Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 13

Government and market economy

What is the proper role of the government in a market economy? Or else, ideally, what should the government do? I'm trying to justify the "invisible hand" concept from the Wealth of Nations, but there doesnt seem to be anything that refutes it. or maybe, is it not thr right thing for the government to do if it wants to keep its economy stable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.204.3 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is really a matter of opinion. Different economists and people with different political positions would argue for different degrees of government involvement in the economy. Anarcho-capitalists would argue that the government has no proper role in the economy. Radical libertarians would argue that the state has no proper role beyond guaranteeing the sanctity of contracts and perhaps safeguarding the integrity of the currency. Social democrats, who generally favor a limited place for a market economy, nonetheless believe that the state has a legitimate right to intervene in the market in almost any way needed to safeguard the welfare of workers and those without property. Most fall somewhere between social democrats and libertarians in backing a more or less limited role for the state, generally involving some regulation of markets. Some also support minimal intervention in the market economy to provide for the social welfare of the less advantaged. Marco polo (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is an opinion question and there's no one correct answer. I would say government should get involved to address the problem of collective action. For example, say there's a product everyone uses. It can be produced in an environmentally unfriendly manner for $5 or a friendly manner for $10. There is no other difference between the two products. Call the first Product A and the second Product B. If one person switches from Product A to Product B, the effect on the environment is too small to measure. But if everyone switches, the effect is enormous.

Let's say, theoretically, 100% of people support the use of Product B and are willing to pay more for it. But without government getting involved, there's no rational reason for anyone to switch to Product B. That's because no one's going to be the sucker who's going to pay double for something when his or her individual purchase doesn't make a difference. I'm willing to contribute to environmental friendliness by paying more, but only if everyone else does. Even if the companies that make the products all support Product B, they're not going to produce Product B because there won't be a market for it. This is where the government has to step in and mandate the switch to Product B. That way, there won't be any free riders who will keep using Product A to save money at everyone else's expense.

Of course, in real life no situation is that clear-cut. There are some people who will buy expensive, environmentally friendly products to make themselves feel good, not really considering the drop-in-the-bucket nature of their personal contributions. And, as we all know, there's never 100% unanimity in anything. But the collective-action problem does manifest itself often in politics, in issues of taxation, labor relations, land-use and other environmental regulation, safety rules and what not. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's answer is good, but controversial: small government advocates and anarchists generally think this is one of the things governments should not do. Their reasoning behind that amounts to the fact that the market mechanism would solve the problem. In the example, once people realise the total environmental damage done to them per product produced is, say, $6, they effectively "earn" a dollar if they buy the other product.

More uncontroversial government roles are alleviating information asymmetry, for example, making people realise the environmental damage done to them is in fact $6. A more real example include the mandatory "risk warnings" on high-risk products my government (Netherlands) has. Another relatively uncontroversial thing the government steps into is factor immobility (it's a shame Wikipedia doesn't have an article, see [1] if you don't know what it is). Finally, competition law is another important aspect of government intervention into the economy that's relatively uncontroversial, in the sense that people agree something has to be done here, but don't agree on what that should be. A combination of the information asymmetry and the collective action problems plays a role there. User:Krator (t c) 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in my example, it makes no perceivable difference to the environment whether Person X buys Product A or Product B. If, on the other hand, there are only 10 consumers of the product, each contributing 10% toward the environmental impact of the product's use, each of the consumers is more likely to contribute to the solution. That's because the buyers may think their purchase actually has an influence on environmental quality. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ello Friends

Ok...i love wikipedia and the internet, however im kinda stuck i was looking for hot new things on john adams that most people dont hear about can anyone point me in a direction or give me some pointers!? My Thanks to all!

Respectfully Inutasha De Fallen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inutasha De Fallen (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Listed in the "References" section at the bottom of our article John Adams, is the following book:

McCullough, David. John Adams. (2002). Best-selling popular biography, stressing Adams's character and his marriage with Abigail over his ideas and constitutional thoughts. Winner of the 2002 Pulitzer Prize in Biography.

The hardcover came out in 2001. You can probably get your hands on a copy at your local library. Marco polo (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless s/he means John Adams (composer). . . --S.dedalus (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One factoid about Adams: when he moved into the newly built White House, his bedroom was on the second floor and the servants were in the ground floor. He ordered a system of bell pulls put in, with wiring concealed in the walls. This was harder than putting in electrical wiring, because the wires had to run smoothly over pulleys through long runs with twists and turns. Then he could yank on the bell pull in the middle of the night and get hot cocoa or whatever comfort he craved. Edison (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretzels? Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Obamicans

Barack Obama just gave a speech in which he claimed there was a growing group of "Obamicans" backing him. In other words, Republicans who supported his candidacy. It got me wondering if this is a term that might become catching, like "Reagan Democrats". What does history tell us about the likelihood of this becoming a more popular term? Is there any other precedent? Wrad (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only other example I can think of is Mugwump. Lantzy ^talk 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And there's Dixiecrat, but I think Wrad is looking for eponyms. --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, there are the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats, although they were not cross-overs in the same sense as the Mugwumps and Reagan Democrats. Obama is unusual (and probably savvy) in that he has explicitly coined a term for his crossover supporters. There is a long tradition in American politics of parties forming organizations for crossover members of the opposing party, and it is generally doubtful to what extent these are spontaneous manifestations of transpartisan sentiment, rather than merely astroturfing. In any case, they tend to have boring, generic names. In the last election Republicans for Kerry sold a lot of bumper stickers, but the idea of "Kerry Republicans" never took hold. Nor do we ever hear about "Clinton Republicans", although a lot of them must have voted for him. Some other notable crossover organizations were Democrats for Nixon, led by Kennedy's fellow passenger John Connally, and Republicans for Roosevelt, which bizarrely consisted mostly of western isolationists: "Dissident Republicans, too, such as Hiram Johnson, Borah of Idaho, and George Norris of Nebraska, [...] if not exactly fellow travellers with Roosevelt, ... were conspicuous nontravelers with Hoover. The "Republicans for Roosevelt" clubs were an important adjunct of the Democratic campaign." There were also Democrats for Dewey and Republicans for Stevenson, both unsurprisingly obscure. Before that, there were Republicans for Wilson and Democrats for Taft. Lantzy ^talk 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A google search for Obamicans shows about 450 hits. Wrad (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Obamacan" seems to be the canonical spelling, and returns 1,560 hits. Lantzy ^talk 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ick. Wrad (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Thatcherites? HS7 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition of a shatterbelt?

There is no wikipedia article on the subject and some quick googling provides no answer. I'm particularly interested in what it means and also how it relates to domino theory. Thanks. -24.82.140.138 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Saul Cohen, in his 1973 work Geography and Politics in a World Divided, described two-levels of division of the world into regions. Geostrategic regions with global importance, and subcontinental geopolitical regions. There were two geostrategic regions: the trade dominated Maritime World, and the Eurasian Continental World; and ten geopolitical regions. Most geopolitical regions fell under the obvious sphere of influence of one or the other geostrategic regions. One, South Asia, was termed independent; potential a new geostrategic region in formation. Two, the Middle East and Southeast Asia were "shatterbelts", potential areas of competition and conflict. (Taylor, Peter. (1996) "Unity and Division in Global Political Geography." Companion Encyclopedia of Geography. p. 341)

Cohen's definition was: "a large, strategically located region that is occupied by a number of conflicting states and is caught between the conflicting interests of adjoining Great Powers." O'Loughlin, John (1994) Dictionary of Geopolitics defines 'shatterbelt' as "a region that combines internal cultural, economic and political diversity and conflict proneness, with competing external (superpower) involvements without clear spheres of influence."

That's good, thanks. -24.82.140.138 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A brief paragraph on Cohen's "shatterbelt" concept should be edited into domino theory. Anyone?--Wetman (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know that domino theory is the correct place. I've been looking for support for the claim in geostrategy: "while Saul B. Cohen examined the idea of a "shatterbelt", which would eventually inform the domino theory" in order to help answer the question. The cited article (wayback link) is not so explicit: "Cohen identified the Middle East and Southeast Asia as the shatterbelts of the Cold War. It was within these areas that the “domino theory” was thought by U.S. policy makers to operate."—eric 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Sales

Is there a site on the net where you can view sales/performance of microsoft in different countries? 60.241.113.35 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. Like any other company, Microsoft keeps its sales figures secret. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Microsoft is a public company, which means they're required by law to publish financial reports. FiggyBee (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - and you'll most likely find what you're looking for somewhere here. Happy flipping. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I was assuming the questioner was asking for detailed information on the sales of specific Microsoft products in different countries. A quick look at the financial information provided in the above link gives nothing so detailed, just aggregated information on worldwide income. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A flip through the latest annual report showed some comments about emerging markets and other such general segments. If the OP was asking for the kind of detail you are describing - then I agree with you: probably nobody would know except Microsoft and their financial advisors. Companies sometimes provide that kind of breakdown in investor presentations and suchlike, but it is up to the practices of each firm. I thought if these presentations were anywhere, they'd be in the investor relations section. Our inquisitive friend might just have to try his luck and trawl through the website. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Inscriptions on Paris building

I wonder if anyone can help me identify a Paris building based on the following? The building in question is to the left of the Panthéon (Paris) as you face it, and on the outside walls, fairly high up but visible from the street below, are inscribed the names of many eminent scientists and authors and philosophers from throughout history. I will try and upload a picture I have somewhere, but if anyone can help identify the building, that would be great! My best bet is that it is some sort of French institute, but I'm having trouble identifying the building on maps of the area. The building in question can be seen on this Google Maps link. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Managed to find it! From the map at fr:Place du Panthéon (the article was only created last year, after my last attempt to identify this building), I got to fr:Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, and from there to Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève. Have a look at Image:Bibliothèque St Geneviève Paris.jpg and you can see the rows of names, though the picture is not good enough to see the names. Maybe I should upload my picture that is a close-up of some of the names. It was interesting trying to recognise names on the wall! Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Police in France

For a project on the emergence of modern forms of law and order I have chosen to look at the development of the French police force from the Revolution of 1789 to the time of Napoleon III. I'm hoping someone here may be able to give me a kick start. Suggestions for an explanatory framework would be useful as well as suggestions on sources. I can give you my email address if you need it. Thank you. James Blair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.13.29 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read French, you might try Du Moyen Âge à nos jours: Histoire et dictionnaire de la police by Jean Tulard et al. (2005, Robert Laffont) as a reference. You might also have a look at this nice summary. Probably you are familiar with Michel Foucault's magisterial Discipline and Punish, which is neither a standard history nor focused exclusively on the French police but offers theoretical frameworks which your project should probably at least acknowledge. Marco polo (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The origins of the French police force go right back to the Middle Ages, James, but it was given a new purpose and direction by Napoleon, who turned the National Gendarmerie into an elite force, a model for other police forces throughout Europe in the nineteenth century. He also gave an enhanced role to the so-called 'administrative police', which achieved particular notoriety under the command of Joseph Fouché and later Anne Jean Marie René Savary as arguably the first truly 'secret' force in the history of Europe. Taken together, these forces developed into the nineteenth century as guardians not just of public order but the whole apparatus of the bourgeois state.

In 1896 René Waldeck-Rousseau, a prominent lawyer and politician, was to write of the Paris police Ils veillent pour que nous travaillions-they watch so we can work-which might very well serve as the leitmotiv of the whole French force. It was their duty to keep an eye on les classes dangereuses, the urban sub-proletariat, which was of such concern to the administrators of the July Monarchy and every regime thereafter. They were praised for their effectiveness in Eugène Sue's popular novel of the 1840s, Les Mystères de Paris;

A tapis-franc, in the slang of the murderers and thieves of Paris, means a smoking-house or inn of the very lowest class...liberated galley-slaves, tricksters, robbers, and assassins congregate there. If a crime has been committed, the police casts its net in this receptacle of filth, and almost always the guilty one is caught.

Napoleon III, in his concern for security, made attempts to bring the whole apparatus of the various local forces under tighter state supervision, in what was the first clear attempt to create a modern police state, an experiment that left a lasting legacy of suspicion, uniting liberals, on the one hand, and peasants, on the other, in their hostility towards an alien and interfering power.

I agree with Marco that you are likely to obtain a good conceptual framework from Discipline and Punish. On the empirical points you should look at The Police State of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, 1851-1860 by Howard Payne, The Police of Paris by P. J. Stead and Gendarmes and the State in Nineteenth Century Europe by C. Emsley. The Army and French Society during the Revolution and Empire by A Forrest also has some background information that might be of use to you. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Journey from Vienna to Magdeburg in 1889

I would be grateful if a user could please answer the following question. If in 1889, one needed to travel quickly from Vienna to Magdeburg, what method of transport would one have used and how long would the journey have taken? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I imagine by 1889 the quickest, most efficient way of traveling from Vienna to Magdeburg would have been by train. It's over 800 km, so it probably would have taken about two days. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the quickest means of transport at that time would have been the railroad, but rail speeds were not much greater than 50 km/hour even on major rail lines. Even though this is probably faster than the average speed on a rail journey from Vienna to Magdeburg would have been in 1889, we can use this as a starting point for an estimate. The rail distance from Vienna to Magdeburg (by way of Prague, Dresden, Leipzig, and Halle) is 866 km. This would have taken (a minimum of) 17 hours and 20 minutes not including layovers. There would likely have been at least three layovers, probably of more than an hour each. Adding this all together, I think that we can safely say that it was at least a day's journey by train from Vienna to Magdeburg, and probably a few hours more. Marco polo (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Not not much greater than 50 km/h even on major lines" was certainly not true in England at that time: see Race to the North#First and second race. But central Europe is another matter. I don't know about 19th century schedules there. --Anon, 00:25 UTC, February 14, 2008.

But that was a race. I suspect 50 km/h is about right for an ordinary passenger train of the time.

Interjecting to respond to this point alone: Yes, the racing trains were not typical, but they were so much faster than the 50 km/h suggested that it should be clear that ordinary trains must also have been faster than 50 km/h. In England at that time, I mean. But of course the question was not about England. --Anon, 00:36 UTC, Feb. 15.

And of course the train would have stopped in a lot of towns in addition to the layovers for changing trains. I think it's most likely that if you left Vienna on Thursday morning you wouldn't get to Magdeburg until Friday morning or early afternoon. Today it takes all day: if you leave Vienna in the morning you get to Magdeburg in the evening. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. An associated question is how many trains each day made this journey in 1889? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Peerages

See the last entries on List of Life Peers. They take a title, such as Baron Smith of Anytown, but the column to the right of that lists somewhere completely unrelated, such as of the town of Anyvillage in the county of Anyshire. What is the connection, how are these places (both!) chosen? Some people (see the page's penultimate entry) even have three places involved; why is this? Thanks, --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The third column in that table gives the title itself (e.g. Baron Fraser of Lonsdale) which may or may not include the name of a place. That title is the peer's new name, and in the case of an hereditary peerage (such as the newly created Earldom of Wessex) will also be the name of his or her successors. Sometimes, a place name is included in a peerage title to distinguish it from another similar title which already exists, even if it is in abeyance. In theory, the crown chooses the title itself, but in practice the new peer can ask for the title he or she would like and usually gets it. A place-name which is included in the title may commemorate something quite different from the peer's place of residence - for example, Earl Mountbatten of Burma and Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Retired members of parliament often use the name of a parliamentary constituency they have represented. The fourth column in the table is the 'territorial' qualification of the title - that is, it attaches it to one or more places, usually the new peer's place(s) of residence. In the Middle ages, a peerage was inconceivable without the ownership of a landed estate, and that designation would then refer to the new peer's estate. Xn4 09:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Potter so Popular?

I love Harry Potter, but I was really surprised to know that it has sold the most copies in the world, even more than the Bible, which used to hold that title. Maube it's something about the books that makes them so popular. What do my fellow Wikipedians think it is? I think it's because it's about a seemingly normal boy living in a bizarre world.--Princess Janay (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A good story is a good story. There are plenty of books that this could have happened to, but Harry Potter just happened to come in a time when a lot of translators and marketers could distribute it all over. Wrad (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My belief is that the books should well for the same reason The Da Vinci Code sold so well: plot twists. We all love plot twists. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of it had to do with them being children's books that don't talk down to their readers and that adults can enjoy too. Those are both very scarce commodities in children's books these days. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a review of of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter: Understanding the Meaning, Genius, and Popularity of Joanne Rowling's Harry Potter Novels here which explains the popularity as JK being a modern extension of the Inklings, and as successful as they were for much the same reasons. YMMV, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm highly suspicious of your "most popular book in the world" statement as written. HP has sold around 400 million copies, which is a lot, but I'd bet that per capita Bible ownership in the States is about 1, for 300 million right there. It's inconceivable that Bible sales haven't topped 400 million. It may well be the case that single year sales of HP are the highest in history, but that's an altogether different metric. — Lomn 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the multi-volume nature of HP is neglected. Buying all of HP generally counts as seven purchases; buying all of the Bible generally counts as one. The most popular single volume, Philosopher's Stone, has sold 120 million. — Lomn 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue that always comes up with Bible sales is "which Bible"? Do you count every version of every Bible in every language as just "the Bible" or do you separate it by versions or religions or languages or translations... For example, I have one Bible in King James that only contains Genesis, Psalms, and the New Testament. I have another in NIV that contains both the Old and New Testaments. I have a Tanakh - which obviously omits the New Testament. I have Bibles given to me by Mormons and Jehovah Witness' - which contain differences to the NIV version. I almost got my hands on a Sinner's Bible - just a normal King James version that forgot the word "not" in the phrase "Thou shalt not commit adultry." Now, this leads to a similar confusion over Harry Potter sales. Do you separate it by version/language as well? The U.S. version is not identical to the British version and they are both in what would be called English. -- kainaw™ 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point. I expect, though, that for most "fair" comparisons, books like the Bible and the Qur'an will easily surpass the circulation of HP. I've avoided trying to nail down precisely what those comparisons would be, but I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find a consensus on a rough apples-to-apples comparison. For example, the New International Version claims around 200 million copies, well above Philosopher's Stone. By extension, I'd bet that "Bibles containing the 66-book canon" easily surpasses "total HP volumes". Our list of best-selling books puts aggregate Bible printings around a whopping 5 billion. Also well above HP are Mao's Little Red Book and Don Quixote, the latter a direct comparison (novel to novel) of HP. — Lomn 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Mormons (more correctly known as Latter-day Saints) use the King James version of the Bible. We also consider The Book of Mormon to be holy scripture, and some have referred to it (mostly long ago) as "The Mormon Bible," but we do not. At the time of his death, Joseph Smith was in the process of preparing an "inspired version" of the Bible which clarifies many confusing or disputed passages, but it was never completed, and is not used as scripture in the LDS Church. My understanding is that it IS considered scripture in the Community of Christ (formerly known as the RLDS Church). Kingsfold (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a low estimation of Harry Potter, especially in comparison with more classic fare like The Hobbit. The fact that it's so popular is no doubt a reflection of the vast population of middle-class people with middle-class tastes. Vranak (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice Vranak, don't look like an arrogant dickhead or anything. And on the original statement, Harry Potter is the SECOND most sold book in the world. The Bible wins. However the success of Harry Potter can be due to a number of things. Particularly the fact that while it isn't necessarily better than other hit fantasy books of the past, Potter has the advantage of being released while the internet is a very popular tool for Potter's target audience. Blogs and stuff may have contributed to the Potter craze, and no doubt that hype swept across the internet as well as the media. If there's a reason Potter has done so well, it's because communication is so easy now. We're at the dawn of a new age.

Image highly disturbing.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please, see Wilhelm Frick, German Nazi. The second picture, where he's dead. That image is highly disturbing!!!!!. Is that image necessary or important?. It's a corpse!, only a morbid person enjoys with that image!. What do you think?. Thanks for your time, good luck. Ahmed987147 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Talk:Wilhelm Frick is the appropriate place to discuss that, not here. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, forgive me. Ahmed987147 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax, you are forgiven. You are free to remove it yourself, you know. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with Ahmed. It's gone now. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been returned, I am happy to say, and for justifiable encyclopedic reasons. There are similar postmortem pictures of other Nazi leaders, including Julius Streicher and Joachim von Ribbentrop. It is simply unacceptable to start censoring pages because we do not happen to like what we see. Would anyone care to remove this picture for me? It is just so disturbing! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have removed all three. I am not highly disturbed by the illustrations but I cannot see any encyclopedic value in them either, just bad taste. --Anonymous, 00:30 UTC, February 14, 2008.

I'm not comfortable with the image being removed. We have pictures of anusses, anal-rimming diagrams, a full article on a dirty sanchez and all sorts of other things in the name of being "encyclopaedic", but a small, grayed out black and white image of corpse is suddenly worthy of censorship? I believe there is a wikipolicy on this sort of thing, but I'm not sure where to find it. My vote is to restore it, pending a good check into wikipolicy. Rfwoolf (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to enter into an edit war over this, but we now have carte-blanche for anyone and everyone to remove illustrations they disapprove of. Are the photographs of dead Nazi leaders somehow more distasteful than those contained in the page on The Holocaust and Lynching in the United States, to take but two examples? I sincerely hope an administrator will take note of this discussion and restore the censored images. I think it best if I raise this on the RD talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand now, If we remove all disturbing images we will not have nothing. These images are the true. It's OK. Kisses to all. Ahmed987147 (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are pictures of anuses, etc., but they are in the apropriate articles. As for disturbing images on the Holocaust and Lynching entries, well, they are about a disturbing topic. I don't think anyone would object if those images of the Nazi leaders were shown on a page entitled 'fate of Nazi leaders', or 'deaths of famous Nazis'. AllenHansen (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, then where is the appropriate discussion page, please? --Anon, 00:39 UTC, Feb. 15.

Talk:Wilhelm Frick. Sandstein (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's for the specific page. What about the policy issue? --Anon, 24 hours later.

WP:VPP. Sandstein (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Greeks" moving out of (present day) Greece and being replaced by Slavs in Middle Ages?

Hello,

I've been doing some reading on the history of the Slavs and Greeks in the Byzantine Empire, but I still haven't found everything I'm looking for :

1. Apparently the Byzantine Empire lost control of most of what is now "mainland Greece"(which is quite ironic) and according to [2] (including a map) Slavs populated large parts of Greece, even in the south. But how drastic was the demographic shift? Let me put it this way : is it possible that at one point, present-day mainland Greece was populated by more slavic people than by Greekspeaking people?Or is this still extremely unlikely?

2. I remember a Wikipedia article claiming that for a long time, there were Greeks in Asia Minor than in "Greece proper" itself, but now I can't find it anymore. Can anyone help?

Evilbu (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1. We really can't know the answer to this question because of the lack of reliable statistics from ancient or early medieval times, however, based on a perusal of our content, I doubt that Slavs ever outnumbered Greek speakers in Greece. If you look at the map in the South Slavs article, and if you read our article on Byzantine Greece, you see that the Slavic occupation was concentrated in the mountainous central and western parts of Greece, which have always been relatively thinly populated. The fertile valleys and plains along the Aegean appear to have remained largely Greek-speaking. These areas were also the sites of the largest towns, which would have remained Greek-speaking because the Slavs had a distinctly rural, and even pastoral culture.

2. Since Asia Minor has a much larger area and was capable in ancient times of supporting a much larger population than Greece proper (as it still does today), and since Asia Minor was largely Greek speaking by about A.D. 100, it seems likely that there were more Greek speakers in Asia Minor (whether or not they could all be considered ethnically Greek) by some ancient date, possibly something like 250 B.C., in the wake of Alexander the Great. This would have remained the case until the Turks had conquered most of Asia Minor, around A.D. 1200. So for a period of over 1000 years, probably more Greek speakers lived in Asia Minor than in Greece proper. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre-modern ethnography is a sticky business. Firstly, states lacked the bureacracy to prevent, or even monitor, migration into their territories - even the mighty Byzantine Empire was impotent to protect itself from the Yugoslav migration. Secondly, ethnicity tended to be based less on physical appearance, and more on language, this was especially true of the Greeks - so immigrant Slav communities that spoke Greek would very quickly become accepted as Greeks. In any case, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the modern Greeks have very little in common with their ancient counterparts: case in point, the Nuristani people, they claim to be descended from the left-overs of Alexander the Great's army and have over the millenia remained quite inward-looking and self-contained, the Nuristanis have thus inherited the phenotypes for fair skin and hair from the Ancient Greeks, phenotypes that are now mostly missing from Modern Greeks, so, it seems, something must have happened. Ninebucks (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

what is the sexiest non-pornographic (non-obscene) picture on the Internet???

What is the sexiest non-pornographic (non-obscene) picture on the Internet. It doesn't have to be someone millions of people have jacked off to, though that may be a good candidate. It's okay if it's not literally the SEXIEST in the whole Internet, just very sexy. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.19.82 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This one Tennis Girl generally is considered to be a very sexy photo from a male perspective. Obviously it will alter if you are asking the question from a male or female perspective. From a female perspective this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Enfant_%28poster%29) is one that has been considered very popular over the years. Hope this helps ny156uk (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This has got to be in the running. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Milkbreath, some people regard even non-sexual nudity as obscene, even if it's not strictly pornographic. Steewi (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath, are you trolling, or you and I just very different people? How is that extreme close-up "sexy"...especially with all those stubbly hairs? It looks very clinical to me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Couldn't resist the opportunity to have a go at the prurient and the puritanical at one and the same time. If you must know, my tastes run to romance, privacy, and immersive intimacy. Porn is for losers. Censorship is for tyrants. Happy Valentine's Day. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone who shares my views? My world is turned upside down. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to avoid this turning into a male drool fest you can have this, the ideal mature man and the sexiest thing on two legs! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, Clio; same criteria, different conclusion[3]! ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yummy, yummy! Another good choice, Bielle. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is not who is a sexy man/woman, but what is a very sexy picture. That one of Sean Bean is not a particularly stirring photo.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the eye sees what the eye has means of seeing! Here is another one, slightly better, perhaps [4]. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

May I just say that this is a particularly sexy picture, and one could conceive that it is classical literature.... Zidel333 (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You could say this is a sexy picture - it's definitely enhancing[5]. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, what the heck, let's get some more photos of women in here. Say, this one. Wikipedia says it has achieved a level of iconography. --Anon, 05:47 UTC, Feb. 14.

Thank you god, that may just help me get over the guy who finds gynacological images 'sexy' and 'non-obscene'87.102.115.36 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This has always had a lot to say to both my inner man and my inner woman, not to mention my very "Psyche". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, this one for leather.[6] Julia Rossi (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

February 14

Aust indigenous culture

question moved to science desk Julia Rossi (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Starving or freezing to death

About homeless people who are cold and hungry: how many of them actually starve or freeze to death? I live in Connecticut, USA, and I do not remember ever hearing or reading in the news of such. Even for people with homes: how often does this actually happen?

I don't know about Connecticut, but I heard stories about this all the time in Alaska. Wrad (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that early death arising out of poor health, attributable to poor diet and cold, would be a more common outcome than a classic frozen-to-death or starved-to-death. Perhaps I'm misreading the tone of your question: does this sort of foreshortening of life not count? And how likely do you think it is, in this celebrity & PR fluff obsessed media age, that the death of a homeless person would make the news? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]At least one homeless person seems to die of exposure in Boston every winter. According to this government source, 676 people died of exposure to cold in the United States in 2004. The same document shows that 39 people died from "overexertion, travel and privation". Privation would seem to include starvation. Starvation is very rarely reported as the cause of death in the United States, partly because food is so readily available, if you are willing to forage in dumpsters. However, this manner of living can lead to severe gastrointestinal infections or malnutrition. Malnutrition in turn weakens the immune system and renders people more susceptible to and more likely to die from diseases such as influenza or pneumonia or from infections and septicemia. So hunger or malnutrition almost certainly contributes to mortality in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how often they die happens in Toronto, but there is a magic temperature, lower than which the city starts sending out special homeless patrols to make sure they are either off the street in shelters, or have enough blankets and food. And although they were not homeless, a couple of weeks ago, two children in Saskatchewan died of exposure, basically by walking outside for too long. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Six homeless deaths in Belfast in an 18 month period. 45 in the greater Dublin area in the same period. That's about one a week in a wealthy island of 6 million people - BBC News story, 17 Nov 2007. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's an upper limit, as it doesn't mention cause of death. Quite possibly a large portion of them did die of exposure or starvation, but not necessarily all. --Anonymous, 05:35 UTC, February 14, 2008.

I couldn't tell you what they actualy died of, but I saw plenty of dead ones during cold spells in the south of Russia. AllenHansen (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Differs by country. A British cabinet minister was discussing matters with a Scandinavian counterpart and asked how many old people died of hypothermia in their homes every winter, as the UK was trying to reduce the numbers. The Swede/Norwegian/whatever suspected mishearing: in civilised countries, a person might die by getting caught out of doors, but not freeze to death inside one's own home. Alas, such is indeed the case in the UK. (Sorry no ref -- a few years ago, early Blair or late Major) See fuel poverty. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spring is often a horrific time in Moscow, as over the winter, dozens of homeless people die but are often subsumed by falling snows before they can be discovered, only to be found en masse in the spring as the snows melt. Ninebucks (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with List of Chairmen of the Federal Reserve.

I am trying to find sources and photos for this list I created. I have searched the internet, but came up with nothing. Currently I need:

• Roy A. Young - birthdate/photo
• Charles S. Hamlin - photo
• William P. G. Harding - photo
• Daniel R. Crissinger - photo
• Roy A. Young - photo
• Eugene Meyer - photo
• Eugene R. Black - photo
• Marriner S. Eccles - photo
• Thomas B. McCabe - photo
• Arthur F. Burns - photo

I think that is it for now. If anyone can help out, it will be appreciated. PGPirate 01:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

According to our own stub on Roy A. Young, his birthdate was May 17, 1882. Here is a photo of him. Here is a photo of Charles S. Hamlin. I am in the process of searching the others. Marco polo (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is WPG Harding. Here is Eugene R. Black. Here is Marriner Eccles. Here is Thomas B. McCabe. And here is an image of Arthur F. Burns. Sorry that I was not able to find photos of the others. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Roy A. Young article doesnt have a reference to his date, that is why I havent used it. I would assume those photos are Public Domain. PGPirate 02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Giotto and Arena Chapel

did Giotto paint the scenes from the Passion of Christ for the Arena Chapel to serve as images for the service of the stations of the cross?Hinesandy (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. They was just part of a series of images about the life of Christ. You can compare the difference here: Stations of the Cross and here: Arena Chapel. Saudade7 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

More JC-1 H2 Economics help needed

Hello! It's me, the JC-1 H2 Economics student, again. Last time I asked a question about why my lecture notes always use the phrase "ceteris paribus". I checked last week and couldn't find my question or an answer. Anyway, this week I had a lecture about Price Determination, which is supposed to tie together what I have learnt about Demand and Supply. Two questions:

1. I know that if demand increases when the market price is at the equilibrum price, there will be a shortage and the market price will rise to a new equilibrum price, while if demand decreases the equilibrum price will be lower and the market price will drop to the new equilibrum price. For supply, if it increases, the equilibrum price goes down and if it decreases, the equilibrum price goes up. What if supply and demand change at the same time? Of course, if demand increases and supply decreases at the same time, prices go up and if demand decreases and supply increases, prices go down, but what if supply and demand both go up or both go down? My lecturer showed a large table which is difficult to understand and remember.

2. We learnt about Wage Determination, which is a type of Price Determination. My lecturer said there were four factors affecting supply of labour in an economy. The four factors are the size and composition of the population, the retirement and school leaving age, monetary and non-monetary rewards and mobility of factors. What does "mobility of factors" mean?

OK, now I have to rush to another Economics lecture about Elasticity of Demand. I think I will be back with a few more questions later or tomorrow. See you, and thanks to those who answer my questions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.91 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can answer question 0. Ceteris paribus is Latin for "other things being equal", or in other words, it basically means that a prediction will be correct "if we've mentioned all the important changes" that produce the predicted effect. --Anonymous, 05:38 UTC, February 14, 2008.

The earlier question you could not find is now archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 21#Basic JC-1 H2 Economics help needed (again). If you create an account, you can use the account to look up your earlier contributions, which are all over the place now and possibly mixed with contributions by others, what with your changing IP addresses (165.21.155.8, 165.21.155.11, 165.21.155.13, 165.21.155.15, 165.21.155.16, 165.21.155.91). It is also appreciated if you sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end or clicking the signature icon () if you have an edit toolbar.  --Lambiam 07:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "factors" very likely means "factors of production" here. Land and natural resources are largely immobile, but both labour (the workers) and capital (money) can move around, nationally and increasingly internationally. If such motion is possible, it tends to be to the places where most money can be made. Much production has moved to Eastern Asia because of low wages there, meaning larger profits. As wages go up because of demands by organized labour, capital can move out, decreasing the demand for labour and thereby depressing the wages. Under unlimited and unconstrained global mobility of all factors, you would expect wages to settle at the same wage levels everywhere.  --Lambiam 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In this image, supply increases to S2, but if D moves outward as well in the same manner, the new equilibrium will be at (Q2,P1). Note: this image was made to illustrate something else, (Q2,P1) is not marked on the graph.

In addition to Lambiam's answer, factor mobility is not only the ability to physically move the factors of production (e.g. how willing the labour force is to move to the other side of the country), but also the ease of conversion to another type of production. For example, how easy it is for a worker in the petroleum industry to become a banker the next day. Or converting a factory to an office building, or switching production from toilet seats to teddy bears. A word that encompasses both senses of "mobility" is reallocation.

If supply and demand both increase with the same amount, the price remains the same but quantity increases. If supply and demand both decrease with the same amount, the price remains the same but quantity decreases. This is assuming they increase and decrease in the exact same manner, otherwise something in between happens. Also note the difference between increase in supply and increase in quantity supplied, which was answered in your last question :) User:Krator (t c) 09:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now I understand ceteris paribus. Thanks, Lambiam, for linking to my previous question! I will think about creating an account.

So if supply and demand both go up or both go down, the price remains unchanged? And "mobility of factors" means how easy or difficult it is to move workers and resources around and use them for different things?

Two questions about Elasticity of Demand:

1. When I use the formula (%change in quantity demanded/%change in price), why am I always supposed to get a negative number?

Because demand should increase (+ve%) as price decreases (-ve%), or demand should decrease (-ve%) as price increases (+ve%). Both yield a negative number (+5%)/(-5%) = -1

2. Is price elasticity about how fast the price changes, how much the price changes, both or something else?

How much the demand changes, as a result of price changes. Now go here & read & read again. (Ignore the heavy maths in the middle if you're not into heavy maths.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

--165.21.155.89 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

famous late starters?

Can anyone help me name a famous classical musician that learned how to play their first instrument after twelve years of age? It seems like every person who has been successful in the classical scene learned music before ten or eleven. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 06:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts. This is a discussion about Arcadi Volodos. Apparently, although he had piano lessons from ag-e 8, he never took it seriously until he was 15, and had never considered being involved in music until then. He's made up for lost time since, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Late_bloomer#Music help? How about Leos Janacek? Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Remember, we're talking about learning musical instruments, not just learning music theory - technically quite different things, although they're normally taught in conjunction. Janacek came from a family of musical amateurs. He was taught by the choir-master Krizkovsky for 8 years from the age of 10, but exactly what he taught him isn't stated in any of the references I've seen. At age 20 he entered Skuhersky's organ school, but I find it hard to believe he'd never touched an organ or piano keyboard, or any other instrument, prior to that. A good biography would shed light on this. Also, the human voice is the most perfect instrument of all, but I guess the questioner wasn't talking about that. Bruckner seems to have had his first lessons in playing non-voice instruments after his father's death, when he was 13-14. Between that age and 15-16 he learned piano, organ and violin. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Bruckner, who grew up in a musical family, already learned to play the violin and especially organ (and probably also piano) as a child, and he occasionally even played the organ during masses during his childhood. (I will check this in a published bio to be certain though). He is often presented as a late bloomer because he didn't pursue composition (or music in general at a professional and academic level) until later in his life. I'm sure we could find other examples of late blooming composers, but I haven't been able to come up with musicians of great notability as performers who didn't learn to play their instrument at an early age. I can think of several examples outside of classical music, but that doesn't fit the question either. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(Checked in: Karl Grebe, Anton Bruckner, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 1972, ISBN 3-499-50190-2. There might be sources with greater authority, but that's the one that happened to be laying around) Apparently Bruckner's father wanted to see Anton's musical education in competent hands, and thus entrusted Johann Baptist Weiß, a distant relative and a respectable educator and organist, with this task in 1833, before Anton's ninth birthday. Bruckner seems to have practiced the organ industriously, learned about church music by composers such Bach, Händel, Haydn, Mozart, etc., and (unknown to me) even composed his first work at the age of twelve (Four Preludes in E-flat for Organ). Back to the late starters, maybe an example could be found among wind instrument players, particularly brass; many good brass players I know (though, again, I can't think of any famous classical ones) didn't start to play their instrument until their teens. But even here, most had learned about music, notation, and performance on other, physiologically less challenging instruments such as the piano or recorder, before they picked up the trombone or trumpet, and the querent is asking about examples who learned to play their first instrument at a later age. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the article about pianist Harold Bauer, it implies that he took up the piano as a teenager. But it doesn't actually state that; more research would be called for. Herbivore (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's a special case in that, although he became best known as a pianist, he started out as a violinist. He performed in public on the violin at the age of 9. At 19 he started serious study of the piano, at the encouragement of Paderewski, who gave him some lessons. Paderewski would hardly be likely to be giving piano lessons to someone who'd never touched the instrument before, no matter how well he may have played the violin; so I assume he must have been playing the piano from an earlier age, and showed sufficient promise to attract the interest of the likes of Paderewski - something he would not have achieved overnight. But exactly how early and to what level are questions my references don't answer. So Bauer the pianist might qualify as an answer, but Bauer the violinist doesn't, and the violin was his "first instrument". -- JackofOz (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! The third brass player I looked up seems to fulfill your criteria, more or less. This site (you have to click your way to the bio) suggests that Maurice André was thirteen before he started practicing the cornet. According to the site: "1944, WWII compelled Maurice's father to send his son far from Alés, in Lozère, a very rural department. This is where young Maurice began to study solfeggio, during two years, before having touched one single instrument." ---Sluzzelin talk 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not having consciously listened to, let alone watched André recently, I browsed through youtube's selection. There are some stirring performances of baroque and early classical music, but the clip that really caught me in surprise, was a duet with Dizzy Gillespie, two muted, bent trumpets gently humming "Manhã De Carnaval". [7] ---Sluzzelin talk 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Outcomes

An odd question perhaps but did the nazis ever invisage the political shape of the post war world after their defeat? Be Ce De (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

They certainly planned beyond defeat... see Operation Werewolf. Xn4 09:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Official propaganda never moved much beyond notions of 'final victory', even up to the very last moment, but you can pick up traces of the possible shape of things to come in various magazines. There is never any direct reference to the destruction of the Nazi state, of course, but there is comment on the coming end of the British Empire, possibly intended as a secret consolation for their readership, along the lines of 'If we go, it goes.' In 1943 Das Schwartze Corps printed a cartoon of Churchill declaring his intention to preserve the British Empire, while standing in the pocket of a giant Roosevelt. Kladderdatsch, clearly seeing a post-war world divided between the USA and the USSR, depicted Churchill as a disgruntled waiter, serving Roosevelt and Stalin. The caption has Roosevelt saying, "You can fetch us two more whiskies, John, and then you can leave us alone." This theme was taken up by Simplicissimus, in its comment on the outcome of the Teheran Conference in 1943. Churchill is depicted in a cartoon as little hunter setting out in the company of Stalin and Roosevelt as two large cannibals. In the background Eleanor Roosevelt is shown stirring a large cauldron-style cooking pot, while one cannibal says to the other "If the hunt is not a success we have always got Fatty here." All in all, a reasonable prognosis. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Be Ce De means the defeat of the world. In Mein Kampf, Hitler envisioned Germany would rearm in contravention to the Treaty of Versailles in the first stage. The alliance of Germany, Fascist Italy and UK declaring war on France and her allies in eastern Europe in the second stage. Germany would defeat Russia for it's Lebensraum in the third stage.

In 1928, Hitler suggested that around 1980 to achieve world domination for the master race, Greater Germany and the British Empire would ally to defeat United States.
Sleigh (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

Is it true that this law refunds tax payments up to $600? Surely people making $60,000 a year pay much more than that, so why the (very roughly) $100K limit on income? Imagine Reason (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. It seems to imply an inconsistency in the law or its intent, but I don't see it. The law refunds tax payments up to $600 for individuals, plus $300 per dependent child. The law phases out these refunds for individual taxpayers with incomes over $75.000. The income limit has no relation to the limit on the amount of the tax rebate. The purpose of the income limit is to target the rebates to taxpayers of low to moderate income. The reasoning is that people of low to moderate income have pressing needs and are more likely to spend the rebate than those with higher incomes, who may be likely to save the money instead. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of the Pop/Alternative Band from maybe Sweden? Switzerland? With like 30-40 members?

Men and Women, look like they are having fun, had a video on YouTube with a Chalkboard in it....they stand in a sort of sloppy chorus line or sit in swivel chairs and spin or prance around sillyly (neologism a la moi) and wear vaguely emo-retro shirts.(?) Merci d'avance! Saudade7 08:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not The Polyphonic Spree? They're American, but otherwise the description vaguely fits. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be spelled "sillily" -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You might be looking for I'm from Barcelona, who are from Sweden /Kriko (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I am at school and thus not signed in but this is Saudade7. I am happy to report that the answer is I'm from Barcelona, and so thanks Kriko ! I couldn't remember! Also, thanks AnonMoos for the correction to "sillily" which makes spelling sense and surprises me because I didn't think it was a word at all! Thanks Richardrj for being a nice person. 128.32.209.2 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (as Saudade7)

American newspapers' endorsement of Presidential candidates

I understand that the most respected newspapers in the USA would include the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. A quick read of those articles tells me that the NYT is broadly liberal in outlook, while the WSJ is broadly conservative. Presumably, therefore, they would tend to endorse Democrats and Republicans respectively in Presidential elections. I have a few questions. Firstly, when the elections are at their current stage, with various contenders slugging it out for the nomination, do these newspapers endorse one or other of the contenders? And, if so, do they only endorse one or other of the contenders for "their" party, or would they express a preference for the other party's nominee as well? Finally, and more generally, is there any evidence that the endorsement of a respected newspaper has any effect on the outcome of Presidential elections? Note, by "endorse" I mean to state a preference for one particular candidate in the paper's editorial column or leading article. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, here is the NYT's endorsement of Hillary Clinton a few weeks ago, and here is their preference for John McCain among Republican candidates (same date). I found these links at Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2008. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sluzzelin. That clears up all my questions except the last, I think. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be hard to find evidence regarding your last question unless some political scientist has done an empirical study on it. As a politically engaged American, I would say that the endorsements of these newspapers probably do have a marginal impact on the outcome. If a voter is undecided and respects the newspaper's editorial page, the arguments on that page might sway his or her decision. That said, I would think that the number of people who might be swayed by either newspaper's endorsement is probably quite small. Most people make up their minds independently. Marco polo (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Medieval twins

Can you give me any examples of some famous pairs of identical twins from the Medieval period? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

List_of_twins#Historical_twins has:

• Berenguer Ramon II, Count of Barcelona and Ramon Berenguer II, Count of Barcelona, born in 1054.
• Waleran de Beaumont, Count of Meulan and Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester, born in 1104.
• King Henry II of Castile and twin brother Fadrique of Trastamara (killed 1358).
• James Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas and Archibald Douglas, Earl of Moray (b. 1426)
• King James II of Scotland and Alexander Stewart, Duke of Rothesay, born in 1430.

I don't know whether they all were identical twins though. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that twins just weren't mentioned very much...since they still didn't really understand conception, they assumed that twins meant the mother had been impregnated by two different men. It was also much more difficult to deliver twins, since mother and baby had a pretty good chance of dying even if there was only one. I wish I could remember some sources for this; I'll keep looking. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Who has ever assumed that twins have different fathers? Algebraist 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While there was a superstition that twins meant two fathers, I don't know if that was widely believed (or just generally trotted out as an old wives' tale). Certainly, Nicholas Orme (in Medieval Children) makes no special qualification for twins (that I can find: poor indexing results in no listings for twins, although glancing through the text provides several) He refers quite casually to the baptism of twins and triplets (p 35) and begins his discussion on birth with a reference to the fictional Josiane's delivery of twins in Bevis of Hampton (p 13). Siamese twins (and triplets) are not unknown, and experts debate if they are one or two children (and thus how many baptisms they require) (p 97). Turning to another book I've just grabbed off my shelf, ("Daily Life in Medieval Times", by Joseph and Frances Gies no WP page; for their credentials, see this), we discover a reference to the above superstition followed by the example of Jean Renart's 13th C romance Galeran de Bretagne, where a lady trots out that superstition to accuse a vassal's wife after she gives birth to twins, only to give birth to twin girls herself two years later. (p 257). This seems to indicate a 13th C recognition of the superstition as nonsense. Furthermore, Gies & Gies point out philosopher/scholar Michael Scot (12th C) claimed that multiple births were normal, and could go up to 7. However, the incidence of living twins would have almost certainly have been less than today due to birth complications. -Gwinva (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a letter between Innocent III and Clement of Osney about an adulterous woman bearing twins; if it doesn't refer to this superstition, then at least it is more evidence of medieval twins! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is possible to have twins by two fathers (heteropaternal superfecundation) see: [8]. Must be here. Ah yes, under the cunning title Superfecundation. -Gwinva (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WARFARIN USE??.

Question removed for asking medical advice. See the discussion page for more information. -- kainaw™ 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not give medical advice on the reference desk. Most of what we can say about warfarin has been said on the article page - Warfarin - notably "in order to optimise the therapeutic effect without risking dangerous side-effects, such as bleeding, close monitoring of the degree of anticoagulation is required by blood testing". The fact that warfarin is used to kill rats is not relevant (except to rats, that is). --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Two strong candidates from one party?

In U.S. history, have there been instances where a presidential primary campaign has seen two equal-strength candidates as we're seeing with the Democrats? How did they turn out in the general election? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Our article on brokered conventions is a good reference for this, referring to the condition when a party reaches its convention without having a foregone nominee. FDR was the last candidate to win the Presidency after a brokered convention. — Lomn 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Doesn't lift my spirits, but YMMV. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that it's comparatively rare. The examples (latest being 1952) all predate both the modern primary season and the round-the-clock media circus. I personally don't think many useful parallels can be drawn on such little info. — Lomn 01:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1984 Democratic race between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart was extremely close and not decided until after all of the primaries. Same with the 1976 Republican race between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. The 1980 race between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy was a clash of titans, although Carter won most of the primaries. Note that in each of those cases, the party with the hotly contested primary lost in November. A bad omen for the Democrats? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In neither of those two cases were the rivals united on the eventual ticket. So I'm hoping anyway! Imagine Reason (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Question form de.WP: Why do american presidential candidates point on persons with their finger before starting to talk?

Gesture like this: [9] or [10]

Hi, we have a question at german wikipedia: When american presidential candidates enter a election campaign event, they seem to point with their finger on imaginary people, like: "Hey, nice that you are also here!". What is the ambition of this behavior? Has it a historical background? Question from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Auskunft#Seltsame_Politikergeste_.28USA.29 . Greatings --84.166.94.229 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe to copy Uncle Sam? (See the poster in the linked article). Wrad (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I only see democratic candidates do this, and not republicans - is this a factor?87.102.114.215 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are sometimes acknowledging especially enthusiastic supporters or people they recognize. Recury (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a common American hand gesture. While our article on the topic says that pointing is rude in Western cultures, this is not necessarily so in the United States. A person may point to communicate messages such as "I see you", "That's an interesting point you made" or "In response to the point you made". Also, teachers and preachers often point from the podium/pulpit to acknowledge students/members of the congregation. It is a visual way of establishing a connection from the speaker to the listener. Politicians probably do it to show that they are "connecting" to voters. The gesture is probably more common among African Americans than European Americans and is probably also more common among Americans of humble backgrounds. Therefore the gesture is less likely to be used by Republicans, whose target audience is more white and more affluent. Marco polo (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also recalling seeing it several times in sports and among young people, either acknowledging fans or as a substitute for the words "You're the man!" So yeah, it acknowledges supporters and gives them some credit for success. Wrad (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm cynical enough to imagine that many of the politicos we see on our screens have been schooled to do this, to demonstrate the connection they have with their audiences. Seen from Europe, the gesture comes across as an insincere & contrived. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Politicians tend to give me that feeling no matter what they do... Wrad (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Politicians are trained in gestures. Obviously Obama got the "finger-pointing" coach where Hillary got the "thumb-point" coach. She makes a barely-closed fist with her thumb on top and points with the thumb to accent her words. That has been popular since Nixon was trained to do it after he did that "grip of death" on the podium in the first televised elections. Perhaps Obama is being trained to point differently to make us think he isn't really a politician. -- kainaw™ 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

She got that from her husband who got it from JFK. See "Clinton Thumb" in the above mentioned hand gesture article. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kerry had yet another coach, the "make a fist, smile, and then extend your arm"-gesture-coachEvilbu (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The first person I personally witnessed using this pointing gesture was David Lee Roth, on the Van Halen tour in 1984. It's an effective way to get people exicted, because when you point into the crowd, 50 different people think, "Hey, he's pointing right at me!" Modern American political rallies and rock concerts have much in common. —Kevin Myers 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it goes back further than that. How about Babe Ruth calling his home run? Wrad (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated. —Kevin Myers 01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you be so sure? Baseball players do it all the time now, and it causes a similar reaction. It could easily be related in some weird way. Can't really prove it either way. Wrad (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Could it derive from press conferences? The President points at reporters to recognize them during press conferences; so do others. Has this action been transferred to the stump speech? --NellieBly (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's popular enough for parody; some comedians invited to late night talk shows do it emphatically while walking in, often using both hands in parallel for extra emphasis. And, as an example of a parody of the parody, in The Office, Series I, Episode 6, self-delusional and ever inappropriate wannabe comedian David Brent does it while walking in front of an audience of employees, half of which believe they have been "made redundant" and feel betrayed by him. The pointy gesture can symbolize friendly connection and familiarity (or faux connection and faux familiarity) ---Sluzzelin talk 09:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mustn't forget "Saturday Night Fever"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Several of the previous posters have stated that this gesture is typical for US politicians. It is interesting to see that most older European politicians make exactly the same gesture, but with a clenched fist, as if they are pointing with an amputated finger. The only finger that is pointing at the audience, is the thumb on top of the clenched fist. The younger generation of politicians, however, does point at the audience. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

fall of the romanovs

in what way did alexander the third contribute to the fall of his dynasty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebadee0 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, why do you assume that he did contribute? Is this a homework assignment? AllenHansen (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By being the father of his son! Sorry; I'm being facetious...well, perhaps not entirely. It might be best if I had written by giving example to his son, an example not fit for a complex and troubled empire, emerging into the twentieth century cloaked in an ancient garb. Zebadee, for you and anyone else who really wants to understand Tsar Alexander III, to understand the nature of the man, and the regime he created, I would suggest that if you are ever in St. Petersburg you should visit the Marble Palace, where you will find a huge bronze equestrian statue. Grotesque in proportion and appearance, it was meant to create an impression of awesome autocratic power. But no sooner had it appeared than people started to call it 'The Hippopotamus', a name it has carried ever since. And here it is [11], towards the bottom of the linked page! When the sculptor himself heard of the popular reaction to his work, after it rode into the world in 1909, he said "I don't get into politics. I just depicted one animal on another."

You see, the Hippopotamus is a perfect symbol for the Russia of Alexander III, in all of its colossal immobility. In his determination to preserve the autocratic character of the state, Alexander moved firmly away from the path of reform, previously pursued by his own father. Although the Russian economy-and Russian capitalism-developed rapidly during the period of his rule, the state became ever more repressive and reactionary. Amongst other things the powers of the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police, were considerably increased. The 1881 Statute of State Security, which Lenin later described as the 'real Russian Constitution', extended extraordinary authority to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, allowing it to prohibit gatherings of more than twelve people, close schools and universities, and prosecute any individual for perceived political crimes.

Besides reinforcing the apparatus of repression, Alexander also decided that the path to national salvation lay in further measures of Russification, carried on at the expense of the Poles and other minorities within the Empire. The Orthodox Church was promoted above all others, and Russia's large Jewish minority, confined within a designated Pale of Settlement, was subject to increasing levels of persecution and discrimination.

But it was in the countryside that Alexander's reactionary policy was at its most damaging for the long-term prospects of the Romanovs. Peasant self-government was undermined by giving increased powers to the zemstva, dominated by the nobles. Still worse, Alexander II's rural reforms were effectively rendered meaningless by the appointment of the so-called Land-Captains, officials answerable to the provincial Governor-Generals. These Land-Captains had the power to overrule peasant courts and remove peasant officials. They could also arrest any of the peasants under their authority, fine them or even subject them to corporal punishment. For the peasants the system was so oppressive that many were convinced that serfdom was being restored, especially after 1893, when they were banned from leaving their local mir, the communes within which they lived.

Alexander had the character, the stature and the will to force his model of autocracy on Russia. It was an example he bequeathed to his son, Nicholas, always in awe of his formidable father. He filled the mind of unimaginative Nicky with all sorts of outdated notions and values. The last of the Tsars was a man filled with good intentions; and with these he took the road to hell. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Clio. Wow. What an excellent and complete answer! --Emery (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your generosity, Emery. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Clio, I’m indebted to you for that delicious quote from the sculptor Trubetskoy, which I shall add forthwith to my list of favourite insults. Btw, the Trubetskoys were a pretty fecund and prominent gang, and this particular one was the oddly-spelled and Italian-born Prince Paolo Troubetzkoy. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad to have been able to add to your very interesting collection, Jack. If you ever need any more insults I have heaps of them, some entirely original! Are you familiar with Dorothy Parker's retort on being told of the death of Calvin Coolidge? That is one of my favourites. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How could they tell? Yes, I know it well - what a wit that woman was! Any other pieces of choice invective are always welcome, from all comers. I collect them so as to educate myself about how to always appear to remain civil when having a really nasty point to make. (No, not really) For, as Oscar said, "A gentleman never insults anyone unintentionally".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"If with the literate I am/Impelled to try an epigram/I never seek to take the credit/We all assume that Oscar said it." That was Dottie P as well. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there any countries where cocaine is legal (not a legal question).

This is not a legal question and I am not soliciting legal advice.

Are there any countries where cocaine is legal? Our article on Legal status of cocaine is pathetic, listing about sixteen countries, and saying just "most" countries have made it illegal.

Should that be "all countries"? There are 196 countries or so. Is cocaine legal in any of them?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.19.82 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Cocaine_-_Legal_status/id/1239325 pakistan for one, it may be legal (small amounts) in columbia (law may have changed)87.102.114.215 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You also have to differentiate between "illegal to possess for anyone at any time" and "illegal to possess without valid authorization". Cocaine is still used in nasal and throat surgery according to emedicine.com, and it's not illegal to use in this way. --NellieBly (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Question Regarding CAIR

I've been reading up on the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and its sub article of Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, as well as CAIR's nay saying websites like Anti-CAIR.org and Americans Against Hate.org. I know that several prominant US Congressmembers has questioned CAIR, and that there have been allegations that CAIR refuses to condemn certain global atrocities, most notable the various Sudan conflicts. So my question: is CAIR a legitimate organization, such as through its Press Release, or is it a moderate Islamic group that secretly funds terrorist actions? Any less well known (and legimate!) sources would be apprecaited. As always, thanks. Zidel333 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There haven't been any credible claims that it directly funds terrorist actions as a group, but there have been accusations that it was founded as an outgrowth of a Hamas support network in the U.S., that it effectively favors rigid narrow Wahhabite interpretations of Islam, and that a number of the figures closely connected with it have quasi-extremist affiliations and/or have made statements that are far outside the mainstream of U.S. politics -- which is a problem, since it tries to present itself as a mainstream political lobbying group, parallel to respected and established Christian-based and Jewish-based lobbying groups in the U.S. See further my past remarks at Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

February 15

Clause about prohibition sale on the internet

Hello,

I would like to know if a clause in a distribution contract which prohibites sale of product on the internet is enforceable in Australian law.

-Are there any sections relating to it in the Trade Practices Act 1974? Which ones? -What is the legal basis for prohibiting such a clause in a distribution contract?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra 8 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't give legal advice. AnonMoos (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Zeal

Did Devon, England, used to be called "Zeal"? Was it pronounced so as to rhyme with "cell"? --Milkbreath (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No. There are a couple of places in Devon with "Zeal" in their name (Zeal Monachorum and South Zeal), supposedly derived from sele, an Old English word meaning hall or house. FiggyBee (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec):The Oxford Dictionary of Place Names identifies Devon as coming from the late 9th Defena, Defenascir from OE tribal name Defnas. It also lists Zeals (in Wiltshire) and, in Devon, South Zeal and Zeal Monachorum, and suggests they all come form OE sele or sealh, 10-12th C, meaning "sallow-tree" or "hall". Your comment about the pronounciation made me think of the Scottish surname Dalziel (De-yell), which the Oxford Dict. Surnames traces to a place of the same name in the Clyde valley. Don't know if that helps? Gwinva (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, some old Devonshire dialects were famous for changing "f", "s" at the beginning of words to "v", "z". That's how we get vixen as the female of fox, and the "v" in vat [12]... AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all. A possible interpretation of something I saw was that Devon used to be called that. That not being the case, if an old book calls a place in Devonshire simply "Zeal", what place is that? I'm basically trying to get at the whole "zeal" business as regards Devon. I've learned (learnt) of a cottage in Atherington from around 1870 that was called "Little Zeal", and I'd like to understand the reference. Is this "zeal" perhaps an English word in the dialect, or was it in living memory? The OED is mute. From the scant information I've been able to find online the word refers to some monks having to do with King Canute and means "hall" or "cell" or something like that. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That latter reference is undoubtedly Zeal Monachorum, Monachorum being Latin for "of the monks". FiggyBee (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is a magnetic field?

[Merged into the duplicate thread at the science desk. -- BenRG (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)]

Waaaz up! (again)

I'd like to thank those who helped me before but now i got some more fun questions. :P This time its about the Ankylosaurus can anyone point me in another direction other than wikipedia...? i wanna know more :) Thank-you Inutasha De Fallen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inutasha De Fallen (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Try looking through the references section of ankylosaurus. You might find some interesting information there. Even better, see what your local library has on the topic, or use inter-library loan to get any other books you might want. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

commemorative pins

I'm trying to look for some commemorative lapel pins. They should commemorate the Texas A&M bonfire log tragedy, in which twelve students died. If anyone out there can help me, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.72.229.136.18 (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lotus Sutra

Hi all I have read the article on he lotus sutra but it didn't really provide the information I was looking for. I know that the lotus sutra is an important sutra for Mahayana Buddhists, but I am not sure as to why. I have heard that the sutra teaches that Buddhahood is available to all and I know of parables such as the the parable of the burning house and the parable of the phantom city, but other than that I do not know why it is important. If anyone could help that would be great. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.82.15 (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick skim of stuff results in what you say. The theological place for the parables the skillful means, is about the Lotus accepting many roads to awareness, and being somewhat global and tolerant, yet it is the superior way, or highest means to attain buddhahood. It also holds that Buddhas are ultimately immortal. This is in the article Lotus Sutra. Then there's this, "it fully crystalizes the Mahayana notion of the salvation of all sentient beings." [13] And[[14]; it stresses the importance of the present moment and that practice itself is mystic [15]. Hope this helps. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The influence/importance of the Lotus Sutra, I think, stems at least in part from the fact that it is a "latter-day" sutra, as opposed to the "ancient" ones that date from around the time of the historical Buddha. In a way, it represents a "new" interpretation of Buddha's teachings which perhaps more closely correlates with the spirit of its times. The fact that it was accepted as an authentic original record (and not merely an interpretive text) made it stand out against other later texts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

architect of New Museum of Contemporary Art

please, somebody can tell to me how is the architect of New Museum of Contemporary Art

thank you

(sorry for my english, I'm french !) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.237.234 (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's by SANAA, the firm founded by Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa [16]. David Šenek 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

nation rural emloyment gaurantee scheme by indian govt

knowledge about nation rural emloment gaurantee scheme by indian govt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.216.83 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Brought over from HelpDesk... not sure if this is the right place. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) or a Google search on "National Rural Employment Gurantee Act". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Eagles-myth and symbol

the eagle has always had a special symbolism appearing on national flags and other symbols of state power. Why should this be? Is there any information on the origins of the eagle myth?86.147.191.220 (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's partly because eagles are pretty much the apex predator among birds. In traditional European heraldry, the lion is considered the noblest animal, the eagle the noblest bird, and the oak the noblest tree... AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And then because the Roman use of eagles as military symbols - i.e. symbols of their power - was adopted by many later leaders, notably Charlemagne and his Holy Roman Empire. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The eagle has long had noble associations, in history and in folklore. It can be found as a symbol of power and majesty in the cultures of Babylon and Persia. In Roman legend it was the 'storm-bird' of Jupiter, the carrier of his thunderbolts. Gaius Marius, a leading soldier and politician, made it the symbol of the Senate and People of Rome, ensuring that from this point forward the legions would carry eagle ensigns.

In Christian tradition the eagle is associated with St John the Evangelist, and appears on the lecterns of churches holding the Bible on its wings, thus repelling the serpent of falsehood. According to St Jerome, it was the emblem of the Ascension of Jesus.

In European royalty, the eagle was most often adopted as a badge by those claiming a universal authority over other kings and princes. Charlemagne wore an eagle-embossed cloak. Canute the Great was buried in one. This imperial pretence was later adopted by the Napoleons. In the Byzantine Empire the Palaeologue dynasty adopted a black double-headed eagle with spread wings, representing the Roman succession in both the east and the west. In this form it was later taken up by the Tsars of Moscovy, the Third Rome, and by the Holy Roman Emperors in general and the Habsburgs in particular. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Arabic countries also use the eagle, like Egypt...this apparently derives from Saladin, who, I suppose, got it from the Byzantines. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

From Glory Road by Robert Heinlein (paraphrasing because I don't have a copy handy):

"This is the eagle, the symbol of our country", I said. "It stands for courage, stength and freedom.". I neglected to tell him that the Bald Eagle feeds mostly on carrion and never fights anything bigger than half it's size.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

naďve vs nad've vs naïve

I came across the word "naďve" in the Katherine Wood's translation of the The Little Prince (probably as it appeared in 1943). I have never seen such a strange English word before, but based on the context I guessed that it meant "naïve". Then I confirmed it in the French original version of the book. I was at first unable to find a dictionary entry for "nad've" but google turned up some 6,510 results. Stranger still is when I type "nad've" it comes up with 4,360 results. When did "nad've" fallen into disuse? Was it a native English word before "naïve" prevailed? --Kvasir (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This webpage dedicated to translation errors of The Little Prince may be worth checking into. I'd review, but I have to run to work now. :) Zidel333 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That site doesn't seem to cover it, but it's fascinating reading nonetheless. At first glance, nad've looks like an attempt to capture the way some people pronounce "native". The typesetter may have misread "naïve" in the manuscript as nad've, or simply made a typo. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a copy of the book from the public library to verify the type set as oppose to the full text available on wikipedia. Btw, "nad've" or "nad'vely" appeared three times in the first ten chapters alone. I doubt it's an innocent wikipedian typo, a substitution for "ï" maybe. --Kvasir (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't mention you were looking at an online copy instead of, you know, a book. In that case it's very likely that this is an OCR error. OCR software that's tuned for English isn't going to expect characters like "ï" to appear, so it "guesses" and gets it wrong. Although, having said that, it's interesting that it comes up with "ď", which is not an English letter either. (It's apparently a small letter d with a hacek (caron), Unicode 010E (hex), which is often renderered like "d'"; in my browser it shows up in a different form in the editing area where I'm composing this posting than outside it!) --Anonymous, 01:05 UTC, February 16, 2008.

Yes, an OCR artefact. Read naïve. The twist is that both native and naïve come from the same Latin source: nativus.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou! I thought some fan has faithfully typed up the entire text for the greater benefit of mankind. Turned out (s)he had just scanned it. --Kvasir (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a plausible explanation why "naďve" keeps on appearing in English texts on the Web instead of "naïve". There are many different text encoding conventions, and all of them coincide on the genuine English words, since such words contain symbols only from the 7-bit ASCII range. People writing English texts may not care about the encoding they use except for the cases when some word like "naïve" has to be written. To write this word, one has to use either Unicode, or some 8-bit encoding providing a code for the character 'ï'. The encoding iso-8859-1 and the closely related windows-1252 are 8-bit encodings appropriate for this (the character in question has the code number 239 in them), and probably they are used rather often in such cases. However, some other 8-bit encodings used in Europe provide no code for 'ï'. At least two of them, namely iso-8859-2 and windows-1250, assign the code number 239 to the character 'ď'. This can be the reason of the discussed word replacement. For instance, if the word "naïve" occurs in a text written under iso-8859-1 then this word will be displayed as "naďve" when the text encoding is wrongly assumed to be iso-8859-2. --Sarimsak, 18 January 2011, 14:50 (UTC)

Nazi sphinx

Please, which leading member of the Nazi party was known as the sphinx? Wulver (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This was Rudolf Hess, so known because of his sphinx-like appearance and because he was born in Alexandria in Egypt. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The following pair of images shows the family resemblance.  --Lambiam 10:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hess has a more prominent nose, though. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Only because Obelix never got a chance to climb Hess's face. [17] ---Sluzzelin talk 12:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Perhaps the said nose is to be found somewhere in Russia! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

February 16

Animal rights in Islam and other religions

I came across some Islamic scriptures[18] that preach about being nice to cats and dogs. Could you point me to a resource (either a Wikipedia article or an external essay) that talks about the concept of animal rights from an Islamic perspective?

And a second question: Can you point me to some other scriptures from Abrahamic religions that encourage humans to treat animals with respect?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

For the first question, see Islam and animals. Corvus cornix_talk 02:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is just the type of thing I was looking for. I am also looking for material on the treatment of animals from various Judaic and Christian traditions (I am interested in what--if anything--very old texts have to say about the subject, not contemporary theologians).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Testament: Deuteronomy 25:4 "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain" (referred to in the New Testament: 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 9:9). In a rather loose contemporary application, we [Jews] teach our children to see to the wellbeing of (i.e.feed and water) the household pets before the rest of the family eats. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also from the Old Testament, Proverbs 12:11 - "The just man takes care of his beast, but the heart of the wicked is merciless." Vultur (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is rather strict on animal welfare, rendering unfit for consumption animal flesh from an animal that suffered during slaughter, to the extent that even the tiniest nick in the slaughterer's knife invalidates the meat. Other examples include strict instruction to help even one's enemy if their beast of burden is struggling under its load, not yoking animals that do and don't chew the cud together (the one that doesn't thinks that the other is being fed more), sending away the mother bird before taking her eggs etc etc. Perhaps most notable of all, is in Judaism's view of the most essential commands of all, the seven Noahide laws that are incumbent on non-Jews, one of the seven refers to treatment of animals. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this neutral monism, panpsychism, or what?

I've heard of a theory, but I can't pin down its exact name. It asserts that:

1. Objects can exist independently from people's minds.

2. Objects aren't fundamentally physical (extended in space), but can appear that way to us.

3. Objects have the potential to become minds.

What's this theory called?

Thank you. Steohawk (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What you have presented is not exactly panpsychism, which holds that mind is ubiquitous: that there is a mental aspect to everything.

Nor is it exactly neutral monism, a theory due to Bertrand Russell according to which there is only one kind of stuff, and it is variously described in physical or in mental terms. It never got very far, and Russell's own relation to it was ambiguous and wavering. Recently David Chalmers has attempted to resurrect it in support of his rather idiosyncratic but heuristically useful brand of dualism.

Perhaps you should go and look at monads, which are Leibniz's theoretical innovation: at least they come close to meeting your second criterion especially well, since they are not extended in space but may "appear" that way. They are at the base of all created reality, and they all have perceptual properties and appetites. No one believes in them!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought about monads, including your last statement about nobody believing in them. Monads go far beyond my theory and into a realm of wackiness. Basically, my first and third criteria are compatible with emergent materialism. The difference is my second criteria, which asserts that objects may appear physical, but are actually very different. A helpful metaphor would be to imagine a virtual world, where things appear physical, but are actually computer code.

If you're wondering, I have arguments which assert that the existence of the mind is absolutely incompatible with our conception of physical matter, whether identical to or separate from the brain. However, I also believe that there are problems with the belief that objects are mind-dependent. Steohawk (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What is labelled emergent materialism at that article looks like a sophomoric exercise, mustering some semblance of weight and respectability by conjoining two terms that are weighty in their own right. That's what I'd say, from a glance around that spurious little article, and elsewhere. My advice: think long and hard about what it is to be physical, in the first place. Many philosophers just assume that this is established, but that's a mistake. You can't simply take spatial or temporal properties as fundamental, and attempt to define the physical in terms of them. A question for you to ponder (though not here, perhaps): Shouldn't whatever is involved in cause and effect be allowed as physical?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crowley's Confessions

Where can I read some commentary on and interpretations of the following passage from the Confessions of Aleister Crowley?

Two main events were destined to put me on the road towards myself. The first took place in Stockholm about midnight of December 31st, 1896. I was awakened to the knowledge that I possessed a magical means of becoming conscious of and satisfying a part of my nature which had up to that moment concealed itself from me. It was an experience of horror and pain, combined with a certain ghostly terror, yet at the same time it was the key to the purest and holiest spiritual ecstasy that exists. At the time, I was not aware of the supreme importance of the matter. It seemed to me little more than a development of certain magical processes with which I was already familiar. It was an isolated experience, not repeated until exactly twelve months later, to the minute. But this second occasion quickened my spirit, always with the result of "loosening the girders of the soul", so that my animal nature stood rebuked and kept silence in the presence of the immanent divinity of the Holy Ghost; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, yet blossoming in my soul as if the entire forces of the universe from all eternity were concentrated and made manifest in a single rose.

The article at Aleister Crowley says the event described above was a "homo-erotic experience (Crowley's first) that brought him what he considered 'an encounter with an immanent deity.'" But if this was indeed a sexual encounter, who was it with, what acts took place, and how did Crowley come to regard it as spiritual and link it to his "animal nature" and an "immanent divinity"? NeonMerlin 06:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Septuagint the first translation of a religious text?

Is the Septuagint the earliest translation of a people's sacred text (take that however you want) in to another language? Sjmcfarland (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. The Romans translated Etruscan texts, didn't they? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. If we take the Epic of Gilgamesh as a religious text, it is reasonable to say that it was "translated" from Sumerian into Akkadian more than 1000 years before the Septuagint was produced. We should suspect that other texts were translated in Mesopotamia, too. A specialist will know.

I have changed the title of this section, because someone who knows the answer may easily miss the question otherwise. (You might catch a Mesopotamian scholar who knows nothing about the Septuagint.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting why the Epic of Gilgamesh should be considered a religious text. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be post-creation but is still a (semi-human) hero's tale of tangling with the gods, so that probably makes it 'sacred'. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious text? The questioner proposed that we "take that however we want". It is not unreasonable at all to consider this work a religious text. It is full of stories of gods and heroes, the getting of wisdom, and deep primal myths like that of a universal flood. The very same sort of material turns up in Genesis (part of the Septuagint, eventually). The Wikipedia article is included in the category "Ancient Semitic religions", with good reason. A reference in that article is Jacobsen, Thorkild (1976) The Treasures of Darkness, A History of Mesopotamian Religion, New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-01844-4.

Angr, do you think that the Book of Exodus, if it were discovered in isolation and not canonised, would be readily classified as a sacred text, a religious text? How about the Song of Solomon?

What are the sacred texts of the Greeks? Do they include the Iliad and the Odyssey?

Hmmm.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 12:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments are introduced in Exodus. Does the Epic of Gilgamesh include instructions from Sumerian gods on how to live that the Sumerians incorporated into their religion? I wouldn't consider the Iliad and Odyssey religious texts. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it does not include such instructions. So is that essential to a text being religious, that there be commandments? I notice that you didn't answer my question about the Song of Songs. Is it a religious text? Would it be one, if it had not "accidentally" found its way into the Judaeo-Christian canon? You also did not answer concerning what the sacred texts of the Greeks were. Did they have any? The Homeric texts were esteemed as of great and exemplary moral significance, and dealt with the gods that were central to Greek religion. Why do they not count? I don't ask because I have ready answers, but because the questions are interesting and difficult, and need to be addressed if we are to answer the question posed in this section.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 14:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think the Song of Songs would count as a religious text in isolation. Neither would the Book of Esther, which famously doesn't even mention God. I don't know whether including instructions incorporated into the religion is a necessary condition for being considered a religious text, but it's probably a sufficient condition. As for the Greeks, I don't know if any texts that have been preserved are religious texts. The Homeric Hymns maybe? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So we're still without a principled definition of religious text or sacred text, aren't we? That makes it hard to answer the original question. Procedurally, the way forward might be to propose candidate answers like Gilgamesh, and let the questioner choose which will meet the definition. Anyway, many seem to include Gilgamesh, and many exclude it, as a quick look around the web shows. I wonder if they are working with principled definitions, or with any definitions at all?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. The Septuagint is a translation of texts that clearly form the core of Hebrew/Jewish religious practice. It doesn't seem that any of the other suggested answers, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, can be shown to have been as central to a group's religion. I asked the question in broader terms than that to see what would arise. Sjmcfarland (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Gladstone liberals

Gladstone both shaped and almost destroyed the Liberal party. How true is this statement?86.148.39.223 (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Partially true...I guess you could look at William Gladstone, read the materials that you've doubtlessly been provided by your tutor/school (since this is phrased exactly like a homework question) and also try look around online for stuff on the Liberal Party (UK). This site (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/) might be of use - particularly this section of the site (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/person.php?person_id=261). Good luck - sounds like a more interesting assignment than my current one! ny156uk (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact I personally think the statement may be entirely true! Gladstone was both the best and the worst thing that could have happened to a party, evolving from the old-style Whigs into the new-style Liberals. A man of great stature and considerable public appeal, he was nevertheless, within his own ranks, uncollegiate and unpopular, eccentric and overbearing. In essence the problem can be traced back to the fall of Robert Peel, Gladstone's political mentor, an event which had a profound effect on the young politician. It was to create in his mind a considerable distrust in party, and a belief that it was necessary to appeal to the people, to reach beyond the confines of Parliament. But Gladstone used these 'appeals' as a weapon against his own colleagues, getting them to accept policies and initiatives with which they were not in agreement. Whether it be Parliamentary reform, the Bulgarian massacres or Irish Home Rule, Gladstone was to claim that he was 'divinely inspired' in appealing to the people to force his party into line. He certainly took the Liberals to new heights...and to new depths. He exposed the party for what it was-a fragile coalition of interests that had never properly coalesced. This was never more evident than after the last great Liberal electoral victory in 1906. Gladstonian Liberalism had, in practice, grown and died with its own creator. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayan math

Dear Sir/Madam

I am looking for any information on the signifcance of the numbers 20 and 13 in Mayan Calendar Math, where did these two numbers come from and what do they really represent? I believe 13 to be from the number of actual zodiacal constellations (including Ophiuchus), I welcome any rebuttals and/or new ideas to this. More difficult for me, is the history on the number 20 and the attached signifiances to it, any help from out there, would be great. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shwaboy44 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As you doubtless know, the Mayan number system was base-20. The explanation for this is probably as simple as the fact that a human generally has 20 total fingers and toes. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Drawn out nature of US presidentdial race

HAVE YOU YANKEES PICKED A FUCKING PRESIDENT YET? HURRY UP THIS IS TAKING FOREVER.. INTEREST IS WANING.77.86.8.83 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They aren't picking a president at the moment, they are picking presidential candidates as I understand it. If you don't enjoy the selection process/coverage the solution is remarkably simple - change tv channel when it comes on, don't read that section of the newspaper/news-sites. ny156uk (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If it bothers you so much, go into cryogenic suspended animation for a few months, jeez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.117.125 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cartman tried that, with unexpected results. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We're kind of on a fixed schedule. The same exact schedule we use every four years. It takes months, as it always has. I didn't know that was news to anyone. Once we're out of the primaries, it'll pick up a bit, but not much. Black Carrot (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 primaries are receiving more medial attention outside the United States than primaries in earlier years have, for various reasons. It's news to some people. I heard listeners complaining about BBC's "undue" extent of coverage. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not the "same exact schedule" because they keep starting campaigning earlier and earlier and some of the primary dates have in fact been changed around this time. But the back-end of the schedule is fixed and it is roughly the same amount of time. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Questioner, Wikipedia does not speak for any one country, and should not appear to. It looks to me the question and the rather rude "hurry up" injunction might more appropriately have been directed at the White House. But they'd ask you to mind your language, just as I'm doing. Next time, something like "Have the Americans chosen a President yet? It seems to be taking a long time" would attract lots of positive responses. For the record, the president won't be chosen till 2008 Presidential election, which takes place on 4 November. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

See also United States presidential election, 2008 timeline. 15 December the United States Electoral College makes the official vote where Faithless electors can change the result from 4 November (strange system if you ask me). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say here that I join with Jack in deploring the wording and thrust of this question, which I consider little better than a form of rude and incoherent trolling. Those with even the most superficial acquaintance with the American electoral process know exactly how long these matters take. My interest is certainly not waning. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Many U.S. citizens dream of a Presidential campaign as limited in time and TV advertising as those in the UK are said to be. It turns into nonstop attack ads. Edison (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We in Britain don't have presidential campaigns of any duration, because we haven't got a president. Thank god. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Yankees don't have a President. They have an owner, George Steinbrenner, a Manager, Joe Girardi, and a General Manager, Brian Cashman. Corvus cornix_talk 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've picked one: me. Can't speak for others. —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Literary hoax author?

I vaguely recall reading a Wikipedia article a couple of years ago about a literary hoax perpetrated by a woman under the pen name of a young boy who had been molested, abused and in and out of foster care for years. This took place in the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s. In interviews the woman claimed to be the boy's mother, but eventually her claims were exposed as a fraud and she was revealed to be the author of said works. I believe the pseudonym's first name was Kevin or at least that there was a "K" somewhere in the name, but I could be wrong. (I'm basing this on my memory of synesthetic colour perception of the name.) Can anyone locate this for me? Thanks. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

JT LeRoy? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Or possibly Anthony Godby Johnson? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it was Anthony Godby Johnson. The name I remembered was Keith Olbermann, the journalist who exposed him. Cheers! 99.245.92.47 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper Vending Machines

How are vending machines set up in large metropolitan areas? Does the city government license newspaper companies to place vending machines in certain locations? Does the city charge for this? Who owns the machines? --Jacobin1949 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to be more specific about which city. 118.90.78.205 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender

I havs some questions about the allied policy of unconditional surrender in WW2. Whose idea was it? How did it arise? What effect did it have on the enemy powers? Should it have been abandoned to lessen resistance? Iona Carr (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer what I can: according to unconditional surrender, it was suggested by Roosevelt to the other allied leaders at the Casablanca Conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algebraist (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly Roosevelt's idea, Iona, which he announced to the world at the end of the Casablanca Conference, on an entirely unilateral basis. For the sake of Allied unity, it was immediately endorsed by Winston Churchill, though he later admitted to being dumfounded by the announcement, and worried by its likely effect on the future course of the war. Dwight D Eisenhower, also present at the conference, shared Churchill's misgivings, believing that such an uncompromising line would only serve to prolong the war, costing more Allied lives than was necessary. In fact, there would appear to have been few, if any, who welcomed Roosevelt's declaration of intent

It also dismayed people like Admiral Canaris and others in the German resistance, but-not surprisingly-delighted Josef Goebbels, who said "I should never have been able to think up so rousing a slogan. If our enemy tells us, we won't deal with you, our only aim is to destroy you, how can any German, whether he likes it or not, do anything but fight on with all his strength." It is surely no coincidence that the Propaganda Minister's infamous Total War Speech came a few weeks of the Casablanca edict-Now, people rise up and let the storm break loose.

Perhaps the absolutely worst thing about unconditional surrender is that it came just as the German army had suffered one of the worst defeats in its history, considerably weakening the prospects for the Reich, and making it more likely that the senior command would listen to the blandishments of Canaris and others. But now they had to fight on, Nazi and anti-Nazi alike.

In the summer of 1943, with Italy on the point of abandoning the Axis, Churchill and Eisenhower's attempts to negotiate a compromise peace with Pietro Badoglio were ruined after Roosevelt held fast to unconditional surrender. In the delays that followed the Germans were able to pour troops into Italy, ensuring that Allied progress up the peninsula would be slow and painful.

Similarly, as D Day approached in 1944, George Marshall and the US joint chiefs urged Roosevelt to moderate his policy, but met with outright refusal. Even after German resistance in Normandy proved far tougher than expected Roosevelt refused to budge, despite a further appeal from Eisenhower. He defended his policy on a visit to Hawaii-when he confirmed it also applied to Japan-, drawing an example from American history, insisting that this is how U. S. Grant had dealt Robert E Lee at Appomattox in April 1865. But, of course, it was not, as those of you familiar with the history of the American Civil War will be only too well aware. Grant offered Lee and the defeated southern army terms, and very generous terms at that.

In the end the policy, though not completely discarded, was moderated after Roosevelt's death. While the Japanese surrender was declared to be 'unconditional', they were permitted to keep their Emperor. If they had not, while one cannot be absolutely certain, it is possible that America's nuclear bluff would have been called, making an invasion of the Home Islands necessary. The cost in lives of such an endeavour can only be imagined. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do I take it correctly that it was a "nuclear bluff" because as of August 1945 there were no more atom bombs available to be dropped? When would they have become available, and would the U.S have waited for them or gone ahead and lost hundreds of thousands of allied lives in an invasion? Edison (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is covered in Richard Rhodes's book The Making of the Atomic Bomb, but I can't find my copy. There was in fact one more bomb available, which could have been dropped about 10 days after the Nagasaki attack, but it was never assembled. From memory, I think the most optimistic time estimate was on the order of 4-6 weeks to make enough plutonium for another bomb after that. (U-235, for the Little Boy design, took longer to make.) --Anonymous, edited 08:49 UTC, February 17, 2008.

Not in the immediate wake of the attack on Nagasaki. Another bomb was scheduled for completion towards the end of August, though delivery and operational planning would probably have delayed an attack until early September. Three more were expected in September and the same number for October. It should be stressed, though, that there were those in the War Department opposed to further what might be called 'penny packet' attacks. Rather, the view was growing that the nuclear arsenal should be preserved for tactical use after the commencement of Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan. Downfall was a complex military plan, one that envisaged an invasion in two stages, which would have taken the war well into 1946. Casualty predictions were extremely high. For the Allied side the worst case scenario envisaged a figure in excess of a million men; yes, that's right, a million, which would have made the Battle for Japan the costliest of the whole Second World War. You will find all of the relevant details, Edison, in R. B Frank's Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it alleged that the real estimate for the cost of an invasion was an order of magnitude lower than the one later bandied about as retroactively justifying the bombings as "necessary". —Tamfang (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To give you an idea of what the "real" casualty estimates were like, note that a fresh batch of Purple Heart medals were minted in preparation for Operation Olympic, the first half of Operation Downfall. The US military is still working its way through that supply today. --Carnildo (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be that Roosevelt didn't want a victory less complete than that of Woodrow Wilson, who told the Germans to surrender unconditionally and he'd make sure they weren't abused. —Tamfang (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

al-Qaeda statements

This may be a strange question, or more easily findable on Wikipedia than I realize, and hopefully I will not henceforth be under some kind of surveillance for asking it - are there transcripts of al-Qaeda statements or videos anywhere. I am particularly interested in any statement where they refer to crusaders - I'm sure I remember this happening when Ethiopia invaded Somalia, and in a statement by Adam Gadahn. Preferably the text would be in both English and Arabic (assuming they are released in Arabic). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A widely available print source for some of this is The Al Qaeda Reader, edited by Raymond Ibrahim. I don't know much about it, but I believe Ibrahim argues that what al-Qaeda says for the consumption of Western media (where the emphasis is on Muslim victimization) is very different from what they say amongst themselves (which is far more militant). —Kevin Myers 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Drinking milk in a bowl

Hi. What is so unusual about drinking milk in a bowl? Some people (or maybe I'm being too local) seem to think that drinking milk in a bowl is for cats only. Well, there is a big difference. Cats usually crouch down to the ground and drink with its tounge. A human can drink milk from a bowl by taking the bowl and sipping, or by using a spoon. In fact, in some places drinking milk in a bowl (excluding milk already sold in drinkable containers) is more common than drinking it from a glass. I mean, people here often have cereal with milk in a bowl, correct? How about modifying it and having more milk than cereal? Only milk but dipping cookie into? Or only milk in the bowl? Besides, dipping a cookie into milk is much easier in a bowl than in a glass. What's the problem here? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem here. You have my permission to drink milk from a bowl. Cheers, David Šenek 18:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem here either, and I do suspect this is a rather local question. All over the world there are people who drink tea, water, and other beverages from bowls. Tea cups can be viewed as little bowls with a handle. One advantage of a cylindrical glass or mug as opposed to a bowl-shaped bowl is that they are easier to hold in one hand for the same volume of liquid. Another advantage is that stuff in bowls slops over more easily when moved up and down from the table to your lips. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun I'm going to be disagreeable and come up with a "good" reason for not doing it. Cold liquids should not be drunk from bowls because 1. the large surface area of the milk causes them to warm up faster and 2. this is contributed to by the fact that you have contact with the bowl with both hands at once. It's essentially the same reason that champagne is drunk from a thin flute while brandy from a snifter. So don't do it! I prohibit it! ;-) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is one of tradition. Bowls are traditionally considered to be for cereal and soup, and if you're eating/drinking from a bowl, you should use a spoon. A cup is traditionally for runny liquids and is suitable for raising to the mouth. These traditions are specifically Western European in origin and date from approximately 1650-1700 (my estimate, no sources), when the 'proper' way to do just about everything was codified. Outside western Europe, lots of things are drunk out of bowls, and it's quite acceptable. You do have to be a little more careful. The wider lip means it's easier to spill the milk. If people are worried, just say you're being exotic. Steewi (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian airag

I believe that the Mongolian national dish is fermented mare's milk, drunk from a bowl. I can't remember what it's called, but I'd wager a dish of alcholic horse milk that we have an article about it. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

<smug grin> Kumis --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see it's called "Airag" in Mongolia (I doubt they used a branding agency) and it's widely enjoyed in eastern europe/the Steppes. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And the larger circumference of the bowl make it difficult to drink from with out spilling. And spoons are rather inefficient compared to cups, because of all the work just for a little bit of drink. HS7 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rousseau's Paradox?

In the Count of Monte Cristo Dumas mentions Rousseau's Paradox. The meaning is not completely clear from the context in which it appears. Can someone define its meaning and trace the source for me? Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbie Herbivore (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Without the context I can't be completely sure, but I think Dumas is referring to the famous quote "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains" from The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right. David Šenek 22:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

See s:The Count of Monte Cristo/Chapter 52 (search for Rousseau) for the context. Algebraist 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And here, below, is the context for those who do not wish the trouble of looking for themselves!

The bad side of human thought will always be defined by the paradox of Jean Jacques Rousseau,-you know,-the mandarin, who is killed at 500 leagues' distance by raising the tip of the finger. (p534, Oxford World's Classic edition).

The question-the paradox-is what would most people do if they were able to make themselves rich by killing a Mandarin in China by simply lifting their finger, and without fear of discovery? Although it appears in that particular form in Chateaubriand's Génie du christianisme, you will not find that form of words, Herbie, in any of Rousseau's writings. It is most likely traceable to his contention that conscience is the greatest casuist of all. The paradox appears in fiction in Balzac's novel, Le Père Goriot, where it might be said to determine the moral choice faced by Rastignac. After this the expression 'to kill the mandarin' was applied to anyone who got rich quickly by dubious means. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Russell's Paradox? (Joke! Joke!!) —Tamfang (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Visitor

Hello. Having just finished 'The Bourne Identity,' I'm quite desperate to start a new book and the only one lying around the house is 'Running Blind' by Lee Child. Since this is the fourth Jack Reacher novel, I just want to know if I will be missing out on a lot of information by not reading the first three and if it would be best to wait and read them in sequence. Thanks. 92.1.74.82 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just go to Project Gutenberg (click here) and download a full-book? Mr.K. (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What a stupid and unhelpful answer. Sorry I can't help you, 92.1.74.82. But I wish I could, and I certainly won't smarmily tell you to read something else "open source acceptable" instead! 99.245.92.47 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

school colors

What are the school colors of Louisiana Technical College?72.229.136.18 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a technical school, not a regular college, so they don't seem to have an athletic program, so "school colors" probably don't mean as much as they do to schools with athletic programs. The colors on their website are gold and a sort of brick red color. Corvus cornix_talk 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

February 17

Can we build a person from nicknames?

(This is more a pointless wikichallenge than a real ref-desk question)

Clio's mention of The Nose (in #Nazi sphinx, above) reminded me of Igor "The Beard" Kurchatov. Can we find enough notable people with body-part nicknames that we can Frankenstein a whole person together? I can think of:

• Physicist Igor "The Beard" Kurchatov
• Gangster Jack "Legs" diamond
• King Richard "The Lionheart"

to start with. Double (worthless) wikipoints to anyone who finds anyone named after neglected internal organs like the pancreas. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Last Don, Joseph Massino, Big Joey, but also '"The Ear, see The Last Godfather: He "quietly became known as “The Ear” by ordering his men to point to their ear instead of saying his name out loud."
• Frank Sinatra, "The Voice" (well ... don't know about the voice being a body part, but it would be nice hearing Boris Karloff sing "Come Fly with Me" . In any event, googling "nickname" and "bodypart" turned out to be a bad idea.
• Poker player Mike "The Mouth" Matusow
• Elvis "The Pelvis"

---Sluzzelin talk 00:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are more under List of criminals by nickname. Arnold Rothstein "The Brain", Vincent "The Chin" Gigante", Paul Hadley "The Claw" (no article), Murray Humphreys "The Hump", Samuel Morton "Nails" ... maybe not that last one, and I might have missed a few. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an organ either:

• White House advisor Karl Rove was called "turd blossom" by - erm, I seem to have forgotten his name. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ole Blue Eyes was also a Frank Sinatra nickname. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And what about Deep Throat? ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

From [19] we get:

Anthony Licata: "Anthony Firehawk," "Anthony Nighthawk," "Cheeks."

John D'Amico: "Jackie Nose." "He had his nose fixed. He had a big, distorted nose at one time," DiLeonardo said at the Gotti trial. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Saint Pancras is close enough to the pancreas. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they really count, but I simply cannot resist adding Charles the Bald,Charles the Fat and Louis the Stammerer to the mixture. If I were to extend the criteria to include aspects of character or personality I would also throw in Charles the Simple and Selim the Sot! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Butt-head , Mordecai "Three Fingers" Brown , Baby Face Nelson, Pussy Galore, Cool Hand Luke, Edward "Blackbeard" Teach, Arnold "The Brain" Rothstein , Peter "Clutching Hand" Morello , George "Flatnose" Curry , Jake "Greasy Thumb" Guzik , Samuel "Nails" Morton , Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller , George S. "Old Blood and Guts" Patton . Edison (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Royal attributes with attributes: Fierebras "The Iron Arm", Harald Bluetooth Gormson, Bernard "Hairyfoot" of Auvergne, The Cock o' the North. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Scareface", Chesty Morgan. If we're including fictional characters: Big Pussy and Little Pussy.

So are we just missing neck, abdomen, back, and shoulders, not counting internal organs? --Allen (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Erling "Wry-Neck" Skakke, from the Orkneyinga Saga can supply the first item. Bertha Broadfoot can supply a second foot... - Nunh-huh 06:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC) - ps: as for abdomen, won't Lead Belly do? - Nunh-huh 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung118.90.78.205 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For back there is Edmund Crouchback. For a nose, Justinian II the Slit-nosed. I'm afraid I'd be creating a rather defective person here. We could use spare parts from Baldwin IV the Leper! By the way, we have a Lists of nicknames of European royalty and nobility that should be useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As for THE internal organ – it's good to see you, "Brain"-y Babe, again ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The List Adam Bishop mentioned is a repressively huge set of 24 long lists, by letter of the alphabet. I scanned through a couple, and that's where I found the iron arm, the blue tooth, and the hairy foot, yet there are surprisingly few body part nouns. There are more nicknames referring to parts, such as "The One-Eyed" or "Of Blonde Hair". Some intriguing names are featured in those lists, and a couple of unreferenced ones that made me wonder.

Speaking of BrainyBabe, I glanced at Wikipedia's Classification of admins, but body parts don't even form a category among our administrators! I did count 71 animals divided in 14 zoological categories. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi back, Julia et alia; I am not an admin! But my "brainy" is just an attributive adjective, not a noun to build the body with. By all means add it/me to the Frankenstein stew. -- Which is the biggest sex organ, BTW, the skin or the brain? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's the toe as in football player "The Toe" Lou Groza. More athletes: Darts player Colin Lloyd aka "Jaws", baseball player Jay Buhner aka "Bone", race car driver and "Ironhead", Dale Earnhardt, hockey player "Knuckles" Chris Nilan. See also List_of_sportspeople_by_nickname (might have missed a few again) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about size scientifically, but as the sexiest organ, IMO hands down it's the brain with skin a tight second. : )) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Rossi (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We've got three fingers up there from one nickname, here's another three: Three-Fingered Jack" (Manuel Garcia) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If we want to paint a better picture of our Frankenstein monster's physical attributes, we can turn to Malcolm Canmore (big head), Ealdgyth Swan-neck, Edward Longshanks, (ie. long legs), Edmund Ironside, Cawallon Lawhir (longhand) and can discover his height (Maelgyn Hir: the tall). We can add colour (to hair or skin) with Edward, the Black Prince or William Rufus (red), Donald Ban (white); age him (James the Old Pretender), and make him (it?) attractive (Bonnie Prince Charlie), but slightly rough at the edges (Gurgust the Ragged great-grandfather of Urien, but I can't find him here). Looking at internal anatomy, we have Thorfinn Skull-splitter, (but we don't need any more, since we have Ivar the Boneless) and we can get some body fluids from Peibio Clafrog who, according to one source, also had the nickname "Spumosus" (or dribble), Bloody Mary and Eric Bloodaxe. Lesser body "parts" also include freckles Merfyn the Freckled. Have we got both feet yet? Because there's Aed Whitefoot too. We know the monster's parentage (William the Bastard). Hey, we can dress our monster as well, with John Toom Tabard (empty coat).Gwinva (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists might include the elusives, Spring Heeled Jack and Bigfoot (surely not the names their mama gave them). Julia Rossi (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Then of course there is "The Muscles from Brussels". — Michael J 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish ducat in 1500s

Over at the Francis Drake article we've run into a problem. At one point in the article it says "King Philip II was claimed to have offered a reward of 20,000 ducats (about $10 million by 2007 standards) for his life." but then later it says "37,000 ducats of Spanish money (almost 4 million by modern standards)." This was recently noticed and a {{what}} tag was placed. It's been talked about a little on the talk page, but we can't find how much a ducat is compared to modern US money. The first event with King Philip II offering it was in 1582. Not sure the exact date of the second mention but it is ca. 1589. Thanks for the help! Deflagro ^C/_T

Currency calculations over such a timescale are going to involve lots of handwaving, but you can compare the price of gold. Our ducat article says a ducat was 0.1107 troy ounces, so 20,000 ducats would be 2214 troy ounces. Gold seems to sell for around 900 USD per troy ounce, so that's about $2M. Of course currencies haven't been tied to the price of gold, and the relative costs of everything have risen or fallen so much over half a millenium that quoting a modern currency figure is of questionable value. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just on a worldwide-view point: unqualified usages of "$" to represent US dollars in articles about non-US subjects is questionable. It makes more sense to convert this sum to Euros or, given the nationality of Drake, pounds. If the USD is to be used on the grounds of international standard of conversion, it should at least be labelled "US$". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and Albania

I've been following some of the news regarding Kosovo's independence movement and I'm confused about something: if the independence movement is based on ethnicity, why don't the Albanian Kosovans want unification with Albania proper as opposed to full independence? News articles even show Kosovan Albanians using the flag of Albania to represent their cause (for example [20]). Is there some reason for why Kosovans don't want to be part of Albania? Are there any groups that do support unification? I know this is a very complex and controversial subject and I apologize if I may have caused offense, I am just genuinely curious about this. --86.152.125.77 (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've actually wondered about that too. Maybe it would be fraught with the same problems as the reunification of Moldova with Romania would be? Maybe they're thinking it's better to do it in two stages: first independence, then a year or two down the line if there's no war with Serbia, they'll hold a referendum on unification with Albania. I suppose Albania would have to hold a referendum on it too. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no appetite amongst Kosovars to join Albania for the very good reason that it is a seriously *&%£!ed up country. It was once the most politically self-isolated state in the world -- autocratic Enver Hoxha broke with both China and the Soviet Union as not pure, not Communist enough. At one point the only state Albania was talking to was North Korea. OK, that isolation ended some years ago, but the legacy lives on. It is terribly poor; the economy is predominantly subsistence agriculture, kiosk-level transactions, and the black market. Transparency International gives it a corruption rating of 2.9; the only European country more corrupt is Moldova. Wise old traveller Dervla Murphy, who knows her onions, was genuinely frightened by feral children in the countryside, not the urban slums. Why would the Kosovars wish to join that mess? They have the option of turning their faces to the balmy sunshine of the European Union, who are offering and planning to send a benign invasion of bueaucrats in suits and briefcases, to haul Kosovo into the modern age. One may very well tell them to beware of Eurocrats bearing gifts, but faced with a choice of the EU or Albania, I know which I would choose. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Albania isn't that bad. Its better than Kosovo at least, which is now, since declaring independence, the 'poorest nation in Europe'. Albania is reforming at an impressive rate, is enjoying economic growth, and has its own candidacy for EU membership. Kosovo-Albanian union may be something that will happen in the future, but not right now, for the simple reason that it is exactly what Serbia claims will happen - Serbian scaremongers state that Kosovar independence is the first step towards the creation of a Greater Albania that will go on to conquer the whole Balkan peninsula and randomly subject the Yugoslavs to Talebanesque government, I'd wager that Kosovars don't want to acredit that view by enacted any part of it just yet... Ninebucks (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "Anything but Serbia"? You have to realize that the locals (of all sides) aren't exactly trusted to deal with such matters in a peaceful manner (the EU is mainly there trying to ensure the *hit doesn't hit the fan, and isn't very interrested in Kosovo - the area doesn't have anything of value and would quite a headache - hell, it allready is a headache). There is a big problem with any 'separation of Kosovo and imediate unification' with Albania. Basicly it would be a re-drawing of the borders of allready established countries, and noone is really interrested in that, especially the countries who would have to deal with refugees if the going gets "hot" (Austria, Germany, France, etc). There is a real danger that other regions in the area get the same idea (and most of them wouldn't bother themselves with any referendums). What we have to wait for is if the 'north-western corner of Kosovo' (don't know the proper name of the area where the Serbs are the majority) declares either its own independence (intending to join with Serbia in a couple of years) or its 'seccession from Kosovo and unification with Serbia' in the near future. If they are smart and make a local referendum and any of such options wins (and it probably would) the goverment of Kosovo would quite unable and perhaps even unwilling to oppose it ('ppl who chose independence shouldn't deny it to others' and all that jazz). The forces of the UN probably wouldn't do a thing (the dirty work of suppressing "rebelions/independence movements" isn't quite their thing). Flamarande (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the notion of a Greater Albania has long figured in the Kosovan independence movement. The current PM, Hashim Thaci, was once a proponent of that idea. But Pan-Albanianism has never been politically viable. For one thing, it would invite Serb-dominated northern Kosovo to secede and join Serbia. For another, it would depend on the improbable cooperation of Albania, which would be reluctant to take an action that would enrage Serbia. Even if it were achieved, it would limit Kosovo's options considerably, making it more difficult to obtain foreign investment and assistance. In their current position, they receive specialized attention. Lantzy ^talk 13:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia feels very threatened by the Greater Albania idea. AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Open Piano Suggestion"

I've been able to identify the notes on the treble clef and bass clef and the bottom and upper ledger lines of each clef. Yet I find it hard when I'm playing a song which requires a key signature of no more than four or five flats or sharps does it become difficult to play the key indicated sharp or flat from the key singature without a reminding accidental beside it and automatically hit the proper black key. Say if the key signature was C sharp, I would be playing and when the music signals for the sharp key to be pressed I think otherwise and instead play Natural C instinctively, since there is no sharp or flat sign beside it. Also being familiar with the clefs, I have lots of trouble trying to make fingers equal to another when there parts are required. I'm good with my left hand to play the upper part of the keyboard, and my right hand also does the opposite.

Can someone prefer a exercise to both correct my sight reading disability and my inept fingering for clefs? --Writer Cartoonist (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm understanding your second question, but to get used to the different "black key" combinations of different keys, I think the most effective way is simply drill - i.e. practice your scales, chords and arpeggios in diferent registers until each of them comes naturally. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are exercises specifically designed to improve sight reading skills, but apart from the scales etc that PalaceGuard mentions, I don't know what they are. A good piano teacher should be able to help. To give you an idea of how complex sight reading actually is, you might want to read Eye movement in music reading and Sight reading. Many professional musicians seem to have a natural ability to sight read, but many others don't, and have to work at it, but are still very good musicians regardless. Some amateurs, like myself, can sight read very well but only infrequently raise their playing standards above that level. It's all a question of what you want to achieve. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When sight reading, you have to keep the key signature in mind as well as reading the clefs and time signature and so on. This is, of course, difficult to do. An exercise that might help (other than simply sight reading whatever music you can get a hold of) is to take a simple sequence and play it in a range of key signatures (without transposing it, and then with transposing it). When you don't transpose it, it will sound quite bad, but it will help you get used to remembering which keys are sharps or flats, and actually playing them. Steewi (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening time for British University

What time of the year does the most British University open (new semester) ? --125.24.181.83 (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well our 'school' years run from September to July. Students going from school/college into university typically start their degrees in September or October. We also have the Open University which has courses starting throughout the year - though it is distance-learning rather than being based in a classroom. ny156uk (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that this is British time not US time ? --125.24.181.83 (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well i'm sure in so much as i'm English living in England and my school year always started in September and always ended in July. My friends all started their degrees in September/October of the year and their 'years' ran until around June/July when they would generally come home and work until the next year started again in September/October time. ny156uk (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The northern hemisphere is generally consistent all around (that half of) the world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

British universities used to start in October but now often begin the first term or semester in September. (Oxbridge still runs three eight-week terms, but many others have two semesters.) The academic year used to end in May, hence May ball, but some universities finish teaching in late March or early April, and then have time for revision before the end of year exams. Universities are open year-round: research continues, and the buildings are open (except between Christmas and New Year, as for most British offices). The most certain way to find out about an individual institution is to go to its website and look for "academic calendar". BrainyBabe (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The semester system tends to be a bit half-hearted in many English universities. In Exeter, for example, there is an intersemester study week in January, but many modules are year-long, and students may not join the university in January. The teaching patterns still follow a 3 term arrangement and the semesters are fitted a little awkwardly into it. SaundersW (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Olympics boycott

Many people including Steven Spielberg and a group of Nobel peace prize winners, Olympic athletes, politicians etc are boycotting the 2008 Olympics because of the situation in Darfur. Why are people not concerned with human rights in china? Besides, Beijing can make significant change in China whereas they would be of limited influence in Khartoum. 118.90.78.205 (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not true to say that China is of limited influence over Khartoum. See Olympic Dream for Darfur. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The activists seem to have found a soft target - an authoritarian regime can't very well answer back on issues of human rights, which is why they are focussing disproportionately on the issue, as if Sudan was a Chinese colony. If it was Britain that was taking the same stance as China on the issue, the activists would not have nearly as much leverage as they have now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They are, essentially, using a prominent event as a chance to try pressure governments (yours/mine/China etc.) into action on what is occurring. Personally I dislike the politicalisation of sporting events - they exist as one of the few areas where many countries with wildly differing political/social policies can come together and compete as relative equals and can be used to foster positive relationships between countries. Additionally I find it dubious when 'celebrities' come out and make political statements - invariably they have limited knowledge, only ever take the populist angle and rarely appreciate the great complexities of international diplomacy/relations. Anyhoo sorry that's not really an answer to your question but i've typed it now... ny156uk (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The question was: "Why are people not concerned with human rights in China?". Well the honest answer is: Because China is relativly far away and doesn't seem to want expand itself at the expense of other countries. Another major point is that China is powerful in the military, political, and economical arena. Its goverment has been able to keep the internal peace and its internal authorithy. Also its grasp of propaganda is quite good.

Of course there are 'some' persons and liberal organizations who are truly concerned with human rights and liberties inside China. The issues of Tibet, the Falung Gong 'sect', and Tianameng square 1989, Taiwan, the enviroment, arrest of disidents, and censorship in China, are relativly hot issues (and make good stones you can always throw against the Chinese goverment).

But the hard cold truth is that the Chinese goverment has been able to mantain its power and is the largest singular market of the world. Foreign goverments who want to deal and make agreements with China know that they have to be polite (in other words: they leave such internal matters for the Chinese goverment, and complain all the time but never too loud). Major business firms who want to make business with and inside of China know that they have follow some 'rules'. Everybody is doing business and wainting for an eventual Perestroika (hopefully a peaceful one). It is as simple as that. Flamarande (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A simple answer to the original question is that China is not currently engaged within its own borders in any human rights abuse that remotely approaches the enormity of the genocide in Darfur. Hundreds of thousands of lives seem to be at stake in Darfur, so for many human rights activists, Darfur is a higher priority than the repression of dissent and other human rights issues within China. Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Stimulus package refunds for working kids

I work, and made over $3,000 for the 2007 tax year, and paid taxes on that. I was also claimed as a dependent of my father. I know that parents get $300 per kid, but do I also get a rebate for having made over $3,000, or is my rebate the one that my dad gets? I've read the bill, and still can't figure this out. In other words, would it make sense that I'd get my $600 or $300 or whatever it is check made out to me, in addition to my father getting the additional $300 check for claiming me? Jared (t)  17:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If your father claims you as a dependent, then you will not be eligible for a rebate. According to the Economic Stimulus Act, Section 6428 of the Internal Revenue Code is amended to read as follows:

(a) In General- In the case of an eligible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the first taxable year beginning in 2008 an amount equal to the lesser of--

`(1) net income tax liability, or

`(2) $600 ($1,200 in the case of a joint return).

The key language here is "eligible individual". Further down in the act, you find:

(e) Definitions- For purposes of this section--

`(1) QUALIFYING INCOME...

`(2) NET INCOME TAX LIABILITY...

`(3) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL- The term `eligible individual' means any individual other than--

`(A) any nonresident alien individual,

`(B) any individual with respect to whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which the individual's taxable year begins, and

`(C) an estate or trust.

Now, if you refer to Section 151, you find that that section provides for tax deductions for dependents. In other words, if a parent claims you as a dependent, then you are not eligible for the rebate. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

musical term

I have a score which uses the term Bog. which I am unable to find a meaniing for. Ksunsh01 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)ksunsh01

It might stand for Bogen, the German word for bow which is often also abbreviated as "Bg". It's an instruction to bow the instrument (arco) as opposed to plucking it (pizzicato). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Beginning, middle and end?

It is a truism that writers should follow this standard pattern. But is there any great literature that does not? In other words, are there literary works that have no discernible beginning, works which thrust the reader into the middle of the action without any background explanation?81.156.0.56 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Many works do this, or start at the end, but they nearly always build context through flashbacks. The one I can think of right now is P.S. Your Cat Is Dead although that's not great literature by any means. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at In medias res. It's traditional for epics (the Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Star Wars franchise) to start in the middle of the story. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Finnegans wake is probably best described as cyclic. It does not seem to be following the "standard pattern", or anything standard really. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The greatest works of literature ever*, the Iliad and the Odyssey, both do. User:Krator (t c) 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (* indicates literary superlative and shouldn't be taken literally. Though you might.)

Tristram Shandy comes to mind. The central character is not even born until Book III. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse Five, where the protagonist main character has come "unstuck in time." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In considering this I immediately thought of the superlative Franz Kafka; specifically of The Metamorphosis, where the story opens with Gregor Samsa turned into a giant insect, and The Trial, where a Josef K wakes to find himself under arrest. No explanation is ever offered for either of these events. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Block wrote a book on fiction writing ("Telling Lies for Fun and Profit", which is a great name, I think), and one of the chapters covers this extensively. His opinion was that you can write a draft where you start at the beginning, continue through the middle, and reach the end, but you should then take the second chapter and put it before the first. "Second things first," I think was the name of the chapter, and he said Mickey Spillane did it consistently with every story he wrote. He also said Spillane wrote consistently engaging, attention-seizing prose better than almost anyone. The fact is, in fiction, exposition can be kind of boring, so if you start with the first real crisis or gunfight or car chase or sex scene, you can get people's attention and go back to fill in the background later, if it still seems important. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Godard famously said that a story should have a beginning, middle, and end but not necessarily in that order.[21] He proved it too, In Praise of Love forinstance. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sicilian questions

Does anyone know what the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick the second Sicilian questions were? To do with religion, I think. Cap Cod (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to figure out what your class assignment is or learn more about Holy Roman Emperor Frederick the second? If you are trying to figure out what your class assignment is, I suggest you call a classmate or your teacher because it is unlikely that any of your classmates regularly watch the reference desk. As for Fredrick, do you mean Fredrick the Great i.e. Frederick II of Prussia? Sifaka ^talk 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Yikes, I don't think I could have misinterpreted the question any further than I have already. See Clio the Muse's response below. Sifaka ^talk 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Frederick the Great of Prussia was never Holy Roman Emperor and had no connection with Sicily, that's unlikely. More likely is Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, who was also King of Sicily. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is, of course, Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, King of the Romans, King of Italy, Germany, and Sicily; Holy Roman Emperor and stupor mundi-astonishment of the world. The 'Sicilian questions', Cap Cod, refers to a series of queries he circulated among leading Arab scholars, concerning the nature of belief; questions like 'What are the proofs for the immortality of the soul?', which if raised by any ordinary mortal in Christian Europe in the day would almost certainly have led to accusations of heresy. But Frederick was no ordinary mortal! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Axis Public Opinion

I'm doing work on the response of people in the Axis countries to wartime defeats. I've got some good material for Germany and Italy but not for Japan. What I would really like to know is what the Japanese public were told about the Battle of Midway, the turning point in the Pacific war. Cigar for a good answer! Fox Sake (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I found one article from American Heritage magazine that is somewhat relevant. I'll keep looking in the meanwhile. Sifaka ^talk 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several interesting books mentioned on this site (which is probably not acceptable as a source by the way since it is a tertiary source) One of the interesting books is Glines, Carroll V. The Doolittle Raid: America's Daring First Strike Against Japan. New York: Orion Books, 1988. ISBN 0-88740-347-6. Sifaka ^talk 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that Midway was such a disaster for the Japanese that the public were only told part of the story. At the time it was claimed that one carrier was lost instead of four. The truth filtered through to those among the Japanese public who had access to Allied news sources; but when the navy was pressed on the matter it held to the official line, on the insistence of General Tojo. Indeed, according to a statement by Naoki Hoshino, a Japanese Fascist ideologue, it was not until three years after the war that the full truth became known, when evidence was presented at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

In view of the strategic situation after Midway, I suppose one can understand the reluctance of the Japanese high command to tell the people. The fact is, after Midway, the Japanese were fighting an impossible battle, one where isolated island garrisons could be decimated without proper naval and air support. The defense perimeter, essential to Japanese war planning, had been breached. If one was to liken the strategic situation it to a medieval conflict, then in June 1942 the walls of the city had fallen. Thereafter, all the enemy had to do was to fight their way towards the heart of the citadel. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clio the Muse, you get the cigar! Can you please point me to the source for the statement by Naoki Hoshino? Thanks. Fox Sake (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find it, Foxie, on page 246 of The World at War, an oral history edited by Professor Richard Holmes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"water bottles" of antiquity

What did ancient civilizations use as "water bottles" i.e. reusable water containers carried by a single person. The time frame I am interested in is pre-1st century, although I am not sure it matters since portable water containers may not have changed all that much until recent centuries. (so feel free to ignore the time frame) Speculation is welcome as are any articles, pictures, or water storage containers you've seen in video games or movies set in an appropriate historical period.

I can think of two examples of water containers: the waterskin and the canteen. The waterskin was used in the Ancient Near East. I would like to know about how the waterskin's spout was sealed (cork? stuffed with cloth? nothing at all?) and its overall appearence (I've seen a "liver" shape and a "bag-with-four-legs" shape). The canteen was present during the American Civil War, but were they used before then? Sifaka ^talk 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

These seem to have corks, but I think they're modern. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A whole variety of materials were used as water containers, from animal bladders and leather skins to gourds. There would also be corked earthenware vessels, and there is, I believe, evidence that at least some Roman soldiers used glass bottles. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

February 18

What can I learn from literature and philosophy

What can be learned from literature, philosophy and other kind of material (like essays, etc)? I mean, they are not quantifying anything, trying to empirically contrast affirmation, or any other form of proof. Is it only entertainment?217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not only entertainment. Literature can teach you about the human condition and take you to worlds where you could never go; philosophy can cause you to re-think the basis of your beliefs (like the belief that quantification is the only way towards useful knowledge, which is a late-19th century philosophy itself!), history can teach you about how the world has worked and give some ideas as to how it might work in the future, and so on. As for being empirical, some are more empirical than others; literature is not terribly empirical, but it doesn't pretend to be. Philosophy can be quite empirical at times, and can certainly be logical. History is a mixture of empiricism and art; philosophy and fact. (Can you tell I am a historian?) Quantification and the hard sciences, for all that they have given us, do not shed much light on complicated human questions, like those of morality and goodness, much less something as complicated as how to run a country in a dangerous world, or how to make sense of what to do with one's life. Remember that science itself is just one large extension of a philosophy of knowledge, as well. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why do people make and enjoy art in general? What is the difference between great art and "mere entertainment"? Personally I find the word "beauty", or perhaps the phrase "being touched", somehow significant, though hardly an answer to the question. There are aspects of life that cannot be quantified, learned, affirmed, or proved, yet are deeply meaningful. How would one attempt to communicate on this level? Pfly (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC too!) That's a big question, and deserves more than the small answer I'm going to give. A narrow view might suggest that literature, philosophy and art present little empirical analysis of the world, but that's only because they approach things more obliquely: we can often learn more by considering at how things could be or might be rather than as things actually are. There is a lot of truth presented in fiction; it certainly reflects the real world. We have always told stories as way of developing an understanding of the world: look at ancient myths, and stories such as Arthurian legend, Robin Hood: presenting ideals of who we are and what is right and wrong. We can read MacBeth as a means to discuss the nature of evil (see RD archives). Check out J.R.R. Tolkein's On Fairy Stories. Gwinva (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Philosophers and artists change the way we think. They set our minds free or enslave them. Where would we be without Martin Luther and the Reformation? Science would still be in the Dark Ages. You would be worshiping the Virgin Mary, not empirical data. Wrad (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a strange thing to say. What connection do any of those bits have? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What's so strange about it? Religious philosopher/leader Martin Luther challenges the Catholic Church, ending the unhealthy religious power which had been stifling scientific progression for centuries. 2+2=4. Free-thinking = better science. It's a no-brainer. Wrad (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the entire reason the western world isn't ruled by kings anymore is because philosophers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill argued it wasn't such a bright idea. (Martin Luther helped as well, by decentralizing power in general, but that's a different story.) American society borrowed from Locke, and many other countries have followed. The artist/philosopher Thoreau wrote about Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience in turn changed the face of the world. America saw the likes of Martin Luther King overturn decades of bigotry, and Gandhi challenged the Brits with litterally nothing more than a philosophy. Philosophies are powerful. Our way of life would be vastly different without philosophers and artists. It is dangerously ignorant to think otherwise. Wrad (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing, though, is that trust in empirical data is itself based on a philosophy! Aristotle's! Wrad (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's rather nonsensical. There was plenty of scientific progress in the middle ages, and what was not done by Islamic scholars was accomplished almost exclusively by Catholic clerics. Also, neither the Virgin Mary not empirical data are anywhere subjects of worship. If I may make a similarly simplistic statement, all the anti-scientific sentiment in the Christian world today is a direct result of Martin Luther. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I know the answer: 'without Martin Luther and the Reformation (...) You would be worshiping the Virgin Mary, not empirical data.' Martin Luther makes me worship empirical data. Of course, I repent the day I decided to study an empirical science. Thanks for the enlightening. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... That's not really what I meant, although I do personally think that there are many who worship empirical data unhealthily. It was very necessary for religious freedom to occur in order for people to think freely and for science to progress. I never said that Martin Luther was solely responsible for that freedom. He wasn't. He caused his own set of problems along the way. But the fact is, someone had to successefully challenge the establishment to pave the way for science and religion to be separated, so that you would not have to get papal approval of your discoveries in order for them to be valid. Wrad (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a website http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ which covers quite a few philosophical issues. It is by no means exhaustive because it is maintained by one person, so it may have their bias. But it does try to stress the important of philosophy. Rfwoolf (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a book which defines art as the "pursuit of creating Quality." It spends the other 400+ pages trying to define Quality with a quantitative, logical mindset. It includes a lot of philosophy, and a lot of rhetoric, too, which I think may be the bridge between quantitative affirmation and philosophy that you're looking for. Anyway, it certainly teaches a lot about motorcycle maintenance, and you would find that useful, so give it a shot; it might answer all your questions. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Chord Progressions

During one of my private lessons my teacher was writing out the chords used in the piece I was playing. I know a little but about music theory but he was blowing me out of the water. When I would play a measure or 2 he would play a single note and it would fit. What is this and how does he do it? Also any examples using the aforementioned piece would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, schyler (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could help: but your meaning is unclear. Your teacher played a single repeated note along with what you played, towards the start somewhere? And it would fit with what you then continued to play? Or is it that your teacher played just one note once, and somehow it was "right"?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your meaning is not quite clear, I agree. Worse yet, I cannot access pdf-files from where I am right now.

Perhaps you are referring to notes that are carried from one chord to the next, notes that remain the same in a chord change? This is brushed in the article on chord progression, it's an important aspect of harmonizing melodies, or voicing and orchestrating compositions. (See also voice leading and common tone). Sometimes even the lead melody will hover over one tone for several chords in progression, one famous example is Liszt's Liebestraum No. 3.

A note can also be held for a long span of changing chords in dissonance with the chord's assigned components, thus generating even more tension. When the note is somewhere in the bass register, this technique is often called pedal point.

The technique of using a single note for tension and release is also frequently used in improvised music. For an extreme example, Sonny Rollins's first three improvised choruses (about one minute of playing time) on a famous live recording of "Sonnymoon for Two" vary in rhythm and phrasing, but rest entirely on the same note, while the chords change. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort y for the confusion. It looks like, now that I look back at it, I was asking mtiple questions and wanting multiple answers. What happened would be that I would play a measure or two and the notes within that measure would be a chord. I can see it setes but in the piece (second minuet from Bach's cello suite No. 1 written for bass trombone) I can't see it at all except for once or twice. I really hope this clears it up a bit. This was the real question I was trying to ask. Thanks, schyler (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, the teacher is probably doing exactly what you are doing (looking for chords which match the notes being played) but with the benefit of much more experience and knowledge. With practice, it becomes much easier to identify what chords go with a section of melody, and, especially with classical music, there are often set patterns which the chords fall into (look up cadences for examples). Knowing what key the piece is in, when it was composed and whom it is by (not to mention possibly having heard it before or even worked out the chords earlier) all make the task much easier, allowing it to look as impressive as it does. Ask your teacher if they will explain what they are doing; it's a very handy skill. Daniel (‽) 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

America-related reading

I would like to be recommended some books that objectively analyze these America-related topics, if possible:

1. Pros and cons of regulation and deregulation of America's private sector in today's world
2. Pros and cons of tax cuts in America in the 20th and 21st centuries
3. Efficiencies and inefficiencies of the American federal government's spending in recent history
4. Credibility of the liberal bias claim in the media

I'd like to explore these issues a little more deeply since these topics have rarely much more than soundbites in the media. Obviously, I'd welcome recommendations that avoid a political slant and are more academic in nature. 75.60.171.158 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Old British "wake-up"

Can anyone tell me the source of the following:

"Up, up Glentarkin,
 rouse thee ho;
 Watch the flock
 'til I return"

A 93-year old friend's father used to wake her up with that quotation.

Petera2 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I searched ... the internet... ok, Google Books, and found the first two lines, in Walter Scott's The Lady of the Lake (poem). The remainder might be an invention... –Outriggr § 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lady Jane over time

Lady Jane Grey is probably one of the least significant monarchs in English history yet she has left an abiding impression in literature and romance. I would be interested to know in waht ways depictions of her have developed over the years? Sir Night (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor Jane; a woman for all seasons...and none. A plaything for her time, and a plaything for posterity. There is not really enough material, Sir Night, to construct a proper, source-based, biography, but that has not stopped people filling the gaps with the fruits of imagination.

The story begins with Elizabethan ballads, a tale of innocence betrayed. In one Jane, in denouncing her executioner declares "For Popery I hate as death/and Christ my saviour love." Jane is now not only an innocent but a martyr to the Protestant cause, and appears as such in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. She was also idealised in another way by Roger Ascham as noble and scholarly, on no certain evidence, it has to be said. But the greatest Elizabethan tribute to her came in Thomas Chaloner's Elegy, published in 1579. Here she is peerless in her learning and beauty, comparable only with Socrates for her courage and quiet resignation in the face of death. He even suggests that she was pregnant at the time of her execution, an assertion that appears nowhere else, presumably to make Mary, the great villain of the piece, appear all the more heartless.

From martyrology and poetry, Jane finally made it on to the stage in the early Jacobean period in Lady Jane by John Webster and Thomas Dekker, where she and takes on the role of a tragic lover. This theme was taken up later in the century by Joan Banks, a Restoration playwright in his Innocent Usurper: or, the Death of Lady Jane Grey. Here Jane is only persuaded to accept the crown after her husband, Lord Guilford Dudley, threatens to commit suicide if she does not. And if you believe that you will believe anything! First performed after the Glorious Revolution, there is also a strong anti-Catholic dimension to Bank's play, which must have appealed to the audiences of the day.

More plays and poems followed in the eighteenth century, when a small Janeite industry began to take shape. In the early Hanoverian period she takes on the role of political heroine as well as martyr, scholar and tragic lover, putting down her Plato and taking up the crown only to save English Protestantism. Her popularity as a subject for tragic romance increased even further in the nineteenth century, an age of mass printing, where her story appears in a variety of media, including popular magazines and children's books.

Jane's growing reputation, it's worth stressing, was not just a popular phenomenon. Gilbert Burnet, Whig historian and self-publicist, described Jane, with considerable exaggeration, as 'the wonder of the age' in his History of the Reformation, a phrase subsequently taken up by Oliver Goldsmith his History of England, published in 1771. Even the sober and unromantic David Hume was seduced by the tragedy of Jane and Dudley. It was not until the early nineteenth century that John Lingard, a Catholic historian, ventured a word or two of counter-adulation, saying that she 'liked dresses overmuch', and reminding her promoters that she was only sixteen.

She was recast time and again to suit the inclinations of her audience. After the French Revolution the new evangelist movement alighted on her as a symbol, marked not for her romance but for her piety. In 1828 The Lady's Monitor declared that she inherited "every great, every good, every admirable quality, whether of mind, disposition, or person." Remarkably the radical thinker and philosopher William Godwin wrote his own hagiography of Jane under a pseudonym, though this owed less to his admiration for her virtues and more to his need for ready cash! For Godwin ( or, rather, for Theopilius Marcliffe!) she was "the most perfect young creature of the female sex to be found in history." Enter Mrs Godwin stage right!

And so it went on, right into the twentieth century, when Jane finally made it on to the screen in Tudor Rose directed by Robert Stevenson, which appeared in the States as Nine Days a Queen. Once again Mary is the cold-blooded fanatic, while Jane and Dudley are the tragic lovers. More recently the nine-day-queen appeared as Lady Jane, staring Helena Bonham Carter and directed by Trevor Nunn, a romance set against the political intrigues of the day.

Jane is now beyond history. She belongs to legend, the stuff of which dreams are made on. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Raynald the Bastard

I watched Ridley Scotts crusading epic Kingdom of Heaven last night on British telly. I know its probably a load of old tosh when it comes to historical accuracy but would like to know if there is any truth at all in the depiction of Reynald of Chatillon? He seemed such a complete bastard!217.43.14.105 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply reading the article Raynald of Chatillon, the answer would seem to be "yes"... FiggyBee (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They didn't show the half of it! I personally can't think of any worse figure on either side of the Crusades. AllenHansen (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any truth to the pink-haired lunatic part...he was mad, but in far more interesting ways. He's the kind of guy who would be a genius and a hero if the crusades had ultimately been successful. He was originally such a minor knight that we're not even sure which Chattilon he was from. He joined the Second Crusade and within a few years married the widowed princess of Antioch, which connected him with the royal families of France and Jerusalem, much to their dismay. A few years after that, he was captured in battle, and it is probably telling that nobody bothered to ransom him for 17 years, and then it was his new son-in-law the Byzantine emperor who had to cough up the money. After his release he managed to marry another powerful widow, Stephanie of Milly, who ruled Oultrejordain. By then, Jerusalem was opposed by a Muslim empire united under Saladin, and Raynald caused all sorts of problems for both sides. Despite all of his years in the east, he still acted like any newly-arrived crusader, who wanted nothing more than to bravely fight some infidels. Usually the nobles of Jerusalem, accustomed to the political reality of their situation, could distract newcomers until they became acclimatized or got bored and went home, but not Raynald. With his castles in Oultrejordain, especially Kerak, he declared that the king had no authority over him and that any truce between Jerusalem and Saladin did not apply to him. He raided caravans travelling between Damascus and Cairo, and at one point also attacked a group of pilgrims on the way to Mecca. These attacks were later bungled into an anecdote that he captured Saladin's sister (as was shown in the movie, although killing her was an invention of the screenwriter). Another anecdote says that he attempted to build a fleet to conquer Mecca (presumably he was unaware that Mecca is not on the coast). Now, of course Saladin was unlikely to have simply left Jerusalem alone once he consolidated his power everywhere else, but Raynald's actions definitely gave him a convenient casus belli. Saladin seemed to have a personal vendetta against Raynald, and after the Battle of Hattin he had him executed. That scene in the movie is perhaps one of the most faithful to the sources. I have always wondered whether he was so stubborn that he never learned Arabic, even after 17 years in captivity, because he apparently needed a translator to communicate with Saladin. So, he had misguided and never-ending crusader zeal, and sure, he was a complete bastard, but he wasn't a raving loony who talked to himself and danced around in prison, as he is depicted in the movie. He can be blamed for hastening the fall of Jerusalem, but it was coming anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bastard, yes; Templar, no! I have to say that it has become ever more obvious to me that the Reference Desk seems to move in cycles, perhaps a little like the eternal recurrence. Anyway, here is what I said about dear old Raynald an earlier point in the cycle. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article on Raynald does not fully explain his true significance, and just why he was such a figure of fear and hatred for Muslims, who known him better by the name of Arnat of Kerak. The Muslim historian, Ibn al-Athir, refers to him as "a violent and most dangerous enemy of Islam." Even today he has some significance, and you will find him in statue form in Damascus, the capital of Syria, together with Saladin, his nemesis. Raynald did much to colour Muslim opinion of the whole Crusading movement. If the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem can be attributed to a single man, then Raynald has better right to that claim than any other individual. His ruthlessness, unscrupulousness, opportunism and brutality were to provoke Saladin into a furious offensive against the Crusader kingdom that led directly to his victory of the Horns of Hattin.

It is important to understand that the enthusiasm for Crusading in the Middle Ages often owes as much, if not more, to greed and opportunism as it did to religious faith. The path to the Holy Land was the path often taken by the 'poor cousins' and the second sons, those who could expect no inheritance at home, and would only be able to make their way in the world by the practice of arms. In essence these men were little more than freebooters, and Raynald was the greatest freebooter of them all. He served the greater cause only as and when it suited him, and was quite prepared to attack fellow Christians for the sake of personal gain, fully demonstrated by his onslaught on Byzantine Cyprus. To finance the latter expedition he even extorted money from Aimery of Limoges, the elderly Patriarch of Antioch. According to William of Tyre, the chronicler of the Crusades, Aimery, was stripped naked, whipped, his head smeared with honey to attract insects and then he was left chained in the open under the hot sun!

In November 1160 Raynald set out to seize the herds of Armenian and Syrian Christians, only to be taken prisoner by the Muslim Governor of Aleppo. He was only ransomed after fifteen years, emerging from his dungeon with a hatred of Islam far in excess of any love he had for Christianity. Indeed, there is very little evidence that Raynald had faith of any kind. Soon after his release married Stephanie of Milly, heiress of the dukedom of Outrejourdain, the easternmost part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which dominated the caravan routs from Egypt to Syria from the castles of Shaubak and Kerak. It was from this point that he became a real nightmare for the Muslims.

By the 1170s there was a mood of relaxed co-existence between the Crusader states and their Muslim neighbours. Many of the Christian lords had adopted an oriental way of life, and were even viewed by the Muslims as possible allies in their own internecine struggles. But Raynald upset this delicate political balance. He was to launch attack after attack, chiefly aiming at plunder and mayhem. It is even suggested by Ibn Jubair that in his pirate raids in the Red Sea, Raynald intended, amongst other things, to make off with the body of the prophet Mohammed and hold it for ransom at Kerak. Peaceful co-existence was at an end, and Saladin took an oath to kill Raynald, whose offenses were made even worse when he tried to capture the Sultan's sister in 1187, breaking a truce to attack a caravan. Saladin was left with no option but to preach Jihad against the whole Crusader Kingdom. In this Raynald had encompassed his own death and the fall of Jerusalem. Clio the Muse 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding information within the reference desk

I know I read something interesting on one of the ref desks recently and now can't find it. Is there a way to search only within the ref desks? If there is a technique for doing so, could it be re-made as a tool, and placed somewhere visible for all comers to see? Apologies if this is not the best place to ask this. (I was looking for the advice on which classic books to read, as it happens.) BrainyBabe (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this can be done - through Google, not Wikipedia. Type in your key word(s) and then "site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk" without the quote marks. Hope that helps. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And there are preformatted google search strings on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives with tips on searching. Foxhill (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions but it is not working for me. When I use those search strings, with serach terms "read suggest book" I get too much stuff, from too wide a range of dates. One looks good, I click, but it takes me only to the current page. I try again with two recalled suggestions, "pillow iliad", and get nothing. Is there a way to limit search by date, e.g. to the past month? That would be useful. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The current page thing can possibly be solved by clicking on Google's cached version of the page. Other than that, I don't know why it's not working for you. If "pillow" and "iliad" were both in the thread, it should come up. Can you think of any other books that were recommended in the thread? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hang on - is this the thread you were looking for? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you remember (or guess) a likely and specific wikilink in one of the replies you can go to that article, hit "What links here" in the toolbox under the search box. You can then set the namespace filter to "Wikipedia". The list will still feature a lot of wikilinks to other places, but it's pretty easy to comb through, and they take you directly to the corresponding page in the archives. (That's how I do it anyway.) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure I like that very much. I just tried it with Iliad and it would be a lot of work to go through all the links to the RD alone, plus you don't get the context or the highlighted search terms. Typing "iliad" plus the site address into Google is much easier. YMMV. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The latter suggestion worked for me. I typed "pillow book" and in six clicks I had found it here. Easy-peasy! Maybe "Iliad" just links to too much. But thanks for both your ideas, and the interesting Greatest Books thread. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(To Richard, after e.c.:) My mileage doesn't vary, it's leadfoot rigid, I admit, I have never tried anything else. I guess I found it useful, because I usually also remember approximately when this question was asked, and I use my system's search tool to find "Reference desk" in the list. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that blows my advice out of the water. Typing "iliad" + the site address into Google doesn't bring up that thread (even though the word is there) although "pillow book" + the address does. Sorry to have muddied the waters. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

law of marriage on england

1.what is the qualifications to people who not an england want to be marriage with an england on england? 2.do there's a different between male and female? 3.what is the law which regulate this marriage(not an england with an england)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyosh (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your grammar is a little hard to understand, but Marriage in the United Kingdom#Foreign citizens wishing to marry in the UK may be of interest to you. FiggyBee (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

From my experience to question 2: Yes. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

how to write a grant

I am at a loss for information, or lack there of, on the internet as to how to write a grant. I am trying to start a small business and need money to do so. If you could respond on how to find such information, I would greatly appreciate it. Larry M (email redacted to prevent spam) Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.139.42 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Google is your friend. [22] came up with tons of how-to guides and examples. From the adsense it seems like there are many companies that specialize in advice or assistance. It may be an efficient use of resources to do a little research and purchase a book which goes over the basic steps. There's a dummies book which are usually good if you have no idea how to start. There is also a wiki-how-to. There is also a good chance that you may be able to refine your search down to the specific topic area you are interested in to find a closely related example. Sifaka ^talk 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Archbishop and Sharia

Hello, Wikipedia. I would be pleased to know if it is true, as he alleges, that the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent remarks on sharia law and British Muslims was misinterpreted by the press? Pompey Bum (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Probaly yes, but it is far better (and fairer) to make your own judgement. Read his full speech [23] and make your own conclusions. Good luck trying to understand it. Flamarande (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Any invocations of hand amputations and stonings certainly misrepresent his intent, but on the other hand he did rather carelessly invoke concepts which are highly politically-controversial in the UK without clearly and unambiguously explaining his precise meaning. There was one British politician who said that he would be happier as a University lecturer, where he could make superficially provocative comments without real consequences... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos of Mormon polygamists with their wives

I would love to see some images of authentic, old-school Mormons from the 1800s (no modern LDS splinter-groups, please) with their wives--especially if we had such pictures in Commons. Does anyone know of some good images, onwiki or off? Google images is a start, but I want something better than this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbering of Western Canadian municipalities

When reading about Western Canada on Wikipedia, I've noticed that many municipalities have both a name and a number, for example Dundurn No. 314. I've looked around on Wikipedia and elsewhere to try to find out where these numbers come from, but I've found only passing references. Does the Reference Desk know why the numbers are used? Are they in common use, or are they only used in formal contexts? //130.242.107.120 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist beliefs

I have heard that Mahayana Buddhists believe that anyone can potentially achieve enlightenment in this lifetime whereas Theravadins believe that only the spiritual elite can do so. Why is there this contrast in belief? I believe it has something to do with the teachings of the lotus sutra which I think only Mahayanists value. If anyone could help that would be awesome and please correct me if anything I have written above is wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.211.53 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, why do Catholics believe wine and bread are blood and body of Jesus while protestans do not? Cecikierk 01:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)cecikierk

Indian National Congress and Bharata Janata Party leaders

Who are the leaders of the parties which I have mentioned above in the states of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Tripura, Punjab(Indian National Congress), Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Political Party

Which Party is based on Liberalism and which party is based on Conservatism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan People's Party and Muslim League(Q)

Who are the leaders of these parties which I have mentioned above in the provinces of Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

celine anti-semitism

i reed about anti-semitism of french writer called celine. how serious was this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Tsotsi (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious. David Šenek (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation

How do you pronounce "Sieppe", as seen in Frank Norris' "McTeague"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.222.27 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

wounded students

This is in regard to the seven Northern Illinois University students who are still in critical condition. Are they going to make it?72.229.136.18 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Wikipedia's crystal ball is in the shop right now. —Nricardo (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenics and Deaf people

Schizophrenics have been known to "hear voices" or hallucinate sounds in their heads. If a person, born deaf, became schizophrenic, would he hear voices? Or just have visual or tactile hallucinations?

Somewhat conversely, can people who are blind at birth dream of people, places and things? Or the blind have all-audio dreams?

Thanks!

❦ECH3LON❦ 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

February 19

Pizarro boats (how did they get there?)

I read that the Spaniards discovered the Pacific coast in 1513 during an expedition in Panama. Later on Pizarro explored the Pacific coast in preparation for the conquest off Peru. (in the 1520 decade). Magelan discovered the Magelan strait and a route to the Pacific in 1520. As the Panama canal certainly didnt exist, how did the boats get on the Pacific side? In 1531 Pizarro used 3 boats for his conquering expedition to Peru.

• Where the boats built locally on the Pacific coast? And if so, where did they get the metals and other equipment?
• Or did the Spaniards already use the Magelan strait to get the boats to the Pacific? Very early days and the Pacific South American coast was not yet explored.
• How did the supply lines run between Spain and Peru? Transport off the gold to Spain and supplies and people to Peru. Did they use a landbridge in Panama?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Correlations to libertarianism

Is it just me, or did any of you notice that many libertarians are male engineers/scientists (although scientists tend to fall more on the liberal side)? Are there's any correlation between profession/gender and political beliefs? -Cecikierk