Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 23

Les Miserables Quote on Communism

Can someone find the Victor Hugo quote from Les mis where he says communism is lie a butcher killing the cow to divide it up. he mentions the brits can create wealth but dont know how to distribute it. and then gives his vision of socialism. --Gary123 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Social prosperity means the man happy, the citizen free, the nation great.

England solves the first of these two problems. She creates wealth admirably, she divides it badly. This solution which is complete on one side only leads her fatally to two extremes: monstrous opulence, monstrous wretchedness. All enjoyments for some, all privations for the rest, that is to say, for the people; privilege, exception, monopoly, feudalism, born from toil itself. A false and dangerous situation, which sates public power or private misery, which sets the roots of the State in the sufferings of the individual. A badly constituted randeur in which are combined all the material elements and into which no moral element enters.

Communism and agrarian law think that they solve the second problem. They are mistaken. Their division kills production. Equal partition abolishes emulation; and consequently labor. It is a partition made by the butcher, which kills that which it divides. It is therefore impossible to pause over these pretended solutions. Slaying wealth is not the same thing as dividing it.

There's a lot more being discussed in that part. I suggest you go and check the whole thing. — Kieff | Talk 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Les Misérables, chapter iv. --Wetman (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be the origin of the You have two cows joke?  ;-) AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

senators

Who are the senators of Washington? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.209.199 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the US Senators for the State of Washington? Or do you mean one of various sporting teams which have been named the Washington Senators? Or the US Senators for Washington, DC (in which case, there aren't any). FiggyBee (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The poster could also be asking for a roster of members of the Washington State Senate. But if you're reading The Old Man and the Sea, he's talking about the baseball team. (Don't remember if the Sens are mentioned, but I know the old man feared "the Indians of Cleveland." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He should have feared the Florida Marlins. --M@rēino 02:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

They also may have meant the members of the United States Senate since they meet in Washington. Dismas|^(talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Food and Wine in Plays

Pamela brown (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Does anyone know a book / concordance in which I could look or references to specific wines and foods mentioned in plays?

Try Norman Kiell's Food and Drink in Literature: A Selectively Annotated Bibliography (Scarecrow, 1995; ISBN 0810830302), which Amazon has new for $32.14. I don't know how it's formatted, but I bet it has an index. A little more specialized is Robert Palter's The Duchess of Malfi's Apricots, and Other Literary Fruits.

The Library of Congress catalog also has well over a hundred books listed under the subject heading "Food in literature." --zenohockey (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And someone at the University of Kansas wrote an M.A. thesis on food in contemporary drama. --zenohockey (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Could Congress change the result of a presidential election?

In United States Electoral College#Appointment by state legislature, it mentioned several cases when states admitted too late for an election had their electors chosen by the state legislature. Since new states have been admitted between Election Day and the meeting of the Electoral College before, couldn't a majority party in Congress abuse this to change an election when they apparently lost the electoral vote in a close presidential election, by admitting a new state between Election Day and the meeting of the Electoral College, if they know that the new state's legislature would select electors for their party and that it would be enough additional electors to change the result of the election? --Spoon! (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Could Congress change the result of a presidential election? Sure. Why not? Your Supreme Court seems to be able to!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Article II, Section I of the Constitution says "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." Emphasis mine, of course. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That said, there are ways Congress could try to "overturn" a presidential election. Congress is in charge of counting Electoral College votes. Congress could find some excuse to throw out some of the votes. Look at the 1876 presidential election. There was a dispute over who really won some states, and a special committee formed by Congress decided who would be president. You may remember that in 2000 and 2004, some Congressional Democrats (with plenty of reason) tried to stop Congress from certifying George Bush's victory. Imagine the crisis that would have resulted had most members of Congress decided to throw out Ohio's electoral votes in 2004! Undoubtedly, Bush would have challenged (again) to the Supreme Court, which could have found a reason to cancel Congress' decision. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Mwalcoff's first comment is relevant. The words "which Day" (note the singular) mean that the rule about "shall be the same" applies only to the second part of the sentence: the Electoral College has to vote on a single date, but they don't have to be appointed (or elected) on a single date. Say that one party controls both houses of Congress but their candidate for President trails 271-269 in electoral votes. So just after election day, they approach Puerto Rico and offer some sort of bribe to the PR economy if PR will ask for statehood immediately. The PR legislature goes for it and both houses of Congress accept their application effective immediately. PR gets 7 electoral votes based on its population, appointed as its legislature may direct (there's no constitutional requirement for them to be appointed through an election) -- and swings the presidential election. As long as all this happens before Electoral College Voting Day and before the authority of the lame-duck Congress expires, it ought to be legal.

Of course it's also completely undemocratic. Not only is the presidential election subverted, but the residents of Puerto Rico have a habit, when asked in referendums whether they want statehood, of voting against it. But elected officials are given wide latitude to do things that might be undemocratic or unpopular. If the public doesn't like it, they can try protesting, they can attempt a recall vote or call for an impeachment in places where those are available, and there's always the opportunity to kick them out at the next election. (Well, almost always.) But in the meantime, the action stands as legal.

Another variation of the scenario would involve an existing state splitting itself into two states, in order to qualify for two extra senators and therefore two extra electoral votes. It seems harder to imagine any state legislature accepting any sort of persuasion to do this, though.

--Anon, 06:13 UTC, 01/23, 2008.

Literary device name

What's it called when an author inserts a character recognizable as him/herself into his/her work? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-insertion or Author surrogate. FiggyBee (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Mary Sue Bovlb (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I need those links for an WP:Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rome and China

What evidence is there for possible contacts between the ancient Chinese and the Roman empires? Viola 3 (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One place to start is Sino-Roman relations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

and also Daqin, the archaic Chinese name for Rome. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See also the archaeological site in the Mekong Delta, Óc Eo where Roman coins were found. --Wetman (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Silk Road. Corvus cornix_talk 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion and the End of the World

I've heard that Christians claim that there are alot of signs, for example in the Bible, when the End of the World will occur soon. I've also heard that many and most of these signs have already occurred, come, and been fulfilled and the End of the World will indeed come soon nowadays.

But what about other religions? Christianity is just one of the many religions in the world today. There are so many religions in the world today. Do other religions also claim that there signs, for example in their holy religious books, when the End of the World will occur soon? If so, then do they also claim that many and most of those signs have already occurred and the End of the World is coming soon?

If not, then why? If other religions don't claim to have signs for the End of the World, and only Christianity does, then why? If other religions don't claim that many and most signs of the End of the World have already been fulfilled and it is coming soon, and only Christianity does, then why? Why would only Christianity claim to have signs for the End of the World, and other religions don't? Why would only Christianity claim that many and most signs of the End of the World have already been fulfilled and it is coming soon, and other religions don't?

When I mean the "End of the World", I mean the end of world as we know it today and we have always known it throughout human history, or something like it. When I mean religions, I mean only religions that do indeed talk about the End of the World, not those that don't. So don't mention anything here about religions that don't. I'm not asking if other religions do talk about the End of the World or do not. And by other religions, I mean many and most other religions, usually, in general.

Bowei Huang (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, the New Testament says there's no way to know when the day might come (Mark 13:32 etc.), but that you should act like it could come any day. So the "signs" are actually somewhat useless for the purpose of future prediction, according to Biblical Christianity.

However, in Islam there are traditions about signs that will occur before the day of judgement; here's one link that I turned up quickly in Google searching: http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/Majorsigns.html -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Christians have been claiming all that for centuries, and the Apocalypse never came. There's no particular reason to believe in any of these modern claims. — Kieff | Talk 08:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a classic history book about how nuts people went around the year 1000AD; a good contrast to how worried people got when it turned 2000AD. See The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article you want should be Eschatology (which sucks), but is actually End time (which contains information and links to articles about many religions' eschatological beliefs, like Islamic eschatology). --24.147.69.31 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The signs of the End of the World in the Bible are mainly, but not all, from Matthew Chapter 24, Mark Chapter 13, and Luke Chapter 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The signs of the End of the World don't say what particular specific exact time or date it will come, but they tell, show, and and give us a clue that it will come soon when they occur.

But do Muslims actually say that their signs in Islam have already ocurred, that the End of the World will come soon, or their signs show that? That website doesn't say. Bowei Huang (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think most religions have some form of account for the end of the world. The particular brand of story that the Christians have is just a different story than others have, and is more well known. John the Baptist was an apocolypticist. He preached that the end would come within the lifetime of his followers, of which Jesus was one. In the gospels we see that Jesus is often frustrated with his apostles' not fully understanding his message. In these instances it is interesting to note that it takes the form of a sense of urgency. He portrayed to his apostles over and over that the end would come upon his death. This was the notion "kingdom come." at the time. This is why Jesus laments "Why hast thou forsaken me?" when the end of the world does not come. When the apostles realize that the end has not come, they have a meeting in the upper room to get their story straight. This is portrayed in Acts. They shifted the meaning and message of Christianity, so as to adapt and continue to exist and be believable. The same type of thing happened with Rastafarianism, when Haile Selassie denied to them that he was their massiah. They continued to believe with a new interpretation.

The laws of physics, specifically the Law of conservation of matter and energy, and the Second law of thermodynamics together tell us that there will in fact be an end of time, rather than an eternity of anything. However, there is no reason to believe that any interpretation of the Bible, or of historical events supports any particular fate. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Art Painting UN Security Council

Can anybody please provide any information on the painting or tapestry that is used as a back drop for the recent article on the UN Security Council... [1]*References

Thank you and I look forward to being enlightened!

user name Kanyawest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanyawest (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the UN website -

"The Security Council Chamber was a gift from Norway, designed by the Norwegian architect Arnstein Arneberg.

A central feature of the Security Council Chamber is the oil canvas mural painted by the Norwegian artist Per Krogh. It depicts a phoenix rising from its ashes, as a symbol of the world being rebuilt after the Second World War. Above the dark sinister colours at the bottom different images in bright colours symbolizing the hope for a better future are depicted. Equality is symbolized by a group of people weighing out grain for all to share.

The blue and gold silk tapestry on the walls and in the draperies by the East River windows features the anchor of faith, the growing wheat of hope, and the heart of charity." Hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This information should go into a new section Security Council Chamber. --Wetman (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Corpus Glossatorum Iuris Civilis

Do you know where I can find a copy of volume 7 of this, preferably online. I need the accursian gloss on the distinction between roman actions of the actio de recepto and actio furti. Its a gloss to the Digest book 4.9. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.238.157 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be online, not even on Google Books...but it seems to be available in lots of academic/legal libraries, if you live near one. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Egypt vs Thailand

I am compairing and contrasting the two countries. Egypt and Thailand.

Clothing. Food. Money/Economics. Ideas. Climate. Beliefs. People. population. Transportation.

Not their history, how they are today.

Thank you Michii5760 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't actually asked a question, and this looks a lot like a homework assignment. You should be able to find at least some of the information you are looking for in the respective articles for each country, Egypt and Thailand. If you have specific questions after performing the basic research, please feel free to come back and ask. --LarryMac | Talk 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Nepal

A request to redraw the Coat of arms of Nepal in vector form has been made at the graphics lab. [2]. Which we've got figured out, except for one thing. What is the object on the female arm? Suggestions are a ribbon, a bracelet or bracelets, or beads. Can you help us out? Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's considerable support for a glass bead bracelet from this google search. Little support for a ribbon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I don't know why I didn't think of google for the bracelet, I did use google images for the rhotodendrons. I found some images that explain the object in the low resolution image from which I am working. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the Nazi flag fly in German memorials?

In this recent Slate column by Christopher Hitchens, he says the following:

By a vote of both South Carolina houses in the year 2000, the Confederate battle flag ceased to be flown over the state capitol and now only waves (as quite possibly it should) over the memorial to fallen Confederate soldiers.

Do any other memorials to fallen soldiers for now-reviled causes feature the flag or other symbol of that cause? I'm guessing not in Germany (they seem far more ashamed of their past than we Americans do of ours...), but maybe someone knows something about the Imperial Japanese flag, the Soviet flag, etc. Thanks in advance.--zenohockey (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is illegal to fly the swastika and other nazi symbols in Germany, so certainly not there. That's not true in the other places you mention. In Japan, the Yasukuni Shrine commemorates soldiers, and is accused of (at the least) glossing over the misdeeds of Japan's Manchuko/WW2 era; in general Japan does not accept the unambiguous Japan-bad-allies-good view of WW2 held in, for example, the US. In Russia at least the memory of the great patriotic war is somewhat decoupled from Stalin and communism (it's more a "fighting invading nazi monsters" than "protecting socialism" thing, now), but in general Russia retains a rather ambivalent attitude even to Stalin. And of course don't forget that the UK, the US, France, Turkey, Belgium, and every other imperial or post-imperial power has done all manner of unspeakable things under flags they still proudly fly. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My point (which I seem to have neglected to actually make, above) is that bad historical events that you might expect to be reviled aren't necessarily, particularly by the decendent peoples and states of them wot done the deed. The communist time isn't reviled in Russia (indeed somepeople downright hanker for it), and while most Japanese regard the military acts of the Shōwa period as excessive that's as much because it ultimately brought defeat, shame, and occupation upon Japan than actually for the moral evil it did. British war memorials proudly list battles fought in the Boer War; those actions certainly aren't reviled in Britain. And I guess South Carolina is the same; they're not super proud of their history of slavery, but many folks are proud (and don't revile) the exploits of the Confederate Army. Perhaps Mark Anthony was wrong; it's the evil that men do that is oft interred with their bones. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That is, The Evil That Men Do, for those like me who find themselves saying "good grief, Finley, now I'll have to check out what Mark Anthony actually said". Enforced English Literature 101 :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the Soviet war memorial at Treptow, Berlin still fly Soviet flags? Corvus cornix_talk 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not when I was last there, Corvus cornix (2004). Incidentally, in response to a point made above, the central theme of the Great Patriotic War was always the salvation of the motherland, not socialism or communism. Even the Orthodox Church, the very symbol and life of the old Russia, was released from former restrictions. Stalin's vital wartime role is still acknowledged, and the Battle of Stalingrad is still the Battle of Stalingrad. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

January 24

Santa Fe Trail

Loperman2510 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)loperman2510 Loperman2510 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)I want to know more about the Santa Fe Trail can you please help?

Can I first refer you to the notice at the top of the page:"Search first" And, secondly, refer you to Santa Fe Trail. Gwinva (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I need some resourses can I get some help? Loperman2510 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)loperman2510 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperman2510 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You will find that Santa Fe Trail#External links provides links to a number of online resouces, if the main article provides insufficient information for you. Gwinva (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What were some of the dangers on the santa Fe Trail like besides hostile indians?Loperman2510 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)loperman2510

Being murdered for asking too many questions hotclaws 10:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Loperman, spend more than 15 minutes looking around on your own, I think you'll come up with some good answers. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I cant find anything really.HELP!!!!

I NEED HELP!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperman2510 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That very question about dangers on the trail is answered in the Wikipedia article you've been linked to! How can people possibly help you if you don't use the resources we provide? -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I assume it was a mistake, but you deleted some comments from other posters (and an entire other question and its responses!), which is not considered good etiquette to say the least. I'm restoring them now just restored them. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LDS

Can you tell me a little about Mormons?Kop the man (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)kop the man

Check out The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism & Mormon (prophet). --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, we also ought to include sites that look at both sides of Mormonism. So in that spirit, here are two that are perhaps the best for doing that, the first is the official web page of the LDS Church, and the second is the web page of the Utah Lighthouse Ministries, which is regarded by many as the most academically sound and objective organization that opposes Mormonism. There are a couple of other sites that are middle of the road, neither all for or all against, Mormonism, here and here. There is a LOT of stuff out there on Mormonism, and part of the problem is sorting it all out. Good luck... -- Saukkomies 09:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he is not trying to look —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperman2510 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Utah Lighthouse Ministries is either academically sound or objective. It was founded by former (excommunicated) members of the Church who have dedicated their lives to steering people away from it. Its stated purpose, according to the website, is "to document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare LDS doctrines with Christianity." Quick views of the "New Order Mormon" and "Mormon Alliance" pages similarly yield perspectives that runs contrary to established church doctrine. There is a dearth of purely objective information about the LDS Church, and I absolutely agree that sorting it all out is a problem. FAIR is an independent site that attempts to answer questions and correct misinformation about the Church. Admittedly, it leans pro-LDS, but is arguably no more biased than the other sites listed above. Kingsfold (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

JC-1 H2 Literature texts

I just started taking JC-1 H2 Literature this year. I have to study five texts, two under "Reading Literature" (which H1 students also take) and three under "Literature and Identity".

One of my "Reading Literature" texts is Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Is it a difficult book to study? Do you have any advice?

In secondary school, I did "Macbeth". It was fun and easy. Now I have to study "Othello" for "Reading Literature" and "King Lear" for "Literature and Identity". How are the two texts similar and diferent to "Macbeth"? Are they more difficult? Any advice for someone who has already studied "Macbeth"?

How about "Ariel" by Sylvia Plath? I understand it is a book of poems. I am better with prose than poems but I know the literary devices for poems and scored A1 for Literature in secondary school. Same questions - is it difficult and do you have any advice?

My last "Literature and Identity" text is "Fistful of Colours". I will not ask for advice about that book because it is by a local author and Wikipedia has no article about the book.

By the way, thanks for helping me with my Economics. You guys rock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.8 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have the slightest clue what JC-1 H2 means? Malcolm Starkey (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess: JC-1 = Junior college, Year 1; H2 = category Higher 2.  --Lambiam 08:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice is a fairly easy book to study and funny too. Study the two other plays the way you did the Macbeth.. I didn't find Ariel difficult,you have good skills it seems to tackle it. Enjoy,there's some great reads there. hotclaws 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone could consider Macbeth either 'fun' or 'easy', let alone both... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Macbeth is easy when compared to other Shakespeare plays. It's short, the plot is straightforward, the themes are clear, and there's very little comedy. Gdr 13:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought Macbeth was great fun when we did it at school - plenty of blood and guts and witches. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just hope the curse doesn't apply to Refdesk discussions... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just remembered a production I saw once that provoked some unintended audience laughter when some characters knelt down (probably showing allegiance to Malcolm) and the swords that were hanging from their belts touched the floor of the stage and visibly bent. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

165.21, just as there is no Royal Road to Geometry, there is no Easy Route to Literature: it's a personal voyage of self-discovery. After all, it is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single person in possession of intelligence, must be in want of a book! I could, of course, refer you to the Wikipedia pages on Pride and Prejudice, Othello and King Lear for some general guidance, but there is really no substitute for reading these works yourself and reaching your own conclusions. In a way I envy you, particularly in coming to Jane Austen for the first time. I read Pride and Prejudice when I was about ten years old and simply loved it; loved the characters and loved the way Austen created dramatic and romantic tension. You have a great discovery ahead!

As for the Shakespeare, you will find both Othello and King Lear more demanding than Macbeth, though all might be said to take their departure from aspects of the leading characters' personalities: if Macbeth is about ambition, Othello is about the interplay between jealousy and malice. In King Lear the tragedy emerges from the conceit, pride and misjudgment of the eponymous hero, a man who was 'old before he was wise.'

You will appreciate the poems in Aerial a little better if you discover something about the life of Sylvia Plath. In reading Lady Lazarus be mindful of the Bible story-I am Lazarus, come from the dead (to quote another poet altogether!) Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lambiam is correct. JC-1 = Junior college year 1, H2 = category Higher 2. By the way, your junior college article is all rubbish. No offence.

AndrewWTaylor, Macbeth is very interesting. The story, characters and themes are easy to understand but still thought provoking. My other secondary school text, The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan, was also thought provoking but much harder.

Thanks for all the advice, HotClaws and Clio the Muse. So Pride and Prejudice is easy, interesting and funny? Looks like I will enjoy my two years of studying JC H2 Literature nd (hopefully) get an A in the A Levels. From your advice, I understand that Othello and King Lear will be similar to Macbeth but more demanding. I heard that Macbeth, Othello and King Lear are all typical Shakespeare tragedies where a good man has a tragic flaw which causes his downfall, but the tragic flaw is different in each play. Is that accurate? Lastly, is the language in Othello and King Lear similar to that in Macbeth? It took me a few months to get used to the "anon"s, "withal"s, etc. when I studied Macbeth. Some of my classmates did not take Literature in secondary school, or studied texts that were not by Shakespeare. If the language is similar I will have a head start over them as they will have to spend a few months getting used to the language.

Gerard Winstanley

Did Gerard Winstanley, the English radical, have a unique vision of the order of human and divine affairs, or was his idealism simply part of the general millinerian expectations of Puritan contemporaries? Thank you. Kristine Spencer (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I hate to say it, but this sounds like a homework assignment. However, if on the chance it isn't, and if you are one of the incredibly rare individuals who actually is interested in Winstanley, then I'll take a chance and reply as if you're asking a legitimate (non-homework) question. Gerard Winstanley was, of course, very much a product of his times. So of course he was influenced by the general millinerian movement of his day. However, that does not really address the question as to whether he had a unique vision or not. He envisioned a Utopian Christian society based on the passages in the Book of Acts in the New Testament (Acts 2:44-45) where the Early Christian community was described as classless, and holding all property in common. He was instrumental in organizing the True Levellers, often refered to as the Diggers, who set up communities in England in 1649 (during the English Civil Wars) in which all property was held in common by the community. Winstanley published a number of tracts that were widely circulated throughout England and Europe, and which had a considerable influence on many people who later attempted to form religious Utopian socialist communities, most notably the Anabaptists and Mennonites. Winstanley has been heralded as the first socialist, the first Utopianist, etc. However, as your question seeks to uncover, was Winstanley's vision unique or not? Was he really the first to come up with the idea of a classless society in which all property was held in common, or not? Although some people would say he was, perhaps it would be a good idea to compare Winstanley's ideas with the much older tradition of Christian Monastacism, which also sought to create communities of believers who were supposedly all of one class, and who held all property in common. Of course communities of Christian Monks and Nuns were usually segregrated by gender, and were also celibate, which the Diggers were not. But the basic underlying structure of the community within a typical Christian monastery was very close to what Winstanley and the Diggers were attempting to create. The difference between the Monks and Winstanley was that he sought to create a system that would eventually spread to encompass all of English society - making the entire nation classless and socialist, whileas Christian monasteries sought just to serve the greater society they lived in, as ancillary institutions. So, I do hope that I have not just done your homework for you. -- Saukkomies 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Depending how serious you are, Kristine, you might care to glance at the work of John Edward Christopher Hill, particularly The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. It was Hill, more than anyone else, who brought Winstanley, a rather obscure figure, to the attention of the modern world. As for the man himself you could do no better than have a look at his pamphlets, particularly The True Leveller's Standard Advanced and The New Law of Righteousness.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that Winstanley was indeed a man of his time, one who gave shape to the radical hopes and expectations of the day, but there are also aspects to his work that go beyond the 'primitive communism' so beloved by Hill and others, ideas that could easily find a place in the modern green and environmental movement. His concept of God, for instance, comes close to pantheism, a belief that the divine was not remote and unknowable, but imminent and immediate, within nature itself:

The whole creation is the clothing of God. The Father is the universal power that hath spread himself in the whole globe; the Son is the same power drawn into and appearing in one single person, making that person subject to one spirit and to know him that dwells everywhere.

To know the secrets of nature was to know the works of God, who is also to be found in each and every individual. For Winstanley nature, the bounty of nature, was corrupted by greed and selfishness, by private property and covetousness, all of which entered the earth as a consequence of the Fall. Greed, as he saw it, had adversely affected the natural environment. The earth was being exploited not for a common good but for ruthless forms of private gain, which enriched the few only to enslave the many. The artificial divisions placed on the land, by expropriation and enclosure, had to be ended by everyone "coming to live in community with the globe and in the spirit of the globe." This was also a spiritual and mystical as well as a practical vision, for Christ himself was present in nature;

The body of Christ is where the Father is, in the earth, purifying the earth; and his spirit is entered into the whole creation, which is the heavenly glory where the Father dwells.

Winstanley shared the view of other Puritan thinkers that the second coming was immanent, but it was not of a figure emerging from the skies to sit in judgment, but the liberation of a force already latent within the hearts of people, a concept that anticipates later Quaker thought. The restoration of the earth as a bounty and treasury for all was, as he saw it, already in the process of coming true, as new forms of consciousness, new ideas of freedom, acted as a signal to the reappearance of Christ-"The Spirit of Christ, which is the spirit of universal community and freedom, is rising and rising."

Fully consistent with his belief in universal liberation, of people and the land on which they lived, Winstanley rejected many of the theological ideas so beloved by his fellow Puritans, particularly the excluding concepts of election and predestination, yet another sign of his originality. Salvation, like liberation, had to be universal, and all men and women would be gathered up in Christ. Just as the many were chosen, not the few, so there was no original sin and no Hell.

Yes, an original thinker, too radical for his own day or, for that matter, any day after. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Great post, Clio! I love Hill's book. It amazes me whenever I meet anyone who knows absolutely anything about Winstanley, and you know a LOT! So I suppose I'm amazed at you. It seems like Winstanley was fairly influential around the time he was alive, but then fell into obscurity until, as you pointed out, he was popularized by Hill in the 20th Century. I believe Hill, an avowed British Marxist, wanted to find someone in Engllish history who he could point to as a predecessor of modern socialism, and that is why he made Winstanley the subject of his work. Since then there have been a number of people and groups around the world who have idolized Winstanley - including someone in the Haight Ashbury Hippie movement in the late 1960s who wrote articles that were published under the pseudonym of Gerard Winstanley, and who was a member of the Hippie group that called themselves the Diggers, after the communities that were created in England in 1649, whom Winstanley was involved. A folk song about the original Diggers called "The World Upside Down" was written by Leon Rosselson and popularized by the Scottish musician Dick Gaughan, appearing on his album "Handful of Earth" which was released in 1981. There's even an intentional community of squatters/utopian communists who are living on roughly the same land where the first Digger community existed on Saint George's Hill west of London. -- Saukkomies 11:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have time for academic treatments, you could do worse than to watch Winstanley, which I rather enjoyed a few years ago on a double bill with It Happened Here. I was quite impressed by the apparent realism of that film, in that it really tried to show the Diggers from their own point of view, without an obvious modern perspective. It felt more like a 17th century movie than a movie about the 17th century.--Pharos (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest city in Oklahoma

When I typed the above into Google search, the answer for Wikipedia was Fort Gibson est 1824, but the next menu item stated that the oldest was Vinita, est. 1871. Is there a reason why Vinita is not shown in Wikipedia as oldest?Visitamer (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)visitamer

Vinita, Oklahoma is the first permanently settled city, but the second actual city. -- kainaw™ 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mandate of Palestine

Did the creation of the Mandate of Palestine after the First World War create the parameters for the present day problems in the area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.39.57 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A good place to start on this issue is here (Israeli-Palestinian_conflict) ny156uk (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The brief answer is "yes". AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article linked by Ny156uk is reasonably comprehensive, 86.148, but the brief(ish) answer is that the Palestine Mandate was based on a quite unworkable premise: that it was possible to promote Jewish immigration, in terms of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, while ensuring that the rights of the indigenous population were not prejudiced. The British singularly failed to understand the extent to which Zionism would give rise to a reaction in new forms of Arab nationalism. Theseus does not rest beside the Minotaur. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in saying the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut is certainly NOT "the oldest constitution in the Western World"?

Unless ive been transported to a parallel universe where, for instance, Ancient Greece never existed, im pretty sure im right. And if i am can someone please remove the ludicrous statement from the 'On This Day' section of the Main Page, and from the offending article. Willy turner (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to an older written Constitution? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Athenian Constitution (the actual original constitution that Aristotle was referring to) , Solonian Constitution, any ancient Roman constitutions ? Youre not saying the original document still has to exist are you? And the onus is on someone to provide a reputable source that says the Fundamental Orders was the first Western written constitution, not me. There are no references backing up the statement in the article.Willy turner (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at constitution in particular the History and development section. It really depends on what you consider a constitution and how 'techincal' we want to get about this. In essence I find the general 'oldest' style questions on things like this are always of questionable validity. ny156uk (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already consulted constitution, which suggests there were several written constitutions prior to the Fundamental Orders. Regardless of how technical you want to be about defining a constitution. It would be an odd definition of constitution that exluded the examples ive given, wouldnt it? Are you saying the original Athenian constitution and the constitution of Solon werent constitutions? Or that they werent written down? And neither of you have directly answered the original question yet. Willy turner (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From my interpretation you are correct, there have existed many constitutions in the western world prior to the order of connecticut. The examples are for all to see in the history and development section of the constitution article. Try here (http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/ThreePerspectivesontheConstitution/ConstitutionsAroundtheWorld.shtml) too. As i said it depends on how 'technical' people get - can it be across many documents, must it be in one place, must every part be written at the same time? Their claim will be based on technicalities that mean they are the 'oldest' of a very specific definition of 'constitution'

22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, im glad we agree. Yes, your examples of the complexities of the issue are interesting. Incidently, i suggested it might be wrong on the discussion for errors on the main page. They have now changed the main page so it says the oldest constitution in North America. However apperently its debatable if thats even true. im not that bothered though Willy turner (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, the sources given at Fundamental Orders of Connecticut seem to contradict one another. The claim "...is considered by some as the first written Constitution in the Western tradition" is footnoted to the source [3], which says, sure enough, "Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) — The first written constitution in the Western tradition." Yet numerous earlier examples are given on that very page. Looking at the link from there, [4], I get the sense that by "Western tradition" they mean "the New World", which is definitely not what is meant by the wikipedia page Western tradition (not to mention just plain wrong). Another source, [5] disputes the claim in no uncertain terms. The constitution page seems to have it right -- the first North American constitution (though I'd still add a "maybe" in there). Pfly (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

United Nations and genocide

Will the united nations ever develop an effective response to the problem of genocide. Hope this is the right place for my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super suds (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not really the best place for this question (wikipedia's ref desk isn't a place for 'discussions', though they occur often and to me do little harm). Anyway... perhaps in the future they may. The difficultly with the UN is that it is both strong and weak in equal measures. It can make requests of countries/governments and those requests carry a lot of 'weight', but they struggled to make 'demands' of countries/governments because often they lack the ability to provide anything to 'back up' that demand (without considerably international support). Genocide is difficult to stop because it tends to happen in regimes that take little notice of international diplomacy/international demands. Sanctions are difficult because if incorrectly thought-through they can make the situation worse for people without affecting the people they are trying to change (generally the government/ruling classes). ny156uk (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, have a look at the Genocide Convention and Universal jurisdiction. Perhaps the most effective tool the international community can use against genocide is the extreme unpalatability of the practice. No nation will openly endorse genocide today, and the fact that those who commit genocide will usually try to justify or excuse its actions by the terms of the international law as to genocide (e.g. by claiming that it was not genocide, or raising some kind of legal defence) demonstrates the effectiveness of this conceptual "incriminalisation" of genocide.

As to the effectiveness of the UN: remember that the UN is a collection of nations. It is nothing by itself without its members. The UN will only ever be as effective as the determination of its members to be so. One of the implications of this is that countries which refuse to act by international consensus weaken the UN and its credibility, making it even more difficult for the international community to enforce its consensus. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately the only defense against genocide is to convince the people doing it to stop. Like PalaceGuard008 says, international pressure and the shame of association with genocide are perhaps the strongest weapons it has. If this has no effect on the regime implementing the genocide, sanctions can have some effect, but are very limited in practical effects. If a country decides to withdraw from the UN and become isolationist (for example North Korea), there is little that the international community can do about it other than make sternly worded declarations. A more extreme action is to occupy the country, like the USA's reaction to Iraq (at least on the surface). This tends to be an internationally controversial decision, and it is not one that the UN can make, but rather one that must be made by individual countries. The UN may approve such action, but it is unlikely that they would in most situations. The powers of UN troops on the ground are quite limited, as their need to remain neutral can make it very difficult to maintain any sort of order and remain effective as a troop force. Steewi (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Genocide: Can we learn from History? by Donald Bloxholm in the January edition of the BBC History Magazine (pps. 46-49), a quite useful summary of some of the main arguments and dilemmas. Politics, particularly international politics, sad to say, is a cynical game of self-interest and calculation. As a vehicle for peace and order the United Nations is arguably even less effective than the old League of Nations. The world stood aside in Rwanda; it is standing aside in Darfur. It is likely to stand aside in the face of future horror unless, of course, some material or strategic interest is threatened. A depressing thought, I know, but true notwithstanding. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish or British??

I know it's about using Wikipedia but I do not know where ask it.

Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder) (RMS Titanic's builder) was born in Northern Ireland and NOW, Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the UK. So, I want to put him into a category but I don't know if he was British or Irish. What was his nationality?

Thanks and forgive me if this question isn't about using Wikipedia... I don't ask many questions. Ahmed987147 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He would be British. The Irish category would deal with people born from Republic of Ireland, whilst Ulster is a British province. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ulster is a Province of Ireland. 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster form Northern Ireland, a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"The term is often used informally as a synonym for Northern Ireland." - Is what I meant :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, when the guy was born his birthplace was in the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the time). So he can definately be called British. But there would be no harm putting him in both the Irish and British categories, if Category:Irish people can also include people born in Northern Ireland. Personaly I dont see any reason why the category couldnt include anyone born on the island of Ireland. Willy turner (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is one of those things where it depends on which side of the Atlantic you are for what you would answer. As an American, I would say that Thomas Andrews was an Irish citizen of Great Britain. However, it appears as if in the UK this would not necessarily be the case... This same rule would apply to someone from Wales or Scotland as well. I would be very reluctant to call someone from Aberdeen who is descended from Scottish blood a Brit. At least to their face I'd be reluctant to do that. And the same should apply to someone from Ulster as well. At least from my prejudiced American perspective. Perhaps there is NO "correct" answer to this question. -- Saukkomies 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You would be right to call him Scottish and British. MrsBucket (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahmed, I would confirm what Scarian and Willy have already written: in terms of nationality, and by strict legal definition, all people born in the six counties of Northern Ireland are British. However, I do have one small but important caveat: people in the Catholic or Nationalist community, the descendents of the original Gaelic inhabitants, will almost always describe themselves as Irish, while people with a Protestant and Unionist background, the descendents of the seventeenth century Planters, will hold fast to the British label. Indeed, I would go so far as to say, that if the United Kingdom ever fell into its constituent elements, then Britishness would survive in Ulster, if nowhere else. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely would have wagered good money that you would have responded in that way, Clio! Heh! But I simply must say that this is again something that is one of those differences between Yanks and Brits. It would be a very risky thing indeed for someone to try to argue the point you just made in certain pubs in the United States where there is a large population of very opinionated Irish Americans. This issue of someone from Ulster being called an Irish-Brit or just simply a Brit would be precisely one that would very easily end up in a bar brawl in such places. Because Americans are much more comforatable with people having double hyphenated ethnic labels (Italian-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, etc), I think we're more inclined to include the fact that someone is Irish or Scottish or Welsh rather than just simply calling them a "Brit". If Thomas were alive today he could tell us what he would prefer to be called, but since he's no longer around to do us this favor, we should perhaps agree that there are different ways that are acceptable to call someone who worked in the Belfast shipping yards. -- Saukkomies 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a point of courtesy, Saukkomies, might I politely request that you refrain from using the term Brits? Some (I'm not saying all) people regard that word as inappropriate, if not a little patronising, rather akin to calling someone whose name is David Dave without his consent. It won't wear your keyboard out if you type British, and it would certainly help you in your aim to set yourself up as the arbiter of correct terminology. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it gets hazy when dealing with Northern Ireland, but Scots are entirely as British as Englishmen. Scotland is part of Great Britain for one, and it is an "equal partner," so to speak, in the United Kingdom. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends who you talk to; I've met plenty of Scots who bristle at being called "British". Hey, I've met some who bristle at being called "Scottish" too. :-) Gwinva (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have met non-Britons that call all Britons 'English'.217.168.4.225 (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So have I, and they get a quick comeuppance when they call a Welsh, Scottish or Irish person that. As they should, just as if they called a Texan a Californian. They're probably confused because a lot of people call Elizabeth II "the Queen of England", although there's no such crown. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting anomaly that, while Northern Ireland is not a part of Great Britain (the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), people born there have the right not only to British citizenship, but also Irish citizenship. However the gentleman in question was born before the independence of the Irish republic so tht point would be moot for him. SaundersW (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

British citizenship? I suppose you mean British subjection. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

British Citizenship. Skittle (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a philosophy that ....

Is there a philosophy that addresses the question as to whether man is to struggle eternally against the unknown and the unknowable, or is to surrender to a "god".LShecut2nd (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as I understand the terms of your question, LShecut2nd, I would say that much of the western intellectual tradition is concerned with the dilemma you have identified here: the tension between the contingent and arbitrary forms of existence and the search for some kind of ultimate meaning. Perhaps existentialism might serve to go some way to satisfying your interest in this matter. I would refer you in particular to the work of Søren Kierkegaard, more specifically to Either/Or, The Concept of Dread, and The Sickness Unto Death. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest existentialism, which is interested with the importance of individual existence, both in relation to religion and society. Another good place to look would be at Friedrick Nietzsche. For a good overview, try here MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 21:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

--

The most broad answer to your question is the major branch of philosophy called epistemology. There is also an Epistemology Portal. This field deals with the question "How do we know things?", "What is knowledge?", or "How do I know I'm not in The Matrix?", etc. This field is closely related to Philosophy of science. This will attempt to answer the whole "Will it be a forever stuggle to know?" question. In general, I would say that much philosophy is being incorporated into our idea of science over the centuries, so I would say there is hope for what we can "know." We used to call science "Natural philosophy."

The whole "god" question arises in Philosophy of religion. The arguments for and against the existence of god are many, and many studied so well in Logic and critical thinking as to be categorized, etc. The problems with these arguments are identified as fallacies, and a defense of a belief in god is called a theodicy (and they are categorized as well).

It also depends on the meaning of your question. Are you more interested to know about the whole struggle of man, meaning of life, etc? Then you may want to look into humanism, and existentialism. If you are interested in a dispassionate study of the nature of the universe, you want to look into metaphysics. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aqiqah

I know about the Aqiqah but I want to know something. Why goat is the only animal to be sacrificed, can't it be a sheep, too? Where does it say that Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) used to sacrificed a goat? and whenever a boy is born, you buy only one and whenever is a girl is born, you buy two. Is this what the last prophet (p.b.u.h) used to do, also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.165 (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any expertise on Islam, but according to this website the prophet (p.b.u.h.) said only that a sacrifice should be performed. He did not specify which animal should be sacrificed. Nor did he specify how many should be sacrificed for boys or for girls. In some communities, it may be the custom to sacrifice two animals for a boy and only one for a girl. Apparently, in your community, it is the opposite. In some communities, sheep or cows may be sacrificed. Apparently, in your community, goats are sacrificed. The quote from the prophet (p.b.u.h.) suggests that these differences are matters of custom and are not requirements of Islam. According to this website, no aqiqah is required by Islam, though the custom is permissible. So, the authorities differ on whether aqiqah is even required. If it is required, how it is performed is a matter of custom. I think that it is not known for certain what the prophet (p.b.u.h.) did. 71.192.23.229 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

January 25

DPS

I was sitting at the DPS today waiting to get my driver's license renewed when a tall African-American man sat down next to me. He was in all the stereotypical ghetto clothes. Now I never believed I was any bit racist. Not at all! I, however, found myself wanting to move over a couple chairs (even though they were all taken) because I felt really uncomfortable. I don't know why though. After I got up I was thinking about this and wanted some psychoanalysis on the subject. Thanks, schyler (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this border on medical advice? Boiled down... you could've been subconsciously afraid of the gentleman's height, the connotations of his attire etc. - If you're not consciously racist, then forget all of the stereotypes in the media (e.g. "ghetto clothes"). Scarian^{Call me Pat} 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm definitely no psychiatrist or psychologist, but I imagine that your reaction was based on the man's close resemblance to a stereotype that, for a lot of people, especially in the media, represents danger. The feeling of discomfort you got doesn't necessarily make you racist, as it appeared without your volition. Your consideration of your feeling and your reaction to it, to not get up and move away, showed your ability to recognise the man as a fellow human being and his right to be where he was. Recognising that you felt uncomfortable in his presence and not making a fuss shows that you probably don't have a problem.

Furthermore, was your reaction to his presence based on his skin colour or his clothing? Would a white man in the same clothing have made you uncomfortable? What about a black man in a business suit? It may be that your discomfort was based on his choice of subculture and socio-economic background, rather than his race. Considering these possibilities might help you understand your way of thinking next time you are in a similar situation. Steewi (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Steewie, that was the most concise, comprehensive, and insightful answer I have ever recieved after asking a question on the reference desk. Thank you. I believe it was the dress because a white man in the same outfit would have given me the same reaction or a black man in a buisness suit would have been more comfortable (as comfortable as it can get at the DPS). schyler (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"The feeling of discomfort you got doesn't necessarily make you racist, as it appeared without your volition." Volition isn't involved. Racism is a stereotypical reaction, whether "willed"— i.e. provided justifications— or "involuntary"— made a secondary "instinct" through cultural training. --Wetman (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor of The Hindu

What is the name of the husband and children of the popular Indian newspaper editor Malini Parthasarathy of The Hindu newspaper? Any links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.113.165 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

American Casualties

What is the exact number of American casualties since 1776. This would include soldiers KIA, MIA, or wounded. I would prefer if it were an exact number, including soldiers that may have died/been wounded/gone missing today(1/24/08, or whenever this question is answered) in Iraq or Afghanistan. This number would also include soldiers killed in Somalia, or other places where there was no deceleration of war. And it does not matter what their branch of service was. This should include Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. I know this will been a hard task but I would greatly appreciate it. I am a private in the U.S. Army and thought a tattoo of this number you be a good way to remember our fallen heroes.

I did some calculations of my own using some numbers that i found on wikipedia and came up with 2,633,408 but that might be wrong

any help is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.12.208 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm, its a good tatoo in theory but within like 4 days of you getting your tatoo done, it will be outdated for the obviouse reasons. Personaly i would go with a tatoo of your division shoulder patch. Just a thought but at least if that changes it will still show a specfic time period you served. BonesBrigade 04:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster that this isn't a great tattoo idea, but anyway, using numbers from the table at United States casualties of war I got 2,842,584 (1,313,708 killed, 1,484,540 wounded, and 44,336 missing). I doubt these numbers, or any numbers you'll find anywhere, are absolutely complete though, and certainly not down to the last man. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you rreally like the number as a tattoo, adding the date and say, the time, would make it commemorative and historic as well, like a parchment. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You could be a bit more enigmatic & get a slightly longer lasting number, by taking the average number of deaths/missing per year or day or hour, which by my calculations might be something like year: 12,252, day: 33.6, hour: 1.4. They seem quite sobering to me, and as averages will move fairly slowly. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of a meaningless average - during wartime, the numbers are much higher, and during peacetime, much lower. I doubt there is hardly any given year/day/hour for which the number is anywhere near those. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out the the page on democide for links to sources on this sort of thing. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I note in passing that the phrase "deceleration of war" made me smile. —Tamfang (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Price of milk around the world

1 litre of milk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.28.250 (talk • contribs)

UK, Tesco, skimmed, 36p a pint. (I'll leave the maths to you) Richard Avery (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can do this math, since the cost of n pints isn't n times the cost of one pint. It's impossible to buy 1 liter of milk at a UK supermarket. I guess the best approach is to price a 2-pint jug and divide by 1.136. Note that milk in the UK is sold in imperial pints, which are about 20% larger than the wet pints used in the US. One US gallon of milk is about 6.66 UK pints of milk. -- BenRG (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not impossible to buy a litre of milk in the UK. See Sainsbury's. The Co-op sell their standard milk in litre-measures, too. Gwinva (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My Co-op sells it by the pint. DuncanHill (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the milk in my Sainsbury's is in pints - 4 pints (2.272L) of semi-skimmed, £1.34. -- Arwel (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Another milk label from the Co-op

Someone please go to the Co-op and prove me right! :-) I was always running out of milk when I shopped at the Co-op, because their standard "family" size was 2L, not the 2.27 L you get from some other places. Gwinva (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Which Co-op was it? Mine is part of the Co-operative Group, other Societies may use diferring standard sizes. DuncanHill (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can confirm that Midcounties Co-operative sells in litres (just checked my fridge and lo a 2l bottle is found). Foxhill (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! My hero! I'm pleased to see the lengths to which Wikipedians will go in the pursuit of truth and academic rigour. (We just need a reliable source now, because someone is bound to claim that images are primary sources, and thus your interpretation original research)  :-) Gwinva (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia, supermarkets, whole, circa A$1.30 a litre. FiggyBee (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In my neck of the woods in northern Michigan, it's $4.10 per gallon, 2%, at a grocery store. -- Saukkomies 10:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does that include sales tax? US sticker prices generally don't include tax, while sticker prices in many other countries typically do. -- BenRG (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Michigan has a 6% sales tax, which would make that $4.10 into $4.35 per US gallon. However, not everyone needs to pay the tax - for instance, school lunches do not charge tax on cartons of milk. -- Saukkomies 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You pay tax on milk? DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sales taxes have a nasty habit of becoming regressive like that. Some US localities abolish sales taxes on all foods, some on staples, and some on none. — Lomn 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lidl in Brighton, 4 pints (=2.272 litres), pasteurized, 3.6% fat, £1.30. DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The price of milk in various countries is actually an interesting issue, representing wider concerns. In the UK the supermarkets are very powerful, and negotiate contracts directly with farmers to keep costs down; they also artificially deflate prices of commodities such as milk to remain competitive (often creating loss leaders). Talk to any UK farmer and you will discover that the price they get for their commodoties does not always stack up with the cost of production (hence subsidies). This is artificial, since the world price indexes are usually higher. New Zealand is a major supplier of dairy products worldwide, (Fonterra is responsible for 40% of the world's international dairy trade) which might make you think it is cheap on the domestic market. But no, it is expensive here since the local price is always set by the global price. See NZ Herald and IHT and [Agr-fax for a quick introduction top what has happened this last year. World prices have gone up 10-20%, over 40%, a change you won't see reflectedin the UK. Gwinva (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To be specific, in New Zealand, currently, standard milk, 1 L, is $NZ 2.10 - $ 2.25. Compare that to Australia above, whose drought sent the world milk price up in the first place! Moral of the story: if you want cheap milk, live in a place which doesn't produce enough. Gwinva (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In the outskirts of Alaska, places like Barrow, Alaska, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska, milk costs about $8 a gallon. Wrad (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At the convenience store where I usually buy it in Toronto, it's $2.49 for a 1 L carton, $4.39 for a 2 L carton, and $5.29 for a 4 L bag (containing three sealed bags of 4/3 L each). Prices in Canadian dollars, no sales tax on milk. Same price applies to skim, 1%, and 2%; I didn't check homo. Supermarket prices would probably be somewhat lower. Incidentally, I visited New Zealand in 1983 and I remember noting that the price of milk was remarkably low; presumably it was then subsidized there. --Anon, 01%27 UTC, January 27, 2008.

No, actually the prices at my local supermarket turn out to $2.59, $3.49, and $5.49 respectively. So 2 L is lower, but 1 L and 4 L are higher. That's for skim, 1%, and 2%. Homo at the supermarket is higher at $2.59, $3.59, and $6.29 respectively. Weird. --Anon, 11:44 UTC, January 27.

Raley's, Sacramento area: $2.90 per half gallon, 2% milk. California doesn't charge sales tax on food products. Corvus cornix_talk 05:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Subconsciousness

Does anyone know the first occurrence of an idea of the human subconsciousness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.83.10 (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See our article Unconscious mind for a historical overview. (Freud preferred the term the unconscious over his earlier subconscious, which nevertheless has remained a popular term).  --Lambiam 09:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Having now read that section, I am afraid, however, that some pseudo-scientific stuff has insinuated itself in the article. 10:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea to post at multiple desks, 74. See policy top of this page. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a big deal Julia Rossi...get off my balls.--74.138.83.10 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a really big deal and it's not personal, just a wiki guidance thing to keep discussions together. Take it easy, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Child porn laws

If two teenaged characters in a webcomic have sex, a bit of which is on-screen, does it count as child pornography? Or are there restrictions on how graphic it can be before that comes into play? Or does it just not matter since they're obviously post-pubescent? --Masamage ♫ 07:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There are currently laws in the US against drawn child pornography (the PROTECT Act of 2003). However, earlier laws against drawn child pornography were found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, and it's possible that that part of PROTECT will be too (see Lolicon#Legal status in the United States). If it's not too explicit, if the characters aren't obviously prepubescent or being raped, and if there's some artistic or literary value to the webcomic, it's probably fairly safe. WP:IANAL and all that. FiggyBee (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see! That makes sense. Thank you for the thorough answer. --Masamage ♫ 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a drawing of two twelve year old kids having steamy sex, you can only see there legs ---> X —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvstalk (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. X) --Masamage ♫ 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

photographic history of Sandgate, Newcastle New South Wales, Australia

To Whom it may concern, I have been researching where I grew up and have found some info, but found a lot of history missing. Sandgate cemetry was an important gathering place on ANZAC day in the 1960's. Thousands came to watch the march and honour the fallen. I'm hoping to build a web site about the area from the 1800's to the present. The 60's are important, ANZAC day was as important as Christmas and Easter, but people lost touch over the decades. The last 10-15 years have seen a new level of patriotism emerge in Australia and being an ANZAC decendant I'd love to fill some gaps for the younger ones. I have found some info and pics but how could I surf the net to find pic taken back then? Hoping you can help. Regards Bruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruccarl2 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You might have it already, but there's a photograph of two soldiers buried at Sandgate Cemetery re a commemoration service – here[6]. Have you tried googling Anzac Day + Sandgate Cemetery + 1960s (and under google images as well)? This reference This memorial wall, which is located in Sandgate cemetery, is the first memorial wall to honour the service men and women of this country. is here[7] in the context of an amendment to the Summary Offenses Amendment Bill which was to do with vandalism and an anti war feel towards Anzac in the context of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. Have you tried the Office of Australian War Graves? Happy searching. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a nit pick, but in case anyone searches for a string with the word "Offenses" in it, they won't find anything useful. That's because we spell it "Offences" here. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's my typo; on the other, omay gard – I'm being americanned! Good one Jack, well spotted. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Boccaccio's exact birth date

On 16 June 2004 it was entered in the article on Giovanni Boccaccio that "some sources" say he was born on June 16. What sources?--Doug ^talk 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You should contact the person who made that change in the article directly. The page history states that it was user number 193.2.136.41 If you've tried to contact this person but received no success, then that would make sense why you are now coming here to the Reference Desk. Have you made an attempt yet to do this? -- Saukkomies 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have looked into this. It turns out he has not edited since 13 May 2005 and there are no messages on his talk page. I figured this would be in vain to leave him a message since he has not been around for some 3 years. Also thought through the process that it probably wouldn't do any good to leave a message on the Boccaccio discussion page itself for other editors, since it has been there since 2004 and no other editor has challanged it or made any note of it. However I believe this to be not correct and am looking for anybody that might be able to come up with sources for this date. In my research on this I have come to the conclusion that there is so little information about his birth that I believe this date to be incorrect and have reason to believe it is another date. Do you or anybody have sources that say Boccaccio was born on exactly this date of 16 June 1313? --Doug ^talk 19:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The only sites I can find on Google that say he was born on 16 June are mirrors of Wikipedia or are based on our article. None of the sources we use have this information, in fact they all say his date of birth is unknown or uncertain. I'd be bold and at least add a tag, but preferably remove the date entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my thought also. If after a couple of days and I have not got good references I will remove that date and replace with perhaps "c. 1313" Coincidently his death date happens to be winter solstice and this supposed birth date is within days of summer solstice. Perhaps even in the Fourteenth Century it may have been June 16, does anybody know for sure? What I find interesting is that 16 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 3 = Midsummer's Day. --Doug ^talk 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be rare and astonishing if we had a reliable source for the exact date of birth of someone like Boccaccio in the fourteenth century. It wasn't until very much later that dates of birth began to be recorded for anyone non-royal. Indeed, there are many distinguished people of the fourteenth century (and later) whose year of birth we can only speculate about, let alone knowing their birthdays! Xn4 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, tend to agree with you. Perhaps the article should be dated for his birth with wording like "born early 1300's" since it does seem strange the numbers for this June date add up to 24 which is the birth of John the Baptist.--Doug ^talk 12:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why does that seem strange? Just seems like a meaningless coincidence to me - are the two figures even related? Start looking into numbers like that and anything can seem suspicious... -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was a saint's day, then it is actually quite possible. Birthdates weren't recorded as such, but if a baby was born on or near a major feast or saint's day, then that was remembered and recorded (at least orally). But a quick glance at June 16 doesn't look promising for significant saints. Of course, you've also got to allow for the changes from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in the 15th C. In all, a birth date for a 14th century figure really needs a source. I'd put a "c. 1313" in. If a source comes to light later, it can be added in. Gwinva (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made it "c. 1313" as suggested. Not sure what the Julian/Gregorian reference is about, Gwinva. The new calendar was adopted only in 1582, and did not operate retrospectively. If Boccaccio had been born on, say, 17 May under the Julian calendar, then 17 May would remain his date of birth forever. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Boccaccio's birth date was put in by 193.2.136.41 (who has not edited since 2005) on 16 June 2004 when he said some sources indicate he was born on June 16 and that's why I asked "What sources?" initially above. Thanks for the explanations on the Julian and Gregorian calendars.--Doug ^talk 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin and interpretation of the phrase 'Mercenaries, Missionaries, Misfits'

I am trying to find the origin of the phrase Mercenaries, Missionaries and Misfits. As well as the origin, I would like to source an academic interpretation of the meaning. I have found many references in literature and the earliest so far is by an author called Peter Matthiessen in a book titled 'At play in the fields of the Lord'. I would really appreciate anyone who might be able to shed any further light on this or additional infomation. Much appreciated Paulahargadon (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this really a commonly-used phrase? All I can find on Google is the title of a book and another Reference Desk question. As far as its concerned with At Play in the Fields of the Lord (excellent book, by the way), well, the three words all certainly have strong connections to the plot of the book, as it prominently features mercenaries and missionaries, and Lewis Moon could certainly be called a misfit, to put it lightly, among the Niaruna. If it occurs in the book, or in some review of the book or something, I think it would be reasonable to assume the term was simply a colorful description of the book's plot. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a source for you, but the phrase sounds familiar to me - as a description of either 1) the sort of people you need if you are going to found the greatest empire the world has ever seen, or 2) the sort of chaps who end up buried under a palm tree on some South Sea Island. DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why weren't flamethrowers used durring the American Revolution

^topic 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(tongue-in-cheek) Because the price of gasoline was too high back then. -- Saukkomies 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The technology for producing Greek fire had been lost, and modern flamethrowers had not yet been invented. So it wasn't a possibility. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but flamethrowers aren't all that complicated. Chinese used flamethrowers too. Malamockq (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Only for defensive weapons against infantry. Greek fire was useful primarily against ships that would try to dock alongside to unload warriors. None of these things were really common after the advent of cannon fire and muskets. Anyway, see the link below, it goes into more details on the differences between ancient and modern flamethrowers. Ancient flamethrowers wouldn't have been much use against European forces from the 18th century on. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article on greek fire indicates they were used on land as well, and were used to incredible effect. Being cited as one of the major reasons for victory in many battles. The range issue wasn't much of an issue considering the poor range and accuracy of smoothbore muskets. I'm going to go with Marco Polo on this and say they probably just didn't have the technology for it at all. That's the only explanation. Malamockq (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed here before, I seem to remember -- and one of the conclusions was that flamethrowers would have been an extremely short-range weapon... AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 20#Why didn't they use flamethrowers in Europe during the gunpowder age?, posed by the same OP IP.  --Lambiam 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite Anonmoos, and Lambiam. He asked that question in the frame of "the gunpowder age", while this one is asked during the Revolutionary War. Changes things quite a bit. Flamethrowers are a short ranged weapon compared to rifles, but not to smoothbore muskets. During the Revolutionary War, they used primarily smoothbore muskets, which had bad range and were inaccurate. Muskets were only accurate up to 60 meters, hence the phrase "Don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes". Flamethrowers have ranges of 50-80 meters. Malamockq (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I rather doubt that a flamethrower made with 1776 technology could have consistently projected flame in a militarily-useful manner for a distance of anything like 50-80 meters under battlefield conditions... AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What are some movies that depict gunpowder warfare?

Preferably good ones. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The movie Gettysburg has a great scene on the third day of the battle that shows an incredibly large number (over 300 pieces) of Civil War era cannons being fired in an extended bombardment (it was in real life the largest bombardment of cannon in history in North America). The film does a fairly good job of showing how much smoke was produced by the gunpowder these cannons used (although in real life there was much more smoke produced than the movie actually shows). However, because the cannons in the filming of the movie did not have any projectiles (cannon balls, shells, grapeshot, etc), they did not have much of a "kickback", which makes the scene not completely accurate.

In real life when a large Civil War era cannon was firing at the limits of its range (such as was the case in this particular instance at Gettysburg), the artillerymen would have to put in the most amount of gunpowder as possible, and the force exerted on propelling the projectile out of the front end of the cannon for such long distances would cause a tremendous amount of kickback, which would cause the cannon to lurch backwards with enough force to kill a man if he should have the misfortune of standing behind the cannon when it went off. However, if they are just "dry-firing" the cannon, as they did in the filming of the movie, they only put in a minimal amount of gunpowder, and because there is no heavy projectile to be thrust out of the cannon, it doesn't produce a very big kickback. I really don't remember ever seeing a movie that accurately shows a real life cannonade in which the cannons have a realistic-looking kickback to them. It's one of those Hollywood things in which people are expected to sort of go along with what they're showing us without question. You can watch this short video put out by a Georgia-based Civil War Reenactor artillery group where they fire a couple of shots from an authentic gun. However, this video also has some inaccuracies in it - for one, the men firing the cannon stand immediately behind it as they discharge the cannon - something that I've already mentioned would not be a very wise idea if they had been shooting a real projectile.

Because of the enormous kickback of the cannons that the Confederates were firing at Gettysburg, the tail pieces ended up digging sizeable holes into the dirt behind them, which led to the cannon pointing more and more at an upward angle as the cannonade went on. This is one theory as to why this cannonade on that day was ineffective, due to the fact that the Confederate cannons overshot their targets on top of the ridge where the Union Army was waiting for Pickett's Charge (which followed this bombardment). That, and the fact that the Confederates could not see to determine where their cannonballs were landing due to the terrain and the fact that (among other things) after the first volley it was impossible for the artillerymen to see anything because of all the gunpowder smoke. -- Saukkomies 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The films of Sergei Bondarchuk have meticulous recreations of battles of the Napoleonic Wars. His 1968 War and Peace recreates the Battle of Borodino using tens of thousands of extras and his 1970 Waterloo has a breathtaking recreation of Marshal Ney's cavalry charge, with thousands of horses swirling around the Allied infantry squares, filmed from the air. Gdr 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sharpe series did a pretty good job of depciting musket and rifle tactics in the Napoleonic Wars. AllenHansen (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Polygamy

Has polygamy ever been legal in any catholic country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.238 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was legalised for a short time in nineteenth-century Paraguay after the disastrous War of the Triple Alliance. So many of the country's men had been killed in that conflict that, given the superabundance of women, it was felt to be the only way to allow the population to recover. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychology of terror

Can anyone direct me to a source that deals with terrorism as a psychological phenomenon? I am particularly interested in what motivates people in the past and now to commit acts of terror. Is it ideology, politics, religion or is there some baser motives at work? Thanks for all the work you do here. Sir Oswald (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look out for Michael Burleigh's new book, Blood and Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism, scheduled for publication by Harper Collins next month.

There are a number of other texts you could refer to on the 'psychology of terrorism', Sir Oswald, on the motives that propel certain people, or groups of people, towards outrage. In his novel, The Secret Agent, Joseph Conrad provides a vivid description of the moral squalor of nineteenth- century anarchism, just as Dostoevsky probes deep into the fanatical single-mindedness of Russian terrorism in The Possessed.

It's worth stressing that people are often motivated not by grand principles, but by forces altogether baser, more visceral and more personal; excitement, the thrill of danger, social envy and simple resentment all coming before the grand abstractions of politics or religion. Take the case of Emile Henry, a French anarchist, who threw a bomb into the Gare Saint-Lazare Restaurant in 1894, killing one of the diners and seriously injuring twenty more. His motive was to show that the bourgeoisie that their "pleasures would not be untouched", though almost all his victims were workmen. There is also Vera Figner, the Russian Narodnik, who became a terrorist in part to escape the restrictions placed upon her as a woman. Or there is the example of the young men in the contemporary Muslim world, trapped by chronic unemployment, for whom radical Islam offers a way out…as well as new jeans and cool trainers.

In the 1970s the actions of the German Red Army Faction might be said to have emerged from the 'boredom of privilege' than any meaningful political grievance. In Italy one former member of the Red Brigades, an organisation which killed hundreds in the 1980s, revealed his own motives-"Arms have a fascination of their own. It is a fascination that makes you feel in some way more virile...this sensation of feeling stronger, more manly...I found myself...showing them to women to try to impress them."

So, there you have it. And as Burleigh points out the one thing that unites the German and Italian left-wingers with present-day jihadists is not the thought of Marx or Muhammad, but a fascination with gangster films and splatter movies. Did you know, for instance, that in the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan one favoured form of relaxation was to watch Arnold Schwarzenegger movies? Well, now you do! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a manifestation of a persons state of helplessness and deprivity due to several factors that misguides them out of which one of it is psychological and false impressions about the outside world..... 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tall Romans? (ancient)

So in all my ancient history classes I remember learning that the romans were generally rather short. However, I came across this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqin where the chinese refer to the romans as a tall people. Am I remembering wrong or were the chinese just even shorter than the romans? help me out :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says that the Chinese probably never went to Rome directly, but instead reached the shores of the Black Sea, where they might have met a few Roman soldiers. Maybe regional differences? bibliomaniac15 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that even if the ancient Romans were short by modern standards, that doesn't preclude the Ancient Chinese being even shorter. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In The Logistics of the Roman Army in the Jewish War, Jonathan Philip Roth says "... the average height of a Roman male of the imperial period can be reckoned, for the purposes of this study, as 170 cm. (5' 7")." However, the Romans often set minimum height standards for new recruits into the army, and there certainly were very tall Romans, such as the Emperor Maximinus Thrax. Vegetius writes that mounted soldiers should have a height of six feet, and no less than 5' 10". An edict of Valentinian I and Valens in 367 says that a levy is to be raised in Rome from those with a height of 5' 7". Some Roman writers comment on how much taller the Germans and the Celts are than the Romans. For instance, Tacitus says that their greater height gives the Germans an advantage when crossing rivers. Xn4 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is well and good, but I imagine archaeological evidence would be more reliable than textual evidence for something like this (especially because there's always debate on how big some ancient "cubit" of "foot" was). And we have plenty of ancient Roman skeletons.--Pharos (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Although there's uncertainty about the cubit, which was variable, the Roman foot and inch were standardized and are known to be some three per cent shorter than their modern Imperial equivalents. Xn4 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The average height of an Israelite or Canaanite seems to have been 5ft. AllenHansen (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, statistical measurements of ancient skeletons would be quite a bit more reliable than anecdotal comments by Tacitus on how much taller the Germans were, etc.--Pharos (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Hegel

Could someone please recommend a book giving a general overview and introduction to Hegel from a a left interpretation? --Gary123 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I can recommend many good introductory texts to Hegel, but not one that could be fitted easily within your ideological parameters. However, you might care to try The Young Hegel: Studies in the Relations between Dialectics and Economics by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian Marxist, the one original thinker to emerge from the cultural desert of the old Soviet empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

Cany anyone recommend a good study-recent if possible-on the end of the British Empire? Ta. Cryinggame (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You could try a book called The End of the British Empire: The Historical Debate (Oxford, 1991) by John Darwin. I haven't read it myself, but it's well reviewed in The Journal of African History (vol. 33, no. 1, 1992), at pp. 167-168. Darwin is now University Lecturer in the History of the British Commonwealth at Oxford. Xn4 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The best recent treatment of the subject is The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997 by Piers Brendon, published by Jonathan Cape. The title and the chronology are perhaps a little odd, as the loss of the Americas after Yorktown in 1781 did not presage decline but the rise of a new and more vigorous imperium. Setting aside that small caveat the book is well written and admirably structured. Brendon analyses the way in which the Empire contributed to its own eventual extinction by its willingness to devolve power where and when power could be devolved. From the highways he also moves down the byways of imperial history, charting, amongst other things, the rise and fall of the moustache as a symbol of national virility! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why recent? Some of the best writing on the subject is a few decades old. Jan Morris' Farewell the Trumpets remains remarkably readable. Relata refero (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can join in the Jan Morris recommendation, having sailed through all of her Pax Britannica. She isn't a historian as such, more of an academic journalist with a mind like a steel trap and a wonderful prose style. Xn4 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 26

Using a freely-licensed work inside a work that is not freely-licensed

See my talk page for the full discussion. We are talking about reproducing creative work released under a free content license.

The GFDL says that you can distribute:

• a "modification" of a creative work, as long as it's under the GFDL
• a "collection" of the creative work and other works, as long as it's under the GFDL
• an "aggregate" of the creative work and other works, and the aggregate does not need to be under the GFDL.

The Creative commons licenses say that you can distribute:

• an "adaptation" of a creative work, as long as it's under a CC-compatible license
• a "collection" of the creative work and other works, and the collection does not need to be under a CC-compatible license

But when combining multiple creative works, what's the difference between a "modification", "adaptation", "collection", and "aggregate"? Can you give concrete examples of each? If someone uses my image as an illustration in copyright-restricted coursework, which does that fall under? If someone uses a CC image as an illustration in a GFDL encyclopedia article, which does that fall under?

I've always assumed that using free works inside non-free or incompatibly-licensed works was permitted, as long as the free work is reproduced in whole, has the license information, and can be taken out by recipients and reused as per the license, especially since we allow this on Wikipedia. But after reading through the legalese, I'm not so sure what's permitted. — Omegatron 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding is my understanding. What's key here is that you are considering the final work to be an "aggregate" (GFDL) or "collection" (CC). The definition of such is that it is composed of many differently licensed works and the differences in licensing are clear, obvious, and one could easily extract the "free" stuff from it. A "modification/adaptation" means you are modifying the "free" work itself. Think of it in terms of poems. A "aggregate/collection" of poems means that each poem is unmodified and has its own copyright info—I could go through and easily pick out all of the GFDL poems and put them in my GFDL poem project. A "modified/adaptation" would be if I took a GFDL poem, rewrote a few lines, and put my name as one of the authors. My contributions are not inseparable from the final product. Make sense? The classic example of an "aggregate/collection" is an encyclopedia like Wikipedia itself—overall the text and collection itself is GFDL, but we images and other media which are whole and separable from the overall project are given a variety of different licenses. But something as simple as "most of the text here is copyrighted, but these couple of images are CC-BY-SA" is fine as long as the boundaries between the two types of content are visible. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So what if you take a GFDL poem and insert it in the middle of an essay that is not GFDL?

Can you release a collection under the GFDL that contains non-GFDL parts? As I understand it, you can. You get a copyright on the collection and the placement of images or other content within it, but the content that you use remains the copyright of the original authors. — Omegatron 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protectionism in the E.U.

As far as i am aware the E.U has several protectionist policies/laws. For instance there is a quota on the amount of Chinese textiles that can be imported. I beleive there are laws that say it is ok for african countries to sell raw coffee beans and cocoa to the E.U, but not allowing them to sell finished manufactured coffee or chocolate (or there are heavy tarrifs). Then there is the Common Agricultural Policy, which forces member states to contribute to subsidies for European farmers to keep food prices down. I think there are lots more tarrifs, quotas, and generaly protectionist E.U laws right?

Now my question is, what if an E.U member state said it was no longer going to implement these rules? What if a member state said it would no longer contribute anything to the CAP. What if a member state said it was abolishing all its tarrifs and quotas on goods from outside the E.U? What would be the consequences for this state? Would it be fined by the E.U.? Would the other member states institute economic sanctions against it? Would it have to leave the E.U? Willy turner (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The E.U. can fine member states who break the rules, as reported for example here. There are also rules for "suspending the rights" of Member States, in particular the right to vote in the European Council.  --Lambiam 09:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be a usual violation of an obligation under the treaty establishing the European community. The sanctions are described in ArtArt 226-228 of the treaty:

Article 226

If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations.

If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

Article 227 (ex Article 170)

A Member State which considers that another Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

Before a Member State brings an action against another Member State for an alleged infringement of an obligation under this Treaty, it shall bring the matter before the Commission.

The Commission shall deliver a reasoned opinion after each of the States concerned has been given the opportunity to submit its own case and its observations on the other party's case both orally and in writing.

If the Commission has not delivered an opinion within three months of the date on which the matter was brought before it, the absence of such opinion shall not prevent the matter from being brought before the Court of Justice.

Article 228 (ex Article 171)

1. If the Court of Justice finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice.

2. If the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken such measures it shall, after giving that State the opportunity to submit its observations, issue a reasoned opinion specifying the points on which the Member State concerned has not complied with the judgment of the Court of Justice.

If the Member State concerned fails to take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgment within the time-limit laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the case before the Court of Justice. In so doing it shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

If the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it.

This procedure shall be without prejudice to Article 227.

In short words: In a first step, the Court of Justice tells the state, what to do. If the state still fails to follow the rules, it will get really expensive.--Thw1309 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange Book

Several years ago (~2002) I purchased a certain book, the name of which escapes my recollection. I remember the title had the word "Apocryphal" or "Apocalypse" in it and contained several seemingly unrelated quotes, from Charles Manson's "Death is psycho-somatic" to other more bizarre things, like "I shit on your album"(???). Can anyone shed some light on this book and if possible, its name and the origin of the latter quote? I lost the book a long time ago and have been unable to find it through google or amazon. --72.211.192.84 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A possibility: Apocalypse Culture II. [8] ◄Zahakiel► 18:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

James Thurber's eye color

What color was Jim's eye? (Presumably the same color as his glass eye, which I can't find any pictures of online.) Cilantrohead (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gray? Not always the same color as his glass eye though. According to Al Hirschfeld he would bring a whole set to parties, and replace it with increasingly bloodshot versions as the evening wore on—and last would be one with a tiny American flag. Grauer, Neil A. (1994) Remember Laughter: A Life of James Thurber. p. 39.—eric 19:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cilantrohead, are you the reincarnation of John Aubrey? Deor (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this greatest debate performance ever audio recorded?

[9]

David Lange v. Jerry Falwell, Oxford Union 1985

His diction is so immaculate and elocution so flawless--and it sounds to some degree improvised! Have you ever heard any performance that can top Lange?

Lotsofissues 13:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not me, but have to thankk you for bring up this one. It's impressively high level public speaking. Is there one for Jerry Falwell? No matter, I had the wrong Jerry. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The question and answer at 17:00 confuses me. Lotsofissues 11:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)

Ragnarok now?

Does Japanese myth have anything like Ragnarok? Trekphiler (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not real clear on what you mean by "Japanese myth". There are many religions that are followed by the Japanese people, if that's what you mean. And some of those religion's beliefs are spelled out in the end time article. Dismas|^(talk) 13:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The traditional religion of Japan is Shinto, which doesn't believe that the world will ever end - instead we are forever at naka-ima, or "middle time", so every moment in time is equally valid. However, there are also a lot of Buddhist influences in Japan mythology (indeed, most religious Japanese people follow a mixture of Shinto and Buddhism), and Buddhist eschatology says that the teachings of the Buddha would disappear after 5,000 years (in around 4500 AD - originally it was 500 years, but by the time it was revised in the Middle Ages, the apocalypse was 1,500 years overdue) during a time known as Mappō, and although it wouldn't end the world, it would lead to the abolishion of Dharma - not unlike the corruption and moral decay that fundamentalist Christians associate with Revelations. Laïka 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just goes to show how ignorant about it I am! Thanks! Trekphiler (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice map showing evolution internal structure of Soviet Union : Wikipedia doesn't have it anymore

Hello,

some time ago (like a year ago) Wikipedia used to have a nice map on one of its pages showing the several stages the internal soviet structure went through (new constituent republics being created or simply added to the country, etc....). Now I can't find any decent overview on Wikipedia of that evolution, nor can I find that particular set of maps. The layout looked like the one you find at the bottom of Kazakh_Soviet_Socialist_Republic. Can anyone help? Thanks!Evilbu (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're talking about this set of maps. I don't know why it's not used on any page in English Wikipedia though. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Geez, hasn't the mapmaker heard that the Four color map problem has been solved? Or is this some subtle commentary on the monolithic nature of the Soviet system? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 27

The New Bohemia

Author John Gruen published an article titled "The New Bohemia" in the Nov. 29, 1964 issue of New York Herald Tribune. The way I understand it, the author reworked the article into a book by the same name published in 1966 and changed the material, so it is essential that we find the original article to resolve a dispute about etymology in the Hippie article. The reason I came to this conclusion is because one expert on the subject (Michael Doyle) uses the original article to make an assertion while another expert (Timothy Miller) uses the book to contradict the assertion. Doyle's assertion is that the article uses the term "hippie", although Doyle may be speaking in figurative terms. Miller notes that the book doesn't. I just searched the book on Gbooks and it appears to support the latter,[10] but also shows the use of the word "hip". So the question is this: is the word "hippie" used in either the article or the book? Unfortunately, I do not know where to find the original article as I'm fairly isolated in Hawaii. Help of any kind is appreciated. If I was on the mainland, I'm assuming there would be reprints, microfilm or microfiche sitting in a dusty corner of a library somewhere. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the earliest appearance in the popular press of the word “hippie” occurred in late 1964 in a New York magazine article which described and extolled “The New Bohemia” of Manhattan's Lower East Side. John Gruen, art critic for the Herald Tribune... Farber, D. R., & Bailey, B. L. (2001). The Columbia guide to America in the 1960s. p. 143. OCLC 45439839

a few quotes from the article, but none contain the word in question.—eric 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Just to be clear, that's not the article I requested. That's an article by Michael Doyle that makes the claim. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Gruen uses the word "hippie" at all, so Doyle must be referring to Gruen's use of the word "hip". This is the reason I need someone to check the original article by Gruen. Doyle is the only author who makes this claim, and Timothy Miller, an expert on the hippie subculture, states the opposite. My guess is that Doyle was speaking of Gruen's use of the word "hip" but referred to it as "hippie" because Gruen was referring to people who were very similar. The context of Doyle's article lends credence to this idea. However, this is still unresolved. Does the original 1964 article use the word "hippie"? —Viriditas | Talk 08:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this doesn't directly respond to the question, but I'd always heard that the term Hippie was coined by San Fransisco area Beatniks as a derogatory term to refer to the youngsters who were trying to emulate the older Beatniks, but were considered to be too green and unexperienced to really pull it off. Instead of being called "hip", they were given the dimunitive term "hippie" as a put-down label. -- Saukkomies 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for Christianity as the One True Religion?

‘’’Please reply to this edit only if you are not a Christian. Please reply to this edit especially if you believe in a religion other than Christianity.’’’

I’ve heard Christians claim that there are “proofs” and “evidences” for Christainity to be the “one true religion”. Those proofs and evidences include evidences against evolution, evidences that God exists, evidences that what the Bible says is true, and evidences that Jesus Christ is God and the son of God. See the articles Proofs Of Christ And the Bible, Fulfilled Prophecy As Proof Of The Bible, Science as Proof Of The Bible, Proofs Of The Existence Of God, Reasons For the Bible, Heaven, Deity, Resurrection, Creation, Baptism, Evolution: Evidence For Creation In 6 Days, and Ten Proofs That Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Are those evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion really evidences for it to be the one true religion? Do they really mean, tell, show, and prove that Christainity is the one true religion? If not, then why? What do you think about all those evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion? Do you think they are really evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion? Do you think they really mean, tell, show, and prove that Christainity is the one true religion? If not, then why?

If you believe in a religion other than Christianity, then what do you, a believer of that other religion, as a believer of that other religion, think about all those evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion? Do you think they are really evidences for Christianity to be the one true religion? Do you think they really mean, tell, show, and prove that Christainity is the one true religion? If not, then why?

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe there is something wrong with my Internet connection, but I found every one of the external links you provided to be nonfunctional. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This reads like a set-up for a debate, or a need to get users to go to the linked documents (operational links or not). Asking users to defend or explain their belief systems, or to challenge the beliefs of others, is not, I think, what the Ref Desk is about. Bielle (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The links are to a sales site for a book by Keith Piper which claims to have "The Answers". Perhaps the questioner has some connection to the author or the site. This Keith Piper is unlikely to be either Keith Piper or Keith Piper (artist).Bielle (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, if you're asking for responses from people who believe in religions other than Christianity, they obviously don't believe there's evidence that Christianity is the one true religion...or else they'd be Christians. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the website is run by a man in Cherrybrook, Sydney, New South Wales and the IP address came out of a service provider a short distance away in North Ryde, NSW, I feel it is safe to say that this is just a feeble attempt to get Google to rank the OP's website higher by having a bunch of links on Wikipedia. -- kainaw™ 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the goal, it won't work, since Wikipedia uses rel=nofollow in its links now. Google ignores external links on Wikipedia and has for a while now. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Keith Piper is the pastor and head of Liberty Baptist Church, an independent Baptist church in North Rocks, Sydney, New South Wales, the church I go to.

I'm asking if you, and believers of other religions, are convinced that those evidences really mean that Christainity is true. I'm asking if you agree that they really mean that Christianity is true. If not, then why?

Do other religions also have, or claim to have, proofs or evidences that their religion is the one true religion? Don't tell me if the evidences for those religions are right or wrong, true or false. If there are, then are there any websites about them?

Are there any articles or sections of articles in Wikipedia about any evidences there are claimed to be for Christianity or any other religion? If so, then what are they?

Bowei Huang (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, most religions have reasons that they think their religion is the "one true religion." It'd be easier to enumerate those which don't take such a view. Is it convincing to me, as a non-religious person? Not at all. Cherry-picking facts and single-mindedly searching out anything that supports your argument, while systematically ignoring everything that might contradict it, is pretty obvious in such literature. It is not a disinterested study of the question, it is overly propagandistic. It is easy to disregard. It sections on Evolution and Science display a profound ignorance of how a scientifically minded person would view such an argument, to say nothing of ignorance of the science itself.

I mean, read the one on "Science" and the Bible—he seems to think that the line, "Behold the height of the stars, how high they are" in a statement on par with Bessel's measuring of the parallax. That's ridiculous, and shows no discrimination between poetic description and scientific precision. He also bungles the idea of Mitochondrial Eve -- it's obvious he's never read any of the research on it other than what has appeared in Creationist journals (it does not imply there was only one woman). It is Biblical verse wrapped in the language of science, but transparently not science or even scientifically informed. Many of the things he cites as being known in the Bible are just "folk knowledge". They aren't scientific.

He claims the Bible has no scientific inaccuracies, but he means that only in a very limited sense, since he reads all science through the lens of the Bible anyways. He's a Young Earth Creationist who believes the entire universe was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago, for Pete's sake. He cites exclusively Creationist sources. This sort of stuff is going to stand out as a big untrustworthy flag to anyone not already taken in by the nonsense that is Creationism. He doesn't give a real discussion of the Creation of the Earth, he just parrots old Creationist saws with no attention to whether they have been long since disproven.

Even the "10 Proofs that Jesus Christ is the Messiah" suffers from logical problems, even though it is wholly textual in content (that is, it only seeks to prove it within the confines of the Old Testament). For example, reason #4 is that the Old Testament claims the Messiah will come from Betheleham; he concludes that because Christ was from Bethleham, that is proof that Christ was the Messiah. But what of all the other people from Betheleham? Being from Betheleham is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being the Messiah. It is not, by itself, indicative of any individual as being the Messiah, it only demonstrates who can not be the Messiah. And none of this, of course, takes as a serious possibility that the New Testament could have been written deliberately to make Christ look like the Messiah according to the Old Testament—he takes for granted that the Bible is infallible and properly interpreted. That is not a true spirit of inquiry.

So no, it's not convincing in the slightest, sorry. It's unoriginal and unambitious in its goals—the same old Creationist and Christian saws I have been hearing for years. To his credit, it is transparently not an attempt to communicate with non-Christians or non-believers, it is obviously an attempt to buoy the beliefs of those already believing such a thing, and speaks only to them. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, what would Philip Pullman, the author of His Dark Materials, think about all those evidences? Would he be convinced? Has he ever heard about them before? I wonder, what would the angel Xaphania think about them? Bowei Huang (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles Manson and popular culture

Can anyone give me or point me in the direction of any information regarding the cultural implications of the Manson family murders? There's the suggestion in this article, linked to in the Charles Manson article, as well as in Wikipedia's hippie, that the murders marked the end of the counterculture zeitgeist. I'd like to know more about how Manson affected popular culture; also, does anyone know if the Beatles ever commented on how Manson used their work? Thank you for your time. --Brasswatchman (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As I am the co-author of some of this material, I'm taking this to the users talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 10:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Convention Conventions

Hypothetical situation: If Edwards drops out of the race post 2/5, what happens to the proportional delegates he's picked up before then? Do they drift one way or another to Obama or HRC? AlmostCrimes (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• There may be variations based on state laws and party rules, but my understanding is that if Edwards drops out and releases his delegates from their commitments, those delegates will go to the Democratic convention and be free to vote for whoever they choose, and if the nominee is a foregone conclusion by then, they will probably vote for that person. They don't have to commit to either Obama or Clinton now, and even if Edwards asked all his delegates to vote for one of those candidates, they wouldn't have to follow his instructions. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a source to prove this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You get a contested convention. The rules have changed since the last ones, which were in the days of the smoke-filled rooms in which Truman and Adlai Stevenson were selected. Here's an article by two public affairs profs putting it in perspective. Relata refero (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

how does this relate to the menorah?

I was reading Exodus, and got to the bit where Moses was told how to make (what became known as) a menorah. I was lost trying to work out how on earth some of that stuff relates to the typical design. From the wiki article, here is the passage in the bible (KJV I think), with the cryptic stuff in italics:

Exodus 25:31-40 lists the instructions for the construction of the menorah used in the temple:

31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knops, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it. 32 And there shall be six branches going out of the sides thereof: three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candle-stick out of the other side thereof; 33 three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 34 And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof. 35 And a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 36 Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it; the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold. 37 And thou shalt make the lamps thereof, seven; and they shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it. 38 And the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, shall be of pure gold. 39 Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels. 40 And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount.

Other translations are no more illuminating. Can someone tell me where those "four cups" (v34) and those extra knops (v35) can be found on any existing menorah? Thanks in advance (since I prob won't return in time to thank you afterwards) 130.95.106.128 (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No one today knows exactly what the Temple menorah looked like. (The one on the Arch of Titus was almost undoubtedly not the original from Moses' time.) Any menorah today is symbolic and not intended to be an exact replica. Thus, it can look like just about anything as long as it's got seven branches. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great response, Mwalcoff. I wanted to provide a little more info. There is a very wonderful searchable online site called the "Blue Letter Bible" that provides a lot of information about the entire Bible, including the original Hebrew or Greek, translations, commentaries on the translations, and concordances. According to the Blue Letter Bible, the word "knop" is the Middle English translation of the Biblical Hebrew word "kaphtor". Here is the entry for kaphtor in that site. What they say about it seems to me to sound like it might be almost like professional jargon for goldsmiths to provide them detailed instructions about how to construct a Menorah. The knop seems to be a way for a goldsmith to attach different parts of the Menorah together - a particular type of joint to attach two pieces of hammered gold tubes together. At least that's my take on it. The same goes with the word "cup" - which in some translations is "bowl". The original Hebrew word is gĕbiya` and its translation commentary can be found here. This also sounds like it's some kind of professional jargon for ancient goldsmiths who would have known precisely what those words meant in terms of their craft, even if those precise meanings have been lost over time. Hope that provides some more "illumination", as you put it. -- Saukkomies 12:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Man of Tahitian culture

In light of the most recent current event surrounding the Brando family, I checked out Dag Drollet on the Find A Grave website. I saw his picture, and he had such a handsome smile. He also seemed athletic. Recently, I wondered if he was a good swimmer.72.229.136.18 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't imagine a Tahitian being a poor swimmer. If you like to swoon, his son Tuki Brando is the face of Versace [11]. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw Tuki's pictures. It seems he has more of his maternal grandfather's traits, than of his father's. Are there any more pictures of Dag Drollet out there, other than on Find A Grave?72.229.136.18 (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The press are creating his legend along those lines. His mother's looks come into it, and there's been a tiny dispute about whether she was the older Brando's daughter or not. When you say "out there" I guess you mean google only gets you that one, that's probably it then unless you dig into a (hard copy) biography. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Military rules, discipline

I am searching for some basic military discipline rules. Like: how to make a bed, fold clothes, clean shoes, etc. Any links at hand?217.168.4.225 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The US Army published a massive amount of information on these subjects. The results are available from the United States Government Printing Office (GPO). The information is in the public domain. Much of the information was published in U.S. Army Field Manuals with names like FM-2201. -Arch dude (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming

Individually, there is a lot people can do to stop global warming, but does anyone know of effective solutions that can be be used at the national and international levels? Are there things countries can do as a whole to stop global warming?

-Carlos

Yes. Thousands of things. At a national level they could have a Green Tax, or introduce environmental legislation. They could introduce national limits on personal carbon use, or carbon-trading schemes. They could promote greener living through initiatives, education. They can help move funding into potentially greener solutions to existing processes such as power-production, transport etc. At an international level they could introduce international standards, developed nations could help the developing nations go straight to greener-technology rather than working their way through the same technological advancements we have. The possibilities are really pretty much endless but the debate is in its infancy at public-level - there is a fixation on 'the science' at the moment, and too many radicals are trying to use the debate as an ends to try remove modern capitalism/globalization and reject any ideas that don't involve sacrifice of that system. In reality the solution is most likely going to involve keeping the lifestyles we have now, but adapting them where it is possible to make the biggest impact at the smallest 'cost' (financially and socially). ny156uk (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For hype-free info about global warming, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is quite good. They have at least one recent essay about government approaches to global warming; you'll find more in the archives. Gwinva (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do at an individual level. You can get the false impression that you are saving energy, but in a national economy there is no way of saving energy - you can just choose to consume or invest energy. You can be better off if you drive an small car, but there is no difference for the environment between driving 100km on 6 liter or 200km on 3 liter. That explains also why in some many years of improved efficiency since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the consume of energy is actually exploding. AT a national or international level, the only thing you can do is to limit production. Regulation of consume or investment will produce no effect.217.168.4.225 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Governments can encourage building of nuclear power plants. Nuclear power (including the entire fuel cycle) introduces almost no greenhouse gasses. Any country that uses fossil fuel to generate electricity can create a major reductin in global warming using this strategy. Encouragement is mostly in the form of removing the current regulatory barrires and replacing them with rational provisions based on science. Governments can also use tax policy to raise the cost of activities that produce greenhouse gasses. This will raise the cost of driving a gasoline-powered car, which in turn will drive the development of electric-powered vehicles. At the extreme, all electricity is nuclear, and all vehicles are electric, at which point global warming goes away. -Arch dude (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear energy only solves the Co2 problem. Co2 is not the only greenhouse gas that we produce and energy can still be used to destroy all resources.217.168.4.225 (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Global warming and global cooling are to some extent natural and unavoidable. We could no more stop either of them than King Canute could order the tide to go back. The present debate should be (but generally isn't) about the costs and benefits in economic and human terms of the dramatic policies being sold to the world very effectively by the 'green' lobby. By and large, it's a great deal easier (though still difficult) for the developed world to face up to the consequences of them than it is for the developing world. I suspect we are all being sold a huge pig in a poke, but only time will tell whether the climatologists (a notoriously unreliable set of forecasters) are on the right track at long last. To me, it seems unlikely, but I offer no predictions myself. Xn4 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

world bank

what is the real sevices or role of world bank?any link with national reserv banks???can u wikipedians any reference?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.0.83 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at World bank and also here (http://digitalmedia.worldbank.org/tenthings/en/intro.php) this gives a flavour of the type of role the bank plays. Also here (http://www.seerecon.org/gen/wbrole.htm) ny156uk (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Animals of Kenya

how can i find info. on kenya's animals without all the adds and spam , and pop-ups ? jamielee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.249.240 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Without at all meaning to be facetious, you could go to a library. Perhaps someone else knows of a guaranteed-ad-and-spam-free site, other than this one, of course, but I don't. Bielle (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't guarantee that you will avoid ads, spam, and pop-ups, but see Category:Fauna of Kenya for links to articles about animals in that country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you use Mozilla Firefox, you can install an adblocking add-on. Here's a list you can look at. I haven't tried any myself, but I've heard Adblock Plus is good. bibliomaniac15 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential Election this year

Is it possible for someone to vote as a Republican in the closed primary on the 5th of February primary election in the state of California and later vote as a Democrat in the general election in November? --71.105.253.97 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's anything like Florida, you can contact your elections office for whatever form they have that allows you to change your party before the cutoff for changes, then change back afterwards. I know that in my area at least that happens quite often, and the locall news media usually announces how many people are changing parties and when the cutoff is, ours has already passed as our primary is this week. SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One actually votes as a party member in closed primaries, but in general elections, you don't vote as a Democrat or as a Republican, you vote as a citizen. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Voila. I now fully comprehend this. Thanks.--71.105.253.97 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To vote in the Republian presidential primary in Virginia this year, you have to pledge to vote Republican in November: [12] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that's 100% unenforceable. —Nricardo (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unpopular King?

Why does George II of England attract much less attention than say Henry VIII or Charles II? Is it because he was a bad king, or is he just unpopular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie Barker (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that George I and George II had trouble with the English language. That would obviously make debating with the legislators and other public officials difficult. --71.105.253.97 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One factor might be that he didn't "lose the American colonies" as his father son did. Nor was he "mad". Failing magnificently is just as newsworthy as succeeding magnificently; doing neither is a recipe for relative indifference. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"[Lo]se the American colonies" as his son did.--71.105.253.97 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I must be operating on the antipodean laws of nature, where we hang upside down and time goes backwards. Fixed. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean The World Turned Upside Down? Relata refero (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Like this? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear old German Geordie, in many ways the architect of his own unpopularity: rude, opinionated, lacking in any of the social graces, boastful and insufferably pompous! But he was not, by any measure a bad king, and his reign was one of the most successful, perhaps the most successful, in all of British history. You have to remember, Julie, that the early Hanoverian period was a time when constitutional power was shifting away from the monarch towards the prime minister, so George was never destined to be cast in the same central role as either Henry VIII or Charles II. Even so, he showed good judgement in his steady support for Robert Walpole and Henry Pelham, two of the most competent ministers ever to serve the crown. Contrast the reign, moreover, with the upheavals of Henry's and the foreign policy disasters of Charles'. By 1760 Britain stood high in the world, as high as it ever had, replacing France as the premier power. In 1759, the last full year of George's reign, the church bells were said to be worn out with ringing for victory: Robert Clive in India, James Wolfe in Quebec, Edward Hawke at Quiberon Bay. George deserves to be remembered with greater affection.

Oh, and finally, on a point of information, George III was the grandson of George II, not the son. Sorry Jack! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

**sighs in deflated resignation** Oh, dearie dearie me. What is happening to me! I blame it on ever-encroaching Alzheimers. Thanks as always, Clio.

(Thinks: Hmm, that makes 2 fantastically unbelievable excuses I've made on this short thread alone. I'd better lift my game or they'll all start seeing through me. Or maybe I could just shut up when it comes to things I know little about. Different internal voice: You know, Jack, that's so crazy, it might just work ...) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

books on how cult members are recruited

I'm looking for books on how cult members are recruited. Ideally a book that focuses on the early stages of cult development. How the leader start out. And how the initial approaching of possible cult recruits takes place. --Alxcgn7 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 28

Khobalus?

I need a little help with figuring out what the heck an author is talking about. I'm working on the kobold article, and one of the sources, Traditions, Superstitions, and Folk-lore, (Chiefly Lancashire and the North of England) by Charles Hardwick includes this note:

Roby says:--"The English Puck (the Lancashire Boggart), the Scotch Bogie, the French Goblin, the Gobelinus of the Middle Ages, and the German Kobold, are probably only varied names for the Grecian Khobalus,--whose sole delight consists in perplexing the human race, and evoking those harmless terrors that constantly hover round the minds of the timid. So, also, the German Spuck, and the Danish Spogel, correspond to the northern Spog; whilst the German Hudkin, and the Icelandic Puki, exactly answer to the character of the English Robin Goodfellow."

One problem is that Hardwick gives no indication of who Mr. Roby is, nor what source he is quoting from. Also problematic is that I can't find anything on this khobalus creature. Can anyone guess what the heck Roby is talking about?

Thanks for any help! — Dulcem (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Added note: I've found some sources that seem to indicate that cobolos is the Greek word for goblin, but nothing really good. For example, here and here. Any Greek speakers? — Dulcem (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It refers to the book Traditions of Lancashire by John Roby (1793–1850), the first edition of which was issued in 1829.[13]  --Lambiam 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary the word "cobalt" comes from German kobold, while the entry for "goblin" has:

c.1327, from O.Fr. gobelin (12c., as Gobelinus, the name of a spirit haunting the region of Evreux), of uncertain origin, perhaps related to Ger. kobold (see cobalt), or from M.L. cabalus, from Gk. kobalos "rogue, knave," kobaloi "wicked spirits invoked by rogues." Another suggestion is that it is a dim. of the proper name Gobel.[14]

The spelling of Greek kobalos and the meaning impudent rogue, arrant knave is confirmed by Liddell & Scott.[15]  --Lambiam 02:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Worldcat id John Roby wrote several books about English folklore. -Arch dude (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I was aware of the knave etymology of kobold, but I hadn't seen it paired with the evil Greek spirit. I'll have to add something to the article. Thanks for the help on Roby and kobaloi. — Dulcem (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

7 day week

Why do most modern societies use a seven day week? --TreeSmiler (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they evolved from older societies that used a seven-day week, or were heavily influenced by such societies.  --Lambiam 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Court fools

In King Lear the fool becomes a confidante of the monarch. Is there any evidence of this happening in real life? T Jarvie (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the article Jester, there are some reasonably good historical examples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jester article certainly mentions some notable fools, though I'm not really sure if it gives proper emphasis to their true importance in the royal court, and here I am thinking specifically of the English example. The most important of them had access to the monarch in his Privy Chamber, a privilege not readily granted. Of Will Somers, jester to Henry VIII, it was written that "He could have admittance to his majesty's chamber and his ear, when a great noble, nay, a privy counsellor could not be suffered to speak with him." Somers was even to appear in The Family of Henry VIII, painted in 1543. During the reign of Elizabeth I even the most influential people wishing to be admitted to the royal presence would fist approach Richard Tarlton, her leading fool, in order to prepare the way. Archibald Armstrong, court jester to James I, achieved such significance that he was even included in a small party to accompany Prince Charles on his secret mission to Spain in 1623 to negotiate a marriage with the Infanta Maria. Armstrong, the last of the great fools, eventually fell out of favour for his outspoken criticism of William Laud, even attacking him for his attempts to impose the English liturgy on Scotland. And as this was the very thing that eventually led to the ruin of Charles I it provides clear evidence that in folly there is often wisdom. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasnt it Richard TarlEton?

In several other cultures jesters were also considered the necessary bridge between the monarch and public opinion. The Polish jester (and national symbol) Stańczyk was in many ways unique in that he served as an advisor to several monarchs and was accepted as an authority on affairs by the intellectuals of the time. Relata refero (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right: the correct spelling is Tarleton. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lifespan of book and album covers

When a book - say, a novel - is first published, typically in hardback, it has a particular jacket design. When it is republished in paperback a few years later, it invariably gets a new jacket design altogether. Then, if it's a successful title that goes through several pressings, it gets a new jacket design with every pressing. A novel like Nineteen Eighty-Four, for example, seems to get a new cover design every few years. Also, jacket designs often differ completely from country to country.

Contrast this with the approach taken to covers of popular music albums. Here, a record is given a cover design when it is first released and then, by and large, retains it forever. An old record may sometimes be given a new sleeve when it is reissued, but this is comparatively rare. Imagine if an iconic cover like Sgt Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon was discarded in favour of something new!

So, what is going on here? Why don't books retain the same cover design for their lifetime, like albums do? I imagine the reason is to keep titles "relevant" (yawn) as well as giving them a new lease of life commercially. But why, then, is the same logic not applied to albums? One might say that an album cover is more an integral part of the album than a book's cover is part of the book. But why should this be? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In a lot (though not all) of cases, a paperback gets the picture of the main actor from a gripping scene when the book gets made into a movie or television series (I almost wept when I bought my daughter Encyclopedia Brown books last year and saw that it had been made into a TV show, and the cover model updated appropriately). In other cases, though, no idea. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

People who own a book will rarely buy a second copy in a new edition, but for owners of albums on vinyl records it has been fairly common to buy re-releases on CDs. They wanted the same thing they know and love, only migrated to new technology. The persistence of the jacket art has made the decision to abandon the cherished vinyl version psychologically less painful.  --Lambiam 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I suspect that now the answer is 'because that's what the relevant industries do', but how it started I don't know. It reminds me of another conundrum I have been puzzling over for years: why are theatrical performances (including opera) almost always repeated, sometimes for years, while concerts are almost never repeated - even if a concert tours, it will hardly ever do more than one performance in a particular venue. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The case of concerts is somewhat different, I would venture to say. (Are you talking about pop music or classical?) In theory, at least, pop concerts are supposed to be unrepeatable, one-off performances. The exception is when a group tours a particular album, such as Genesis' The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway or Pink Floyd's The Wall. In cases such as those, they are indeed repeated, often on more than one occasion and in the same venue. Recently, there has also been an alarming trend (well, I don't like it) of groups playing "classic albums" right the way through. Usually, though, the idea is that the choice of songs, and hence the overall performance, varies from night to night. And, of course, artists are writing and recording new songs all the time, and they tend to want to play those live as a priority. So, every time they tour, the set list will change somewhat. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are psychedelic drugs illegal?

I read the article on psychedelics that Wikipedia has and it didn't go into much detail. With some psychedelic drugs having relatively high LD50's and little to no risk of long term damage or abuse, what was the justification used for classifying them as schedule I or class A etc. ? I was curious because it's just not something you hear about much, and i was wondering what the rationale behind the decision was.

24.88.103.234 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Timmy

I"m guessing you mean high LD50. —Tamfang (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right my b. 24.88.103.234 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Timmy

You can find some arguments both ways in Arguments for and against drug prohibition.  --Lambiam 11:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are all possibilities. Is there any way of finding out exactly which arguments were used in the legal proceedings that prohibited these drugs? --Masamage ♫ 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah thank you this was more of what i was looking for. i've read the article on arguments for and against drug prohibition and i wanted a little more detail on the preceedings. 24.88.103.234 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Timmy

I thought that was what you meant. Unfortunately I have no idea where to find those kinds of records. :/ Surely someone does, though? --Masamage ♫ 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, Hansard, the parliamentry record, shows what legislators said about the legislation they passed. AFAIK, when a bill is passe, there tends to be a publication which brings together all relevant info about the bill (e.g. select committee reports, debates &c) which would be the single best reference. I guess much the same pertains to the US. however much of this stuff is not well accessible on the net. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

United States Military - science & tech inventions

Say you have a US military officer who invents something. He invents it in his military lab on military property using military resources. For example a US Navy nurse invents a medical device, or a US Air Force officer who's an aeronautical engineer invents a tool of some sort. To what extent does he own his invention? Does he get the patent for it, or does the military? Does he stand to make money? Would the military compensate him somehow? Could he attach his name to the invention? I'm comparing this in my mind to university research, where a university owns many of the fruits of its researchers' labors. Is it similar in the military? Thanks! Clueless in Wikiland, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I can't cite the exact rules and regulations, I think it would be much the same as you describe. The person who invented the widget, whatever it does, would get a pat on the back and maybe get their name on the patent somewhere but they wouldn't see any monetary gain from it. The patent would go to the military. Dismas|^(talk) 11:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that universities can have very different patent policies! Some universities do not seize patents in an attempt to encourage innovation among their staffs.

As for your question, I'm unsure of what happens when one is an actual officer in a military service, but I know that for contractors working with the military there are usually very specific patent clauses worked out ahead of time. For the most part the military actually has been relatively good about letting contractors keep the patents as long as the government gets a royalty-free license to use the technology -- the philosophy is that letting the contractor keep the patent in the commercial domain is part of the incentive for them to the work, but the government won't pay for it twice. But even that likely varies with the branch of service. And again, I don't know what it means for an officer, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had been raised a few times that letting officers keep some sort of fruit for their work would be an incentive for them to innovate.

I've only worked on the question historically (World War II era patent policies for R&D) and its very complicated and requires a lot of careful reading of patent clauses. I imagine it is more the case even today. I'd be worried about generalizing without really knowing the specifics. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul W. Airey, back in the Korean conflict, innovated a method of protecting radio parts from corrosion that, if he'd been a civilian, he could probably have patented and made scads of dough. Since he did that work for the military, though, he didn't make a dime off it per se. He did, however, earn a Legion of Merit, which is a remarkably high and prestigious award for an enlisted man, and led probably short-term to promotion, and certainly contributed to his ultimate promotion to the highest enlisted rank. It's not a patent or anything, but at least in Airey's case, it worked out to more than just a pat on the back in the long run. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First of the modern conqurers

i read a book recently that described the french king Louis XIV as the first of the modern conqurers in a line that goes through napoleon and hitler. Do you think that this is the right view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.113 (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, why don't you start by telling us what the book was, and the arguments that persuaded you or that you disagreed with, and then your thoughts on the subject; then we will have something to go on. --ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter what the book it is always wise to beware of this kind of bogus genealogy, 217.43. Louis XIV was a man of his time, with limited political and strategic horizons; there is no evidence at all that he contemplated conquest on a Napoleonic scale. The Treaty of the Pyrenees, and his marriage to the Infanta Maria Teresa, inevitably involved him in the dynastic issues arising from the crumbling Spanish Empire. His campaigns on the Rhine and in the Netherlands were caused not by ambition but by fear of encirclement. His offensives, such as they were, were nothing when compared to the wars of his two most militant contemporaries-Charles XII of Sweden and Peter the Great of Russia. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hullo Central

Could one of you please tell me why in Ford Madox Ford's novel, Parade's End, Christopher Tietjens' wife, Sylvia, calls her maid Hullo Central? I can't work it out! Unsuitable boy (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the novel, but "Hello Central" was a stock phrase in early telephony, and is the name of Hank Morgan's child in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Perhaps it is a reference to one of these. FiggyBee (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's there in the novel, Unsuitable boy-"I call my maid Hullo Central because she has a tinny voice like a telephone." I assume your confusion must arise from unfamiliarity with how the telephone system of the day operated? Anyway, all calls had to be routed through a central exchange, with operators responding in the fashion described by Sylvia. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

strange land formation in northern quebec?

what is this circular formation at N 51° 23', W 68° 43' ? --206.248.172.247 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Manicouagan Reservoir. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sneaker Pimps

I have virtually no experience with or knowledge of the trip-hop genre, but I stumbled upon Becoming X, and -really- enjoyed it. The female singer's vocals and the nearly hypnotic music are a combination I find really relaxing. Apparently, immediately after putting out that album, the group fired that singer, Kelli Dayton, in favor of a male, so I am not going to rush out and buy a bunch of later Sneaker Pimps albums. I want to find more music that sounds like this, though -- the same, only different! Any suggestions? Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the group myself, but here are a few helpful pointers for similar artists:

1. Go to this website and type the group's name into the box. You get a screenful of other artists floating prettily around the screen. The closer they are to the centre, apparently, the greater the probability they will be similar to the group you entered.
2. Go to this website and have a look at the list of similar artists. In general Last FM is very good for this kind of thing; I recommend it highly as a music/social networking site.
3. Go to the album's page on Amazon, see what people who were interested in it were also interested in, follow the links.

From a quick look, it sounds like you would be interested in Massive Attack and Portishead, so have a listen to them first off. Happy listening. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You might like the early Morcheeba albums, specifically Who Can You Trust? and Big Calm. Their singer on those albums, Skye Edwards has a beautifully hypnotic voice. Rockpocket 08:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Telepopmusik. kawaputra^torque 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Desteni?

Ok. Here's the deal. There is a website, www.desteni-universe.co.za, that details what i believe to be a religion. The FAQ has most of the details. Can anyone tell me what religion this is? here's the link: http://desteni.co.za/Faq.htm Bugsym5 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not even for WP will I read densely-packed, tiny, white script on a dark background, and pages and pages of it at that. As far as I can make out fron the opening paragraph, this has something, however tenuous, to do with a Sumerian religion Annunaki or Ellis's fictional world using the same deities. If you start with the WP article noted, you can follow the tracks from there and make up your own mind. Bielle (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It also appears to have links to Theosophy and a number of other New Age style beliefs. Steewi (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Roman Empire

Where might I find Edward Gibbons book "The History of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire"?75.66.33.128 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire#Editions and click on the ISBN of one of the editions, this will take you to a page where you can search libraries, databases and online booksellers for that particular edition. David Šenek (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You can also find it online in various places, some of which are listed at The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire#External links. Algebraist 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The full text is online here. I'm old-fashioned enough to have a good set of the six volumes, and if you want to read Gibbon with pleasure I advise you to find hard copies. I've noticed that in the UK the Folio Society's set of Gibbon is selling on ebay for a fraction of its original price. Xn4 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

cole scego

i am looking for more information on designer cole scego 64.15.93.49 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cole Scego has his own website at [16] and I found one blog interview about him on Google[17]. The rest of the Google hits appeared to be all MySpace and other blogs. Bielle (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A high resolution picture of a Lenin painting

Hi, I've searched high and low for a higher resolution of this: http://www.johndclare.net/images/Lenin.JPG

Does anyone know of a source that has a better resolution? Preferably something in the width of 1,000 pixels or so? I'd be most thankful. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a painting by V. A Serov, Lenin addresses the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets (1955), which you also find on this (fuzzy) image of a Soviet stamp. (This cannot be the painter Valentin Alexandrovich Serov, who died in 1911). While I also could not find a better image, perhaps this information may help your search.  --Lambiam 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Aleksandrovich Serov (1910-1968), other works are Lenin Declares Soviet Power (1948), On Foot To V. I. Lenin (1951), and The Winter Palace is Taken (1954). Lenin Declares... was once featured on commons, but later deleted as a copyvio.—eric 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A very powerful and fine piece, this is. Thanks for the help so far. Unfortunately I've yet to find anything that satisfied my need for a picture with a higher resolution. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nenarokov, A. P. (1987). An Illustrated History of the Great October Socialist Revolution 1917, Month by Month. Moscow: Progress. OCLC 17244668, tho this might be a cropped version.—eric 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Constantine and Christianity

What were the precise reasons for the Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity?86.148.38.101 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The only person, who could tell you the precise reasons, is dead for about 1700 years. We don't even know the exact date of his conversion to Christianity. The only thing, we know for sure is the religion of his mother Helena. She was a believing Christian. We can expect her to have influenced her son, but please be aware that these only can be speculations. --Thw1309 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article on Constantine I and Christianity addresses the uncertainty (or "scholarly controversy") around his conversion too. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It was politics, dear boy, politics! Yes, I simplify, but in simplicity there is always a hard nugget of truth.

Victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge was not sufficient in itself; the empire had to be pacified, and one way of achieving this was to end the persecution of the increasingly important Christian community. But the Edict of Milan only extended recognition to Christianity as one of the empire's many cults, with Christ no more significant than Apollo, to whom the Emperor had already pledged his special allegiance. From a purely Christian perspective the Milan decree was just as intolerable, if not more so, than the persecutions of Diocletian.

While Constantine hoped to harness the power of the Christian God, it seems certain, his background notwithstanding, that he had an imperfect understanding of the true nature of the religion. It was his continuing need for political support that served to focus his thinking, to appreciate the power that could be conferred by a church, infinitely better organised than its pagan competitors. It was this unified and organised church that he saw as an essential base to his power, and made him all the more determined to maintain that unity after his victory over Licinius in 324. At the First Council of Nicaea, summoned to address the dangerously disruptive Arian heresy, Constantine appeared as the dominant influence, more powerful than any bishop, beginning a long tradition of Caesaropapism.

Now in the latter part of his reign, Constantine gave further signs of the special significance that Christianity had achieved in his political scheme of things by lavish patronage, in sharp contrast to his neglect of the pagan cults. But it is always well to remember that to the very end, even in the great city of Constantinople, the supreme figure, even the supreme deity, was not Christ but Constantine, which makes him not that much different to his imperial predecessors, all the way back to Augustus. Baptism only came at the very end for an Emperor who was always more mindful of earthly than heavenly power. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Musicals: "The Red Mill" vs. "Moulin Rouge!"

Given the similarity of titles (red mill being English for moulin rouge), and that their origins are contemporary, is it known whether Victor Herbert's 1906 musical "The Red Mill" was in any way inspired by the Paris cabaret "Moulin Rouge", built in 1899? See Wiki entries: "The Red Mill" stage musical, "Moulin Rouge!" movie musical.Victorcamp (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Victor Campbell

Looking at the articles, there seem to be no similarities. Herbert's musical seems to have been inspired by an actual red mill built outside the Knickerbocker Theatre, not by the Paris cabaret. Luhrmann's movie was partly based on the operas La boheme (Puccini) and La Traviata (Verdi). The only well-known movie based on the Paris cabaret Moulin Rouge was Moulin Rouge (1952 - no exclamation mark), which told the story of Toulouse-Lautrec. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I came away from reading The Red Mill with the understanding that the windmill was built outside the theater to advertise the show, but in re-reading the article I see that it's not clearly stated. One might assume that Herbert was aware of the Parisian cabaret, but there really does not seem to be anything in the plot to support a connection. --LarryMac | Talk 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Defection

Can the term "defection" be applied to taking citizenship in a country that is an ally of one's original country? Usually you hear the term when someone defects to an enemy, but if, say, a U.S. citizen moves to the UK and takes British citizenship, could he be said to have defected to the UK? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Defection" would suggest that the government of the country you're defecting from wouldn't approve. In this case, I wouldn't say it applies, as the US is on friendly terms with the UK and, even after taking British citizenship, you would still be able to exercise your US citizenship. FiggyBee (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Though the CIA might take a dim view if one of its employees took a job with its British counterpart. —Tamfang (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The word defection originally carried no implication of joining another side, merely of quitting the side you're on. A defector was the same as a deserter. Of course, since the Cold War, a defector is usually somebody being given sanctuary by a government hostile to his own. So using it not only implies the enmity of the side you're leaving, but also suggests a state of war-like hostility between the side you're leaving and the side you're joining. If the U.S. doesn't mind your leaving (or doesn't care), and the country of your choice enjoys a "special relationship" with the U.S., then you aren't a defector in either sense. If an ordinary American (i.e. not wanted by any federal agencies) who had acquired UK citizenship were to describe himself as a defector, it would probably be taken as political hyperbole or a joke. Lantzy ^talk 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of a possible exception. A number of American servicemen have sought refuge in Canada rather than return to Iraq for a second tour of duty. Are they defectors? Strictly, yes. But are they defectors in the full-blown Cold War sense? I would say not, because although Canada turns a blind eye to them, or even grants them limited assistance, the Canadian government remains on good terms with the U.S. To defect, in the sense the word has acquired since the Cold War, requires a conflict in which there are "sides" to be taken. If two countries are on the same side, generally speaking, then transferring one's citizenship from one to the other does not constitute a defection, even if the transfer is messy and legally dubious. You would have to go somewhere like Iran to really become a defector in most people's eyes. Lantzy ^talk 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your answers. I was wondering because I'm a U.S. citizen but contemplating taking German citizenship since I've lived in Germany for 11 years and will probably spend the rest of my life here. Under German law, I have to renounce my U.S. citizenship if I want to do that; I can't be a dual citizen. So I'm looking for a word to describe myself. I used to use "expatriate", but that term to me implies someone who will go back to their native country after a few years and bore everyone else with interminable stories beginning "When I was in Germany..." (or whatever country they lived in). Right now I tend to think of myself as an "immigrant" with its romantic implications of huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and despite the oddity of thinking of the United States as the "old country". But I'd hate to be thought of as a "defector". Since I'm neither a soldier nor a spy, though, I guess the term couldn't be accurately used to describe me. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, Angr, we believe you. I mean, a spy would hardly be admitting to it in open forum, would they. But when nobody even alleged you were one, your unnecessary denial looks pretty damn suss to me.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Bismarck, I tell the truth so my enemies will think I'm lying. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess "immigrant" is the most accurate and uncomplicated term, but 'émigré' is more romantic. Or perhaps 'pilgrim'. Lantzy ^talk 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your connotation for expatriate is one I'd not really heard before. Even Philip Nolan was an expatriate. --LarryMac | Talk 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Émigré is too political, and pilgrim too religious. Also, "pilgrim" doesn't suggest moving someplace else permanently, despite the fact that the Pilgrims did so. Our own article on Expatriates says, "A nickname in the UK for former expatriates who have returned to Britain is the 'When I's, or 'When we's, as they are accused of starting conversations by saying 'When I was in Rhodesia' or 'When we were in Singapore'." —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps 'pioneer' is more to your liking. Lantzy ^talk 22:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is no good word. People in your situation often say they "moved to" another country, but they don't call themselves "movers". Also, once you've become a German citizen, then you'll be a German, and how you came by that status should be irrelevant for most purposes. I know that, in some ways, migrants to a new country think of themselves, and are thought of by others, as separate from natives to that country despite sharing a common loyalty and citizenship. That's a social phenomenon. But legally they should have the same status; there should be no first-class and second-class citizens. And if the laws do disadvantage arrivees from other countries who are now fully-fledged citizens, compared to native-born citizens, I'd think twice about taking up citizenship. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there's no legal difference between a native and naturalized German citizen; what I'm casting around for is a word that describes the social aspects of it. And I already consider myself an immigrant, since "immigrant" does not necessary imply being a citizen of the destination country. And if I do take citizenship, I suppose I will be an "American-German" (as opposed to a German-American, which I am not). —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's "naturalized German", of course. Or "American-born German". What is the problem with "American-German"? Lantzy ^talk 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oil Exploitation

What are some ways governments can regulate or stop oil exploitation?

-Juanita

Nationalization, if diplomacy isn't sufficient. Conceivably war. I assume you mean foreign exploitation. Lantzy ^talk 23:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom operates a system of licensing and taxation on North Sea oil exploration and extraction. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.200.184 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Environmental regulation, either at the national or local level. Exploiting an oil resource requires a tremendous amount of equipment, and even the best efforts result in some air, water, or soil pollution. Also, regulations against public nuisances (like excess noise or light) would cause trouble for these operations, which are usually loud and only operate efficiently if they run around the clock. --M@rēino 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

January 29

Regulation of the high seas

In areas of the ocean outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of any country (which I believe would be the case for any waters more than 200 miles from land), what regulatory body controls fishing and other economic activity such as deep-sea mining? Vultur (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ships in international waters are bound by the laws of whatever country's flag they fly. Most countries are signatory to various maritime treaties, including the UN treaties which recently established the International Seabed Authority to regulate deep-sea mining. FiggyBee (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If a ship in international waters flew no flag (a pirate or other illegal group) and committed piracy only in international waters, who would have authority to try them? The UN? The first country they made port at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, found the answer at the international waters article - apparently any country can. Vultur (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Piracy is the oldest example of universal jurisdiction - and some would say, the only one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards' Delegates

Assuming John Edwards drops out of the democratic primaries can he direct his delegates who to vote for? (I think i saw this in the West Wing..)Shniken1 (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This question was raised yesterday. Lantzy ^talk 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Public domain government reports

Is it possible to get old (public domain) CIA observer (or other government agency) reports detailing events like cold war era atomic bomb tests or other historical events? Where could I find these, and if they are available are they in the public domain (like US gov. images)? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

All works by the US federal government are public domain. F (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the agency who made them. Contractor reports (like those usually made for the Department of Energy, or by DOE national labs) can have their own independent copyright status and are not "works of the federal government" as defined in US copyright law.

As to finding reports, there are a number of places online that have such things. It really depends on what type of reports you want. A few sources I have used in my research include:

• The Digital National Security Archive — lots of previously classified CIA, AEC, DOE, FBI, etc. reports. (Requires subscription)
• OHP Marshall Islands Document Collection — lots of reports (mostly military and AEC) relating to atomic testing in the Pacific Ocean
• DOE OpenNet System — lots of reports (mostly AEC/DOE) relating to atomic testing and development (not all are online; those not online can be ordered for a small fee, $6 per CD of 100 documents)
• Declassified Documents Reference System — a collection of various declassified documents from different government agencies (requires subscription)
• Hanford Declassified Documents Retrieval System — items relating to the operation of Hanford Site
• More recent scientific reports/info can be found all over the place, like Public STINET, Information Bridge, or DefenseLink.

As you can see, there are a lot of miscellaneous databases out there. It really depends what you are looking for. No one database has anything like a complete set, and even with these millions of pages online there's no substitute for archival work when it comes to telling a complete story. All of the content is in the public domain for the most part, though access to the databases is often subscription based. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Contactless payment cards in various cultures

I have been to these places with contactless payment cards in use: Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, Macau and New Zealand.

From what I can see, only Hong Kong people will put their whole handbag/backpack with the card inside on the card reader. People in other places will only put their card, or wallet with card inside, on the reader. Why? What do people in other places do? Thanks F (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Real or Fake

I found this video on Youtube. It shows "a 8 year old" kid having his hand crushed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yhuw2NV7JU&feature=related

I think it is fake because I think that in Iran, children has to reach puberty before they can be punished in this manner. Is there a way to find out if this is fake. 202.168.50.40 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Islamic Sharia law the amputation of a hand is a proper punishment for some forms of theft. However you are correct, this punishment apparently can only be carried out if the thief is an adult and sane. Still there are plenty of extremists in every religion and culture that let neither the truth nor human decency stand it the way of them doing what they want. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And according to the law of Snopes, it's a gang of street hustlers. A staged event. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Magician Criss Angel did the same trick with the benefit of better recording equipment and a steamroller. [18] --Haikon 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How can we consider them as rapists and criminals?

This isn't a reference desk question. If you want to debate the categorisation of an article, do it on that article's talk page. FiggyBee (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Death

The black death did not seem to have the same impact in terms of religious belief (mass hysteia etc.) in Britain as it did in the rest of Europe. What effect, if any, did it have?Zoe8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"What effect, if any?" Haha, how homework-y...and what makes you say there was less of a religious impact? There was plenty of hysteria in Britain. One fun answer is that it also led to a shortage of labour, and thereby the collapse of feudalism (well...sort of). But read Black Plague, it should be very helpful. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is true that England did not witness some of the things that arose in the wake of the contagion on the Continent, the 'hysterical' elements you allude to, Zoe, which included pogroms, apocalyptic preaching and the upsurge in the Flagellant movement. The chief impact, paradoxically, was a weakening in the authority of the church. So many priests and clerics died that the gap in numbers had to be made good by the hasty ordination of men hardly suited to the task. The resulting decline in educational and moral standards among the clergy saw an upsurge in anticlericalism among the laity. By the end of the century this was such a well-established feature of English social life that it provided rich ground for the Lollards, a proto-reform movement. Even if they were not attracted by new heretical ideas many people adopted an attitude of morbid scepticism, which eventually found expression in the Danse Macabre, arguably one of the great defining images of the late Middle Ages. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Officialy the best sporting nation

Im my country everyone say we are now officialy best nation in sports,since we have the top rated tenis players(Number 2 in man,number 2 and number 4 in woman and number 3 in mixed doubles),we are champions of world in waterpolo,champions in volleyball,were champions of world in basketball 5 time,and been had great rusults in football.

I know that some bigger countries(like USA and Russia) have more medals,but comparing TO THE NUMBER OF POPULATION,are we the best nation in Sports?

Also,where can I see the list?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.18.229 (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Which country is "we"? We're very, very good, but we're still not mind-readers ... yet. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Serbia, from the IP-address. User:Krator (t c) 08:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could have looked it up, too, if I knew how. I was hoping to remind people generally to be just that little bit clearer with their questions, and to remember this is an international site. It's not too unreasonable to expect people who want to know something about a particular country to actually state its (? her) name. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Olympic games medals, then you are way down the list. In Athens 2004, The Bahamas comes in top with 6.3 total medals per million population. Second is Australia (2.4), then Cuba (2.3). Serbia and Montenegro was 47th with 0.24 total medals per million population. [19] Sorry to disappoint, but even Mongolia beat you :-( Rockpocket 08:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Even among East European nations, the number of medals per unit population is much higher in Romania. Relata refero (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In the 2004 olympics, counting total medals of all countries with at least one gold, the Bahamas wins the medals per capita race, with two medals out of a population of about 300,000. Among countries with at least five total medals, Cuba wins with about 2.5 medals per million. Wrad (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as the source above shows, Australia beats Cuba among countries with at least 5 medals. Rockpocket 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's close, but no. Australia takes second with one medal per 480,000 population. Cuba takes first with one per 400,000 population. Wrad (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm counting current population. oops Wrad (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No,but I didnt mean the Olympic Games,I though like Championships,like we are current Champions of the world in Waterpolo,in Valleyball we are Champions of the world,in Basketball we were Champions of the world more time then anyone else and we beat "Dream-team" few times,in Football we played in semi-finals of world cup 2 times and also once in final of European Cup and won Olympic Games,in Club Football our team(Red Star) won the Champions League and Intercontinental Cup in 1991,in Tenis NOVAK DJOKOVIC just won Australian Open,NENAD ZIMONJIC also just won Australian Open doubles,ANA IVANOVIC played in final of Australian Open this year and JELENA JANKOVIC played in semi-finals this year.

Thats why everyone in my country say that we are officialy the best sport nation in the world(Of course,not the olympic games,but real Championships)...So,after all the succes that I mentioned,is there any other nation wich have succes in so many different sports? Also,another thing that interests me is,if we are first nation in Sports,who is the second and third one??

Thank you very much

77.105.18.39 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Translations of Plato's Republic

As title, I am looking for a good translation (English) of Plato's Republic. To give some kind of clue of what I want before turning to ambiguities, Barnes' translation of Aristotle is just about right for me for that philosopher. User:Krator (t c) 08:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a list of translations at The Republic. Apparently the one by Tom Griffith and G.R.F. Ferrari is pretty good. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also there's the 'squashed' verison (http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/plato.htm) which is perhaps an easier read for pure 'interest' reasons (but less so for detailed studying). ny156uk (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As Adam Bishop states, the one by Tom Griffith and G. R. F Ferrari is pretty good. I own a copy and am holding it as we speak, it is formatting as an almost coffee-house-esque chat. SGGH ^speak! 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Proper names

Senator Edward Moore Kennedy is also called "Ted" Kennedy. Where does the name Ted come from?

His brother John also was called "Jack." Why?

4.242.141.157 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Al Williams

Ted is a very common nickname for Edward. And Jack is sometimes used as a diminutive of John, although it is increasingly being used as a name in its own right as well. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought Ted was a nickname for Theodore... —Keenan Pepper 13:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be - as in Teddy Roosevelt or Ted Logan. But it can also be short for Edward (Ted Heath, for example), or indeed (according to our Ted article) for Edwin. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quite common for diminutives not to start with the same letter as the full name: Margaret -> Peggy, Robert -> Bobby (another Kennedy!), Roger -> Hodge (once upon a time), Mary -> Polly, Richard -> Dick. I'm sure there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't remember it off-hand. (This doesn't include cases where the start of the name has obviously been truncated, e.g. Christine -> Tina) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've known "Molly" to be a variant for "Mary", but not "Polly"; that's a new one for me, as is "Hodge" for "Roger". Bielle (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect some of these are variants on existing diminutives, e.g. Mary -> Molly -> Polly. Edward -> Ed -> Ted. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what this guy's friends call him. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rog", evidently. Lantzy ^talk 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ned" is also a nickname for Edward. Corvus cornix_talk 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that in almost all the examples Andrew gives, the pet form starts with a plosive consonant. I'm sure this is not an accident, though I haven't an explanation. But it seems to be a characteristic pattern (not the only one) for hypocoristics in English to substitute a less sonorous initial consonant for a more sonorous one. (Different languages have different characteristic patterns: Russian often uses -ya even for masculine names, though that ending is normally feminine; and French has a pattern almost unknown in English of reduplicating a syllable of the name.) --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Odon von Horvath

Is there an English translation of Jugend Ohne Gott by Odon von Horvath? Our article makes no mention of one, and book searches have failed to turn one up, but perhaps one of the German experts on here knows differently...? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been translated by R. Wills Thomas in 1938. The original title of the translation appears to have been The Age of the Fish. Heinemann Educational Books ISBN 0-434-34810-4. I don't know whether it's currently in print. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks - found a second hand copy on Abebooks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How important is $100 to an average American?

Even today, comparing incomes and income disparities between various nations is very difficult. Previously, we had figures based on Purchasing power parity because nominal exchange rate based calculations were not meaningful. But, recently, even they are becoming unreliable because of the confusion created by World Bank. In one day, they reduced per capita incomes of many countries including China and India by half citing some reasons. Russia's and some eastern European countries' incomes were down by 20% in a moment. As a person not living in US, I am asking this. Please explain me how important is $100 for an average American so that I can compare your answers and get some idea of parity between currencies. (Meanwhile, I thank World bank for creating that confusion so that people like me know at least now how unreliable these calculations were. I would have believed in World Bank's calculations even now if those confusion was not there) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.109.31 (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on where you live, but for me, $100 can pay for a month's groceries or two months health insurance or four months car insurance. Wrad (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How about using the Big Mac index (http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/) as a start. Also look at the article on purchasing power parity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity) for more information around the quality of these things as an indicator. ny156uk (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I might have to switch to Wrad's HMO -- I can only get 1 week's worth of health insurance for my spouse & me for $100. I spend about $100 per person per month on groceries, too. In the alternative, $100 could buy me 2 swanky meals, 5 normal restuarant meals, 10 nice take-out meals, or 25 fast-food meals. --M@rēino 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, if I were poor or miserly, I could get 3 months' worth of food for $100.--M@rēino 19:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For a Canadian (or for this one, at any rate) and given that our dollar is just about at par with the US one, $100.00 buys one fill-up of our Ford 150 van, one month's car insurance on our oldest car, and 3-4 days' oil heat for the house if the thermometre stays below freezing. Like Mareino, we spend about $100 per month, per person, for groceries (not including non-food items, or wine and beer), but that swanky meal for two would be more like $120 than $100. Bielle (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This varies a lot regionally within the United States. In some parts of the United States, most people earn less than $100 a day, so $100 represents 10-15 hours of work. In these same lower-income areas, it is possible to rent a small apartment (flat) for about $500 a month, so $100 pays for almost a week's lodging. In other parts of the United States, average pay and costs are higher. For example, in Boston, where I live, people probably earn an average of about $200 a day, so $100 represents just four hours of work. Here, it is hard to find a tiny apartment (flat) for less than $1000 a month, so $100 represents no more than three day's lodging. People here probably spend close to $50 a week on groceries, even though they eat maybe 2-3 meals a week in restaurants, so $100 buys not even 2 weeks worth of food. A typical restaurant meal, including taxes and tip, is about $25, and a "swanky" meal for two could be anywhere from $100 to $600. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A note about the "confusing" World Bank revision: the recent revision in PPP-rates (and thus revision of global economic growth for the last few years) was due to new data supplied by the International Comparison Program, which was a program that conducted a comprehensive reassessment of PPP values (among other things). It was not an arbitrary revision "for some reason" - the program was planned and conducted because the existing figures were often out of date or inaccurate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an American, but $100 is approximatley my weekly income after housing costs (but before utilities). DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Corporate jet setters

Which nation is considered the best in the world of academics? In terms of escalation in corporate scenario... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garb wire (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How would one measure "best": the country with the most university students; the one with the most Ph.D.s? And I am also puzzled by the expression "in terms of escalation in corporate scenario"? Do you mean the measurement should be in terms of what the corporate world demands now, by way of formal education? As you see, I have more questions than answers. Bielle (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I puzzled over this question for a while and came to the conclusion the OP was asking which country do academics consider to the the "best" for escalation up the corporate ladder (I could be totally wrong, though). Rockpocket 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

South America: Homicide Information

What resources would you recommend which will give me a good idea of the number of Americans murdered in South American countries vs total murders in that same country? I am thinking of taking a 9 month trip down there and would like to have some idea of risk. --Yoyoceramic (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You could ask the US embassies in the countries you intend to visit. They should have some good idea. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe you have to know the number of Americans murdered down there vs total number of murders, since probably they are not targeting Americans. Try better number of murdered Americans vs. sound-and-safe American tourists within a time-frame. Or murdered tourists/not murdered tourists. Anyway check this link for official warnings.Mr.K. (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dark Complexion?

Hello,

Over the past year in literature I have read, the description "dark complexion" has turned up. I know that in modern contexts it generally refers to ethnicity, yet the books I have read, such as Jane Eyre, have Caucasian characters. Also on your page about Anne Boleyn it says that some referred to her as having a "dark complexion," when she was most assuredly white.

Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.106.224.20 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a question or a comment. I'll respond anyway. Nobody's ever suggested Anne Boleyn was not "white" in the sense of being Caucasian. It's just that her skin may have been noticeably darker than other "white" people. Everyone has a different and unique skin colour, and skin colour can change with exposure to sun, disease etc, but it would be absurd and impractical to scientifically categorise the precise tone of everyone's skin, so instead we go for broad descriptions - "white", "black", etc. Spaniards are generally considered Caucasian too, hence they're "white", but their skin tends to be darker than those of Finns, for example. One Spaniard in a roomful of Finns would be visually distinctive, even apart from factors such as facial shape, hair colour etc. They'd say he/she was of a "dark complexion", compared with them, without any suggestion he/she was negroid. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In a (forgotten) reference to complexion or "colouring" in medieval England, someone with medium to light brown hair was regarded as "dark" in colouring. Someone "golden" was blond, and "fair" was very light blond. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nurse capill

I would like history of this nurse, executed by germany during the 1st world war. I am not sure if this is the right spelling of her surname? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.194.135 (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Edith Cavell. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Florida primary

I've heard from many sources that both the Republicans and Democrats have stripped the state of all of its delegates. Is that correct? And if so, why is a primary still being held there? Are there other forms of representation? --The Dark Side (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Democrats have done so, as "punishment" for moving the date of the primary, many sources have thus been calling the election a "beauty contest". I don't believe the Republicans have done the same, if so, that would make Rudy Giuliani's strategy really flawed. --LarryMac | Talk 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] In fact, the Republicans have stripped the state of half of its delegates as a punishment for holding the primary too early in the process. The Republicans will still seat half of the Florida delegates. The Democrats have vowed not to seat any Florida delegates when they hold their nominating convention. The primary is still being held because states have the authority to set dates for primaries and other elections, and the national parties do not have the authority to stop the primaries. They do, however, have the authority to decide the rules for admission to the nominating convention. By defying the national parties, Florida politicians forfeited their (full) access to the nominating conventions. Nonetheless, because Florida is a swing state with a large number of electoral votes, the outcome of its primary will influence the parties' choice. Marco polo (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

JC-1 H2 Literature texts

I just started taking JC-1 H2 Literature this year. I have to study five texts, two under "Reading Literature" (which H1 students also take) and three under "Literature and Identity".

One of my "Reading Literature" texts is Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Is it a difficult book to study? Do you have any advice?

In secondary school, I did "Macbeth". It was fun and easy. Now I have to study "Othello" for "Reading Literature" and "King Lear" for "Literature and Identity". How are the two texts similar and diferent to "Macbeth"? Are they more difficult? Any advice for someone who has already studied "Macbeth"?

How about "Ariel" by Sylvia Plath? I understand it is a book of poems. I am better with prose than poems but I know the literary devices for poems and scored A1 for Literature in secondary school. Same questions - is it difficult and do you have any advice?

My last "Literature and Identity" text is "Fistful of Colours". I will not ask for advice about that book because it is by a local author and Wikipedia has no article about the book.

By the way, thanks for helping me with my Economics. You guys rock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.8 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have the slightest clue what JC-1 H2 means? Malcolm Starkey (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess: JC-1 = Junior college, Year 1; H2 = category Higher 2.  --Lambiam 08:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice is a fairly easy book to study and funny too. Study the two other plays the way you did the Macbeth.. I didn't find Ariel difficult,you have good skills it seems to tackle it. Enjoy,there's some great reads there. hotclaws 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone could consider Macbeth either 'fun' or 'easy', let alone both... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Macbeth is easy when compared to other Shakespeare plays. It's short, the plot is straightforward, the themes are clear, and there's very little comedy. Gdr 13:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought Macbeth was great fun when we did it at school - plenty of blood and guts and witches. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just hope the curse doesn't apply to Refdesk discussions... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just remembered a production I saw once that provoked some unintended audience laughter when some characters knelt down (probably showing allegiance to Malcolm) and the swords that were hanging from their belts touched the floor of the stage and visibly bent. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

165.21, just as there is no Royal Road to Geometry, there is no Easy Route to Literature: it's a personal voyage of self-discovery. After all, it is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single person in possession of intelligence, must be in want of a book! I could, of course, refer you to the Wikipedia pages on Pride and Prejudice, Othello and King Lear for some general guidance, but there is really no substitute for reading these works yourself and reaching your own conclusions. In a way I envy you, particularly in coming to Jane Austen for the first time. I read Pride and Prejudice when I was about ten years old and simply loved it; loved the characters and loved the way Austen created dramatic and romantic tension. You have a great discovery ahead!

As for the Shakespeare, you will find both Othello and King Lear more demanding than Macbeth, though all might be said to take their departure from aspects of the leading characters' personalities: if Macbeth is about ambition, Othello is about the interplay between jealousy and malice. In King Lear the tragedy emerges from the conceit, pride and misjudgment of the eponymous hero, a man who was 'old before he was wise.'

You will appreciate the poems in Aerial a little better if you discover something about the life of Sylvia Plath. In reading Lady Lazarus be mindful of the Bible story-I am Lazarus, come from the dead (to quote another poet altogether!) Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lambiam is correct. JC-1 = Junior college year 1, H2 = category Higher 2. By the way, your junior college article is all rubbish. No offence.

AndrewWTaylor, Macbeth is very interesting. The story, characters and themes are easy to understand but still thought provoking. My other secondary school text, The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan, was also thought provoking but much harder.

Thanks for all the advice, HotClaws and Clio the Muse. So Pride and Prejudice is easy, interesting and funny? Looks like I will enjoy my two years of studying JC H2 Literature nd (hopefully) get an A in the A Levels. From your advice, I understand that Othello and King Lear will be similar to Macbeth but more demanding. I heard that Macbeth, Othello and King Lear are all typical Shakespeare tragedies where a good man has a tragic flaw which causes his downfall, but the tragic flaw is different in each play. Is that accurate? Lastly, is the language in Othello and King Lear similar to that in Macbeth? It took me a few months to get used to the "anon"s, "withal"s, etc. when I studied Macbeth. Some of my classmates did not take Literature in secondary school, or studied texts that were not by Shakespeare. If the language is similar I will have a head start over them as they will have to spend a few months getting used to the language.

Assassination or murder?

How famous/important does a person have to be before its assassination rather than murder?--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)