day in the gesture of prayer. The senior nobility would, in their turn, grant fiefs to their subordinates, nobles of a lesser magnitude, who would also enter into vassalage. The pyramid broadens out the further down one goes, to the peasants at the bottom, existing in conditions of servitude known as serfdom, not quite slaves, but very close to that abject state. There is also the pyramid of the Church, which existed in both national and supra-national terms. Senior churchmen would hold land of the king, and were, in some cases, under direct military obligation, just like any other noble. In England, the Prince-Bishops of Durham are a classic example of this, charged with defending the norther border against the Scots. But churchmen were also under vassalage to the Pope in Rome, which could, and did, lead to serious conflicts of interest. Some of the titles you have touched on, like Chancellor, Steward and so on were senior political offices, held usually by members of the nobility, or those in the highest rank of the church. Chancellors, in particular, were most often churchmen, because they possessed the education that the lay nobility lacked. It is also worth pointing out that knighthood was often a specific honour granted by the king under certain conditions, and not all nobles, even the most senior, were automatically knights. Edward the Black Prince of Wales, son of Edward III, and heir to the throne of England, only received his knighthood on the battlefield of Crecy in 1346. Anyway, I hope this is all reasonably clear, but let me know if you require any further clarification. Best wishes. Clio the Muse 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to make a list of social ranks for particular systems of titled peerage. Of course, being the very top of the upper class, you'll be looking at a very small portion of the population. Even the "bottom" of the peerage and below, things like Esquire, Gentleman, Yeoman, gentry, etc, was still a small number of people in the upper class. Sometimes peasants are described as the bottom social class, but at least peasants had jobs and homes, usually. Compare tenant farmer with villein. Even these people were better off, and often fewer in number, than landless, jobless, vagabonds (the wikipedia page doesn't say anything about the pre-modern use of the word unfortunately). During some periods of history, the number of vagabonds in England outnumbered most other "social classes". Of course, there were worse things than vagabondage, like slavery. There are many terms for the various shades of meaning of class among these middle and lower classes. Making a list of social rank in those groups, the bulk of the population, would be trickier, but perhaps more interesting. Pfly 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorting out the order of precedence between a mixed bunch of Royalty, Peers and Bishops is an everyday task for those responsible for organising Royal events in the UK. Debrett's Peerage is the usual authority on these matters. It's also an essential reference book for people wishing to ensure they know their "Your Eminence"s from their "Your Highness"es and their "Your Grace"s from their "Your Royal Highness"es"! --Dweller 10:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Medieval: Lord and Sir

What decided if one was called a LORD ?

and waht decided if one was called SIR ?

ALL noblemen were called LORD in the medieval age, and all noblewomen were called LADY, is it that simple ? was there any other way one could get to be called LORD?

And as far as i know, ONLY KNIGHTS were called Sir in the medieval times, right ? In order to be called Sir, one simply had to be Knighted ? or was there other ways ?

Krikkert7 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)krikkert7

Well, the way we use "lord" and "sir" right now is not really the way they used those words in the middle ages. People were not called "lord" or "sir" as titles the way we use them today. Now when someone becomes a knight, for example if they are a member of the Order of the British Empire, they can be called "Sir", but they are not literally a medieval knight. "Sir" is derived from the word "senior", meaning "older", or as a noun "an elder". A lord today, as in the House of Lords, also no longer refers to the same thing as a medieval lord. A lord was just someone who owns land, no matter how big the piece of land was, or anyone with any kind of authority. It is a translation of the Latin word "dominus". Anyone from the Pope to the lowest lord of a manor could be described as "dominus". But you would have to own land to be a lord, and only the nobility owned land (or, people became nobles only because they owned land), so a peasant or a merchant wouldn't be called "lord". This is a very simple explanation, so I hope it makes sense. Adam Bishop 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In Shakespeare, people are called "sir" without it being any kind of honorific, if I remember correctly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between calling somebody "sir" and calling somebody "Sir + firstname". You can call any man sir, as in "my good sir" or "Sir, would you please sit". The style "Sir" used before the first name was only used by knights (and later on baronets). Knights were historically not always knighted by kings; a sovereign could permit certain individuals (generals, for example) to bestow knighthoods on worthy men. This changes from decade to decade and king to king as well. I don't believe there is any time where the construction "Sir + lastname" was used. Sir Geoffrey Parker is Sir Geoffrey, never Sir Parker.

The rules about how to use the style "Lord" and who can use it are somewhat convoluted and vary wildly depending on what specific time frame you're talking about. The rules derive from peerage laws passed by Parliament, traditions, and royal decrees and warrants. Sometimes "Lord" is used with a first name, such as "Lord Peter Wimsey", sometimes (more commonly in olden days) with a surname, and sometimes it's part of a title, such as "Lord Langdon", and the three aren't interchangeable - if Steven Robertson has the title Lord Langdon, you can't call him Lord Robertson or Lord Steven without someone noticing and probably laughing at you. (Frustrating, I know.) The right of an individual to use "Lord" as either a style or as part of a title in historic times generally derived at least indirectly from a royal warrant. --Charlene 07:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, but I would point out that not all landowners in the Middle Ages would have been considered "lords". There were yeoman peasant freeholders. That is, there were peasants who owned some land and were not serfs. Nor were these peasants considered "lords". Their status was higher than that of serfs, but much lower than that of the nobility. Marco polo 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As above, Debrett's Peerage guides the reader as to the correct form of address for every rank to be found in the UK. --Dweller 10:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, hang on again. There is no "medieval period" where an answer is practical. In 1100, "leofard" would have gone to just about any commander or head of family/head of household, and leofdi (loaf holder), or "lady," would have gone to any woman serving at the meal (i.e. the older woman, the wife, but not the daughter), but by 1500 the peerage system has kicked in, and we start to get specific honorifics in specific occasions. In other words, the English language and English usage has always been sloppy with these terms, but there was, for a while, an attempt at nailing them down to additional meanings relating to peerage. Hence the "anyone is a lord, but only some are Lord Anyone" and the "anyone is a lady, but only some are Lady Anyone" paradox outlined above. Utgard Loki 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright information

I'm looking for a copyright expert to help me with some questions. I'm writing a book, and I will be taking chunks from the Wikipedia and also from other books for my content, but I'll be translating and rewording everything differently. I "think" I'm allowed to take chunks from Wikipedia as long as I use the gnu licence thingy? But what are the guidelines for taking chunks from copyrighted books. How much do I have to change or reword for it to be legit? Whom should I consult on this?

I know Wikipedia dosn't offer legal advice, but I'm asking what kind of person should I consult to answer these kinds of questions? I live in Toronto.--Sonjaaa 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually, except in the context of reviews, you can't "take" chunks, be they large or small, from copyrighted materials without permission. Cheers Geologyguy 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You might try talking to a lawyer that specializes in intellectual property.-Czmtzc 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL, under which Wikipedia is licensed, says that you can create derivative works from it if they are also licensed under the GFDL. So if you release your book under the GFDL, and properly attribute the authorship of the derivative parts according to the stipulations in the GFDL, then you are home free — this is entirely the point of the GFDL, no lawyer required. However this means that someone else could take chunks of your book and turn them into their own book, also released under the GFDL. That's the entire goal of free content — to stay free, to not let people lock it up in a proprietary form, and to encourage other people to make more free content (i.e. content under a free content license, like the GFDL).

If, however, you want to release your book under different terms, then you have an entirely different issue on your hands. If you don't release your derivative work under the GFDL, then you are doing the same thing as borrowing material from any old copyrighted source — it might as well be Encyclopedia Brittanica. Which would be infringement, so long as it is not fair use. And a lawyer would be best to determine the latter point, and it is a hard determination.

Make sense? You don't really need a lawyer for this question, not at this stage. --140.247.250.146 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Canada has the same doctrine of fair use as the U.S. An issue is how dramatic the transformation is involved in "translating and rewording everything differently". Imagining that someone had still held the copyright on Romeo and Juliet when Arthur Laurents wrote the libretto for Bernstein's West Side Story, and the librettist had been sued for copyright infringement, I don't think he would have lost. Even though West Side Story is normally labelled as "based on Romeo and Juliet", the transformation is so dramatic that it can no longer be considered a derivative work. I think that in general, if you extract ideas or information from a source that you could also have found elsewhere, and use that in the creation of an independent work, there is no issue with copyright; what is protected is not the idea but its expression. If you reuse "chunks", and some of the "expression" persists through your rewording, then you have a problem. Also, apart from the legal issue of copyright, there is the risk of accusations of plagiarism. If you're serious about doing this and publishing the result, you shoulod definitely seek the advice of a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sonjaaa. To answer your question who should I consult, here is the contact information for CBA Pro Bono, someone there might be able to help you find pro-bono legal assistance. I'll just add if you are planning to translate excerpts of copyrighted works into Toki Pona (strictly for illustrative purposes), and that's what you meant by "translating and rewording everything", you might want to make that point clear. The way you phrase your question may give people the false impression you are deliberately trying to conceal plagiarism. Best wishes in your literary endeavors. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In the UK you can usually quote up to 300 words of prose without express permission. (I'm a publisher and we do this sort of thing all the time.) For more than 300 words you need the permission of the copyright holder, who isn't always easy to trace. Contact the publisher in the first instance and to be on the safe side. Some of them don't reply, but as long as you can show that you made a reasonable effort to obtain permission you should be okay. Note that different rules apply to quoting poetry, and you almost always need permission.--Shantavira 08:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Hi Shantavira, just out of curiousity, are you familiar with whether the UK handles translation exemplars for language textbooks any differently? dr.ef.tymac 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences between human and other lifeforms

Are there, according to you, fundamental and qualitatives differences between us, Homo sapiens, and the rest of the biosphere? Or do we see us so much different from it only because of our anthropocentrism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.48.110.205 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Humans are the only life form in our biosphere who believe they are more unique than other life forms. This makes them unique.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The uniqueness also comes, I would suggest, from a knowledge of mortality, specific to the human race. Clio the Muse 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But, Lambiam, it doesn't make them more unique, because there's no such thing as more unique. :) JackofOz 00:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he means "more unique" in the same sense that some animals are more equal than others.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There are fundamental and qualitative differences between [insert any creature here] and the rest of the biosphere.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure some apes are proved counscious of their mortality...

It isn't personality. Even spiders possess those, with some being timid, and others aggressive (I can't find the livescience.com ref right now). Mice have fear. Animals may be taught to talk, so that they sound like people (parrots) or convey meaning to people (Chimpanzees). While some people are very dumb, even the most intellectually challenged have communication skills in advance of the other animal kingdom wonders. Other creatures lie, Roosters will lie about seeing birds of prey to score with chickens (another livescience article). Humans have created a world in their minds, which isn't the same for all humans, but which follows rules known to all humans, but not animals. DDB 02:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why the human species is "more unique" than any other species. Or to put it in a way that won't make grammatical purists see red, let's say that the factors making humanity unique (among all extant animal species) are objectively more significant than the factors making any other species unique. For example, humans are the only species in need of orthodontists. -Mathew5000 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm seeing red, but there's nothing purist about requiring "unique" not to be qualified. Either there's only one example of a phenomenon, or there's more than one. It's more a mathematical issue than a grammatical one. JackofOz 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-concsiousness or languagepossesion is something that some philosophers said made humans different from other animals in the biosphere. Another property is being a person. But not all humans have all of these properties essentialy. We all seem to lack self-concsiousness, a language when we are born. It is not also easy to tell what being a person really is. Personaly I am interested in the view that a person has a kind of first-person perspective where he or her can consider them selfs as selfs. Examples of such thoughts are: "I wish I could spell better" where the object of my thought are myself. But some philosophers, defenders of animalism, consider us to be humananimals essentially and persons contingently. They are especially thinking of humans in coma where only their vegitative functions work. So another way to explain the difference between humans and other lifeforms would be in terms of number of genes or maybe some special genetic sequences. But that view maybe only give contingent properties and not any essential difference. RickardV 07:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

rice has more genes than human :)

And then not the same sequence. What is problematic with this definition is that it reject other views on persons and people with Down Syndrome or other chromosome abnormalities. RickardV 06:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A traditional Biblical approach is that fundamentally and qualitatively we differ from the animals only in our ability to discern good and evil and choose our path accordingly. --Dweller 10:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The key functional difference, I feel, is the that humans possess culture to such an extent that it transcends physiology. Humans don't live in the wild- if they did, they'd probably live about as long as other animals of similar diet and body mass. Instead, we manage to live far longer. We are, in a sense, a race of cyborgs. Our machines are largely outside ourselves though. We wear clothes, build houses, write books, form governments, hire specialists- all to augment our natural abilities. Unlike other forms of life, none of us is anywhere near as smart as all of us.

Let me put that another way. Take dolphins, for instance. Dolphins learn a lot from other dolphins. It may be fair to say that any individual dolphin is capable of learning everything of general importance contained in the sum total of all other dolphins' knowledge.

Humans, on the other hand, are surrounded by thousands upon thousands of times more data than any individual human can possibly know. Much of that data is in the form of infrastructure. We have roads, not just stories about how to get from place to place. We have cars, not just ideas about internal combustion engines. We have telephones, not just the thought that it would be nice to be able to transport one's voice around the world without having to travel.

The fact that humans don't have fur is a testament to this fact. It's not that we don't live where it's cold. It's that our humanness has transcended our furriness through the use of clothes.

Humans, as "'cyborgs of culture'", further distinguish themselves from other lifeforms by creating non-essential information that moves towards being necessary over time. We create our world. The things we invent contain other hidden inventions. For instance, the airplane was also the invention of airmail, airpower, and eventually, globalism. There are other animals that use tools and solve problems. None has advanced to the point of changing their basic culture on a continuous basis.

You could use beavers and coral as exceptions to this, but neither would be apt. Beavers change their surroundings, sure. However, their mode of living stays the same. Coral builds itself up into reefs, making a space for later generations of coral. But this is the only way that operates. There is no meta-change taking place.

Humans are essentially different in another way. Humans exhibit a more profound differentiation external morphology between individuals than in other lifeforms. Humans are more individualized in their appearance than any form of life I can think of. Dogs, for instance, exhibit huge variety within the species. But one dog can still look so much like another that you can't tell them apart. Humans, on the other hand, have different enough faces that we are able to distinguish each other on sight. DeepSkyFrontier 09:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al Mona Lisa

there is a picture of mona lisa body w/ weird al head [14]Could you put that in the Mona Lisa page

[[Wrestling Maniac]] 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if it would remain there long, as somebody would likely object. You might have better luck putting it on the Weird Al page, but only if we have the legal right to use the image. StuRat 04:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be removed immediately. The Mona Lisa is a work of art which has been beloved throughout the Western world for centuries; Weird Al is a guy who's been singing for a few short years and is known in two or three countries. I don't think Weird Al would appreciate it, let alone anyone else. What's more, the Weird Al photo would be a transformative work and therefore under copyright. --Charlene 06:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Weird Al Yankovic has been singing for a lot more than just "a few short years" and is definitely known in more than "two or three countries". --Candy-Panda 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al Yankovic composed "My Bologna" in 1976 or 31 years ago. Mona Lisa was completed in 1506 or 501 years ago. Weird Al has been around for a few short years in comparison.

April 11

Solving Murder Cases: A Statistics Source?

Where could one find a reliable source of stats regarding solving murder cases by major cities?--JLdesAlpins 00:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the USA, you might want to try the FBI and download the Uniform Crime Reports from their website. If I remember correctly they have statistics, for the number of cold cases by city, that might give you a good lead on the number of unsolved murders. dr.ef.tymac 03:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism death rights [i.e. rites]

What needs to be done after the death of a person that followed the Buddhism faith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruthmellor (talk • contribs) 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Googling "Buddhist funerals" will give you some ideas, but you need to be aware that there are many different schools of Buddhism and they each have their own traditions. Some of the suggestions you may turn up will apply to just one tradition, so you need to find out what tradition the deceased belonged to. In the East this often depends in which country they live. In the west, it could be almost any tradition. You local Buddhist temple will be able to advise you and refer you to the appropriate tradition. In my own tradition, the funeral service at the temple is flexible to accommodate family and friends who are not familiar with the traditional customs, but it usually consists of a succession of eulogies from friends and family preceded by a short meditation, and followed by a little chanting. The coffin then goes to the crematorium for the committal.--Shantavira 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are only interested in a very general sense, an excellent book to get from the library is How to Be a Perfect Stranger (ISBN 1893361675). It tells you what to expect and how to behave in order to avoid offense if you are invited to a religious ceremony of a different faith from your own. Crypticfirefly 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Olympics: What it has done for the world

What effect do the Olympic games have on the world? How does it unite the nations? And how has the ancient olympics helped in this?

My thesis: Although the Olympic Games were originally a way to unite the Greeks, it became a way for all nations around the world to come together.

Lily —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.154.207 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, let me play the devil's advocate and give some examples where they failed to unite nations. There were the 1972 Munich Olympics (Palestinian terrorism), the 1980 Moscow Olympics (US-led boycott over Afghanistan invasion), and the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics (Soviet-led boycott). StuRat 05:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ancient Olympic Games were, in the deepest sense, both a celebration of indvidual achievement and a way of honouring the Gods, common to all the Greeks. They overcame political rivalries in pursuit of a greater sense of purpose. The modern Olympics are, to a signficant degree, based on the celebration of the nation state, something the Greeks would not have understood. As festivals of national pride they do far more to divide than unite. Clio the Muse 08:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should have also mentioned the 1936 Berlin Olympics where Hitler predicted that all the winners would be Aryan and Jesse Owens sent that belief down the crapper. bibliomaniac15 05:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Bibliomaniac, when it comes to some of the high profile track and field events; but Germany still won the most medals overall, a fact that Goebbels was not slow to make use of. Clio the Muse 05:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And, more importantly, Jesse Owens' victory didn't convince Germany to give up their "Aryan superiority" nonsense or prevent WW2, so the Olympics failed to promote peace and understanding, in this instance. StuRat 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I have a unique understanding of "promote". To me, the word means to advocate a position. Achievement of that position is something beyond promotion of it. The United Nations has always promoted world peace, even if it has spectacularly failed to achieve world peace. The Olympics have always been all about promoting peace and understanding through friendly rivalry, as a peaceful alternative to killing each other. Wars and conflicts continue nevertheless. That Hitler and his cronies did their shocking deeds cannot be laid at the feet of the Olympic movement, or of the 1936 Games in particular. JackofOz 22:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church -Not Really Changed?

During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church told and taught alot of things that weren't true and were not according to the Bible. For example, they said you had to pay indulgences to the Church to get saved. Then, some Christian reformers, e.g. Martin Luther, said and told others and the Church that this and many other Catholic doctrines were false, wrong and unbiblical. They started a Christian movement called the Protestant Reformation which spread to much of Europe and consisted of a big part of Christianity. But the Catholic Church still continued to exist.

But now, the Catholic Church has changed. The Catholic Church is not as bad and un-Christian nowadays as it was back then. Catholics are now also Christians just as Protestants are.

But really? Some Protestants claim that the Catholic Church are still as bad and un-Christian nowadays as it was back then. Catholics are still not really Christians. They say that Catholic doctrine in general has not changed. For example, they say that the Catholic Church still teaches false, wrong, and unbiblical doctrines such as paying indulgences and doing good works for forgiveness of sins, praying to Mary and the saints, and having sources of doctrine other than the Bible such as human tradition and authority. [15] Some people even claim that it is the Whore of Babylon, which means they claim that it has never changed and never will change. Others even claim that it has been part of a conspiracy to deliberately make fake Bibles which support their doctrines (see King-James-Only Movement).

These are my questions:

1. Is that true?

2. If so, then why? Why hasn't it changed???!!!

3. If so, then why do many Protestants think and claim that it has changed?

4. If you are a Catholic, then what do you think about claims that Catholics are not really Christians?

5. Have there been any people, Protestant or Catholic, who have asked the Catholic Church and the Pope why it has not really changed after all these centuries and tell them they should change?

6. If so, then how did the Church and the Pope react and respond?

7. Some Protestants do not think that that Catholics are Christians, but do Catholics think that Protestants are Christians? I mean, does the Catholic Church say that Protestants can still be saved?

The Anonymous One 05:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is part on an answer I gave before on this very subject.

I remember seeing a pocket cartoon in an old political weekly, possibly the New Statesman, published here in England, in which a well-dressed businessman comes across a tramp (a hobo, for the benefit of you Americans!) sitting on a pavement, with a notice beside him reading Prejudices Confirmed-£1.00 only. The said businessman duly drops his coin in the tramp's hat, and receives the following captioned response-Yes, I am on welfare; no, I have never done a day's work in my life. Anonymous One, it has long seemed to me that you are the businessman in search of your own particular tramp; so, for your benefit, let me take on the role, without any request for payment: yes, Catholics are not really Christians; yes, Anti-Christ could sit in the seat of St. Peter, and he would immediately be followed by the uncritical mass; yes, we do not need priests or the Holy Catholic Church, and we should all interpret the Bible for ourselves; yes, St. Peter is not a rock, merely a little stone. And, not to forget the words of the ancient polemic, the Church will never change because it is truly the Whore of Babylon. Does that satisfy you? I could attempt to finish on a slightly more sober note by saying that the Bible is a rich and complex document, that requires intelligent and informed interpretation, and we live in an age where we must all be acutely aware of the dangers of the literal reading of sacred texts. Catholics, moreover, are not Protestants, and will never be Protestants. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but you will simply have to learn some degree of toleration. Am I wasting my energy here? Yes, I probably am. So, it's time for the literal minded among you to get out there and start burning 'All of them Witches.' Clio the Muse 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore 1-6 for various reasons, but re: question 7, the official position of the Catholich Church is: yes. '... these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.' Skarioffszky 12:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, The Anonymous One, you havent by any chance been reading Chick Tracts [16] [17] have you? If so then you already know the answers to your questions, and if not: there you go. As an added bonus its only $0.15 per tract, dramatically undercutting any enterprising English tramps.--38.112.225.84 12:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholics and Protestants are both Christians; they just rely on different interpretations of scripture and doctrine. Besides, both of them have done bad things to each other and to other people. It's just that, since Catholicism has been around longer and because it got mixed into corruption and politics, it did most of the things that we now have bad press about. There's no need to judge which was worst: "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) bibliomaniac15 05:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What is a Christian? (rhetorical question) Is it someone who studies and follows the bible, especially the New Testament? Is then David Koresh a christian? To use and throw old (and not so old) corruption and scandals (whatever) of the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church into the face of catholics today is simply old trick: The catholics did that, so they are evil. We are the true followers of Christ. AFAIK Chick and the "venerable" reverend Jerry Falwell are simply well-known examples of this attitude. It is simply easier to do that with the Catholic church because it is a massive and ancient organization (bound to have such things in its past). Flamarande 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can claim that their membership of a Christian denomination makes them a Christian ipso facto. If that's all there was to it, they'd be right. But it's the way they live their lives that really matters. Some Christians are Christians in name only. JackofOz 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Waffen SS

Each member of Waffen SS took oath? --Vess 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Vess, every member of the Waffen SS took an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler, if that is what you want to know. It went like this: I swear to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and Chancellor of the German Nation, loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to my superiors designated by you obedience to the death. So help me God. It varied slightly from the Wehrmacht oath. Clio the Muse 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball

Whar are diferrences of Anime from manga of Dragon Ball (Z and GT too)? --Vess 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking the differances between Manga and Dragon Ball Z and Gt? Because Dragon ball is not Manga. The eye shape and movement of the eyes is as well as the shading. The mouth moves in a differant way in some of them than Manga. --Kittycat rox 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How Long was the Holocaust?

I'm trying to determine exactly how long the Holocaust lasted- from the time the "Final Solution" was officially adopted by the Nazis to whatever point historians accept as the final day. Is there a way of knowing this with precision? DeepSkyFrontier 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not completely clear what should be taken as the date of the official adoption; there was no parliament that passed a law on it or such. One possible date you could take is 31 July 1941, when Reichsmarschall Göring authorized the head of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt Heydrich to start preparing the Endlösung der Judenfrage (the "Final Solution of the Jewish question"). Another possible date is January 20, 1942, the date the Wannsee Conference was held. But the decision was almost certainly effectively taken earlier by Hitler. If I'm not mistaken, Auschwitz was the last extermination camp to be liberated, which was on January 27, 1945.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)The decision to kill all the Jews in Europe was probably made in October of 1941 (the decision had already been made in July to kill all the Jews in Russia). However, it wasn't until the Wannsee Conference on January 20th of 1942 that anything remotely concrete was mapped out. Systematic executions began with Operation Reinhard in the spring of 1942, but the Einsatzgruppen had been operating on the eastern front since the early summer of 1941. At the other end, Jews were still being transported to the concentration camps on the day the war ended (May 8, 1945), and many of the prisoners who were alive when the camps were liberated died soon afterwards. In fact, Jews were still being executed at the end of April, and the guards at Mauthausen attempted to organise the murder about 5,000 Jews on May 5. If you have to, you might map the dates of the as being mid-October, 1941 - May 8, 1945. Carom 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chełmno extermination camp, a "pilot project" for Operation Reinhard, began operating on December 8, 1941, so it appears the Holocaust had operationally started already before the Wannsee Conference.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about that. It's a tough one to pin down exactly because, as Clio points out below, the Nazis were not initially as organised in their anti-Jewish activities as we tend to think. You could place it as early as June/July of 1941, or as late as December of that year (but I don't know if, in the great scheme, it really matters when the Holocaust "began" - people were being killed all along, whatever we call it). Carom 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a copy of an answer I gave back in February-slightly adapted-to a question on the difference between concentration and extermination camp, which, in part, touches on this issue.

On the central point under consideration, there are a number of things that should to be made clear. First and foremost, there was indeed a clear difference in the Nazi scheme of things between concentration camps and Extermination camps, which were built for one purpose, and one purpose only. Concentration camps were located all over Germany and elsewhere in Europe; but extermination centres were located either in areas annexed from Poland, or in the General Government. The first category included Auschwitz-Birkenau and Kulmhof. To these we should probably add the minor camp of Stutthof near Danzig. The second category includes Majdanek, as well as the main Operation Reinhard camps of Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. Why were these camps established where they were? The simple answer is that they were all close to major Jewish population centres. It would have presented much more severe logistical problems to have transported millions of eastern European Jews to, say, France or any other country in the west. Poland, moreover, had good transport links with the rest of the Continent, and people from France, Holland and elsewhere could be taken with relative ease to the east. The main camps were still fairly remote, and the marshes at Auschwitz offered the opportunity of disposing of tons of human ash. Poland had the additional advantage of being more completely subject to the Nazis than any of the other conquered territories, many of which retained some semblance of self-rule. If anyone wonders why there were so many Jewish people concentrated in Poland it was here that they were officially allowed to settle during the Tsarist days, in the area known as the Pale of Settlement.

On the subject of the Holocaust itself, there seem to be a number of misconceptions. It is important to understand that there was a considerable degree of improvisation in Nazi policy towards the Jews; and as late as 1939 mass migration was still the favoured option, with Madagascar being given serious consideration as a likely destination. Only the outbreak of World War Two put a stop to such plans, which had involved Adolf Eichmann, amongst others. From 1940 onwards the favoured strategy became one of 'ghettoization', with the Jews of western Europe being transported to join pre-existing communities in the east. But up to the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 there was no specific plan for mass murder. The mass killings in fact started in Russia, with the introduction of the Einsatzgruppen, following in the wake of the armies. The favoured methods were gas vans and mass shootings. Nazi policy overall was now taking a far more radical turn; and in December 1941 the first gassings started at Kulmhof, where Jews were transported from the nearby Lodz Ghetto. However, the various strategies were still considered to be too ad hoc, and there were also concerns about the rates of mental breakdown among the SS personnel involved in the field executions in Russia. To remedy this-and to ensure maximum co-ordination amongst all government agencies-the Wannsee Conference was summoned in January 1942. It was from this point forward that the Holocaust, in the sense we understand it today, acquires a much more definte and systematic shape, with the major extermination centres coming into gradual operation. The last mass gassings at Auchwitz came in October 1944; but killing continued, in one form or another, until May 1945. If anyone wishes to pursue the matter in a little more depth there are many fine monographs and studies; but amongst the most accessible, in my estimation, is The Holocaust by Martin Gilbert. Clio the Muse 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One minor addendum to Clio's statement: The Einsatzgruppen were actually formed in the early summer of 1939, and employed in the invasion of Poland in the autumn of that year, with essentially a free liscense to execute anyone deemed hostile or dangerous, although actual killings were on a much smaller scale than their later operations in the USSR. They also operated in Western Europe in 1940, although I am reasonably certain that their activities there did not involve mass executions. Carom 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would date the start from Krystalnacht on November 9–10, 1938 and the end to the surrender of Germany in May, 1945. StuRat 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish to sincerely thank each of you that contributed to answering my question. I am in awe of what Wikipedia represents in people such as yourselves. Bravo.

Here are the calculations based on the various dates suggested:

Krystalnacht on 9-10 Nov 1938 through German surrender on 7 May 1945: 2372 days.

Göring authorizes preparation of the Final Solution on 31 July 1941 through liberation of Auschwitz on 27 Jan 1945: 1277 days.

Wannsee Conference on 20 Jan 1942 through liberation of Auschwitz on 27 Jan 1945 : 1104 days.

Göring authorizes preparation of Final Solution on 31 July 1941 through German surrender and war's end on 8 May 1945: 1378 days.

Decision of Wannsee Conference on and after 20 Jan 1942 through German surrender and war's end on 8 May 1945: ~1205+ days.

July 1941 decision to kill Russian Jews through German surrender and war's end on 8 May 1945: ~1400 days.

Mid-October 1941 decision to kill all European and Russian Jews through liberation of Auschwitz on 27 Jan 1945: ~1200 days.

Chełmno extermination camp beginning operation on 8 Dec 1941 through last camp executions in late April 1945: ~1235 days

Mid-October 1941 decision to kill all European and Russian Jews through German surrender and war's end on 8 May 1945: ~1300 days.

Mid-October 1941 decision to kill all European and Russian Jews through last camp executions in late April 1945: ~1290 days.

I certainly am not qualified to choose a definitive answer from the options above. I am torn between two starting points. I feel that because ad hoc killing was already taking place that the Wannsee Conference and the days immediately afterwards- when the now official decision was handed down to those that would implement it- may be the appropriate time period to mark the real beginning of the full genocidal horror of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is easier to understand on an individual scale, but it did not exist as singular executions. It existed as the something far more horrible. I feel that it may be a mistake to include ad hoc murder and execution in our best attempt at an accurate understanding. The Wannsee Conference marks the moment when the Nazis became willfully and entirely complicit.

On the other hand, as I read that the conference lasted only 90 minutes, it's clear that the official decision had already been made by Göring and Hitler prior to the conference. The date for the decision, and the fact that it was being carried out with increasing determination even before the conference took place, causes me to lean towards late October / early November of 1941 as the true beginning. I have the feeling that the Wannsee Conference might have been skipped altogether and the outcome would not have been any different.

The decision to kill Russian Jews, which reveals the full capacity of evil contained in Nazi ideology, still stands at counterpoint to the option of deporting European Jews to Madagascar. This idea, which smells a little like red herring from the vantage of history, seems to have existed in some form until it became unworkable due to delays in conquering England and acquiring their fleet. Was it that unorganized killing was damaging to the morale and psyche of those tasked with carrying it out? Was total genocide considered unworkable even as it was considered morally acceptable? At some point Göring and Hitler seem to have realized that systematized execution using extermination camps was actually workable. As I now understand it, that seems to have been around October or November 1941. That, coupled with the beginning of operations at the Chełmno extermination camp on December 8th, 1941, seems to really place the beginning of the Holocaust in the latter part of 1941.

I feel that the end of the camp executions in late April 1945- and not the planned killings of May 5th or the official end of the war on May 8th- mark the end of what I understand to be properly defined as the Holocaust. Those that died after liberation were killed as a consequence of the Holocaust and can not avoid being included in its number. On the other hand, perhaps it is honorable to call them "survivors," if only to have been able to glimpse the downfall of their oppressors. And truly, in consequence the Holocaust is still happening and will continue until the end of time.

I am satisfied that the answer- if there can be one- is somewhere in the vicinity of 1300 days, give-or-take 100 days in either direction. Thank you again, all of you, for your virtuous dedication to answering such questions. Your spirit- the spirit of Wikipedia and the search for truth- stands as a new monument to human civilization that rivals the pyramids. Oh, and I really mean that. DeepSkyFrontier 06:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a cool and dispassionate mind, DeepSkyFrontier, and I admire the logical way that you have arrived at your conclusions. I do, however, have some additional information and argument that might be of interest to you, all of which I have based upon Laurence Rees' monograph, Auschwitz: the Nazis and the Final Solution., in the edition published by BBC Books in 2005

By the spring of 1940 it was becoming increasingly clear that the policy of of using the General Government as a 'racial dustbin' was causing huge logistical problems. In May 1940 Himmler addressed the issue in a wide-ranging memorandum, in which he rejects 'the Bolshevik method of physically exterminating a people as fundamentally un-German.' (Lees, p.45) He goes on to say that I hope to see the term 'Jews' completely eliminated through the possibility of large-scale emigration of all Jews to Africa or to some other colony. When Himmer discussed this proposal with Hitler he was told that it was gut und richtig (good and correct). But, as you indicate, the tenacity of England effectively put an end to all such notions by the autumn and winter of that same year. The problem in the General Government remained, and got steadily worse with the arrival of additional deportees.

Moving further down the line to the summer of 1941, when mass killings were already underway in Russia, we have Göring's memo to Heydrich of 31 July, asking for a blueprint for 'the execution of the intended Final Solution of the Jewish question.' However, as Lees says (p.84), the discovery of a document in the Moscow Special Archive casts some doubt on the particular significance of Göring's memorandum. This contains a note from Heydrich, dated March 26 1941, in which he says With respect to the Jewish question I reported briefly to the Reich Marshal and submitted to him my new blueprint, which he authorized with one modification concerning Rosenberg's jurisdication, and then ordered for resubmission. This document has to be taken in the context of the coming invasion of the Soviet Union-which was expected to collapse in a few weeks-and the continuing deadlock with the British in the west. In other words, the new destination for the Jews of Europe was no longer Africa, but parts of conquered Russia, including areas expected to be under the jurisdiction of Alfred Rosenberg. It seems clear that the 31 July document should be read against the background of forced migration, rather than mass murder as such, though in practical terms the end result would have been just the same, as most of the deportees are likely to have frozen to death in the east with the onset of the Russian winter. However, it was the specific actions of the Einsatzgruppen-particularly in the shooting of women and children-that raised yet another set of problems, and a further quest for solutions. The decisive moment here, it might very well be argued, came in August 1941, when Himmler visited Minsk, and saw the work of the killing squads at first hand.

The Minsk killings, and the complaints, amongst others, of Lieutenant-General von dem Bach-Zelewski, that the sheer personal horror involved was having a severe psychological impact on the men in the Kommandos, pushed Himmler along the path of a less 'bloody' solution to the whole issue. He already had before him one possible 'clinical' way out: mass-killing had already been tried and tested in the euthanasia programme, with poison gas being used to kill as many as ten thousand people in mental hospitals in Wartegau and West Prussia between October 1939 and October 1940. The need for new killing techniques-soon to be explored in places like Auschwitz-,the continuing build up of Jewish deportees in the ghettos of Poland, and the unexpected stubbornness of Soviet resistance, demanded that the whole issue be re-examined from top to bottom. Amongst others, Josef Goebbles, the Propaganda Minister, was lobbying Hitler for more radical solutions, urging the expulsion eastwards of all the Jews of Berlin to already grossly overcrowded ghettos, like that at Lodz. The way out of this deadlock was the authorisation of the first mass gassings at Chelmno, close to Lodz, in late 1941.

Given Hitler's method of working, and his dislike of committing himself to paper, we will never know for certain when outright murder took the place of deportation as the favoured solution to the Jewish question. If I were pushed to choose a specific time-frame, on the basis of the evidence as it presents itself, it would be October 1941. By then the decision had been taken to send all of the Reich's Jews to the east, even though the war with Russia showed no sign of ending. In November, in a conversation with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler said that he wanted all Jews, even those not under German control, 'to be destroyed.' (Lees, p. 110) Here, in essence, is the agenda of the Wannsee Conference, where the populations detailed for elimination included those living in areas not even under German control, including England. The following month the gas vans of Chelmno began their work.

Against this whole drift of events and policy, the Wannsee Conference has been allowed to carry far too much weight. The decision on mass extermination, it seems highly likely, was conveyed by verbal insruction alone by Hitler to Himmler sometime in October. Wannsee was merely a forum for ensuring maximum bureaucratic complicity. Those who attended, with the exception of Heydrich (and even he was not yet in the uppermost ranks of the party leadership) were by and large men of the second-division, like Martin Luther from the Foreign Ministry, representing Ribbentrop; senior bureaucratic funtionaries, in other words, implementers of policy, rather than formulators.

Anyway, that's it. Sorry to have gone on at such considerable length, but you have raised issues worthy of a thoughtful and detailed response. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Clio the Muse 10:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To you, Clio the Muse, I feel such immense gratitude. That you have gone to such great length in fleshing out the path to answering this difficult question. Your apology for doing so is perfectly lovely- like a rose apologizing for it's perfume. You've distinguished yourself among the billions and I hope you live forever. I would hope to live forever too, so that I might see what you can do.

It's a psychological riptide to go from feeling such gratitude to considering the question at hand. I'm trying to find 'Auschwitz: the Nazis and the Final Solution' so that I might read it. It doesn't appear on Amazon, which doesn't bode well for my library having it.

Regarding the Wannsee Conference. I understand a little more about why the Wannsee Conference may be considered of such high importance. The fact that Hitler was not present at the meeting and perhaps the fact that the full genocidal horror-to-come was not specifically spelled-out, seems to have fueled the argument that there was no deliberate policy from the top- a favorite argument of Holocaust deniers. I find the opposite argument to be far more believable- that Hitler's absence only confirms that it was already an official policy. The lack of specifics merely means that specifics had already been determined.

Yes, I am seeing more clearly, with your help, that the official policy of genocide predates Wannsee- and with it the most logical date for the start of the Holocaust. I lean much more strongly towards an October date. November and December seem to contain confirmations that something changed in October.

I do feel that Wannsee deserves to retain its place of great historical importance if for no other reason than the fact that we have data on it- whereas the private conversations and decisions of the highest ranking Nazi officials are relatively opaque. It may be a tendency for those of rudimentary understanding to attribute the Holocaust exclusively to Hitler. Just as dangerous is the mistake of laying blame on the Germans. Perhaps, by focusing on Wannsee, something useful is illuminated- how the few may infect the many when there is a willingness to set morality aside; to place ends above means. Wannsee represents the moment when an already fatal virus mutated into an epidemic.

I once asked a historian to describe how the Jews had managed to survive as a landless nation since the fall of Jerusalem in the 1st Century. The story is incredible. There is not another like it in the history of the world. If the Nazis had heard the story as it was told to me, they could not have considered anything short of annihilation.

The gassing of Jews at Chełmno starting in early December tells me that the Holocaust had already begun- and that it began with the decision to pursue the direct and immediate destruction of all Jews- as opposed to the deportation of Jews to deadly places. The fact that Wannsee was meant to take place earlier and was delayed by the entrance of the U.S. into the war tells me the same thing.

So, here is the answer I am most satisfied with:

Mid-October 1941 decision to kill all European and Russian Jews through last camp executions in late April 1945: ~1290 days.

Reminding you again of how grateful I am for your beautiful and generous spirit is like coming up for air. I hope you don't mind.

I most certainly do not mind, and your tribute overwhelms me, to say the very least. Besides, I too hope I live forever! Clio the Muse 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am seeking information or previously published history regarding "baggy pants"

I am seeking information for input to verify the origin of the baggy pants look common among the hip hop generation. Where did the style originate. I believe it has subculture connotations? Originally associated with identifying men who were available while in the penitentiary for sexual favors. Secondly, it became a indicator for gang members who carried guns, thereby making the pants droop. I am looking for some definitive information to confirm, either or disprove either suggested theory. Thanks.

According to the article on Hip hop fashion, "West Coast gangsta rappers adopted the style of Los Angeles' cholos (Chicano gangsters) including baggy pants". The source given is Rap Music and Street Consciousness by Cheryl Keyes. According to Sagging (fashion) it "began in prisons, where ill-fitting uniforms and rules forbidding belts resulted in falling-down pants". Source: Snopes, which says the sexual explanation is false. Skarioffszky 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

April 12

Northern Alliance

In Afghanistan, why they call the group Northen Alliance? Is it because they were formed in northen part of Afghanistan?

Yup. The United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan or Northern Alliance controlled provinces in the north, most of them in the north-east from what I can see in the article. Clarityfiend 03:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Classical music advice

Hello

Never having been really into classical music, I just stumbled upon Beehtoven's The Tempest. I find it absolutely amazing in terms of its sheer emotional power. I was just wondering if anyone could recommend anything of similar drama and sheer force in the classicacl piano realm?

65.94.231.58 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want sheer emotional power you might like Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung), although I find it a bit much, myself (picture fat German women belting out songs in Viking horns and metal conical breastplates). StuRat 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. A piano transcription of the Ring really would be something. Even Franz Liszt didn't attempt that (although he did make 15 transcriptions of bits and pieces of Wagner, including Valhalla from the Ring, and the Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde). As for original piano music, Beethoven is a great starting point. Many of his sonatas (particularly the later ones, written when he was totally deaf!), have amazing amounts of drama and emotional power. Try listening to the Hammerklavier, or the Appassionata (very appropriately named). Two earlier Beethoven works: The Moonlight Sonata starts out quietly, but the 3rd movement finale is full of tempest. Then there's the Pathetique Sonata, particularly the 1st movement. So many to choose from. I mentioned Liszt - his Sonata in B minor is an epic and very dramatic work. As is Funérailles, a tribute to three of his Hungarian countrymen who died in war. Many of Rachmaninoff's pieces are fiery or martial - listen to the Prelude in G minor, Op. 23, No. 5. Many of Chopin's polonaises contain patriotic and emotional music - such as the Military Polonaise in A major, Op. 40, No 1; the Polonaise in F sharp minor, Op. 44; and the Heroic Polonaise in A flat major, Op.53. This is the tip of the iceberg, but it's somewhere to start. Enjoy. JackofOz 04:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the word "piano". StuRat 05:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Jack has some excellent suggestions, which I will second: if you liked Beethoven's "Tempest" sonata, you will probably enjoy the Liszt B Minor Sonata. Give Franz Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy a listen too, the Chopin etudes and ballades, Schumann's Carnival. Just for a start.  :) Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends what mood you're in. Baroque music tend to be more rigid in structure, early Classical music tends to be calm and controlled, late Classical and Romantic is often dramatic or plain beautiful, Contemporary has some good bits and pieces, and Avant-Garde is just crap. bibliomaniac15 05:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi 65, i was once like yourself, not really 'into' classical music, the best way to find what you like is to buy/download a compilation of classical music, from various composers/artists/genres and see wot tickles your fancy (so to speak) here in scotland i bought CD's like 'the best classical music album ever! No. 3' (sic) or second hand, poor quality recordings made by unknown artists - this second option lets you 'taste' cheaply before committing your finances to a better quality, well know artist version, and trust me it is worth getting a 'good' recording by a respected artist enjoy!! Perry-mankster 08:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I just heard the third movement of the Moonlight Sonata and it is truly amazing. You only ever hear the first movement, but its incredible! Thanks for the advice Cacofonie 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (65 above)

In a similar vein to Liszt, Alkan's Concerto for Solo Piano (op. 39, 8-10) is really gripping and powerful, but it may be a bit hard to track down a recording since it is so rarely performed due to the difficulty of playing it, but if you get a recording by Mark Latimer (preferable) or Marc-Andre Hamelin (also v. good but not quite up there with Latimer) you won't be disappointed. --194.176.105.39 14:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Small companies and Credit Ratings?

Say I start a small company, (incorporated in Canada), is it possible to get a credit rating for that? I know of Transunion which provide credit ratings for individuals, but what about corporations? --Shines8 06:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It might have something to do with a DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) number. I was looking this up the other day because some of our customer data here at work is organized by DUNS number. A quick look at this other page at the D&B site says a few things about checking business credit reports and updating your business credit file. I'm not 100% sure if D&B is the way to go, though, but at least check them out. The article Dun & Bradstreet might also help. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Credit ratings are based off of credit history. A new company has no credit history. If you need money for a small business (and don't personally have any) you need to walk into a bank and apply for a "small business" or "new business" loan. You generally have to use your personal credit history to secure these loans. --JayHenry 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Shines8 02:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Restlessness

Please, what is the psychological name for the condition known as restlessness? Where can I go to read more deeply into the study of the lives of people who are driven on by frantic energy in everything they do, and loathe to be confined? - Melancholy Danish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.13.4.44 (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

It sounds to me a bit like Hyperactivity. But people driven by frantic energy might also be suffering from Bipolar disorder, sometimes known as manic depression. There are a number of prominent people in history who suffered from the latter condition, including Winston Churchill, the British war-time Prime Minister. Clio the Muse 07:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio :-)

No probs. If you would like to know more about people who are thought to have suffered from bipolarity here is a fairly detailed list. There are some surprising names, and it might even be concluded that this condition-awful as it is-can, in some unique cases, lead to forms of greatness. Clio the Muse 07:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Melancholy, further to clio's answer, certain tourette syndrome sufferers, describe their mind' / thoughts ' as having to much "energy" and this expresses it's self as the tics/body movements and other obsessive behaviour associated with tourettes Perry-mankster 08:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to specific literature I highly reccommend Touched with Fire by Kay R. Jamison. It's a very interesting and accessible read and would seem to fit perfectly your desire to delve into the whirlwind lives of person's so driven.-- 38.112.225.84 09:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like mania in general, and hypomania can come from a number of causes, from hyperthyroidism to narcotics withdrawal, but there is also simply willful restlessness, either of the wanderlust sort or the Romantic sort. After all, both the cowboy and the Bohemian might claim to be endlessly restless, and yet they share nothing else. Utgard Loki 12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For the condition of restlessness in the sense of being unable to sit still, see Akathisia. People suffering from that condition don't typically accomplish much, so this is presumably not what you are talking about. Another form of restlessness that does not lead to accomplishments is Adult attention-deficit disorder. I have heard the term "cabin fever" applied metaphorically to someone who could not stand being confined by rules – and therefore migrated to another, supposedly freer country, sadly enough only to find out that they were even more bureaucratic fixation on rules. See also Zugunruhe. I also know some individuals who seem to have an inexhaustible source of energy in (typically successfully) undertaking things, but have to switch to something else when the current undertaking threatens to become routine; they constantly need new challenges in order to function. Does that come closer to what you had in mind? I don't know a name for this "condition" though – which is not all bad, I guess.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Literary Interconnectedness

In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories, Sherlock asks Watson to imagine himself flying over London, overlooking all of the houses, and discovering all the ways in which the lives of the people within them interconnect and work themselves according to a marvelous providence.

In "Moby-Dick," chapter 110, Herman Melville says, "Whatever is truly wondrous or fearful in man, never yet was put into words or books."

I'm looking for literary works that deal with this interconnectedness, and with the marvelous providential design of life. The closest I've been able to find is the works of Dickens and the tales of the Arabian Nights. Thank you for any recommendations you might have.

Have a look at Labyrinths by Jorge Luis Borges, in my estimation one of the greatest writers of the last century, and arguably the best Argentinian writer of all time. His marvellous little 'fictions' explore all sorts of hidden patterns, and forms of interconnection; but I would particularly recommend, The Garden of Forking Paths and Three Versions of Judas. The latter has a surprising and unexpected conclusion about the nature and the person of the Saviour. You should also consider looking at some of Borges' other work, including The Book of Sand and Dr. Brodie's Report. Clio the Muse 07:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bridge of San Luis Rey takes up a similar theme.--Wetman 09:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This theme is found throughout transcendentalism, as well as some of the deist authors, but it is also sometimes expressed as a facet of the Great Chain of Being (the principle of divine plenitude). Inasmuch as Jesus said, "Not a sparrow falls" without God's knowledge, some authors have taken all mankind as a symphony of providence. Also, see Geoffrey Hill's Mercian Hymns, where he attempts to strike a universalist stance: "I have learned not to look down upon the damned, whose actions harmonize with the blessed" or something like that. (He works the same theme of interconnectedness of salvation and damnation, living/dead in "September.") William Carlos Williams's "Red Wheelbarrow," to take a cliched example, attempts to portray the entire cosmos as an interconnected piece, where all elements are equally important. Utgard Loki 12:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The character Dirk Gently in Douglas Adams's series of books talks of "the fundamental interconnectedness of all things". JackofOz 12:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you more interested in books that have meta-discussions about interconnectedness, or books that demonstrate interconnectedness in their actual story? Anchoress 12:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to branch into song lyrics, there's always Synchronicity (album), by The Police. StuRat 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The muslim conquests

I need some help on a history project about the muslim conquests. My questions are the following:(any help will be greatly appreciated, thanks, 89.137.211.247 12:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

• Who was their first leader besides Muhammad?
• How did the conquests start?
• Could the califates be seen as descendents of the roman empire?

If you type Muslim conquests in the Search box and click on Go, the article contains:

• Answer to your first question in opening paragraph
• A link to the first conquest (that explains how it started) in the first section

The last question is a matter of opinion. After reading the article, you should be able to form your own. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The first thing you should hold in mind is that Muhammed is unique, both in religious and political terms, and has no parallel in the Muslim world. He had followers and lieutenants; but it is only after his death that the struggle for leadership eventually causes a split between those who supported his son-in-law, Ali, known as the Shiites, and the majority who took the lead of Abu Bakr-the first Caliph-,who were to be known as the Sunni. The Arab conquests started with the victory over the forces of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine Empire, at the Battle of Yarmouk in 636, which opened up the Middle East and Egypt to penetration by Islamic armies. The Caliphates were certainly imperial in structure, but they had a religious purpose and direction, which was never part, in any fundamental sense, of the Roman Empire. Clio the Muse 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. 89.137.211.247 13:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Longest serving Canadian Senator?

Willie Adams, according to the article, is the second longest serving senator. Who's the longest? I can't find anyone appointed to Senate before 1977, just someone appointed in 1979, and tons after. Any ideas? Or is this out of date information, and he is now the longest serving Canadian Senator? -- Zanimum 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the longest-serving senator who is still in the Senate, or the longest-serving Senator ever? If the former, it does appear to be Senator Adams (who is heading for a career of over 32 years if he serves until mandatory retirement). You may have seen it already, but the Parliament of Canada site has a list of all current senators, including the date of their appointment and the date on which they should retire. (By that list, Senator Adams will eventually be passed by Senator Charlie Watt, who will be there for over 35 years if he serves a full term).

If you want longest-serving ever, that is a harder question. The Parliament site lets me search Senators based on years of service, but it includes terms in the House of Commons in the calculation so the results are misleading. But I would guess that there is at least one Senator who was appointed before a mandatory retirement age was added who served longer than Senator Adams' current 30 years. It will just take a bit more digging to find him. - Eron ^Talk 15:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And here's one already: Senator The Hon. Hippolyte Montplaisir, appointed to the Senate on February 9, 1891, and served until his death on June 20, 1927, for a term of over 36 years. - Eron ^Talk 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That didn't take as long as I expected. The winner and still champion is Senator the Honorable Pascal Poirier, appointed March 9, 1885, serving until his death on September 25, 1933, for a total of 48 years, 6 months, 17 days in the Senate. That record will probably never be surpassed, as all Senators must now retire at age 75 - meaning that one would now have to earn appointment at the tender age of 26 to have a shot at the record. - Eron ^Talk 16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• And that would require a constitutional amendment. The minimum age of 30 established in the BNA Act is still in place, so the maximum time anyone can be a senator is now 45 years. --Anonymous, April 13, 2007, 00:43 (UTC).

Well, that means there are at least two Senators taht served longer, so Adams can not be #2. -Czmtzc 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not. He's the longest-serving Senator of those currently serving, though. I've updated his article to reflect that. - Eron ^Talk 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vonnegut question

what's the vonnegut book where the culmination is the narrator instructing the reader to count the number of stick figures inside the book's front and back covers to learn how many people he killed in war and how many women he slept with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fishyflesh (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Celtic short Sword

When did the Celtic long sword start to shorten and what was the cause of this transformation. The Romans certainly have used the shorten version I.E. The Gladius.

Mr. Shane Shea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.161.125 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi, Shane. From your name I assume that you are either Irish, or of Irish origin, and on that basis your question is specifically related to the development of warfare in Ireland, rather than the Celtic world as a whole? However, the information I have, from my study of seventeenth century history, is related to the use and development of sword fighting techniques in Scotland, though I think this probably has some more general application. Anyway, the Celtic long-sword, better known as the claymore, was the weapon of choice from roughly the early fourteenth century to the end of the seventeenth. Though still in use in the early 1700s it began to be replaced by the single-handed, basket-hilted broadsword, sometimes erroneously referred to as a claymore. The reason for the change was simple enough: the development of firearms rendered formations made up of men wielding two-handed swords highly vulnerable. In response, Gaelic soldiers began themselves to make increasing use of muskets in combination with the broadsword and a small shield, known as a targe, and a dagger, known as a dirk. These weapons were used most effectively in what became known as the Highland charge. In essence this meant that a Highland army would advance to within firing distance of the enemy, let off a dropping shot, to which the enemy musketeers would respond, then, before their opponents had time to reload, rush into their ranks with sword, dirk and targe. The targe was used to knock enemy bayonets to one side, while the Highland soldiers got to work, with broadsword in one hand and dirk-held behind the shield-in the other. There are numerous examples of this technique between 1644 and 1746, from the Battle of Tippermuir, where it was first used successfully in Scotland, to the Battle of Culloden, where it was finally defeated by defence in depth. The whole tactic is thought to have been devised by Alasdair MacColla, the great Scottish-Irish hero, during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. You will find detailed information on the subject in Highland Warrior: Alasdair MacColla and the Civil Wars by the Scottish historian David Stevenson. In the meantime, Erin go Bragh!, if you will allow an English woman to express this sentiment! Clio the Muse 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you mention the gladius, i assume your have in mind the "Celtic origin" section of that article, and that by "Celtic long sword" you mean the 70-90cm Celtic sword which split the Roman's wooden shields at the Battle of the Allia, and was the origin of the spatha. If so, i'm not sure that the two are related, the gladius was derived from the Iberian falcata:

a slightly curved sword, single-edged for the first two thirds of its length (55-63 cm) with the remainder of the blade double-edged. Five centimeters wide at its broadest point, the weapon was cast in one piece with the handle and hilt curving back over the hand, providing good protection. The secret of the falcata was in its manufacture, from the finest Spanish steel, which made it so sharp and durable that it would cut through almost any armor and was known to break the Roman sword of this period, a weapon of Greek design and not yet the true gladius of later years. So superior was this weapon, that when Scipio captured Cartegena in 209 B.C.E., he captured a number of Spanish ironsmiths and forced them to teach his own smiths how to manufacture the falcata, which the Romans then adopted and called the gladius hispanicus or sword of Spain. (Gabriel, Richard A. (2002) The Great Armies of Antiquity)

Scipio had fought against Iberians and Celtiberians armed with the falcata at the Battle of Cannae, but in this battle the majority of the Celts were the naked blue-faced variety from Gaul, and carried the same basic long sword they would in Ceasar's time.—eric 22:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yours is the better answer, eric; I was ovelooking the Roman link! Clio the Muse 00:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

punishments for breaking the law when one is an illegal immigrant

How many felony/misdemeanor offences must one accumulate before he/she is eligible for deportation In the United states? Would a drug charge be possible grounds for deportation? Would a DUI constitute as a drug offence? The law states that a drug abuse problem is grounds for deportation if it is dangerous to the people surrounding the accuser. Would killing someone in a drinking and driving accident constitute as endangering a fellow citizen?

20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Andrea

In what country? NeonMerlin 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The United states69.146.59.188drea

I don't understand, aren't all illegal immigrants eligible for deportation already, even if they haven't committed any (other) crime ? (They may actually stay in the US longer if they do commit another crime, as they will then be forced to serve jail time prior to deportation.) StuRat 01:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Second-order deity

Is there a term for the idea that God him/her/itself might be in a body and/or realm controlled by, some sort of deity-over-deities (who may or may not be interested in the affairs of worlds two levels below him/her/it)? NeonMerlin 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which begs the question about n-th order dieties, maybe it's turtles all the way down. -- Diletante 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know that there's any established theology of such, but the most obvious term for this would seem to be "meta-deity"... AnonMoos 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You should look into Gnosticism, which involves the concept you are describing. I'm sorry to say you will probably want to look at a better source than the Wikipedia article. Crypticfirefly 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ft. Collins Colorado

Can anyone tell me who Ft. Collins, Co. is named after?

The article Fort Collins, Colorado has the answer you seek. -- Diletante 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ft. Collins Colorado Can anyone tell me who Ft. Collins is named after. Thanks, wsccj8

Facing east

Hi my name is Claire, and after having a discussion with my sister, we are struggling for an answer, so We hope you can help.

It's to do with Religion and why do Crosses get placed on the East wall in churches and in buryals feet are placed facing East.?

What we think is 1. The sun rise's in the East symbolising a new day , so does this mean New life. 2.Was Christ crucified facing East hence the placing of crosses Easterly facing.?

Many thanks and we will eagerly be awaiting your reply.

Blessings

Claire and Helen.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a relevant article, Orientation of Churches (and compare the 1911 Britannica s.v. Orientation). And on burial orientation, see Bertram Puckle's Funeral Customs (search here for "feet to the East"). Wareh 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Open-source license question

Are there any open-source licenses that require those publishing derivative works to say up top what parts they've added, removed and changed? It seems to me this would be the best way to standardize codes of conduct, terms of service and privacy policies without requiring anyone to read the same text twice. NeonMerlin 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Peace/War Quote

"There cannot be peace without war, but there can be war without peace."

I am sure that I have heard this quote (or some variation of it). However, I can't seem to find it anywhere. I checked Wikiqoute and Google Searched it. Has anyone heard of it? FruitMart07 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

". . . there may be peace without war, but there cannot be war without some kind of peace."—Augustine of Hippo, City of God Book X1X, Chapter 13.—eric 23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reinhold Niebuhr might have been the one to reverse Augustine's words, tho i cannot find a quote.—eric 00:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in more war and peace quotes you can have Aristotle's famous paradox We make war that we may live in peace, and J. F. Kennedy's variation of this theme, which went It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war. Or you can have Vegetius Let him who desires peace prepare for war, or St. Augustine The purpose of all wars is peace. And so it goes on! Clio the Muse 00:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)