Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 15

Why does the sun make people happy?

Moved to the Science desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What's so bad about pandemics?

Yes, yes, I know there's the pain and suffering of the infected. But I'm talking about a more dispassionate and logical approach. Let's say that a disease spreads throughout a continent or maybe even farther. The ones who are most affected will likely be the poor (due to limited access to health care), the elderly, and the very young. So you're basically taking out those who are taking money and resources from welfare systems, those who are no longer adding significantly to the production of goods/services, and in general those who are on the receiving end of the balance sheet. There will be the initial cost of keeping the people outside of those demographics healthy but after the disease has subsided, won't society be "healthier" in some respect? So is there a "harm" that I'm missing here? Dismas|^(talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The typical party line is that suffering is never justified or acceptable, but I for one am with you. I think the real problem is that we read the news about far-off places that we have no business knowing about, when we should really just be concerned with what's in front of our noses. Vranak (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the harm that you're missing is what you've passed over with your dispassionate and logical approach. Djk3 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Biologically, Dismas is correct. Pandemics either wipes out an organism or make them fitter for survival.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The same dispassionate logic might next take you to the next step. Why waste money on any health care, for any one, rich or poor? It is the weak (and the unlucky) who get sick. Let them all die and humanity will be the stronger for it. It is not a strength I would admire, and not a place I would care to be. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Setting to one side the repugnant sentiment expressed by Dismas and Vranak, if we consider a pandemic such as Spanish flu in 1918/19 "another unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old." In our own time, AIDS is doing much the same, notably in Africa (one of Vranak's far off places that we should not concern ourselves with, as if that makes it all go away). I'm going to doubt that the orphaned child of an AIDS victim agrees that it was the economically unproductive who died. Dismas and Vranak might want to reflect on what sort of society they want to live in: one which does not give a shit, I'm guessing. One which conveniently selects out evidence that does not support their world view. Lovely. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Compelling argument, Tagishsimon, but I ask you this: if someone is suffering in Africa that I am unable to help, is it better for me to know or not know about them? If I know about them, the suffering is compounded, if not, it is limited. If suffering in the first place is objectionable then why is it acceptable in my case?

Perhaps if I were a more typical Westerner living a decadent lifestyle (SUVs, ski trips, winter in Hawaii, a closet full of shoes) then it would be good for me to know about the less fortunate in Africa, Iraq, or at my nearest homeless shelter. But I cannot even support myself, so learning about those even more pitiful than me doesn't help anyone. Vranak (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the relevant answers, I find the assumption that I endorse such a situation fascinating to say the least. I don't recall saying that we should throw the poor and elderly to the wolves. I was just posing a question about a hypothetical situation and asking for relevant issues that I might be ignorant of. Dismas|^(talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "harm" you might be missing... I guess what's also missing is the idea of personal, cultural and social capital which is not measureable in economic, goods and services, balance sheet terms. These are invisible largely because they're not going to appear on the books. See Pierre Bourdieu for an expansion on that. Sometimes people are simply worth supporting because they're part of society and contribute in ways economists and accountants overlook, but are important in ways known only to their families, carers, and others whose jobs depend on having the poor, elderly and ill to cater to. My bet is that society wouldn't feel so well off if the vulnerable disappeared for, among other reasons, that they are binaries, offering a dialectic such as in the existence of the Other. (and a ps, the "other" continues to encroach as those who are "us" take our turn to be "them" given time and chance events which as I see it, respect no-one in reality. I'm smiling at the idea of you imagining a selective pandemic. Hmmm, the Black Plague took out the educated and well-off, opening up previously privileged fields of employment to people from the lower classes. Howzat for an unpredictable pandemic!) Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I also didn't completely understand what you were asking, Dismas. Was the "harm" that you might be missing to be viewed entirely from a species point of view? If so, it is theoretically conceivable that a sufficiently virulent pandemic could wipe out the entire human species either directly or by affecting its ability to reproduce.

If not, even for a seemingly "unaffected" and "healthy" individual, and even from a "dispassionate and logical" point of view, and as pointed out by Julia Rossi, a pandemic will not only make the victims suffer and die, but also lead to great suffering among the survivors in their families and communities, with far-reaching global effects, especially if there is the impression that too little was attempted in terms of fighting the virus or protecting human beings. Entire societies could collapse with unpredictable costs and consequences regarding their peace and stability, as well as that of neighbouring regions. Even without compassion and only applying selfish logic, this isn't desirable anywhere in a globalized world, unless you happen to profit from instability. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If the world's poor were wiped out, who would do the jobs that poor people tend to do? I hate to sound this arrogant, but I'm rather happy having a desk job.

Besides, since most forms of poverty aren't genetic, the evolutionary gains would be slight. What would probably happen is that there would be a serious shakeup in the economy when the poor-people-in-large-numbers suddenly stop buying stuff and at the same time suddenly stop showing up for their minimum wage service jobs. After a (hopefully brief) period of chaos many of us currently enjoying life in the middle class would find ourselves filling the role previously held by the plague victims.

That's how it's always happened in the past. A society would have to take a deliberate effort to avoid that. But then we're talking about Communism or something, and that's not easy to get right.

That's not to say a giant population decrease wouldn't be good for the species or its longterm survival, of course, but you asked about society.APL (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pandemics also herald political and economic instability. We look back on the social and economic effects of the Black Plague today and see a net gain, since it moved Europe a bit closer to what we have today (a less strong Church, increased social mobility), but that's just the pride of the victor (and omits the peasant uprisings, persecutions of minorities, etc.). Who knows what would happen in a similar situation today—it's a dice roll, and could most easily end up in awful situations. Additionally, I think you underestimate the long-term effects of getting rid of the elderly, the poor, and the young. The poor contribute a huge amount to the functioning of an economy; the elderly are major investors; the young are, well, the next generation of laborers, thinkers, workers, etc. A nation with no elderly and no young and no poor would be in sad shape indeed; and any benefits to state coffers from a lack of welfare checks would be quickly offset by a lack of tax income, a lack of manpower, general economic downturns, etc., much less the expenses of disaster mitigation, healthcare, insurance, etc. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You might consider the fact that a pandemic will take out more than just the elderly and children. It would take millions oflives, regardless of fitness, age etc. If it was fast-acting enough it is likely that no amount of wealth and thus medical treatment could cure it before it does huge damage. It would destabilise society, taking out key workers all over the map, and to look at it from your point of view, taxpayers. If it was severe enough it could do much more than just this: as Ms Rossi mentioned, the Plague was pretty severe. To look at it from your point of view, you might consider the possibility that humans could expend billions or even trillions attempting to cure it, to no avail. Your way of looking at it is short-sighted to say the least. I would say society would be much "healthier" place if we actually gave a crap about people suffering from deadly diseases, and attempted to show some compassion and empathy towards them. Let's assume that people on benefits/welfare contribute nothing to society, and are then all killed off in a huge pandemic. Sure, the governments of the world would be paying out less in benefits, but you'd the have no old people, who are often the most involved in politics, no young people, who are indeed the future, no struggling musicains to get you throught the hard times as you deal with the death of your student cousin, virtually no real economic hardship for some of the greatest art to be created from etc etc. It may feel to you that many people are on the "receiving side of the balance sheet", but that is to ignore all the advances of the last 150 years in Western civilisation. One of those victims could have gone to university on welfare and developed the cure for cancer. One could have become the next Shakespeare. One could have done anything, for that is what we often recognise now: although many traits are genetic, human potential is enormous, and clever parents do not a clever child make, and the same is true for poor or struggling parents. Your point of view seems to be encroaching upon eugenics or social Darwinism, and yours, Vranak, is either objectivist or just plain selfish. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, Dismas, if I gave the impression that I thought you were supportive of a society that throws people "to the wolves". My comment was meant merely to remind us that, once we start thinking that way as a society, we are headed to places that may well be even worse. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you owe anyone an apology, Bielle. Anyone asking questions about "what's the harm" in millions of people dying horribly ought to have a thick skin, I should think. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn’t it curious, Bielle, that when an argument like this is presented that it is always the 'others' who are affected, those removed by distance, or by poverty, or by culture; those in 'far-off places' and with 'far off lives', never oneself. My father has a very extensive collection of Bob Dylan recordings, and I am reminded of one song in particular, World War III Talkin' Blues, where the narrator keeps having a recurring dream that he is the only person to survive a nuclear holocaust. Troubled by this he goes to the doctor;

Well, the doctor interrupted me just about then,

Sayin, "Hey I've been havin' the same old dreams,

But mine was a little different you see.

I dreamt that the only person left after the war was me.

I didn't see you around."

The typical 'party line' in the nineteenth century was that the suffering caused by cholera was 'justified and acceptable' for as long as it only affected poor people. But, unfortunately, disease, being rather blind, tended to walk, all unannounced, into nice middle-class neighborhoods, then it was a different matter altogether! Death is fine just so long as they are the deaths of other people, and then one can be dispassionate and logical; then one can discuss healthy demographics and healthy organisms in all liberty, in the full conceit of Olympian 'logic'.

But it occurs to me, Bielle, that we have reached such a stage of development that there is no need to wait for the necessary pandemic to 'winnow out' those far away and worthless people. Why not begin the process ourselves? We would, of course, have to prioritise those suitable for some measure of social hygiene. You may have your own views on this. Jonathan Swift suggests in his wonderful A Modest Proposal that the problem of hunger could be solved by the consumption of babies. But I personally think it better if the terminally stupid start dining on one another! And, please, everyone, never seek to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. People with a thick skin deserve less courtesy than those who are more easily offended. I'll have to remember that, Matt. Bielle, thank you for your apology. As Matt assumed, I do have a thick skin and was not offended by your comment, though you did jump to an incorrect conclusion. I don't advocate pandemics. I am simply looking for more than a "we should save the poor because they're human beings just like you and me" argument. I was looking for the soceital effects as well as the financial and political. So far, the responses have been most enlightening! Thank you, everyone! Dismas|^(talk) 09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of good points have already been made, and to expand on one issue regardless of whether it is harmless that the eldery and children die, let's remember that for the children and parents of these children and elderly respectively, they're not going to see it from this dispationate POV. They're very likely to spend as much time and money as possible trying to keep their children/parents alive. And once their children/parents do die, this could easily have a strongly negative effect on their mental health (let's not forget that the wealthy of delay childbearing to an age where they can't just have more children) and on their personal development. So putting aside the potential contributions of the children and elderly you've just said you think don't matter, even those whose physicial health isn't affected by the pandemic may still not contribute as much as they could have or would have because of the pandemic's effect on those around them Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What your missing is Morality. Willy turner (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Majahapit civilisation

Disclaimer: not a school project.

What are the features that caused the civilisation to flourish/decline? (In terms of geogarphical location, allocation of occupations, government and leadership, form of writing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean Majapahit?--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, soory for the speeling error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the disclaimer? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Colette and religion

Exactly when, and exactly why, did the French writer Colette, who often proclaimed her agnosticism, start to take an interest in matters of religion? Did she undergo some kind of personal or spiritual crisis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.98.146 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this, but if Colette did meet such a crisis I guess it was near the end. As she wrote in La Maison de Claudine (1922), "Tu comprendras plus tard que jusqu’à la tombe on oublie, à tout instant, la vieillesse". (You will understand later that we keep on forgetting old age, until we get to the grave.) Xn4 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some information on this topic, 217.42, in The Secrets of the Flesh: A Life of Colette by Judith Thurman (Bloomsbury, 1999). It was in the spring of 1943 when Colette turned towards religion, urged on by Francois Mauriac, who decided that it was his personal mission to 'lead Colette to God.' It was on his urging that she began reading the Bible, particularly the epistles of Saint Paul. She was highly vulnerable at the time, old and ill, increasingly convinced that she may not survive the war. However, Maurice Goudeket, Colette’s husband, took a more sceptical view of her motives, that her 'spiritual flirtation with Mauriac', as he put it, might give her some kind of immunity 'in a moment of great danger'. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Death

How does one mentally prepare ones self for the eventual death, assuming all practical matters, like wills, financial affairs ect. are taken care of?--Artjo (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In a recent study it was proven that people with some type of religion usually cope better with death/dying. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. If you are disinclined to religion you might like to contemplate impermanence as well as rebirth, and perhaps consider voluntary work in a hospice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of interesting books on the subject. I found Sherwin Nuland's How We Die to be quite interesting. But anyway, there's no obviously generalizable answer for the individual person; any reasonable response will have to be personalized to their situation. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers, I am not religious by any standards, so will try to find the Nuland book. Thanks again.--Artjo (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Many non religious people (including myself) find it helpful to realize that we have all actually been “dead” for eternity. As Schopenhauer saw it, for instance, life is merely a short and rather unpleasant episode in an expanse of glorious nothingness. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll second the Captain's recommendation. There's something about Nuland's clinical detachment that I found strangely comforting. That kind of writing could easily come across as cold or inhumane, but done correctly it serves to bring the horrors down to our scale, where we can more easily confront them. It's been several years since I last read the book, but I seem to recall that the chapter on murder was one of the most enlightening. Matt Deres (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're going with personal experience, after a gradual loss of faith I found a realistic dream in which I actually died oddly helpful. Terrifying, but left me strangely comfortable with the notion after the initial response wore off. S. dedalus's approach was precisely the sort of thought which made me uncomfortable (When you have been dead 1000 years, you have only begun to be dead), so these things vary widely from person to person. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

People living deeply have no fear of death. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm very surprised that no one had yet mentioned the Kübler-Ross model or its author Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. If I were in the position you describe, this would likely be where I started. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.36.216 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify--I'm not sure that her model would be the only thing that allowed me to deal with the process. But I think understanding why we feel the emotions we do as we approach death, and how we transition between them, would be one of the best ways of making that transition more smoothly and with more self-awareness. 71.112.36.216 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the throwaway lines in Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces is that the ultimate purpose off all religions is to prepare its adherents for, and provide comfort at the time of, death. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lenin and bureaucratic decay

Thank you for answering my question about Engels. I am turning now to Lenin. Beyond the warnings in his testament about Stalin did he see a danger to the revolution in the rise of the new bureaucratic class?Yermelov (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He was, Yermelov, effectively 'hoist by his own petard.' "We are convinced", he wrote, “that our machinery of state...is inflated to twice the size we need", but offered no solution to the problem beyond the rather lame suggestion that 'further study' was required. Effectively the situation was impossible, because he had created the problem of over-centralisation himself. In his recommendations on the recruitment of 'irreproachable communists' to the Central Control Commission he says, with absolutely no sense of irony, that "...a great deal has yet to be done to teach them the methods and objects of their work." In other words, the supervisors of the supervisors need supervising! For Lenin the Party had to play the leading role in all spheres of Soviet life. From this all else followed; from Stalin to the final collapse of the whole impossible structure, crushed by a dead-weight of empty dreams. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden

Shortly after the September 11th disaster, the US government identified Osama Bin Laden as its lead terrorist target. I saw a follow-up national TV news story reporting that Osama was totally dependent on dislysis machine treatment...it seemed credible. I have not seen a similar report since. If he does require/required such treatment he should have had major difficulty surviving in the Afghan/Pakistan caves, as our government reported as his hiding places. He would also have had diffulty surviving to this date. If this is true, maybe government searches should have traced a dialysis machine trail.

Could you verify whether Osama Bin Laden did require/requires regular dialysis machine treatments? If he does, what ailment is being treated?

TyRonne de DuPonte' —Preceding unsigned comment added by TyRonne de DuPonte' (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Try here it's a complete medical history, including information inferred or discovered by intelligence services that has been revealed to the media. I can't vouch for the reliability of the site, but the article seems very well referenced. Evidently Osama does not require dialysis, but does suffer from kidney stones. There used to be a wikipedia page about the CIA's analysis of his gait, which I believe they use to verify his identity in the videos as it is very difficult to imitate, but I can't find it. Essentially I think the CIA determined from the way he walked that he had something wrong with him, possibly bone problems, but that it was not renal failure. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Marlborough coat of arms

Coat of arms of Marlborough

Are there more informations on the coat of arms of the Marlboroughs? Why a double-ehaded eagle, the spanish motto and the Shell of Saint James?--Tresckow (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the bit about the spanish moto is explained on the page the image resides on, Duke of Marlborough, which states "The meaning of the motto, Fiel pero desdichado (Faithful but unfortunate), can be related to the fact that as a consequence of his loyalty to the king, the first duke lost his home and lands. It is original having the motto in Spanish and not in Latin. That could be related to the fact that the first duke become honored after the battle of Blenheim, decisive in the Spanish succession war." There's no reference but it seems plausible.

However, despite my best efforts on Google I can't find anything that explains the origins of the various parts of the coat of arms. I wouldn't be too shocked if Clio knows, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep I read this explanation. But I wondered if there was more to it. Considering the eagles that are rather odd for British heraldry. At least in my opinion. sadly Google has nothing to offer.--Tresckow (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Imperial Eagle and princely coronet are to do with the first Duke holding the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (an honour granted by the Emperor in 1705). With regard to the shells, the part of the arms the OP is interested in is the quarters representing Spencer. They weren't part of the arms until added by the 3rd Duke, whose father was a Spencer, his mother Lady Anne Churchill. The 14th century arms of Hugh le Despencer were Quarterly argent and gules, in the second and third quarters a fret or, over all a bend sable. It isn't certain that these Spencers were descended from him, except through female lines. When we come to Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland (1674-1722), father of the 3rd Duke, the bend sable is differenced by three escallops argent, distinguishing him from other Spencers, who bore on that bend five mullets argent or three fleurs-de-lys. Xn4 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The German eagle has its head turned to our left hand, and the Roman eagle to our right hand. When Charlemagne was made "Kaiser of the Holy Roman Empire," he joined the two heads together, one looking east and the other west...

Benét, W. R. (1948). "two-headed eagle." The reader's encyclopedia p. 327.—eric 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I always thought the Double-headed eagle was the symbol of the Byzantine Empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So it was, but adopted also by a miscellany of empires. One of the most surprising uses is on the arms and flag of little Albania. Xn4 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pope's Airplane

This morning on the radio a newscaster stated the Shepard 1 was in the air, the Vadican reports that the Pope is on his way to America. Was this a joke? or Does the Pope fly in a plane called Shepard1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raszone (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article: [1] will answer your questions. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he does. CNN mention the Shepherd 1, as to many other news sources. It's not as strange as the Popemobile, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Resourceful Tips to be a Qualified Cartoonist?

I was asking how to be a cartoonist without a acquainted edge on illustration or drawing characters before.

I had a interest by watching cartoon shows these days namely Stephen Hilling's (or whatever his name was) brainchild of the American program, Spongebob Squarepants. I envied the genius of making a sponge speak and have typical human characteristics and so I thought it wouldn't be so bad if I made characters of my own to entertain. --Writer Cartoonist (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be only me but I don't really understand your question. What is 'to be a qualified cartoonist'? Do you mean with a diploma? By cartoonist you seem to mean character designer or did you mean something else (someone that writes and draws newspaper cartoons, animation ,comic books)? Making up goofy things might cover most of it? Practice and looking at 'cartoons' are the two basic ingredients it would seem to me. Maybe you could rephrase your question (for me anyway). Using google queries such as 'cartoon blogs', 'illustration blogs', 'drawing ressource', 'character design', etc, will show you how broad the field is. All the best. Keria (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are how-to cartoon books, and illustration courses from community college to degree level and cartoon workshops, so googling is the way to go. If a person has ideas they can get a cartoonist to collaborate with them which is what Harvey Pekar did. He had ideas but not the cartooning ability. I guess you've thought of training yourself by copying, developing stylistic bits that you like and putting them into your characters. I saw a little book that played on the stick man theme because the guy had ideas but could only draw stick men. It worked. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You could practice by yourself, attempting to draw the human body in motion in various poses. try buying a small mannequin withadjustable joints and just sketch its body shape accurately and try to add features. The human body is really complex and difficult to make look realistic, so it'll improve your ability endlessly. Try and give your drawings character, or even better attempt to create characters, like a storyboard or something. I've no idea how to do cartoons in flash but I'd imagine you'd still need to be able to draw pretty well, depending on what style you're doing. Practice is the best way to get good, and I find that when you sketch out a character, the ideas normally turn up pretty quickly. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

JeffreyLotusSan

Mister San was born on October 4th, 1993 and has made many accomplishments. He has been through many struggles in life, and yet is living it to the fullest. He is loved by the most awesomest people on earth, like Tho Nguyen.

Jeffrey San became the queen of [name here] kingdom, ruled by his one and only king, Tho Nguyen. Misz Nguyen has hired a noble servant who has been there for both her& her queen through many troubles. Vuong Tran, would be this handsome [gag] gentleman's name.

Vuong Tran, was born February 3rd, 1993 and is currently still walking. He likes to be himself& day dream about [fill it in]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misz thoquin (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this some sort of wiki Mad Libs? Dismas|^(talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Specialized Prison Cells

I remember seeing pictures, several years ago, of a private and highly secure room that was to hold a very high-profile criminal for his life-time sentence. My memory seems to suggest that it was built in Britain for an Islamic terrorist, but this could be false. I also feel like I saw it on the http://news.bbc.co.uk website, but this could also be wrong. I've tried searching that site, along with general google searches, but I can't seem to turn anything up. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a very strange idea. Does anyone remember ever hearing about a special prison room, designed with one criminal in mind? It's one of those things that has been pinging around the back of my head for a long time, and I'd love to have it cleared up. Thanks in advance for anything you think up! -Vannav (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

General Noriega#Trial? --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Vannav, forgive me, I skipped your question earlier because I assumed it was a matter of no interest to me. But on further reflection, and now having read the detail of your submission, I wonder if you have Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the convicted Libyan terrorist, in mind? I believe he has a specially designed cell in some Scottish prison. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Loveable characters from literature

What male characters or heroes of literature would you fall in love with? Keria (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If I´d be a girl most likely with Jean Valjean, Javert or Colonel Brandon (that is if he´s like Allan Rickman in the movie).--Tresckow (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Heathcliff! I hated you; I loved you.[2]. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All the chicks dig Mike Hammer. ;-) —Kevin Myers 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, some of us are handicapped in this! But judging by the women I can't resist, I'll say Lord Peter Wimsey. Xn4 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not limit it to males here! Wrad (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I were a chick or gay, I'd probably go for Lazarus Long. Since I'm not a chick or gay, I'd go for pretty much any Heinlein heroine especially Laz Long's twin "daughters", Lapis Lazuli and Lorelei Lee. "'What would you do if you had a million dollars?', 'Two chicks at the same time'" - Not Heinlein but it gets the point across... Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Common ones I hear are Mr Darcy (handsome and smouldering) and Mr Knightley (sensible, good-natured and handsome) from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Emma, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights (why? I have no idea, whatsoever), Jean Valjean (older, honourable, gentlemanly), Marius (sensitive, romantic) and Enjolras (strong, leader type) from Les Miserables. Steewi (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional - I'd be interested to know JackofOz's opinion here. Steewi (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Steewi, thanks for the interest in my opinions, but this is actually quite a tough call for me. I've been so immersed in non-fiction reading for so long that fictional characters do not readily suggest themselves to me. I'll have a memory search and get back to you. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I realise - probably for the very first time, actually - that as I matured to the point where I was able to fall in love with anyone, I unconsciously decided that fictional characters, interesting as they can be, are just not available to fall in love with in a real sense, and so I switched my attention to real people. Hence my interest in biography and non-fiction in general when it comes to reading. I can certainly fall in love with characters from movies, but I suspect that's strongly influenced by the actor/tress playing the part. For example, I love Alec from E.M. Forster's Maurice, but if an actor other than the delectable Rupert Graves had played the role in the movie, I suspect I couldn't give a fig for Alec. In my strange mind, the actor and the role are often merged into one. Maybe I need more boundaries in my life. Thanks for the opportunity to continue on my steady and unremitting path to self-actualisation. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I need to justify my dreams to you, Steewi, but I see in Heathcliff all of the uncontrolled and elemental passions; dark, brooding and impossibly romantic. You are quite obviously male...or most awfully tame! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Wrad (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

True on both accounts, Clio, but you assume that my maleness would completely remove my opinion... Steewi (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I? How clever of me! I have to say, though, that my assumption appears to have been based on a false premise, does it not?! Anyway, I rather thought I was directing my remarks at your professed ignorance over the possible attractions of Heathcliff. You now do have an idea what these might be. You may not like the idea, but you have it, notwithstanding. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit of an odd question for a predominantly male website. I'll have to say anyone but Lovecraft's Cthulhu. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions assumptions. I have yet to see an unflawed study or survey that indicated the editors of Wikipedia in general, or even of the reference desk, were significantly predominantly male. Of course, I may be experiencing a slight True Scotsman here :). To the question, I'd have to agree with Mr Darcy. Heathcliff I found deeply irritating and unpleasant, but then I felt that way about the whole book. If we're stretching the 'literature' label, possibly The Stainless Steel Rat or Lupin from the Harry Potter series. Oh Lupin, how glad I am never to have watched the movie version of you. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I can include pop-culture literature, there's replicant Roy Batty; (segueing to the movie: especially his monologue at the end summarising his short, harsh life). He was weird, but admire-able. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to go with Rhett Butler. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Scarlet Pimpernel, perhaps? · AndonicO ^Engage. 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an old Salon thread [3]] that kept coming back around to vacillate between Darcy and Jamie from Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series. Catrionak (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Carton. --LarryMac | Talk 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. John Dolittle [4]!--Eriastrum (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

¡Wow! I don't know any of these characters. Thank you very much. Keria (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly I have strange tastes in men (read Byronic and/or tragic and/or Anti-Hero), but Mr. Rochester, Mr. Thornton, Edmond Dantes/Count of Monte Cristo, Eugene Onegin, Roland Deschain, Dexter Morgan, Richard Rahl, and Rand al'Thor are some of my favorites. (If we were to delve out of literature, I'd mention The Doctor, Dream, Batman, and The Punisher among others....) My roommate recommends Horatio Hornblower, and seconds the Scarlett Pimpernel. Zidel333 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, John Carter of Mars? Tarzan (the one in the books, not the movies - he was, after all, a British lord). Corvus cornix_talk 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts came to mind when I read this enjoyable thread. Clio, you surprise me. If you like dark and brooding, why not Mr Rochester? At least he has intelligence and wit. Heathcliff, well, if you aren't disgusted by his wife-beating, violence, necrophilia, adulterous and incestuous obsessions, ill-natured manipulation of others, brow-beating and temper tantrums, you'd still be bored by him within a week. Hardly a mind to excite anyone (I tried to imagine him contributing to the Ref desk; Mr Rochester would be amusing and insightful; Heathcliff could bring WP to its knees).

Xn4: you're in good company. Dorothy L. Sayers fell in love with Lord Peter as well.

JackofOz: I recommend falling in love with fictional characters. Existing entirely in the imagination, you can conjure and manipulate them at will, and create a hybrid!

I take all your recommendations very seriously, Gwinva, naturally, but I can't promise to do this. I don't wake up in the morning and say to myself "Hmm, what will I do today? I know, I think I'll find someone to fall in love with". It comes upon us, usually when we least expect it - and sometimes when we least want it. That's my experience. Anyway, while I love all humanity, I'm only ever in love with one person at a time, and I'm fully spoken for at the moment, and intend to stay that way forever. Sorry, but I'm just not made to fall in love with people I can't actually touch. The best I can do with fictional characters is to admire them. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking more generally, I have noticed the standard interest in Darcy. Yet, how many are like Elizabeth, and date their affection to seeing Pemberley for the first time? If Darcy were poor, would he be as interesting? For loveable Austen heroes, Henry Tilney is unfairly overlooked by most: he is amusing, intelligent, kind, loyal, steady, accepting, although probably not exciting. I suspect there is a difference between those women want to marry and settle down with – the Darcys, Tilneys and Lord Peters – (see following question) and those they want a love affair with. Hornblower, the Doctor, Sharpe (and so forth) are exciting, but would make poor husbands. The Byronic types may be romantic, but they offer little but misery long term.

On a related topic, I've heard Elizabeth Bennett described as "the most shaggable Austen heroine". Gwinva (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Rochester is tiresome and altogether too bourgeoisie for my taste!. Alas, nobody-apart from me, that is-seems to understand the elemental force that is Heathcliff. Cathy is his anchor; without her he is lost, blowing through the novel with all the unrestrained energy of a great tempest. Their's is a mutual passion, with echoes of an ancient tragedy, that goes well beyond the cosy domesticity that Jane brings to Rochester. Charlotte did not understand the force of Emily's great novel, a work of unsurpassed genius, going far beyond anything she ever achieved; going well beyond the limits of the Victorian imagination itself. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Clio, about Emily Bronte's genius: her writing is extraordinary. It drags one into a dark and claustrophobic world, and portrays the depths of wild tempestuous passion. But it's not a world I'm tempted to stay in; it is a relief to emerge from it. Gwinva (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We buried him, to the scandal of the whole neighbourhood, as he wished. Earnshaw and I, the sexton, and six men to carry the coffin, comprehended the whole attendance. The six men departed when they had let it down into the grave: we stayed to see it covered. Hareton, with a streaming face, dug green sods, and laid them over the brown mould himself: at present it is as smooth and verdant as its companion mounds - and I hope its tenant sleeps as soundly. But the country folks, if you ask them, would swear on the Bible that he WALKS: there are those who speak to having met him near the church, and on the moor, and even within this house. Idle tales, you'll say, and so say I. Yet that old man by the kitchen fire affirms he has seen two on 'em looking out of his chamber window on every rainy night since his death:- and an odd thing happened to me about a month ago. I was going to the Grange one evening - a dark evening, threatening thunder - and, just at the turn of the Heights, I encountered a little boy with a sheep and two lambs before him; he was crying terribly; and I supposed the lambs were skittish, and would not be guided.

'What is the matter, my little man?' I asked.

'There's Heathcliff and a woman yonder, under t' nab,' he blubbered, 'un' I darnut pass 'em.

For me Heathcliff and Cathy will walk those moors, hand-in-hand, forever. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, your comments regarding Heathcliff seem to border on hyperbole. As for Charlotte’s tale, Mr. Rochester and Jane have a smoldering passion throughout nearly the entire novel; but it was due to morality and Victorian modesty that they could not simply just out and express their love as melodramatically as Emily’s character’s did. Also, Jane gives Mr. Rochester far more than plain domesticity as you put it, she gives him true love, a happy and mutual beneficial marriage among equals, children, and above all else the hope and desire to repent his sins to save his soul. These are all things that are not shared by Heathcliff’s and Cathy’s story. And lest we not forget, Mr. Rochester was so desperate to join his true love Jane he was on the brink of suicide, an act of terrible finality that not even Heathcliff acted upon. While readers may poo poo the “happy ending” of Jane Eyre in comparison to the more brutal tragic love affair between Heathcliff and Cathy; but this response is too simple an answer as both Jane and Mr. Rochester have had to suffer by the Hand of God, both bodily and emotionally, before they could be reunited. Their pain makes the ending that much more satisfactory. Zidel333 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply love drama and hyperbole, Zidel! Yes, Jane Eyre is a nice Victorian morality tale, with a comfortable and acceptable ending; a kind of secular Pilgrim's Progress. Wuthering Heights is altogether greater, a story of love that transcends the mundane. To imagine Cathy and Heathcliff in cosy domesticity, like Jane and Rochester, is to imagine the impossible. Emily's great novel was misunderstood by Charlotte and most contemporary opinion. It touched on aspects of love and tragedy that they simply could not comprehend. Heathcliff is part of my romantic vision. Thus it is, and thus it remains. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but the realist Jane, refusing to accept a relationship with the one she loves until she can be sure they will be on an equal footing. It's not really a morality tale, more a story of power and love. It's not so much the immorality of bigamy that stops her sticking with him, more the uncertainty of the position she would find herself in. She knows he's liable to stray and that, without a legal marriage, she will have no recourse if he loses interest in her as he has done in others before. I'm not so keen on Rochester myself, but the book is certainly not cosy. (As to the comfort of the ending, I recommend reading The Eyre Affair) Darcy though; smart, funny, sensible, charitable, actually thinks about things and caught off guard by his love! 130.88.140.121 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a morality tale alright, a progress through trial and tribulation to the calm waters of matrimony. It's all there; the Slough of Despond, Hill Difficulty, the Valley of Humiliation, Vanity Fair, even Giant Despair himself. Resolution comes as Jane and Rochester enter through the gates of matrimony, their own celestial paradise. The book may not be cosy; the end certainly is, which is precisely the point I am making. It is for this, and other reasons, that I consider Jane Eyre, for all its worth, a lesser achievement than Wuthering Heights.

Honestly, I’m not sure why I've been drawn so far into this. I admire all of the Brontë books, though Wuthering Heights has a special place for me as one of the greatest, no, let me be more precise, the greatest English novel of the nineteenth century. I return to Keria's question. Yes, Heathcliff, mad, bad and dangerous to know, is my romantic ideal; the one figure in literature that Clio, in the shape of Cathy, could fall madly in love with! …he shall never know how I love him; and that, not because he's handsome, Nelly, but because he's more myself than I am. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Beauty hotclaws 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking a slightly elastic view of 'literature': Rhett Butler, Doctor Zhivago, and, from the pornographic section, Tarl Cabot (precis:all women secretly long to be enslaved and raped by muscle-men). --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 16

Woman and money

Do woman care more about the financial situation of their partner than men do? 217.168.0.112 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose they do. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it too. However, it is no surprise at all, since most men don't care at all about the financial situation of woman. Anyway, in our modern times woman are able to structure their life independently of men - what means that they earn their own money and don't have to think about the income of their partners if they don't want to. 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltnVinegar (talk • contribs)

Lots of men work to support their wife and children so that they will be in a good financial situation. In these situations, I'd say the "care" is mutual. (Always that problem with lumping the sexes in a group and making general statements!) Wrad (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's surely to do with men, all over the world, having the lion's share of the income. Most women understand poverty and dependency better than men do, though perhaps in the developed world this is at last becoming less true than in all past ages. Xn4 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course, I meant only the part of the world where I am. Woman in some countries have to fight against considerable social discrimination.SaltnVinegar (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they are more concerned about money, so much as security. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself! The second question I invariably ask a man is 'How much do you earn?' I am not prepared to reveal the first! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally asking private questions like this is just considered ill-breeding, specially direct questions. SaltnVinegar (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try not to be so literal-minded. Normally having a sense of humour is a sign of intelligence. Ha-ha! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my fault. SaltnVinegar (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? My grade school teachers seemed to think my sense of humor was a sign of me latter failing high school. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, primary school teachers-what can one expect?. No imagination, no insight and definitely no understanding of the finer minds! I can still hear those words echo down the years, "Young lady, your mother shall be told of your impertinence." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot let that description go entirely unchallenged, Clio. I know and have known some exceptional primary-school teachers, full of imagination and enthusiasm, and always appreciative of "finer minds". I am sorry you did not have that experience. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did, and still retain fond memories of one much-loved individual in particular. I did not really intend my remarks to be taken too seriously, though my quotation is an exact recollection! I was never the easiest of pupils, Bielle, I freely confess! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions as to Clio's first question:

'Did you know that I enjoy eating beaver sausages?' --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

'is that an original pristine copy of A Modest Proposal in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me and perhaps debate the works of Joyce over a nice chablis and a plate of trotters. Nanonic (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yummy! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Meat on Fridays

Is it a sin to eat meat on Fridays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In what religion? Wrad (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And what meat? SaltnVinegar (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think it's pretty clear we're talking about Roman Catholicism and animal flesh other than fish - as far as I know it's the only religion which restricts meat ingestion (vs complete fasting) on Fridays (if I'm wrong on this I'd love to hear more about the others which others seem to have in mind). With regard to this restriction, the Code of Canon Law revised in 1983 says this: "Canon 1251: Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday." However, most Episcopal Conferences (i.e., the local bishops) have determined that an act of penance other than abstinence from meat can substitute - so the answer to your question is that for Catholics, some form of penance on Fridays is required, that this form of penance can take the form of abstention from meat, and can take other forms based on the determination of the local bishops. - Nunh-huh 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Abstinence would include smoking tobacco and that other stuff. --Wetman (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are all kinds of abstinence, and the canon above is not discussing tobacco or "stuff". - Nunh-huh 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My Polish father-in-law tells me that the reason that the beaver became extinct in Poland was because it was classed by the Church in medieval times as a fish and so was eaten to extinction. Knowing the Poles, they probably made them into sausages. The Poles, in my experience at least, and just like everyone else, are not too keen on abstaining from other stuff. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Capybera too. APL (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What - do you eat them or have other stuff with them? --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the 1993 book Case Closed Gerald Posner interviewed Dr. Pepper Jenkins, a doctor who had treated John F. Kennedy in Dallas. Dr. Jenkins told Posner the doctors were stuck with fish lunches as the Catholic church had given JFK permission to eat meat on Nov 22. Neither man went into detail as to why this permission was obtained or why the event mattered. If you have access to a good bookstore or library, the story is on p. 286 in the first paragraph.- Thanks, Hoshie 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The fasting rules are different if you're ill, very young, elderly, a manual labourer, pregnant, etc. So all these things are subject to variation. Skittle (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition of 'fish' in the Middle Ages was highly elastic, including not just beaver but such culinary delights as whale, porpoise and barnacle geese, yes, geese! Medieval cuisine has some information on this. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of a church can't tell an otter or a rodent from fish? (Rhetorical question/not starting a debate here.) Julia Rossi (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (I just noticed the title of the next question. That's that, then.)

Musk rat is a traditional "fish" still sometimes served during Lent here in the Detroit area. Never had it myself but I am sure it "tastes like chicken". Rmhermen (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the theory that if it's under the water, it must be a fish. It rather puts me in mind of learned disquisition in Monty Python and the Holy Grail on determining who's a witch and who's a duck. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that these rules were never supposed to be anything to do with scientific taxonomy, just abstainance and fasting. After all, we'll happily talk about eating our vegetables when they include tomatoes, cucumber, etc, and about eating fruit when not all of it contains seeds. That these definitions do not match scientific definitions doesn't matter, because they are not intended to. They are culinary. They no more thought the otter was a fish than you think the tomato is not a fruit, and yet I don't see you putting it in a fruit salad :) Or you can just continue to think 'stupid people, I'm so smart...' 130.88.140.116 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Practitioners of Magic

I was writing a paper for school about the history of magic and it's various beliefs up until the modern times. Although the paper is completed, I still haven't been able to find why there are so many titles for a practitioner of magic (Witch, Wizard, Sorcerer, Magician, Shaman, etch). I've search the web quite thoroughly (for more than a week now) and was still unable to come up with any information pertaining to the historical significants, only the basic definitions. So my question is: why are there so many titles and what is the difference between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.124.231 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Take different languages and different cultural beliefs and you get the word list; add demonising by the powers of the time, and you get negative or positive reputations/meanings. Maybe you've been there already, but I've made links to our articles of the terms in your question that you might like to click through. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you included Miracle, or is yours a parochial school? --Wetman (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You might find answers by consulting a very good ictionary, such as a complete version of the Oxford English Dictionary, which will provide the etymology of the word (i.e. where it came from; from which language, when). e.g

• Witch - from old English Wicca, dating from c890 AD
• Wizard - from Middle English wysar, connoting wise, 1440
• Sorcerer - from Old French sorcier - one who sorts, from the 1300s
• Magician - Middle French magicien 1370-80, and/or from magix, which goes back through the French to Latin and Greek
• Shaman - I'll just quote - a. G. schamane, Russian sha{sm}man, a. Tungusian samân (Castren Tung. Sprachl.). Cf. F. chaman. 1698.

So, as stated above, different language origins, and different original meanings. You could make an interesting enough table ot such terms, showing date from, language of root word, definition, &c, but, as I say, only with access to a complete enough dictionary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman's suggestion should more properly have been "miracle worker". Others include witch doctor, warlock, mystic, mage, magus, voodoo, conjuror, invocator, enchanter, thaumaturge, lamia, sortileger, kahuna, etc. Quite a long list indeed. Rmhermen (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Check Witch (etymology) as well. Wrad (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

homestead exemption

my grandfather wants to put two more homes on his 5 acres but i will be living in one and my uncle in the other we will pay all bills our selves so basically 3 homes on 5 acres. My question is does this cause him to l0se his exemption and is that even allowed or do we have to sepperate the land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.210.152 (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume this has something to do with a Homestead exemption in the US? Does that article help? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It may require a change in zoning to establish a subdivision. Where my parents live 5 acres is the minimum for a house on a rural-zoned lot. Smaller than that requires setting up a subdivision and petitioning the zoning board for a variance (and publishing a notice in the newspaper, etc.) Rmhermen (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous quotes

Who said 'In victory we must prepare for defeat' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrie buck (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the firewalking Anthony Robbins that's for sure. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

King Pyrrus? This is not, I think, an observation anyone would wish to be remembered for! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds vaguely like Lincoln or Churchill to me. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

english boarding schools for girls

did any of you english chicks here go to boarding school and was it anything like st trinains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo McGoogle III (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no. But "anything like St Trinians" is awfully vague you know. If you are really interested, take a look at boarding school and list of boarding schools. Those in the UK all have jolly good websites. By the way, I am now a hen.--Mrs Wibble-Wobble (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hugo, dear, I am neither a 'chick' nor a 'hen', but I did attend a very good boarding school in England. I rather suspect that you have this St Trinian’s rather than that St Trinian’s in mind. Was my school anything like the movie? No, it was far worse! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio knows more than most of us about the peregrinations of the Wycombe Abbey girls to London, Oxford, and all points east and west, and what they get up to there. When I was an innocent young fresher, they were said to be very advanced... goodness knows how shocked we should be if we knew the whole truth now. Xn4 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the stories one could tell, Xn4! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lohr and the Greek Resistance

I was looking for information on the German response to the growth of the Greek Resistance movement in World War 2, specifically the response of Alexander Lohr, the Commander of the South East area, but there is not much, either in his biography page or the more general articles on the Axis in Greece and the Greek resistance. How, then, did Lohr react, and what were the consequences? How did the resistance war change German attitudes towards the Greeks? Thank you for giving this your time. Vasilis Tsironikis (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Löhr, commander of Army Group E from 1943 onwards, was in many ways quite a tragic figure. A soldier of the old school, and Russian Orthodox by birth, he was far from being a committed Nazi. He had in fact, served in the army of the Habsburg Empire during the First World War, as did many of his senior officers, and thus brought to his command many of the old imperial prejudices many older Austrians felt towards the Balkan peoples. Though tied by the stupid and ultimately self-defeating counter-terrorism guidelines issued to the German Army, he implemented them without a great deal of latitude or imagination. His task in Greece, Vasilis, was to eliminate the andartes, and that is what he attempted to do with all thoroughness. I suppose it did not help matters much that most of his troops, Wehrmacht and SS, had been brutalised by service on the Eastern Front. Indeed, one formation, the 117 Jaeger Division, was specifically told that eine gewisse Brutalität ( a certain brutality) was absolutely necessary. The usual measures were adopted against the insurgents, including hostage-taking, wholesale executions and casual atrocities. The consequences of this were exactly the same as elsewhere in Europe; the resistance movement grew steadily in both strength and confidence.

On your wider question, the guerilla war changed the preconceptions with which the Germans had first arrived in Greece. Philhellenism gave way to notions of the wild 'Balkan fanatic', with the Greeks being seen as little different from the Serbs. As a consequence the Greeks slipped steadily down the racial ladder in the Nazi scheme of things, with the connection between the ancient peoples and 'this land of neo-Greeks' being openly doubted. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The deaf in the ancient world

How were the deaf perceived in the ancient world? Your page on the History of the deaf is no help at all because it's only about sign language.217.43.9.32 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[5] [6] I found these quite a good source on the subject (You need Powerpoint for the second). PeterSymonds | talk 09:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The general assessment was not terribly positive, with most doubtless sharing the sentiments expressed by Aristotle in De Sensu-"Language is the cause of the education which we receive...blind people are more intelligent than deaf and mute." St Augustine of Hippo was later to add to this assessment by saying that "This impairment prevents faith...a man born deaf is incapable of learning to read which would lead him to the faith." For St Paul to be deaf meant to be stupid. It was partly owing to these attitudes that deaf people were not allowed to own property under Roman law.

But there were exceptions to this common prejudice. Ferdinand Berthier, founder of the first social organisation for the deaf, pointed out that among both the ancient Egyptians and Persians deafness was regarded as a sign of the favour of heaven. In Plato's Cratylus Socrates says that "If we had neither voice nor tongue, and yet wished to manifest things to one another, should we not, like those who are present mute, endeavour to signify our meanings by our hands." So, not stupid after all. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You might wish to contact the department of government and history at Gallaudet University, the world's only university for deaf people. Contact details on the website. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hell is an empty desk

Can anyone please tell me who said this first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardieparrot (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly know who said anything first? It's not as though it's a profound insight or anything.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you said it first, at least according to Google. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was meant in the context that we go around always complaining about how much we've got to do and how little time....., and that we actually like this status quo. The most hellish scenario would be having nothing to do=an empty desk. So slightly profound, imo! I just don't know and just can't find out any more, who said it.

Sorry, I cannot find it either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor me. Sartre may be the early starter of Hell is... sayings, though. Can be found in No Exit. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off-kilter here; could it be a reference back to Dante's Inferno? In one of the circles of Hell I believe that there is a group of people doomed to labour without ever receiving any praise or condemnation, or any feedback at all; just unceasing labour, accepted ungratefully. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Smersh

In a James Bond book, "Live and let die", an organisation is mentioned who name sounds foreign, an I think is something to do with communism. The name rhymes with sm-er-sh, pronounced according to the general trends of British English enunciation. What is the name of the organisation? --145.29.23.38 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

SMERSH (James Bond) :D Wikipedia has an article on everything. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have read that article, 145.29, you will now know that SMERSH-Death to Spies-was a real organisation, once headed by the notorious Viktor Abakumov. It only had a short three-year existence, from 1943 to 1946, though it clearly left an abiding impression on the mind of Ian Fleming. Anyone who comes away from a reading of From Russia with Love without pleasant and cosy feelings towards General Franco's Fascists clearly has not understood the latent message! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Page on Norwest Venture Partners

Hi Dear Wiki Volunteers: I have found very good material on several VC firms on the Wikipedia. May I request that a page on Norwest Venture Partners be done as well ? If this is not the right forum, or not an appropriate request, please discard the question :). Thanks for all your efforts, Regards, Anil 59.163.46.162 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You can request that at Wikipedia:Requested articles, --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Schlecht und Reu

I was in a choir many years ago that sung, among other things, a German song that I think was called 'Schlecht und Reu' or at least featured that phrase prominently, and translated as 'Woe and Rue'. It may have been part of a greater work. I'm unable to find anything via Google and thus throw it to the Humanities wolves. Ring any bells for anyone? After managing to identify a coin as a Pakistani Rupee yesterday using Wikipedia (in an epic but inspired search full of mini ironies that almost make me want to write a short story) I had hoped I could do the same with this, but have failed. The tune was along the lines of:

Schle-	echt	und	Reu-	eu
C	B	A	A	G#
minim	crochet	crochet	crochet (leant on)	crochet

Obviously I don't know the key, this is just the intervals (I hope). Thanks for any help. Skittle (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's "Buß und Reu" from Bach's St Matthew Passion. (schlecht is an adjective meaning bad. Buß' (or Buße) means penitence in this context) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I wonder where I got 'Schlecht' from? That fits perfectly, as we did the St Matthew Passion with that choir. Thanks so much. To iTunes, ho! Skittle (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking on Youtube, to confirm, while it's familiar it doesn't contain the musical phrase I'm thinking of. Various things online suggest this movement involves the chorus as well, although the excerpts I find on Youtube do not, and these could potentially contain something closer to the phrase I recall. (I'm realistic enough to assume it won't match perfectly, as I have a tendency to 'clean' gaps in music I half-remember) Could you shed any light on this? Skittle (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while I'm still interesting in knowing if the chorus is involved in this movement, I think I've found the bit I probably 'cleaned' :) Skittle (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti Human Trafficking/Anti Slavery Groups in S. America

Does anyone know of any South American anti human-trafficking/anti slavery groups I could contact to potentially work at/volunteer this summer? I have been searching extensively and am coming up empty-handed. --Yoyoceramic (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked the UN GIFT partner list? Or the International Organization for Migration? Also, the Coalition Against Trafficking of Women works in Mexico. And GAATW has member groups in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Suriname and the Caribbean – click the link for the contact email address. Good for you, I hope you find what you are looking for. WikiJedits (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Caesar's gold

Did Caesar in any way attempt to use the profits he had gained from the war in Gaul to influence political opinion in Rome in his favour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.162.148 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Duh-Yes. Check out Suetonius for some good information about Caesar (Gaius Julius Caesar) and his lavish spending to improve his standing in the public opinion of Romans. Also see Michael Grant's book "The History Of Rome". Plundering provinces & then bribing people at home to get gain were common practices in the Roman world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He used the money, 86.153, to buy friends among the city magistrates. When the question of depriving Caesar of his command was raised in March 50BC by Marcellus, his political enemy, he was not supported by his colleagues. Caesar's position was made even more secure by the intervention of Curio the Younger, the Tribune, who argued that, for the sake of fairness, and for safety of the Republic, consideration would also have to be given to Pompey's command in Spain. There was, of course, no legal basis for this, because Pompey's office had been renewed in 52BC and still had several years to run. But it served as an effective reminder just how much power he had accumulated. It placed Caesar on the same level as Pompey, a more senior figure, linking their fates in the Roman mind. It also served as a subtle reminder to Pompey that it was in his best interests to preserve his alliance with Caesar. The whole tactic was highly effective. Caesar's enemies were neutralised for some time, with Curio continuing to black any moves against him in the Senate. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

diplomatic immunity

does diplomatic immunity violates the rights of a person? is diplomatic immunity an injustice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.29 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific, keeping in mind that we do not offer legal advice. Diplomatic immunity is practically a necessity, to prevent one nation using another's diplomats as effective hostages by arresting them for some (possibly imagined) violation of local law. -- Kesh (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you are speaking philosphically, 192.30, it might well be considered unjust where a diplomat does commit a crime, sometimes even a serious one (murder, rape) in another country, and appears to be merely sent home as persona non grata. What recourse does a victim have? None really, and that may not be just. Some countries will enact their own punishment and others have, though I can't immediately find an example, permitted the host nation to try their national under the host's laws. Kesh is right, however; there would be too much potential for abuse if such immunity were not permitted. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has a section on abuses and I like: In fiction and reality[7] followed by a nice table on US conditions as they apply. Then there's International law information, best prepped by getting the Straightdope[8]. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

List of magna opera (magnum opusses)

magnum opus does not have list of magna opera, with authors and their works, e.g.

• Darwin - The Origin of Species
• God - The Bible
• Marx - Das Kapital
• etc

why not? I am not a dog (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would guess either because it's such a subjective topic, or because the purpose of the article is to descripe the topic, not to provide such a list. One option, of course, is to add or at least start such a list by yourself and see what happens. Or there could well be a list of important books somewhere else around. Actually, I know there is, I read it a few days ago, I just forget what the article was called. 172.188.37.102 (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

172.188... perhaps you were thinking of Western canon which links to the main canons: Harvard Classics, Great Books of the Western World. I'm a personal fan of Harold Bloom's Western Canon but, as you say, it is all subjective and down to individual's or groups of individual's choices. Melvyn Bragg's book Twelve Books That Changed the World is also worth a read on this issue. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Americans get Harold Bloom and we get the pommaded boulevardier and pretend intellectual Barg. Just look at his embarrassingly parochial and politically correct list: all English, bar one Scot; all male, bar one woman. 'The Rules of Association Football'? God give me strength! Bad luck Americans, Ancient Greeks, and Romans! Hard cheese, Orientals and Europeans! When the history of the debasement of British public and intellectual life comes to be written, Barg will stand for everything that's cheap and tawdry; a fitting codicil to the Blair years.

PS: There used to be an old WP policy, now more-or-less abandoned, of not having lists. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, now 'politically correct' covers things that are mostly lists of English men? Surely that's politically incorrect? Skittle (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly no lists within articles anyway. The other seems to be a category. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche and learning to love

I'm working my way through Nietzsche's "The Gay Science" (no jokes, please) and there is a passage-one among many I have to confess-that I do not fully understand. It begins with "One must learn to love" and touches on music before proceeding to a more general assessment of the nature of love. It concludes "Love, too, has to be learned". What does he mean exactly? Please, I'm not looking for speculations but some insight as to how this statement fits more generally into his thinking. Thanks. Mark of Cornwall (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For those of you with a copy to hand the reference of this section is Book Four (Santus Januarius), part 334. (I have the Vintage edition translated by Kaufmann). Nietzsche is here comparing love to music - first it must be recognised as an original entity, then it must be tolerated and its 'oddity' accepted and only then are we used to it, almost dependent on it. It's a beautiful passage, only when we recognise love and its strangeness does it transform into something beautiful and endearing. Love, for Nietzsche, is a process of learning which must be worked at to be rewarded. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is beautiful. It is also part of his general critique of knowledge, a tribute to the great Spinoza, who said that the act of knowing is an act of laughing, an act of mourning and an act of cursing. Nietzsche took this one stage further, saying that the act of knowing was an act of love. Love here has to be understood in a transcendent sense, a seeking after the unknown, the true Science of Joy, with knowledge itself as desire. It's Zarathustra's ecstasy in the bedding of the night. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

nina gladnitz

biographical information please. specifically if it is possible to view her film Zeit des Schweigens und der Dunkelheit (Time of Silence and Darkness)? is there any transcripts of the court case when Leni Riefenstahl attempted stopping Gladnitz' film from being shown because of Gladnitz' accusations in the film regarding Leni Riefenstahl's disregard for gypsy extras used in her film Tiefland. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.33.57 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nina Gladitz (no "n") is mentioned in our article Tiefland:

"In 1982 Nina Gladitz produced a documentary Zeit des Schweigens und der Dunkelheit (Time of Darkness and Silence) and examined the use of these Sinti in the making of Tiefland. Riefenstahl sued Gladitz subsequently for defamation and while it was shown that she visited camps and selected Sinti for extras, Gladitz’ claim that Riefenstahl knew that they would be sent to Auschwitz had to be stricken from the documentary. Gladitz, however, refused to do so, and thus her film has not been shown anymore.

"The issue surfaced again in 2002, when Riefenstahl was one hundred years old. She was taken to court by a Roma group for denial of the extermination of the gypsies. But because of her age and illness the trial did not proceed."

I doubt there would be any court or trial documents related to the second attempt as it would appear that there was no trial. A German speaker might be more successful googling for the various names. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

George Eliot

How do you account for the downs and ups in George Eliot's posthemus reputation?Val El Rie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Eliot's reputation declined after her death mainly due to the publication of her biography written by her husband in 1885. This autobiography, inelegantly written, portrayed her as a humourless and boring woman (he omitted much, including her relationship with John Chapman). As a result Eliot's books became little read. Leslie Stephen helped improve her literary standing in his article for the Dictionary of National Biography. His daughter, Virginia Woolf, agreed with him and wrote an article for the Times Literary Supplement where she remarked that Middlemarch was remarkable in that it was 'written for grown-up people' unlike, in Woolf's opinion, most Victorian literature! In 1948 F. R. Leavis praised Eliot's writings, which sparked an interest which continues today. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, Lord Foppington, if there are not other considerations here, going beyond Cross's tiresome biography? George Eliot's fiction might be said to be the high water of a certain kind of Victorian sensibility. At the time of her death things were moving on, the rot setting-in, so to speak, with new ways of seeing. The certain world of Adam Bede, Daniel Deronda and Middlemarch was giving way to that of Thomas Hardy and Oscar Wilde, pointing ever beyond, to the worlds of D H Lawrence and Virginia Woolf. It's true that Leavis rescued her from complete neglect, but only as a new occupant of an entirely bogus Pantheon. It's really not until the 1970s that people began to see her with fresh eyes, as part of a vital, and living, tradition. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

British Embassy in Israel

Why is the embassy in Tel Aviv, rather than the capital, Jerusalem? It's bizarre - aren't embassies always in the capital/seat of government? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

When Israel was established in 1948, its territory did not then include Jerusalem (see the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine). After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War established the de facto Israeli control of Jerusalem, most countries opted to retain embassies in Tel Aviv in deference to the territorial dispute. — Lomn 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Israel within the 1949 armistice boundaries did in fact include West Jerusalem, where the Knesset and most Israeli government ministries (other than the defense ministry) are located.... AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article on East Jerusalem details more of the area's controversy. — Lomn 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Embassies are not always in a country's capital. Our article on Tel Aviv#After Israeli independence states: 'Because of the international dispute over the status of Jerusalem, most foreign embassies stayed in or near Tel Aviv. In the early 1980s, 13 more returned there as part of the UN's punitive measures responding to Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law. Today, all but two of the international embassies to Israel are in Tel Aviv or the surrounding district.' and this site: [9] confirms this. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Including the U.S. embassy, for that matter. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An explanation on the British position is at [10]. It basically does not recognise that Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not all embassies are located in a nations' capital, for instance, nations like Bolivia and the Netherlands have more than one capitals. On the other hand, I would suggest that the reason diplomats chose to focus themselves out of Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem is because, objectively, the former is many, many times nicer. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are all kinds of oddities in the world of diplomacy, and one of them is the situation regarding Israel's capital. Arab countries flip out whenever Jerusalem is mentioned as Israel's capital, even though Israel's possession of West Jerusalem is not seriously disputed. While it's true that West Jerusalem was not part of the proposed Jewish state approved by the UN in 1947, neither was Jaffa, which is now an undisputed part of Tel-Aviv! Secondly, even if one refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, there is no reason to recognize Tel-Aviv, which has no more of a claim to being Israel's capital than does Haifa, Beer-Sheba or Lod. In some parts of the world, maps of the Middle East still show Tel-Aviv as Israel's capital, which makes no sense -- if you're not going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city, you might as well not recognize any city at all. Might as well put the embassy in Eilat and spend your days on the beach. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What you mean is, it makes no logical sense. But international diplomacy rarely has anything to do with making logical sense; it's all about forging mutually acceptable compromises.

For another "nonsensical" example, go to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/countrylisting.html. Scroll down to the bottom of the page. Now, what is Taiwan doing down in that separate section underneath Zambia and Zimbabwe? Why isn't it up in the T's instead, as would make sense? Is this some kind of editing error? No, it is not some kind of editing error. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not always the capital. The capital of the UK is generally given as london, but I'm quite sure there aren't many embassies there, most of them seem to be in or around westminster.HS7 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm.. Westminster is IN London.Snorgle (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratification and signing of treaties

After reading several protocols in the European Convention on Human Rights, I was wondering about the difference between signing and ratification (e.g. Russia signed the total abolition of the death penalty, but did not ratify it). Apologies if this has already been covered! Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

When a country is said to have signed a treaty, this means that its negotiators, perhaps with the approval of its head of government, have agreed to a version of the treaty. However, this initial agreement may not be binding until or unless the country ratifies the treaty. Typically, ratification involves approval by a given country's parliament or other legislative body according to that country's constitution. Marco polo (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, that clarifies things a fair bit! :) Thank you, CycloneNimrod (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, with Council of Europe conventions it does happen that a member state signs such an instrument but twenty years later hasn't ratified it, so isn't a party to it. Xn4 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To add to Marco Polo's answer, treaty making, culminating in Ratification, the act by which a state proclaims its intent to be legally bound by the treaty is or can be a three stage process, especially in a non-parliamentary democracy, e.g. the USA. For treaty to become US law, (1) the US president signs a treaty, (2) then the Senate votes on it - this is advice and consent, not ratification, although it is frequently called ratification, and then (3) the president proclaims or ratifies the treaty. It can and has failed at any of these stages - the president in #3 can be different from the one in #1.John Z (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Existentialism and Fascism

How did the French existentialists perceive fascism? F Hebert (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Camus didn't agree he was an existentialist, so perhaps this comes down largely to Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir and their followers. Beauvoir, as a feminist, saw very clearly the sexism in Fascism. Sartre was politically engaged as a Communist, both during the Second World War (he belonged to a Resistance group called 'Socialism and Freedom') and in the bitter aftermath of the war in France, and Fascism wasn't merely his great political enemy but also the enemy which made him an activist and the fighter he was. Alas, as a political figure Sartre was dangerous. He famously defended the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli athletes, claiming that for the oppressed poor there is no weapon but terrorism. Xn4 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sartre's understanding of politics was not just dangerous, it was dangerously incoherent! He simply could never make up his mind over which direction he wished to travel. I think he saw in politics a way of seeking confirmation of himself, a classic example of existential bad-faith! On Fascism itself we have the words that de Beauvoir gave to a resistance leader "...if Fascism were to triumph, that's just what would happen. There would be no more human beings..." In other words there can be no human beings in the total absence of freedom, understanding humanity as a fluid rather than a static concept. But this statement is just as valid in relation to Communism, not as it existed as a theory, in the minds of the likes of de Beauvoir and Sartre, but as a living practice. On Fascism there is also the observation in Existentialism is a Humanism that if the doctrine prevailed "Fascism will then be the human realty, so much the worse for us." It didn't seem to stop the master publishing in occupied France, though! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Penises and Presidents

Which president is documented as having the largest penis? Is the penis size of a president or any other head of state ever been documented?

See Dick Cheney. :-) . I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been any sort of formal chart of presidential penis sizes, as of now. Try looking it up on Google. Ilikefood (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your question reminds me of Feynman's parable of the Emperor of China's nose. -- BenRG (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a five foot eleven inch Dick in the White House from 1969 to 1974 [11]. Edison (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But surely all you American guys have huge penises?! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good one, Edison. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

James Madison looked like he had the biggest. But you had to stand him on the dresser and close one eye and peer at him from across the room through a toiletpaper roll...--Wetman (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio it's not necessarily about size but who has the biggest that is important. Richard Avery (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Richard, you've lost me. Is the difference between bigness and size some kind of male thing? Perhaps it's best if you don't answer that! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Stock Market

What is a good website for a person wanting to begin in the stock market? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Howstuffworks.com probably has an article on the stock market. Ilikefood (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The possibility that you end up in the wrong place with someone trying to sell you something bad is quite large. I would always, regardless of whether you want to buy any products from them, go to your current bank's office first. User:Krator (t c) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Morningstar was quite helpful to me when I began investing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are thinking of investing real money in the stock market, then I think that you should consider investing a few dollars/pounds in an introductory guide to stock investing that offers more information for the beginner than any website is likely to offer. I have been impressed by Stock Investing for Dummies, published by the For Dummies imprint, which should be available at nearly any bookstore, online or on the ground. It explains the basics and offers tips for avoiding beginners' errors. Marco polo (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just don't go to the bank that Ken Done is suing for (whoops) allegedly losing his millions through start-up speculation. Which bank? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you can learn from people. Investment clubs typically meet monthly, and may have active discussion boards as well. See for example Motley Fool. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

April 17

Does anybody know where i can get the piano sheet music for tubular bells???

I need to find this sheet music. I would prefer if i could just get it off a website for free. But i have looked on google and i can't find it anywhere.Please help me!!!Tubular Bells on piano. Thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryPie12 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably Tubular Bells, the album by Mike Oldfield, not Tubular bells, the musical instrument. Pfly (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever used Guitar Pro software? I'm a big fan. Many people use it to create sheet music transcriptions of all kinds of popular songs including the one you're looking for (I searched for the song on a Guitar Pro online community and found several versions). But you need the software first (also, don't be put off by the word "Guitar" in its title--the application can be used to score all sorts of instruments).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Statz

What is good site that has statistics on prices for key items (e.g. bread, cars, houses, milk, and gas [especially gas]) for past years? Thanks, schyler (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

world's wealthiest ethnicities?

Is there a breakdown of the wealth of the world's ethnicities/religions? Also, a correlation of their worldwide population percentage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.35.234 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it would not be possible to make a calculation. Most countries do not collect or publish data on the wealth of their citizens by ethnic group or religion.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading our article The Bell Curve which discusses the relationship between race and intelligence, and intelligence and financial success. However, be aware that many of the authors' conclusions are controversial. GreatManTheory (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only the conclusions are controversial, but also the assumptions and the sources. Mr.K. (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously that the white people are the oppressors of the other races. 194.99.216.135 (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

guam history perspectives ed by carter lee d

Dear Editors: How about including volume two (2005) of Guam History: Perspectives? Most of the citation info is the same -- title, editors, Univ of Guam as publisher. Date and number of pages are different. Please check it out and bring it in along with volume one from l997. Thank you. ,email address removed> 4-17-08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.243.221 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You could, I suppose, do this yourself, so long as the page references remain consistent. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sculptor sought

Does anyone know who the sculptor/medailleur of the medallion of Christabel Pankhurst displayed on the right side of the Pankhurst memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, London, right next to the Parliament Building in Westminster, was? It was not A.G. Walker! Walker did the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst, but he died in 1939 while the medallion was made 1958/59. See Image:Westminster emmeline pankhurst statue 1.jpg for the information I have already found. The medaillon itself is shown e.g. here and here. A possible source might be the Memorial Appeal Fund brochure from about 1958... Lupo 07:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some information about this memorial on page 513 of Elizabeth Crawford's The Women's Suffrage Movement: a reference guide 1866-1928 (1999). For instance, the plinth is by Sir Herbert Baker, Baldwin unveiled the memorial in 1930 using a purple, white and green flag, and it was moved into a more prominent position in 1955... but alas! no mention of the medallion. Xn4 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I already knew that ;-) See Image:Westminster emmeline pankhurst statue 1.jpg... the image description also has some links to mentions of the medaillon, but so far I have not found the medailleur. BTW, according to [12], the statue was moved in 1956. In November 1955, the House of Lords was still debating about the move: [13]. Lupo 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears just possible that the image is signed on the cut-off surface of the neck. Cursory image manipulation seems to show a lower case "a" there. I don't have enough time to search deeper though. SaundersW (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been there and have looked hard for any signature, but didn't see any. To me, the plaque looked unsigned, and I didn't see anything on the side of the memorial either. (On the left side, next to the plaque of the WSPU badge, there is some text explaining its significance, but again, that plaque is unsigned, too.) I did forget to check the backside of the half-rotunda, though... maybe a Londoner could go check again? (I'm no longer in London, and don't know when I'll be there again.) The memorial is at the park entrance right next to the Houses of Parliament. Lupo 07:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The plaque was unveiled on July 13 1959 by the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Kilmuir, according to a leaflet listed in the Kenney papers held by UEA. [14] SaundersW (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a letter from the memorial fund committee to the BMJ asking for support, and outlining the design, but sadly, no sculptor is mentioned. SaundersW (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope you're not disappointed, though: these links were mentioned at Image:Westminster emmeline pankhurst statue 1.jpg all along. ;-) The Kenney papers also list that Memorial Appeal Fund brochure, where I think the sculptor should be mentioned. Lupo 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact

Hi. Is there any evidence of Russian collaboration with German anti-Semitic measures during the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact?217.43.13.34 (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wannsee Conference, which is generally accepted as sealing the 'Final solution', took place in January 1942, whereas Operation Barbarossa had already taken place in June 1941. QED, there cannot have been liason with the Russians regarding death camps; Russian prisoners, too, were amongst the first guinea pigs in respect of both mass-gassing and cremation (see: Auschwitz I).

The time-frame that you are talking about is, therefore, between the German invasion of Poland (August 1939) and the subsequent invasion of Russia (June 1941). There was liason and co-ordination between Germans and Russians (see: Gestapo-NKVD Conferences) during this time, but it appears to have been aimed at wiping out any possible locus of opposition to either of the new overlords. When the Germans invaded Poland, they generally herded the Jews into ghettos and organised mass-arrests of those classes of individual - priests, trade unionists, political activists, professionals - around whom they thought opposition might form (Aushwitz actually began as a prison for these individuals); at this early stage of the war, the Jews were actually slightly better off. Only when Hitler attacked Russia were there ad hoc massacres such as at Bialystock.

At the risk of political incorrectness, it is worth pointing out that Communism was seen as very much a Jewish movement, and at this time Hitler did not want to antagonise Stalin or, to a lesser extent, Roosevelt.

The History of Poland#Occupation and dismemberment of Poland has more. You might, as an aside, be interested in the Jedwabne massacre. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this question a little bit more widely there is, indeed, evidence of degrees of Soviet complicity in German anti-Semitic actions during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Really it's not at all surprising when one takes into consideration the political history of the Soviet Union in the years leading up the accommodation with the Nazis.

Yes, the Nazi's were forever talking about 'Jewish Bolshevism' as they were about 'Jewish Capitalism', but most of what remained of the Jewish leadership of the CPSU had been eliminated during the Great Purge. Of course the execution of people like Grigory Zinoviev or Lev Kamenev was for reasons of politics, not of background or race. However, in 1939, following the sacking of Maxim Litvinov, the last major Jewish figure to hold office, the purge of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs acquired very strong anti-Semitic overtones. The NKVD even made preparations for a new show trial-the 'trial of the ambassadors'-in which all of the accused were Jewish, and where the charges included alleged contacts with 'Zionist circles'. Though this was never held there was to be a later echo of the actions taken at this time, which also included the wholesale removal of Jews from the state security apparatus, in the post-war Doctors' Plot.

So, given this background of hostility, the Soviets were drawn forms of collaboration, without any illusions over the consequences of their actions. After the outbreak of war in September thousands of German and Polish Jews attempted to cross the new Soviet-German border. Many were simply turned back, even when the Germans fired upon them in no-man's land. What is worse, German Jews, including some senior members of the KPD, who had taken refuge in Russia in the early 1930s, were rounded up and sent back to Germany.

In the Polish areas under their occupation the Soviets also adopted a specifically anti-Jewish policy. Jewish leaders were arrested and deported; Jewish organisations and youth movements were closed, as were most of the synagogues. Almost all aspects of Jewish religious and cultural life were under attack, including circumcision and bar mitzvahs. All Jewish holidays, including the Sabbath, were abolished. This persecution only ended in August 1941, after the German invasion. Stalin may not have shared the same kind of visceral anti-Semitism as Hitler; but he had all of the classic Russian prejudices against the Jews. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm going to argue against Clio again!

There was a very interesting article in The London Review of Books some 20 years ago, which has always stuck in my mind. It claimed that of the original 1917 Bolshevik government, 3/4 were Jewish, and then went on to argue that Communism/ Bolshevism arose as a Jewish political movement in Russia as a response to the pogroms organised from the 1840s onwards. These pogroms were themselves directed by the state in order to dissipate and divert discontent about the lack of political, social, and economic reform. It's worth pointing out that the Russian empire at this time included much of present-day Poland, so what became the Polish Jews had had experience of the Russian pogroms.

Since the time of that article, we have had Ian Kershaw's thesis that one should analyse Nazi-ism as though it were a religion and, if you wanted to be bold, you might take the opportunity to argue that Communism was, or at least began as, a Jewish sect. Certainly Hitler seems to have viewed Judaism and Communism as essentially indivisible, and there is considerable evidence that this was actually the case in Poland: Norman Davies in Rising '44. The Battle for Warsaw, for example, describes evidence of Jews putting out red banners to greet advancing Soviet troops as they invaded Poland; Jews being promoted to mayors in occupied villages; and, at the end of the war, being instrumental in both establishing the new Communist government and suppressing organised resistance. You should, however, be aware that the nature of Polish Christian and Polish Jewish relations during the war is a the subject of considerable dispute for historians.

In response to Clio's claim that Russians fired on Jewish refugees and closed down Jewish organisations, I don't think that one should see these events as specifically anti-semitic in nature. Stalin and his armies were not particularly concerned about the preservation of life, and being nominally Russian Orthodox themselves, didn't care overly much for either the Catholics or Jews that they found in Poland (check out the plot of Boris Godunov (opera)). Stalin had already imposed a 10-day week in Russia and suppressed the church, so taking similar actions against the Jews was not specific against them. What one can say was that Stalin was a thoroughly unpleasant character, playing off factions against each other and thoroughly trying to liquidate any opposition, potential, real, or imagined, against the State. The most significant action that Stalin took during this time in relation to Poland was the Katyn Massacre, which was not directed against the Jews so much as liquidating any opposition. You might, as an aside, also be interested in this film: Europa Europa. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree away, Major, dear, but might want to glance back over what I have written in the above! Anyway, here are some points of clarification.

It’s hardly surprising that a large number of people with a Jewish background were attracted to Bolshevism because of the high levels of anti-Semitic persecution in the Tsarist Empire, but this in no sense makes it a 'Jewish political movement', an argument put forward by their enemies in the Russian Civil War and later by the Nazis. The London Review of Books is both wrong in the generality and in the detail of its argument. Indeed, if one examines the composition of the original Sovnarkom, established soon after the Revolution, only Trotsky, Commissar for Foreign Affairs was Jewish. By 1919 six of the nineteen ministers were Jewish; Uritsky, Steinberg, Teodorovich, Dimanstein and Sokolnikov, along with Trotsky. In the Central Committee, Secretariat and wider party the prominent Jews included Sverdlov, Zinoviev and Kamenev. By 1922, as you will see from the page on Jewish Bolshevism, only some 7.1% of the Old Guard, those who joined the Party before 1917, had a Jewish background. So, not a Jewish sect; not by any measure.

But all of this is really quite immaterial to the argument I made above, which was that almost all of the senior Jewish figures in the Party were eliminated during the Great Purge. Thereafter, hostility towards Jewish influences, usually described as anti-Zionism, became ever more evident. By the 1950s and 1960s the 'anti-Zionist' images being promoted in Soviet publications were taking forms that would have easily been recognised by Julius Streicher.

It was the Germans who fired on the Jews in no-mans land, not the Russians. Also note that I deliberately used the term 'anti-Jewish'-anti-Judaic, if you prefer-to describe the Russian actions in their part of the Polish territory they occupied in 1939. In other words, it was a political offensive against the forms of Jewish religious and cultural identity, no less effective for that. Finally, I hardly think the NKVD can be described as 'Russian Orthodox', not by any measure! But by this time all state organisations were imbued by Stalin's Great Russian Chauvinism, from which a whole variety of minority groups were affected. But I return to the main point of my answer, which is that Soviet actions at this time showed high degrees of complicity with those of the Nazis. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

X years to life

I'm watching a documentary series on Discovery Channel at the moment called Forensic Detectives, and one of the criminals in there was given "25 years to life in prison", and I'm wondering what the "to life" part implies. Is this guy out after 25 years or is he in prison for a lifetime? Does anybody know what it means? DarkPhoenix (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article on life imprisonment states that in some countries a "life term" is equivalent to 25 years. Assuming that Discovery Channel is referring to the USA, the quotation is:

For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an "indeterminate life sentence", while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence".

There is also some information on Norway and other Scandinavian jurisdictions.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To further illuminate the US interpretation, "25 years to life" means a life sentence, but with parole eligibility after 25 years. — Lomn 20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

William Heirens, a convicted serial killer in the U.S., will complete his 62nd year of imprisonment June 26, 2008. He seems to hold the world's record. Sometimes life means life. Edison (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And some life sentences are short by design: Capital Punishment -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you Forgive Her

Please explain how Trollope's novel Can You Forgive Her? fits within the political themes of the Palliser series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.86.120 (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some starting points here which make this question more difficult than it needs to be. Can You Forgive Her? is the first of the Palliser books, introducing Plantagenet Palliser, so it shouldn't really be expected to 'fit within' the themes of the rest of the series. Trollope's world grew in all directions. In any event, Trollope's interest (like Balzac's) is in the whole of the society which centres on the metropolis, of which politics is an important aspect, but only one. To Trollope, as to most gentlemen of his day, politics was only part of life. As time goes by, Palliser himself, awkward and high minded as he is, sees that there's much more to life than ambition. Xn4 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In essence it really only serves as an introduction, though I suppose it also has a strong focus on the question posed by Alice Vavasor, namely 'What should a woman do with her life?' To that degree Can You Forgive Her? shares at least some of the preoccupations of the characters in Dostoevsky's The Idiot over the 'damned woman question'! In other words, it's about sexual politics; about woman who look for paths in life beyond matrimony and family, to the obvious disapproval of the author. Can you forgive her? Well, perhaps the best answer to Trollope's question is that given by Henry James, "Of course we can, and forget her, too, for that matter." Anyway, the novel is best read as a guide to mid-Victorian attitudes towards feminism. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read CYFH, but isn't there quite a bit about George Vavasor's efforts to get into Parliament, and about his debts? The financial difficulties encountered by MPs who are not independently wealthy is a theme that returns in Phineas Finn. I tend to re-read these novels as a group, so I could be conflating some of the plots/characters.Catrionak (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Colonies that went independent

1. How many former colonies went independent after WW II and recent years?
2. How many of them enjoy more freedom and prosperity?
3. How many of them outperform the majority of today's remaining colonies?
4. How many of them actually declined substantially?
5. How many of them are still functional? -- Toytoy (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There aren't many straightforward answers here, but I wonder if you have Africa on your mind? We have quite a lot of articles which might begin to answer your questions, such as Freedom in the World (report), Decolonisation of Africa, Human rights in Africa and List of human rights articles by country (which has links to articles on human rights in many individual countries), African Union member economies (links to dozens of articles on individual countries), Decolonization of the Americas, French colonial empires, Decolonization, Postcolonialism, Neocolonialism, History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991), History of post-Soviet Russia, List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of African countries by GDP, List of Asian countries by GDP, Third World debt, List of revolutions and rebellions, and List of coups d'état and coup attempts. I don't think comparisons with 'today's remaining colonies' will achieve very much, as such territories are mostly (by definition) ones which aren't politically and economically viable on their own, needing outside resources. "How many of them are still functional?" depends on the odd idea that a country is either 'functional' or not: but all countries have a kaleidoscope of functionality, it's nothing like a light bulb being switched on or not. Xn4 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I may ask the question from another direction: Are there any successful examples of decolonization? In alphabetical order:

• African countries:
  • Liberia: Established by former slaves shipped from the U.S. in the 19th century. They controlled local peoples. They did not like each other. They fight all the time.
  • Countries established shortly after WW II (formerly British, French, Belgian, and German). I am not familiar with this complex history. Generally these countries are not functioning well.
  • South Africa: Seems to be in struggle after the end of apartheid.
  • Zimbabwe: In a very bad leadership.
• America (North): Mostly controlled by British immmigrants because French and Spanish lost the wars. European immigrants went independent (the U.S. and, much later, Canada) and became very successful. Natives are still relatively poor or driven to extinction.
• America (Central and South): Mostly former Spanish/Portuguese colonies. Generally good. Natives are generally assimilated.
• Austrilia/New Zealand: Former British colonies. Aboriginal peoples never gained any power. Rich thanks to the low population density and abundant natural resources.
• East European countries: Too complex.
• Guam, Hawaii (a U.S. state), Purto Rico, Virgin Islands, BVI, ...: Still owned and controlled by the 1st World. Mostly good and well-organized.
• Hong Kong/Macau: British/Portuguese colonies returned to China. Populated by Chinese people. Mostly rich.
• India: An old empire colonized by the British before independence. Today's India is quickly catching up. Except for occassional conflicts, peoples of different races and religions may peacefully co-exist.
  • Pakistan: I know very little about its history.
  • Bangladesh: A country established between India and Pakistan. Generally very poor.
• North Ireland, Scotland, Wales: They used to have their own countries, don't they?
• Okinawa: Protected by China before Japanese invasion in the 18th century. Controlled by the U.S. from 1945 to 1970. Now a prefecture of Japan with U.S. troops stationed almost everywhere. There may be discriminations but the Uchinas live relatively well. Their traditional cultures and languages declined.
• The Philippines: Spain and U.S. (after the 1896 war). Not very well organized. Many poor people.
• Singapore: Colonized by the British Empire and then Japan. Now ruled by mostly Chinese-origined people (have been there for hundreds of years). Malays are majority. Generally, rich and well-organized.
• Taiwan: Aboriginal peoples were invaded and mostly replaced by Chinese immigrants. Colonized by Netherlands, Spain (before 17th century) and Japan before and during WW II. Ruled by another wave of Chinese immigrants after WW II. Generally, rich and well-organized.
• East Timor: I know very little about this recently established poor country. Did it get any better?
• Vietnam: Protected by China before French colonization. Established after the bloody Vietnam War. Catching up quickly after the introduction of capitalism.

It seems like the most recent trends of decolonization are failures. Colonization may be positive in certain aspects. At least a colonizer enslaves most local peoples equally. Some areas are populated by unorganized tribes. To me, unless they evolve a way to organize themselves, independence may cause more damage than good. -- Toytoy (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you're starting to answer your own question. In terms of colonialism, here are some curious comparisons there. India and Pakistan have much the same colonial history, but (broadly speaking) we consider India to be free and developing, Pakistan much less so. Liberia, theoretically not a colony since the 1850s, is just about the poorest country in Africa, whereas South Africa is much, much richer. Zimbabwe is still, on the face of it, less poor than Zambia. Of course, there are huge discrepancies between all these in natural resources, a factor which seems unconnected with colonialism, except that we Europeans were most enthusiastic about controlling territories with riches to be exploited. Nothing here is simple. Xn4 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with newly established countries is that people do not self-organize easily. Without the attack of Pearl Harbor, there may be a million voices in the U.S. regarding the wars around the world. But without a conceptual framework that Hawaii is a part of the U.S., people in Oklahoma may not give a damn to the attack. In some "countries," even such a frontal attack may not bring up the idea that we must work together.

To me, there may be two major attractors: (1) self-organization; (2) hatre and conflicts. If a group of peoples have not have any valid record of self-organization in history, there may be very little external factors that force them to evolve such desirable behavior. Independence may cause much harm than good.

Egypt and today's Iraq developed advanced civilations thousands years ago. Then, what are the environmental factors that drive people to cooperate? Why do once formidable peoples become disorganized? -- Toytoy (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this: [15]. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For a snapshot of which former colonies have succeeded in terms of individual freedom and the local economy, our most helpful articles may be Freedom in the World (report) and the series which includes List of African countries by GDP, giving GDP per capita. It's a rough and ready measure, but a real one. (Separate articles for the other continents are linked at the bottom of that Africa list.) The reasons for success and failure are much more complicated, but political instability and corruption nearly always drive out capital, brains, and everything else a country needs, whether it starts from a strong position or a weak one. Xn4 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cote D'Ivoire was one of the most successful post-colonial African nations, at first. Later developments changed that outcome, but the article explains some of the alleged reasons for its prosperity compared to its neighbours in the immediate postcolonial years. Steewi (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC's Mark Doyle compares the relative progress of Ghana and Malaysia 50 years after their independence from Britain in this 2005 essay. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sivaji's letters

Hi!

Could someone tell me whether Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ever wrote any letter to Mirza Raja Jaisingh? if so, have they been preserved? Are they available in English translation?

Polarization

I'm a bit on the side of the California hot tub crowd who indulge in random esoteric thought as a pass time. What occurred to me is that religions like Judaism and Islam seem to be polarized like physical magnets having the same pole. While they tend to remain separate without chance of coming together they do attract the same metal objects. My question is whether there are other fields besides religion where the concept of magnetic repulsion and attraction have been applied, where polarization is a key point in explaining the high falootin' concept, be it legal or otherwise? (My hot tub buddies have left for the day.) 71.100.164.179 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The most genteel response in my vocabulary is:

Fuck off. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your speculative postulation may be better taken to an Internet forum or chat room rather than the Humanities Reference Desk of this online encyclopedia, where the participating editors are likely to refer you to factual information found in Wikipedia articles or other resources. May I suggest a combination of reading/relaxing/resting till your tub buds return? -- Hope that helps, Deborahjay (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if we don't like a question or don't think that it belongs here, I think that we owe the questioner a politer response than Cockatoo has offered. Our initial attitude should be WP:AGF unless a questioner has a clear abusive or disrespectful intent. While some Muslims or Jews could possibly take offense, there is no reason to think that the questioner intended to be offensive.

Now, to respond to the question, based on my somewhat cursory knowledge of religious studies (i.e., the social science of religion), the "concept of magnetic repulsion" is not part of that field's toolkit, nor is it an important theoretical concept in any field other than physics. While it is a metaphor that you may want to use—inappropriately, I think—it is not part of any of the many social theories that I encountered in my academic career. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you look through their edit history you'll see that this same IP (and variants of it) have been posting various vaguely racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim questions and comments on the RD for some time now (the same IP signs for User:Multimillionaire as well). I think we're beyond AGF with this one, personally; I've seen no evidence that they are really interested in learning anything beyond their own pre-held beliefs. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So the question header announces the name of the aim of the game. The hot tub California furphy it is. Beyond AGF, yes. Go away. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been on call since originally posting this question or I would have responded sooner.

• First, I am not racist in the sense that I do not accept people of a different race or feel they have no right to exist or that they are inferior to my race. In fact, quite the opposite. What I do think is that certain other races do not have the 4,000 to 10,000 year heritage that my race has (for the most part) and although desirous of having it, simply do not. I believe that it is this discrepancy in heritage which is the reason behind any apparent difference upon which all claims of racism are based.

• Second, I notice Captain Ref Desk failed to list anti-Christian. As far as anti-Semitism goes I think Jesus Christ was a Semite and I am most certainly not against Him. In fact, I think He is Devine as He claimed, that He came to save other Semites who believed in Him… lets see that would be Peter and John, and Mathew and Luke and a whole bunch of other Semites.

• Third, I am not anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic either since I do not know enough about Islam to form an opinion, although 9/11 appears to be a wake up call.

• Forth, I believe in innocence until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent. This difference in belief separates me as an American from the State of Mexico.

Although I think Captain Ref Desk is an idiot, despite his rather very good response to the question on development of nuks by Iran, Pakistan and Cuba, I think he is also a truant instigator who may be on the same side but not yet quite up to par with Ayers.

Now as far as this question and your (some) responses to it so far are concerned... the concept of polarization is a good one and I'm going to keep it despite your lack of references to examples within your own or the Wikipedia's knowledge of the humanities which I have now come to view as limited.

Thanks for revealing yet once again your (at least some of you) allegiance to your own pre-held beliefs that defy any hope of your reaching a state of true comprehension and have a great day. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I admire your 4,000 to 10,000 year heritage. I infer from that remark that you must be Chinese or Indian - or perhaps Egyptian ? I must admit that my own Western European ancestors were really quite barbaric until as recently as 1,000 BCE or so. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he is Khoikhoi. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On a sidenote, thanks for that link Adam. I've now learnt yet another childhood word is offensive ('hottentot') and thus will have to avoid reading my little nephew the book about the cat who eats everyone until he's old enough to study it as historical text. Good to know, although rather sad. Skittle (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was taught that my culture is in fact based on, if not a composite of, many things originating from Chinese, Indian and Egyptian cultures, all of which seem to endorse the idea that spitting where people walk is not the best idea. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Assimilation of ideas from other cultures is certainly a good thing. And, although public expectoration is considered impolite in modern England, we must remember that customs change over time, and it was considered a normal and hygenic practice in the Middle Ages. Indeed, our spittoon article says that the practice was still widespread in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and apparently each Supreme Court Justice is still provided with a ceremonial spittoon to this day. A quaint reminder of a bygone age ! Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am not referring to public expectoration, necessarily, but rather to where the spittle lands. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Indian people don't spit where they walk? FreeMorpheme (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of cultivating crops such as paan one goes into the field expecting to get dirty with cow manure so I would imaging nor thought is given to adding a little spittle to it. In fact this might actually be seen as beneficial. The same Indian, however, that spit in the field would be summarily thrown out of his house if he spit on the dirt floor in his wife's kitchen or on the paths of a Hindu temple. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Expectoration was one of the customs that disgusted Charles Dickens during his first visit to the United States. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If only one were blessed with a time machine. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Walter Blume's Chaos Theory

Much thanks to Clio the Muse (a country woman of mine I think) for the answer to my question on Alexander Lohr. I am doing some work on the Greek resistance and am coming across lots of things, in German sources mainly, that I simply do not understand. Do you have any idea what Sandartenfuhrer Dr Walter Blume's 'chaos theory' was? With respect. Vasilis Tsironikis (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not talking about the mathematical/scientific Chaos Theory are you? If so, you may want to consider asking the Math Reference Desk or the Science Reference Desk as it falls more into their area of expertise then Humanities. The theory is truly quite fascinating, discussing how the unordered is in fact order, that nature is really just repeating figures, the nature of randomness etc. etc. Rather philosophical in its beauty. Zidel333 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

SS Colonel Walter Blume, commander of Sonderkommando 7a, Einsatzgruppe B. Tried for war crimes in the "Einsatzgruppen Case" and sentenced to death 10 April, 1948, latter commuted to life in prison. From 1943-4 he served as head of SiPO/SD in Greece.

In the summer of 1944 Blume proposed what he called the "Chaos Thesis". As the German armies began to withdraw from Greece they would follow a scorched-earth policy, destroying factories and infrastructure, and also arresting and executing the entire political leadership.

At his trial, when asked whether or not he knew that the killing of civilians was contrary to the laws of war he replied: "...for me the directive was the Fuehrer Order. That was my war law."

• Tenenbaum, J. (1956). Race and Reich; the story of an epoch. New York: Twayne. pp. 353, 369. OCLC 497937
• Mazower, M. (1993). Inside Hitler's Greece: the experience of occupation, 1941-44. New Haven: Yale University Press. OCLC 28023491.
• Maguire, P. (2001). Law and war: an American story. New York: Columbia University Press. p 178. OCLC 43919698

Vasilis, Blume's Chaos proposal had a specific political purpose: to leave Greece in a state of complete anarchy. The proposal was so extravagant in nature that it led to a rift between him and Foreign Office, where Hermann Neubacher, the plenipotentiary for South-east Europe and Serbia, had formerly been a strong ally.

Blume evolved his 'Chaos Thesis' against the background of the anti-communist sweeps in the suburbs of Athens, a regular event in the spring summer of 1944, and intensely brutal in design. For Neubacher Blume's actions, increasingly indiscriminate in scope, were beyond all reason and purpose, undermining his attempts to interest the western Allies in a joint drive against the Soviet Union and the Communist National Liberation Front.

The implementation of the Chaos Thesis was stopped after the Wehrmacht declared all of Greece or be a combat zone in September 1944, which had the effect of transferring security duties from the Sicherheitsdienst to the military. Blume was ordered to leave Greece by Ernst Kaltenbrunner, head of the SD and Neubacher's friend. At a meeting held in Athens in September Löhr agreed to abandon the political Chaos Thesis. You will find the details here in Inside Hitler's Greece: the Experience of Occupation, 1941-44, an excellent study by Mark Mazower. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fridays

What are the main things people abstain from on Firdays for religious reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion. I also abstain from it, for religious reasons, on Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesdays, and erm, Thursdays. Hope that helps ;) I am not a dog (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Climbing conifers (Fir days)? Sorry, I couldn't resist. On to the main event . . . Abstaining from eating meat on Fridays is/was a Roman Catholic tenet. If you are Jewish, there is much from which you must refrain after sundown, depending on the degree of your orthodoxy, including: all work, driving cars, riding in elevators, turning lights on or off . . . See Jewish Sabbath for a list of the whats and the whys of prohibited activities. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thusly, if you are Jewish and move from Ontario towards the North Pole in winter / the South Pole in summer, you must abstain from work - like chopping down coniferous gnomons - in the middle of the night. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I met a Jew from Trondheim, Norway once. Trondheim is near the Arctic Circle. I asked about Shabbat, and she told me that the community simply sticks to a reasonable service time regardless of the sunrise and sunset. The Trondheim Jewish community is fairly liberal, apparently. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Muslims go to mosque on Fridays. The Arabic word for Friday is actually based on their word for mosque, I believe. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The word for Friday and the word for mosque (well, one of the words) are from the same jim-mim-ayin root, which means to gather or collect or anything like that (it's an extremely productive root, used also for university for example, and I think it probably has a form in every verb pattern). Another word for mosque, the source of the English word, is masjid, "a place for kneeling", from sin-jim-dal, to kneel. Anyway, sorry for the long diversion, I was going to say that when I lived in a dorm in a Catholic university, the cafeteria always served fish on Fridays. They had meat too, for non-Catholics, but it tended to be something like meatloaf that was of dubious meat provenance... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Other Christian denominations, not only Catholicism but also Eastern Christianity, have their abstinences. Ethiopian food has many vegetarian dishes for this reason. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

new mexico

what are nms resources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopity (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What sort of resources are you looking for? Natural resources? New Mexico should be a start. Dismas|^(talk) 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Jews

If the Jewish Sabbath runs from sundown on Friday to the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday, how do Jews north of the Arctic Circle handle things? There's a shortage of both sundowns and stars for significant portions of the year. --Carnildo (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that they would just base it on the times Jews below the Arctic circle would use. (I'm not positive though). Anyways I doubt there are many Jews up there, so you shouldn't worry about it. Leave the arctic to the Eskimos and oil drillers.

See my comment above about Trondheim, Norway. My guess is the only Jewish community above the Arctic Circle is Murmansk, Russia. Here is a complicated document about current Jewish laws regarding Shabbat and latitude: [16]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My favorite sentence: "Ideally, one should not travel to outer space." Lantzy ^talk 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

April 18

Oil

Are the oil prices expected to ever go back down again and when is the world's oil supply expected to run out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No one can predict future price movements. Oil prices could fall if, for example, global recession leads to a sharp drop in demand. In that case, especially if they have risen to their present levels as a result of speculation, the price of oil could drop sharply. Earth's total reserves of oil are not known for certain. Their size is the subject of great controversy. Some believe that oil production will not reach its all-time maximum until the 2020s or later. Others believe that oil production has already peaked and will decline in the future, at first very gradually and then much more rapidly. (See Peak oil). If the latter view is correct, then current high prices would be one result of the oil supply having peaked while demand continues to grow. Oil will almost certainly never "run out". Rather, the most accessible oil and the oil that is most easily refined will run out. There will still be oil beneath the ground, but eventually we are likely to reach a point at which it will take more energy to remove the oil than the oil would yield in energy. Oil might still be mined at that point for uses other than energy supply, for example, to be used for lubrication. Oil might also be extracted for a time even though that extraction would take more energy than the oil would supply, because oil is such a dense energy source. But at that point, oil extraction would be a net drain on probably scarce supplies of energy. It is difficult to know when oil extraction will no longer yield net energy, but even in the most pessimistic scenarios, that date is several decades away. Marco polo (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be sure that oil will also be extracted for a time even past the point at which it will take more energy to remove the oil than the oil would yield in energy, simply because a corporate tax structure has been set up, with incentives etc. Does anyone imagine that Alaskan oil fields will be shut down as soon as extraction and refining costs, and the costs of maintaining and supplying the community, cost more in energy than the system produces? Has this point already been reached, if you factor in the energy required to build the pipelines, construct the equipment etc? See Boondoggle (project).--Wetman (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It'll be a while yet before the oil supply runs out. People forget we still have the Athabasca Oil Sands, and with the price of crude rising, it will be finacially viable to extract oil from them. Then there are other, similar deposits accross the wrold that at present we are unable to extract from but I'd imagine we're capable of finding a way. By the time the oil actuaqlly runs out I wouldn't be too shocked if we've worked out how to synthesise an improved version... Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ladies of the Bedchamber

According to Patricia Nevill, Marchioness of Abergavenny, she died in 2005. But Lady of the Bedchamber lists her as being a LotB from 1987 - present. So, if she died in '05 then why does it say "- present"? Is this incorrect or just one of the many things I don't understand about English nobility? Dismas|^(talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage and Baronetage confirms your suspicions, and Lady Abergavenny's death was announced in The Daily Telegraph on 25 February 2005. This lady being no longer with us, I've corrected her Lady of the Bedchamber entry. Well spotted! Xn4 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When I hear "bedchamber", as opposed to "bedroom", I think four-poster beds and Northanger Abbey. Every chamber deserves a ghostly lady, holding a candle guttering! Also, as for Burke's inaccuracy, wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said that that book was the greatest work of fiction in the English language -- though I think he was referring to other bedroom activities than the gentle haunting of aristocrats. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gas Prices

Why are gasoline prices so high? Some people claim that the government is responsible for the high prices. Is there any validity to that claim?24.88.103.234 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Lauren

In most countries, a portion of the price of gasoline consists of taxes levied by the government. The government is responsible for that portion of the price of gasoline. However, few governments have raised their gasoline taxes in recent years. Instead, the increase in gasoline prices in recent years has been due to an increase in demand for oil, particularly from the rapidly industrializing nations of Asia, and a static or even gradually declining supply of oil. To a lesser extent, gasoline prices have also risen due to a lack of refining capacity for converting crude oil to gasoline. These prices are set on a global market, generally without government interference, through the forces of supply and demand. An argument could be made that governments have played a role in boosting demand by promoting economic growth. An argument could also be made that some governments have played a role in restricting supply, for example by invading and sparking civil war in Iraq, which has among the world's largest oil reserves. Marco polo (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, absolutely. If you buy £100 worth of petrol at the average cost in my area (107.1 pence/litre), £38.09 is the cost of the fuel, £47.01 is added duty, and £14.89 is VAT (which to add insult to injury is charged on both the cost of the petrol AND on the duty at a rate of 17.5%). So around 62% of the cost is tax & duty. For USA residents, 107.1 pence per litre equals $8.06 per US gallon - and you think you have problems with gas prices? Exxolon (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Taxes are much lower in the United States. Gas now costs around $3.20 per gallon in Massachusetts, which works out to 43 pence per liter. Of the $3.20, about 44 cents is tax. Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline prices are as high as they are because gasoline is made from a commodity that is in tight supply, in the face of ever increasing demand. There are numerous other factors, but that's the gist. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S., inflation has decreased the value of the US dollar by more than 1/3 over the last five years: in 2003, two US Dollars could buy three Canadian dollars. Today, One US Dollar buys one Canadian Dollar. Thus, a very large percentage of the increase in gasoline prices is due to internal U.S inflation, which is directly caused by U.S. (Bush) tax policies. -Arch dude (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflation is widely recognized to be distinct from currency exchange rates. Inflation of over 1/3 in 5 years would be somewhere around 9% annual inflation, which has absolutely not occured. — Lomn 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And the devaluing of the dollar in turn affects the price of oil (not so much of gasoline, directly) because investors fly to valuable commodities when the dollar loses value - commodities like gold, diamonds, oil. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the majority of the difference in gasoline/petrol costs among most countries is due to tax policies in those places. In many countries, gas is taxed at extremely high rates compared to other products. Of course, in some countries, like Venezuela, gas comes cheap naturally. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Today I filled the car's gas tank for $3.699 per gallon, then an hour later saw the posted price had risen to $3.799. Glad I didn't wait. Edison (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The price of oil includes the getting of it, or more specifically, securing access to foreign deposits. Sometimes this involves blood, sweat, tears and toil. Wars are costly, and taxpayer-funded. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel memorial candle

While at my local Hannaford's (it's a fairly large chain of stores here in New England) grocery store, I saw that they had small candles for sale. The candles were in a open top aluminum can which was about 1.5" tall and maybe 1" in diameter. What I didn't understand about them was that the label on the can said "Israel Memorial Candle". I didn't see any sign by them saying that "X amount of the proceeds from the sale..." So what could these be for? Why would Israel need memorializing with candles in a supermarket? Oh, the name of the company that was printed on the side said something like "Rokesh Imports". I probably have the spelling wrong. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect those were Yahrtzeit candles. Jews light candles on the anniversary of the death of a loved one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Rokeach makes yellow soap that's even found in Episcopalian kitchens. --Wetman (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as "what would Israel need memorializing," there are the thousands of Israelis who have died in wars and terrorist attacks since 1948. And, if "Israel" is interpreted more broadly to mean the Jewish people as a whole, there is, of course, the Holocaust. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So, is there a Jewish observance coming up? These were right up front, so I figure that either they were put up front because of something that's current or something that just past and they're clearing out their stock. Dismas|^(talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day, is coming up. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm going to guess that must be the reason. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Israel" probably just means that they are manufactured in Israel.--Pharos (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there Orthodox Islam?

I'm a Shia Muslim that don't follow traditional Islam. I'm not Orthodox. I pray five times a day. Is there Orthodox Islam? Jet (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunnis would say that their version is orthodox and Shia (among others) is heterodox. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Zhukov at Stalingrad

What strategic lessons did Zhukhov learn from the Russian offensive of 1941/42 and how did he apply them at Stalingrad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.148 (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Soviet counter-offensive during the Battle of Moscow was that it ended by losing all focus. Reserves were used up over a wide front, simply hammering away at the Germans without a detailed strategic aim; too many blows, and not one deadly. The overall effect was to sap Russian strength, particularly during the attacks on Rzhev salient, and allow the Germans to recover. The danger of a continuing offensive in an unfavorable strategic position was also amply demonstrated by the Second Battle of Kharkov in the spring of 1942.

In formulating Operation Uranus Georgy Zhukov was mindful of these past failures, of the need to direct his strength towards a limited and specific end; namely the isolation and destruction of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad. The whole operation was thus confined to a limited area, bounded by the city of Stalingrad and the eastern corner of the Don bend. It was here that Zhukov concentrated no less than seven of the nine reserve armies built up over the winter. It was the kind of careful thinking that brought Hannibal such a crushing victory over the Romans all those centuries before. The plan in execution was so effective that it also brought the collapse of the whole of the German south-eastern front, forcing them to abandon virtually all of the gains of their summer offensive. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalingrad

Is it right to place all the blame on Hitler for the German disaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.148 (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Aa-ha, yes, of course, 217.43; all the victories belonged to the generals, just as all the defeats belonged to Hitler! Thus it is that history is created by the writers of memoirs! In actual fact the conduct, and the command abilities of Friedrich Paulus do not withstand critical scrutiny. He seriously underestimated Russian strength, and left his flanks dangerously weak. After the Russians closed the trap around Stalingrad on 23 November the conventional wisdom has it that Hitler prevented a breakout by ordering the 6th Army to remain in position. In truth the whole matter is not quite so straightforward.

In Barbarossa: the Russian German Conflict, 1941-45 Alan Clark offers some interesting details on the matter. Paulus, for instance, waited several days before sending his request 'strategic realignment' directly to OKW, knowing full well what Hitler's response was likely to be, rather than following the normal chain of command, contacting Maximilian von Weichs, head of Army Group B. Moreover, one has to consider the timing of the request. Paulus watched his flanks crumble several days before sending his message to OKW.

Even if immediate permission to withdraw was given, it would have taken five more days for the 6th Army to form into the necessary ram formation, according to information later given by Erich von Manstein. By this time the concentration of Russian force around the Stalingrad pocket was so great that the end result would have been just the same. When Manstein eventually launched Operation Winter Tempest, the attempt to break through the Russian ring, Paulus made no attempt to co-ordinate his own actions with the offensive. The evidence suggests that the 6th Army believed that they had a good chance of continuing to hold their position, if properly supplied from the air. For Manstein's plan to succeed Paulus had to concentrate his entire force at a single point in the siege perimeter. He did nothing but sit in the ruins of Stalingrad. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unternehmen Zitadelle

Why did the Germans not remain of the defensive in the summer of 1943? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.148 (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a case, really, of having to do something rather than nothing. For once Hitler himself was uncertain, even telling Heinz Guderian that the very thought of an attack turned his stomach. But he gave way to his senior commanders, men like Kurt Zeitzler and Guenther von Kluge, who were actively in favour of an offensive, even under such unpromising circumstances. And so it was the Operation Citadel was launched, a head-on trial of strength, much like Verdun in the First World War. In the defeat that followed the Germans would never again have the capacity to launch a major offensive. Clio the Muse (talk)

Chhatrapati Sivaji Maharaj's letters to Mirza Rajah Jaisingh

Did Chhatrapati Sivaji Maharaj ever write to Mirza Rajah Jaisingh?Are the letters available in English translation?B.Krishnakumar (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello OP, is there a reason to delete the repeated question that had a reply, please? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cup and reality

What does Sartre mean exactly by "The reality of that cup is that it is there and it is not me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by F Hebert (talk • contribs) 10:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Obscure as it looks, the meaning is actually quite simple. Sartre is simply giving substance to 'What is reality?', the traditional and abstract question posed by academic philosophy, which serves to remove it from everyday experience. For Sartre reality is not abstract but merely the way we have of experiencing things. It comes close to being a kind of sensation, the impact which things have when an individual comes into contact with them. In the example given the focus is on the realty of a given thing, not reality as an empty idea. Reality is not something added: it’s there in the presence of the cup. To put this another way, reality is not something divorced from perception. Its presence is directly experienced, something independent of the will, and thus 'not me.' This view of reality is also subjective and relative. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Foucault's methodology

I can find no methodological apparatus in Michael Foucault's "Histoire de la folie." was he working within any given intellectual tradition?F Hebert (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It really offers itself in the presentation of Madness and Civilization, F. Hebert. Foucault shares much of the thinking and the methodology of the historian Philippe Ariès and those who followed the so-called 'mentalities school'. It is the history, in other words, of slow transitions; of changes in attitude and in outlook. In Foucault's case he looks at the way 'folly', not necessarily a bad thing in the Middle Ages, was turned into modern concepts of madness. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

SUPER POWER

i always wonder,the USA is so quick in pointing fingers and laying guidelines as to who should have and who shouldn't have nuclear power.Don't you think its so unfair,as USA itself has loads and loads of nuclear reactors,and yet they threaten countries like IRAN with military attacks for trying to build the same?Who monitors the USA?And since it's the super power how sure are we that its president wont wake up one day and decide to attack another country with nuclear weapons?I know they always have an excuse, TERRORISM!!!!!.......is libya,iraq,iran,cuba,north and south korea.......and many more full of terrorists?why will they allow countries like pakistan and india to make their own and prohibit others? ARE THEY TRULY JUSTIFIED?||||DAVIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You've asked a lot of questions, but I'll just answer one: the reason the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons and Iran isn't is that the two countries agreed to that arrangement by signing the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. --Sean 12:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article "Nuclear proliferation" would be a good place to start, though your question touches on practically every aspect of international law and diplomacy. I'm no expert in these fields, but I'd say that you have a good grasp of the basic situation. The victors not only write the history, they order the world, and, as the Romans asked, "Who will guard the guards?" It is indeed scary that one country, however benevolent, can crush the rest of the world militarily. This is a novel state of affairs for the planet, one that we are just now waking up to, and I'd say that you are to be congratulated for noticing it. But I don't think it's the president you have to watch out for, it's the populace. The president does what the people will allow—the big moves, anyway. The world has to keep an eye on the US and help them be the "kinder, gentler nation" that the elder Bush spoke of. If only they'd get excited about soccer their insularity would break down.

As for the use of nuclear weapons, it was decided long ago that nuclear weapons have no military use because there is no conceivable scenario resulting from the exchange of nukes that could be called victory. And if the US were to vaporize a non-nuclear pest, the entire rest of the world would turn against them, including their staunchest allies. That, too, is not a victory scenario. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What you're asking is essentially the core question which has vexed nuclear diplomacy since 1945. There's no simple answer to it—our current situation is a result of both an earnest desire to keep the number of nuclear powers in the world to a minimum mixed with the practical fact that those who are already nuclear powers have usually little to no interest in not being a nuclear power (South Africa being the one-time exception; I personally suspect North Korea will be in this category within a few years as well). Add to it that nuclear weapons seem to promise a good deal of both political power (no coincidence that the UN Security Council is made up of the original five nuclear powers) and military power (though in this case, nuclear states quickly realize that they are in fact fairly limiting, since the taboo of their use, and the threat of like retaliation, is so high, it ends up constraining quite a lot of activity), and you have an essential, long-running tension.

Is it "fair"? I'm not sure what the word means here. Do you mean to imply that it would be fair if everyone had nuclear weapons? That hardly sounds like a very safe and sound world. Why make things worse?

If you mean to imply the world would be better off without nuclear weapons, then I can agree with you on the most part, though it seems unlikely to be accomplished anytime soon. I would certainly be happy to see the world have LESS nuclear weapons—two hundred warheads or so per nuclear state at maximum, not thousands.

Anyway, I think it is clear that in any case it would not really help matters in the Middle East if Iran became a nuclear weapons state. Without worrying about the proverbial mushroom cloud in the near term, the region is historically extremely volatile, and adding more nuclear weapons to that mix would only raise the stakes even higher. :The Cold War was stable only from a very limited point of view (and mostly in retrospect)—it resulted in multiple proxy fights, multiple extremely tense situations, multiple junctures at which great amounts of death were very close at hand. I don't think we want or need that again. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the idea of political realism, which accepts that "fairness" is not the overriding consideration in international relations. It might be more "fair" for a trainwreck like, say, Somalia to have thousands of hydrogen bombs, but it would inarguably make the world a worse and more dangerous place, even for the Somalians. --Sean 13:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The main problem as I see it with nuclear weapons is that we cannot uninvent the technology. America has nuclear wapons because it invented them, and it is generally trusted with them because it is a free and fair democracy, and when the occassion where it used nuclear weapons helped prevent an unneccessary and prolonged period of war. America would face awful consequences were it to nuke any country, regardless of the reason, as it is part of a tightly knit global community. But countries like Iran would probably notfeel the consequences of doing so nearly as badly, do not have to take the likly reactions of their subjects into account and have a stated prerogative to destroy a particular nation. In Iran's case, it's Israel, but Somalia has a horrible war going on, Ethiopia would just blow up Eritrea and so on and so on. Although the US is involved in numerous wars, for the sake of public opinion it is committed to minimising civilain casualties, as evidenced by the smart bombs in Iraq. Further, to quote the Geneva Convention "It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment". Violation of these rules could mean severe consequences for the US, so overall I would say that sitting on a huge pile of nukes during a Cold war with another nucleaar superpower and not using them once in the last 50 years has earnt the US the right to keep nuclear weapons. Many of the other countires, frankly, can't be trusted. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Michael, that's certainly a view. Personally I'd say that America isn't trusted with nuclear weapons so much as there isn't a lot that can be done about it. I'd say there's some truth in what you say, but I think you over-rate the US concern with what the rest of the world thinks and does and underestimate internal PR. 79.66.106.188 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. As I mentioned above, there will always be a lage part of the American public opposed to a nuclear strike. But if said strike was retaliatory, public opinion in the US is likely to be more pro-nuke than the rest of the world. And the American government couldn't afford to ignore the rest of the world on something as serious as nuclear warfare. I think the US has earnt the right to be trusted. It didn't even use them during the Cuban Missile crisis. I think you underrate the concern of US politicans with the opinion of the rest of the world, especially in the aftermath of Iraq. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read reposrt in the mainstream media in the U.S. saying that the present administration has been and is considering the possiblilties of preemptive nuclear strikes against countries they don't like, such as Iran, to prevent them developing nuclear weapons. Do not assume that regard for world opinion limits the options. And this administration has already labelled the Geneva Conventions as "quaint."As for the non-proliferation treaty, doesn't a signatory such as Iran have the right to renounce it and build whatever they choose? Edison (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, they've considered it, but crucially they haven't done it. They clearly weighed up the pros and cons and decided against it. It's one thing to regard the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and quite another to ignore them whole-heartedly. Even when deciding on "interoggation" methods the Bush administration has been careful to not fall foul of the Geneva Conventions. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and yes, I'm fairly certain Iran could just leave the non-proliferation treaty, but they would likely face stiff international opposition and possibly closer scrutiny if they did. Although I wasn't aware they were even signatories. Scratch that, yes they are. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

" Even when deciding on "interoggation" methods the Bush administration has been careful to not fall foul of the Geneva Conventions." Seriously? Seriously seriously?! This is going to fall foul of the ref desk rules if I go any further, but I'm pretty sure most other countries would have been found in breach of the convention in the circumstances. Skittle (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

.....we all all know that nuclear power provides over 6%of the worlds energy.the reason i specifically chose Iran is because dating back to 1950s,the nuclear program of Iran was launched with the help of the USA,as part of the atoms for peace program.nuclear energy is also used to drive big ice breaker ships and also produce electricity right?Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty,and the third pillar of that treaty allows the peaceful use of nuclear energy!mr George w bush later made a statement reiterating that Iranian regime arms funds and advices Hezbollah!...THE SAME LAME ACCUSATIONS HE MADE BEFORE IRAQ'S INCURSION,prompting the death of our young men and women in military service.thats why i asked who monitors the USA,because sooner or later i am afraid poor nations will continue being victimized,when they are honestly trying to earn a living?41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)DAVIS

Military Performance

Is there any reason why the British performance in the First World War was so much better than in the Second? John Spencer (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In what respect do you consider their performance better in WWI? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive always thought the Britsh perfromed a hell of alot better during WWII. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By 'the British' do you mean the cannon fodder or the donkeys? 79.66.106.188 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look, John, at Blood, Sweat and Arrogance and the Myths of Churchill's War by Gordon Corrigan, which covers the kind of ground you are interested in. The conclusion is devastatingly simple.

In the First World War the British Army developed from an underrated and largely part-time force into a superb fighting instrument, which carried the burden of the conflict for much of 1917, and spearheaded the offensive in 1918. In the Second World War the position is reversed: the British Army did not win the war, rather the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force prevented Britain from losing it. In Winston Churchill, moreover, Britain had both the best and worst of leaders; an inspiring public performer, he also attempted to micro-manage the conflict in ways that almost brought disaster time and again.. His strategic judgment was faulty, demonstrated by the Dardanelles fiasco in 1915 and the plodding Italian offensive of 1943. He dissipated resources in, for example, sending men and material to Greece in 1941, when the Eighth Army was facing a German build up in Africa.

The deeper and more wounding truth is that if Churchill was 'the man who won the war', as the election posters of 1945 put it, he was also the man who nearly lost it; by his flights of fancy, his unwillingness to trust professionals, his unshakable belief that he knew better than anyone else how the nation's efforts should be directed. His actions as First Lord of the Admiralty during the Norwegian Campaign had been disastrous; the attack on the French fleet was against Admiralty advice and could have seriously undermined the British position in the Mediterranean. His constant demand for offensives in Africa before the commanders judged this prudent also brought repeated reverses. But, being a brilliant publicist, Churchill eventually wrote a big book about himself and called it The Second World War! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

From what i can remember of my History of Winston Churchill, the 'Dardanelles fiasco' wasn't his fault. Someone suggested it to him, he said it was a bad idea, they went ahead with it anyway and blamed him when it all went wrong, then got themselves killed just before they got the chance to take the blame for it. I'm not totally confident about my memory of every little detail from that long ago though, and might be thinking of another event. Not that it matters either way, since that was in the war we supposedly did better in. Although I'm sure we lost a lot more people in the first war though, just throwing everyone at the enemy until we won.HS7 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any "official" biography of Osama Bin Laden?

Is there any "official" biography of Osama Bin Laden? One published by Al Queda or one of his organizations? --Gary123 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there may be. CNN says that Hamid Mir is writing one, or at least was in 2004. And this article in The Times of India mentions him writing it, too. It doesn't seem to have been released for sale, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian Illustrators

who are the famous indian illustrators in india at present ?117.196.226.115 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)29zz

Surely if you have to ask, then the answer is 'no'? 82.36.179.20 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Court clerk

What are the dialogues that a court clerk will say during a criminal trial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Most courtrooms are open to the public. Why not stop in to your local one and listen. I much prefer traffic court to criminal court. The cases go by faster and the defendants appear to have much less intelligence. -- kainaw™ 02:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a monologue rather than a dialogue? I don't think the clerk usually gets to say very much anyway; just stuff like "All rise!" perhaps.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross-examination

What is cross-examination and what are the questions that crown prosecutor will ask during his/her cross-examination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at Cross-examination? I would think the questions would very much depend on the nature of the trial and the nature of the evidence given by the witness. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do people live? (coalesced similar questions)

Turkish-Canadians in Toronto

Which part of Toronto do Turkish-Canadians live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

Which part of Lebanon do the Sunni Muslims live and which part of Lebanon do the Shi'a Muslims live?

Historically, Sunnis lived in the coastal cities, such as Beirut and Sidon, and also in the north in Tripoli. Shi'ites historically lived in the south, centered around a mountain known as Jabal 'Amil. In modern times, a large, mostly-Shi'ite suburb has grown in southern Beirut as well. Of course, nowadays you're likely to find some Sunni and Shi'ite communities all over the country. -- Slacker (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Iraq

Which part of Iraq do the Shi'a Muslims live and which part of Iraq do the Sunni Muslims live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article on Shia Islam / Sunni Islam has a map showing the areas setlled by the two groups in the Iraq. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Syria

Which governates of Syria do Shi'a Muslims live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See the above links. They also show the respective areas in the Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, etc. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in afghanistan

Which provinces are inhabited by Pashtuns and which provinces are habited by tajiks and hazara? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article on Afghanistan has a map which indicates the various ethnic areas. May I suggest that you use the search box for queries which are fairly obvious. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Book recommendation for someone who is grieving the loss of a parent

This question was also posted here [17]. I created an answer, and when later I found the question without my answer, assumed it had got mysteriously lost or never uploaded, and researched again, wrote again, posted again. Please do not cross-post. I have removed your question. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yogurt

Yogurt seems to be predominantly advertised towards women. Is there a reason for this? Dismas|^(talk) 17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[18] This article here suggests that yogurt is more of a "woman thing" (I eat yogurt... hmmm) so I guess that could be a reason why it's more geared towards women. Plus, going by the adverts I've seen (in the UK), yogurt is generally portrayed as method for helping with bloated feeling and weight loss, so that's probably another reason. PeterSymonds | talk 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Because men like pizza and women like yogurt. [19] 132.206.22.23 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not make yogurt pizza and get double the sales, then? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the question I ask every time I go shopping. PeterSymonds | talk 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I went to a dinner celebrating women's contribution to something academic. Every single course was pale and creamy. There seems to be an equation: food for women = pale and creamy. That would be semiotics, or something of that ilk. SaundersW (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to be a tradition in upper-middle class (or thus aspiring) North America, early 20th century, to give a white meal, usually a luncheon, on the occasion of a young girl's engagement. The guests would be her unmarried female friends, and the unspoken colour association was of course virginity. Think vichysoisse, sole, vanilla ice cream.... The white wedding would be followed by a more colourful breakfast. I believe I first read of this in Alice Munro's stories. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Since your question appears on the humanities rather than on the science desk I assume you are looking for a social rather than a nutrition based answer. Despite that I think the social answer is nutrition based since milk is the single most complete food and when you add a bunch of little bacteria it becomes the most complete food, i.e., its a subtle way to prove that women are smarter than men. 71.100.12.111 (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Many women are concerned about osteoporosis and make a point of eating yogurt because it is an easily digestible source of calcium. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is yogurt from Venus and pizza from Mars? Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bella Amore in Cullen Bay sells a Mars (bar) Pizza, and of course we all know about Venus's close relative's style of yogurt, so I'm rather happy that yes, pizza is indeed from Mars, and yogurt was possibly brought here on an asteroid from Venus. Cool.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a brand of yogurt, possibly Canadian, which, while advertising specifically towards women, also claims to be "probiotic, and prebiotic too". It seems to me that this means the yogurt contains yogurt. Perhaps they think women are stupid? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are ancient connections between women and dairy products, quite aside from the obvious mammary similarities. Women have traditionally been responsible for dairy animals (cows, goats, sheep, and in some places camels, horses, etc.) in cultures from American homesteads to Eastern European subsistence farms to Central Asian nomadic pastoralism -- if not for the overall care of the livestock, then usually for the actual milking and certainly for the subsequent dairying activities, i.e. performing the magical transformation of raw milk into a variety of less perishable fermented milk products. (This double meaning of "culture", both bacteriological and human, is explored in Wild Fermentation by Sandor Ellix Katz.) Dairying is so intrinsic to some cultures that its tools become symbols of femaleness. For example, the plains Pokot women invariably carry a gourd, into which milk is placed at the beginning of the day, to be transformed into yoghurt, simply by the heat of the sun and the remnants of the previous day's bacteria. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The tools perhaps, but what about the consumption? Is the consumption of yoghurt a female 'thing' in other cultures, particularly with a tradition in this regard? My guess is it isn't although I don't have any evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When selling product, prebiotic = contains fibre, probiotic = contains live bacteria. All live yoghurt is 'probiotic' I suppose, but not all yoghurt is live. So no, it doesn't just mean contains yoghurt. Skittle (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said yogurt was for men? Even badasses can have their voracious cravings for yogurt satisfied. [20]. bibliomaniac15 20:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody siad yoghurt was for men, but here is a sweet & creamy item marketed as "not for girls": Yorkie (chocolate bar). BrainyBabe (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's for the same reason that ads for family-suitable cars always show the happy non-dysfunctional family with the golden-haired perfect cute kids being driven by the father, never the mother; and ads for dishwashing detergent or laundry powder or vacuum cleaners or preparing a family meal show a woman doing the chores, never a man. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yogurt alters the vaginal flora, lessening the incidence of vaginosis and candidiasis. This is, generally, not an issue for men. - Nunh-huh 07:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Only when applied topically, not orally, and of course only if it is live, not pasteurised or irradiated. I remember a women's studies prof proposing that the yoghurt marketing people develop a new campaign, focused around a totally different use of their product -- sort of like how baking soda is used more for cleaning and deodorizing than its original use, baking. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact yogurt changes the vaginal flora when eaten. - Nunh-huh 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? <polite tone of voice> Do you have a reference for that? </> BrainyBabe (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Capital of the Illiterate

Who described Diego Rivera's murals in these terms?

Anthony Blunt, according to the Spectator. I would spell that with a "K" because it refers to Das Kapital, but I wouldn't italicize to maintain parallelism with the Bible. The full quote seems to be something like "If medieval art was the Bible of the Illiterate, Rivera's frescoes are the Kapital of the Illiterate." --Milkbreath (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain's plan to roll back federal gas taxes

John McCain has suggested that all federal gas taxes be eliminated between Memorial Day and Labor Day. My question is, how easy is it to do this, at the nuts-and-bolts, gas pump level? Can a local service station owner just go into his pumps and set the price to zero for a particular tax, or does it require some sort of manipulation by a representative of the company, or of the government? Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that companies would jump at the chance to lower prices while simultaneously increasing profits. Wrad (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is actually another way to do it that involves a delay and more paper work than simply dropping the price at the pump by the exact amount of the gas tax, which I doubt will ever happen. You would use your gas purchase receipts to figure an income tax deduction and any left over would be applied to your refund check. In the end its the same thing but psychologically it could backfire. 71.100.171.234 (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not an income tax deduction, it's an excise tax reduction. Corvus cornix_talk

Since gas prices were lower when oil prices were lower, I'd expect that reducing the tax will lower the price. My bigger concern is the increase in quantity demanded, which eventually will raise prices. I wish more Americans would live in Europe for a while before complaining about gas prices again. Imagine Reason (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 19

What is the average salary of a middle-class Indian in India?

Does anyone know what is the average salary (in U.S. dollar or in Rupee) of a middle-class Indian in India now? Can you please provide some sources or a link if you can. Thanks. 72.140.11.75 (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that would depend on how you define "middle class". Marco polo (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, a middle class Indian would be the petit-bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeois. He or she would have a good secured job and a high education. So what is the average salary (in U.S. dollar or in Rupee) of a middle class Indian in India now? 72.140.11.75 (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

From some quick googling, I gather that there are around 330 million people in India's middle class. Apparently the GDP per person is $2,700, so I'd hazard a guess that to be considered middle class you'd want to be on about that. Bear in mind that India has the fastest growing average salaries in the world, so the figures will be changing all the time. This from 2001 states that a rickshaw driver on $115/month was considered lower-middle class. The econmony has grown enormously since then, though, so if I had to guess a firm figure it would be around $4,000/year at least before you're being considered "petit-bourgeoisie". Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

From a recent article in The Guardian entitled "Streetwise, techno-savvy and hungry for it: my young cousin embodies the spirit of modern India" by Neil Biswas:

By the age of 21, Tuntai was already earning a larger monthly salary than his uncles - middle-class, university-educated men who had worked for 40 years to get to their well-respected positions in the Indian civil service and the steel industry. The resentment and fear this inequality engenders between the generations is palpable. I feel for my uncles, as they look at a world changing so fast that they hardly know which way to turn. Western-style shopping malls now spring up every month in Calcutta. It's a Brave New India, and it's merciless as well. There is no time for those left behind.

Hope this helps. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

National Bank of Poland

Does the National bank of Poland act as the deposit/retail bank for Government departments or do the departments use one of the mainsteam retail banks?

I think the NBP website has the answer to your question. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair

I've always been a big fan of Tony Blair, but as we all know he took quite a beating in his last few years in office. My question is how will Tony Blair be judged by history? How will he compare to other Prime Ministers? If factors that determine retrospective judgement of him are not yet resolved, please use your most educated guesswork. Thank you all.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Questions asking for opinions belong on forums and chat groups, not reference desks. -- kainaw™ 02:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Badly, very badly-at least if I have anything to do with it! He involved my country in one of the most unjustifiable and unnecessary wars in our history; he laid the foundations for the dismantling of the United Kingdom; he passed ever more powers to the European super-state; he introduced levels of cynicism and manipulation into British politics far in excess of any previous head of government; he turned principle into spin, manipulating the whole system of government into his own self-serving ends. I suspect his greatest achievment was to give way to the utterly charmless Gordon Brown, a brilliant exercise in self-promotion, which has served to make him look good in retrospect, casting a fog over his many errors! You asked for an opinion, Michael; well, you've got one. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, I always welcome your opinion and I think you make some very good points. I certainly wouldn't say unjustifiable, though I would say too much emphasis was placed on WMDs and not enough on what mattered. And I will point out that while Blair was very pro-Europe he was always an advocate of intergovenmentalism over supranationalism. And kainaw, while wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is a collection of minds who may have access to sources discussing the possible future views of Tony Blair, not to mention their own highly-valued opinions. I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm trying to find out what historians will think of Tony Blair. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to know how people will view him in later years because we're still so coloured by the recent past. It's really hard to explain to someone who wasn't there and didn't go through it, but in 1997, for a generation of young people starting to become politically aware and I'm pretty sure for many older people too, it felt like the whole world was going to turn upside down. Revolution was in the air and things could only get better! After a lifetime of the Tories being The Government, Labour was coming in and education, health, social care, everything was going to change, the world was going to become a fairer, better place and dear God it makes me choke to think of it. We strewed his path with palm branches, crying 'Hosannah!'; if we had kept silent, the very stones would have shouted his praises. There is only one way this story can end.

Nobody can live up to what was promised and hoped for, no man could have failed to disappoint. The venom and the bitterness in the accusation that he lied and led us into a pointless war ('Bliar!') only make sense in the context of how we felt before. He let us down, he lied to us. How could he? Say it isn't so.

I suspect you can even blame much of the apparent apathy and distrust towards parliament and politics on this disillusionment. We cared once, but he let us down. It hurt too much for us to invest again. Bastards the lot of them.

Sorry for the florid language, but 'tis little joy to be relieved of the childish ignorance that let us believe the world could change. In summary, it is too recent and feelings are too high to know how history will judge him. Clio, going by her profile, is of exactly the age to have been thoroughly caught up in the exciting times, as so many of us were. Damn, the man was charismatic; I remember watching him interviewed shortly before we actually went to war and experiencing a complete 2+2=5 for a good few minutes. Distance is needed before any sense can be made of the last 10 years. 79.66.106.188 (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be more interested to imagine what the historians will make of us silly fools who voted Blair in in the first place, what a mistake THAT was.--Artjo (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm shocked at how unqualified the disdain for him is. He really wasn't that bad, you know. 79.86, do you think then that historians will perhaps blame the messianic status he was afforded for his fall from grace? You're certainly right about his charisma, and I think his public speaking was of the highest order. His 2003 address to Congress is a must-read. But do you all really think that Iraq (which could still turn out well) will overshadow the advances Britain made under him? Bank of England independence, the minimum wage, the Good Friday agreement, the Human rights Act, Civil Partnerships, do you think these will all be overlooked? Sorry if I sound like I'm just trying to push Blairism on everyone, it just astounds me that there are so few kind words for the man. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How very interesting. Have you read the guidelines at the top of the page that say about not starting debates? Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my bit above? I'm not trying to start a debate. This is the humanities desk, and therefore is likely to contain agood few historians, and hopefully some who have lived through the administrations of other controversial leaders, like Reagan and Thatcher. It stands to reason that they might therefore be able to offer some valid historical insight into the retrospective perception of a modern PM whose actions were widely criticised. Reagan, and to a lesser extent Thatcher are both now seen as crucial in the development of their respective nations and so I was hoping people may be able to say "well, this is comparable to that" or "the introduction of this will be seen as frivolous and wasteful" or something. to quote myself above "I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm trying to find out what historians will think of Tony Blair". I'm aware it is a controversial topic, but I don't think it's too much to ask for an assessment of his Premiership in comparison to those who came before him. He's one of only three leaders I remember having so I don't have much to draw on here. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way is soliciting opinions not starting a debate? And if you don't want to debate, why do you offer counter-arguments ("But do you all really think that Iraq (which could still turn out well) will overshadow the advances Britain made under him? Bank of England independence, the minimum wage, the Good Friday agreement, the Human rights Act, Civil Partnerships, do you think these will all be overlooked?")?

As Kainaw pointed out above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and nor is it a chatroom. There are plenty of internet forums where you can go to discuss what people might or might not think about Tony Blair one day, but such idle speculation is not within the remit of the Reference Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Asking for opinions has one and only one purpose: debate. This is a reference desk. If you want to know what historians think, ask if anyone has references to what professional historians think. Don't ask for opinions from random Wikipedia editors who may not even know where Europe is located on a world map. -- kainaw™ 18:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but those sentences you quoted end in question marks. It was not a counter-argument but a follow-up question, which I am fairly certain is allowed. The events I mentioned are, whether you like it or not, major political events that happened during his Premiership and that I asked about as i find it difficult to believe they will not be mentioned in the history books. To interpret that as a counter-argument seems ever so slightly over the top. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's one of those odd-shaped countries at the east end of that little sea just above Africa, isn't it? ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling, Bielle, that I might, just might, actually live there; somewhere off the west coast, I believe! I would have thought that anyone who did not know the location of Europe would be well advised not to express an opinion on any matter whatsoever, for all our sakes! Excuse me, everybody, while I descend into fits of uncontrolled laughter! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael, I am a professional historian, and more than delighted to tell you what I think, on this or any other subject. I can’t always supply references though!

It's not so much that you are asking for debate that concerns me. Rather, you are holding up a mirror, expecting to see your own judgements reflected back at you. In your obvious surprise that they are not you are starting to wave the Blair flag; but what about this and what about that? I could, if I wished, offer detailed challenges to your list of Blairite 'achievements', from the supposed independence of the Bank of England to the Human Rights Act, the operation of which, in my experience, is held in almost universal contempt. But what would be the point? History is the only judge, and history tends, in its arbitrary and sweeping way, to take account only of the big picture; and in Blair's case the big picture is not good.

We went to war not in defence of human rights (were they somehow worse in Iraq than, say, Zimbabwe or North Korea?), but in pursuit of non-existent terrorists and illusory weapons of mass destruction. We found a bad situation and we made it infinitely worse. We removed a secular dictator, only to allow the worst forms of fratricidal and religious conflict to emerge. I sincerely hope that things in Iraq 'could still turn out well', as you put it, but do you honestly believe that will make the sacrifice of thousands upon thousands of innocent lives worthwhile? Blair's administration, in its embarrassment over the lies and deceptions that took us to war in the Middle East, tried to hide the true facts, and may very well have hounded an innocent man to his death. In the end I do sincerely believe that he, along with Dubya, Svengali to his Trilby, will stand condemned before the bar of history.

But, yes, you are right; I find it difficult to be objective here. Like a climber, I only see the rock face in front of me, and not the mountain. I grew up during the Blair years, and voted for the first time in the general election of May 2005 (Conservative, if you want to know!). It's too much a part of my life for me to bring my scholarly instincts to bear. In the end the only real response to your question is that given by Zhou Enlai when asked about the historical significance of the French Revolution-'It's too early to say.' Ask me again in twenty years or so, by which time I will have written his biography. For, in the end, history might be no more than what historians say it is! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on many of those points Clio, but I was not "holding up a mirror, expecting to see (my) own judgements reflected back at (me)". I simply brought up the positive side of Blair's reign because it seems incredible that when the history books are being written they will not be mentioned. I asked what historians will think, and then I questioned whether those aspects would really be absent, as all the answers suggested. It is difficult to be objective, but I did think that we'd be capable of at least fair discourse. I understand why people had a problem with my asking this, and I understand that people didn't like my interjections about the social positives Blair brought to our country. The fact is I was bored and on the reference desks all day, so when people replied I was asking for claifications or further insight. If I sounded like I was expecting to hear my own opinions parroted back at me it is solely because it seems shocking to me that some of the advances that were made under his administration, and the changes in British politics, for better or worse, will be totally overshadowed by Iraq. I think that this demonstrates a large degree of recentism, which is of course to be forgiven in such controversial political events as these. But I accpet that it is best to let the matter go. So sorry, everyone. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael, please do not apologise. Your question had a legitimate and useful purpose. It certainly helped me focus my thoughts. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

date of birth of contemporary garden author alex dingwall-main and bio

want independent bio of contemporary garden author, alex dingwall-main.

"Please" would be nice! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to THAT!--Artjo (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

By "independent" do you mean other than "commercial" (such as would be provided by an author's agent or publisher)? or what? Note that a Reference Desk query or comment is to be signed by typing ~~~~ (see top of page, also about what "results" you can expect from a query here) -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

At your services, oh master: The person has a web site (#2 on the ghit list) which gives an address (Les Barbiers, 84220 Roussillon. Provence, France) and an Email (info@admgarden.com) contact. All I could find out is that he is Scots, looks about 45 and is the author of a small but successful number of books. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

greatest extent of roman empire

I saw on a doco that the Roman Empire reached its greatest extent in 198 AD, which is rubbish, because everyone knows it achieved the milestone under Trajan, in, I think, 116 (or maybe 117, when Trajan died). Why would they have gotten the idea of 198? Is there any place acquired after 117, before 198, which was not held under Trajan? What was the total area of the empire in 117, and 198? I'm basically wondering if their claim, although considered wrong by historians (to the best of my knowledge) is nevertheless defensible on some grounds. thanks in advance, 203.221.126.122 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's simply wrong. The Empire never again reached the size it had under Trajan, some 5.9 million square kilometers. The Emperor in 198 was Septimius Severus, who made no significant additions to its territory. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The land taken by Trajan in 117 was held by the Romans until into the 3rd century. The land gained to bring it to it's largest extent was the thin strip between Hadrian's wall and the Antonine wall, in what is now southern Scotland, Which was conquered by both Antoninus Pius and Septimius Severus. This would mean that all the time the Antonine wall was the northern border of the empire, it was very slightly larger than it had been under Trajan.HS7 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, HS7; this is wrong. First, Trajan's Second Dacian War concluded in 106AD, not 117, which was the year of his death. Second, though the Dacian province was held until the third century, until the time of Aurelian, Mesopotamia, Trajan's other great conquest, was abandoned by Hadrian, his successor, and never fully recovered. Severus's campaign in Scotland was from 208 onwards, not 198, and no permanent presence was retained on the Antonine Wall after his withdrawal, the frontier being maintained on the newly repaired wall of Hadrian. The fullest territorial extent of the Empire is detailed in the List of largest empires. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Who was this painter?

Alright, I know this is super obscure, and I probably won't get any useful answers anyway, but I just want to throw this out there:

There is this one painter I vividly remember, he was really brilliant. Then something or other happened, and he lost a significant portion of his eyesight, but he continued painting. I remember what I found really shocking was how bizarre and beautiful the color choices were after he'd lost his sight. I know there isn't much to go on, but I'd really appriciate a push in the right direction of this guy.

Cecilia Todd? or maybe Claude Monet? Dismas|^(talk) 05:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My first guess would be Monet. His blindness was relatively temporaray, in that it was due, I believe, to cataracts. The condition was operable. There was a colour change from paiintings before and after the surgery, but I don't recall any great evidence of a new sense of colour. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven? --69.134.124.30 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven is to music as Monet is to painting? That was true even without being deaf or blind. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is probably not Jean-Julien Lemordant (I think he stopped painting when he went blind, though he might have started again after his sight was restored). But you might want to take a look anyway. - Nunh-huh 07:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the cataract paintings in the documentary looked terrific, but Monet didn't really appreciate them and destroyed some or most. Dismas' article explains that he did this to his work at times anyway, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

question about crime

Has there ever been a case where a person has been charged with attempting to commit a crime against a fictional entity?--Goon Noot (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that copyright infringement counts, but it's very common. Perhaps vandalism of a representation of the fictional character? Or if you want to be a stereotypical cynical athiest, blasphemy was a very serious crime until recently. Or actually, I've just found this which explains a man was jailed for 20 years for possessing cartoon child pornography, although the link it gives for the article is dead. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the man was Dwight Whorley. It's not really a crime against a fictional character, but it's close. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but even in the crime you mentioned, he actually possessed a physical object. I was thinking something more like proclaiming a death threat against a person that doesn't exist.--Goon Noot (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. It probably has happened, but I'm struggling to find any examples. Actually, I doubt anyone has ever been charged with it, but I'm sure threats have been made. Although I doubt anyone who knew that an entity was fictional would bother to threaten it. How could you kill Mickey Mouse? Defamation has been successfully prosecuted in court though, I believe in the 1970s Disney sued someone who was manufacturing Mickey Mouse caricatures that defamed the mouse/Disney and won. And Coke threatened the people who came up with the CoCaine t-shirts with legal action. Those are both more crimes against the copyright of the company than the actual fictional entity, although as the entity is what constitutes the copyright you could make a case for those. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been lots of cases recently of people committing virtual crimes in MMORPGs. In 2007 a Dutch teen was arrested for stealing virtual furniture.[21] We even have an article: Virtual crime. These crimes can range from virtual theft to virtual murder and rape or even virtual terrorism. Bare in mind that because many gamers are now spending huge sums of real money of virtual objects virtual crime can actually financially harm people. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The personhood of a corporation is a legal fiction. Corporations own physical assets but a corporation per se has no physical existence. Thus, you could reasonably consider any crime committed against a corporation as a crime against a fictional entity. Of course a legal fiction isn't exactly in the same category as literary fiction, although there are similarities. 84.239.133.86 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Life Avatar Sued for Copyright Infringement. Video game fan asks court to ban real sloth and greed from World of Warcraft. Corvus cornix_talk 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Detailed tree diagram depicting the major religions

So, I happened to catch a Rush video clip on YouTube on Pharyngula. It shows nicely how most of the major religions are divided. Does anyone know of a nice, plain diagram of this? I tried looking for one, but my Google-fu is not as strong as I thought. Hopefully, it should be as complete as possible. I'm just looking for a nice, straightforward way to visualize all the several religions in circulation. — Kieff | Talk 06:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean like a family tree of religions? Easy enough with Judaism and its offshoots, I'd imagine, but it probably gets much harder with the really old religions like Hinduism. Not all religions cross over enough for it to really be complete, or it least it wouldn't have only one trunk. So many ancient religions never came into contact with each other, and I'd be sceptical of any idea that all religions evolved from one original sect. A "nice, plain diagram of this" would be impossible, that video is a massive oversimplification. There are too many religions and not enough overlap to make it possible, sorry. Although this university seems to have set drawing one as an exam question. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a pair of rather handsome diagrams among those in the list at this page. If you want to jump straight to them, they are Timeline of world religions: eastern and Timeline of world religions: western. Although they are described as timelines, they also show the evolution of the religions in a tree-like way. --Heron (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Caveat: I just noticed some spelling mistakes in those charts, so you might want to proof-read them before taking them as, er, gospel. --Heron (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly christianity was influenced by buddhism, so that might be a way to link the two sides of the tree. Which happens to miss out my religon as well as many others, but then you can't have everything, and I guess noone was obsessive enough to try to add them.HS7 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Price of bread

I keep on reading stories about how the prices of food are rising. So why aren't they? I don't keep track of this sort of thing, but I know for sure that the price of my favourite bread is still the same it was last year. (And the year before that.) Is this price-rise just in certain parts of the word? I'm from the Netherlands. Amrad (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some helpful links might be this BBC report and this FT section. This site explains that Dutch supermarkets are selling bread at a loss, presumably because it is a staple product that draws consumers to their shops. The price rise is global, but different products (especially grain-based) have seen prices increase more than others. I'm sure that your shops will have raised prices on other products or cut cost in order to compensate for the losses. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See loss leader. Once you are in their doors, you are at their mercy. (Cue wafting scents of cinnamon doughnuts.) BrainyBabe (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I already thought it might be something like that. However, the strategy does't work on me because I'm no impulsive buyer - I buy only what's on my shopping list. Ironically, I visit that specific supermarket only to buy bread. Oh, and supermarkets in the Netherlands don't sell donuts. Actually, I don't know any place that sells donuts. Plenty of chips-shops, though - our staple junk food. And yes, we drown them in mayonaise. Yummy. :) Amrad (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mayo is okay on chips, especially if you mix it with ketchup and Colman's English mustard. Quality. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Poutine all the way to coronary heart disease! BrainyBabe (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

BrainyBabe, it occurs to that there are two ways of committing suicide: jumping off a cliff, which would be the fast method, or eating that Poutine, the slow route! Yucky, yuck! There must be so many grossly overweight Quebecois!! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I would presume that the magnitude of the rises would depend significantly on the percentage of the cost of food that is from the raw materials (which AFAIK is what's mostly causing the rise). I would expect that in developed countries in general, the raw material cost is a much smaller percentage of the final cost so the price rises will therefore also be smaller. This combined with the fact that food in general takes a much bigger percentage of a person's income by the poor means that the poor in developing countries are hit especially hard. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This article in Wednesday's Guardian has a table showing that the price of a white loaf has risen by 63% since 2005. Their source is the UK's Office of National Statistics. --Heron (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A guest on the Charlie Rose show the other night said that wheat and rice prices have doubled in the past few months (in the U.S., I assume). A big part of the reason is that 30% of corn production now goes to ethanol, and farmlands previously used for other crops are now being converted to produce the moneymaker. It is outrageous, IMO. Imagine Reason (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry III and Edward the Confessor

Is tere any particular reason why Henry III associated himself so closely with the cult of Edward the Confessor? Marilyn Struthers (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward had a lot that Henry liked and aspired to be. Edward was a bit like Henry's "role-model"; he was reputed to be a man of peace, a man who could be looked up to. Henry, like Edward, was an orphan, so they had something in common. It was all about the model of medieval monarchy, and he couldn't get a better model than Edward. PeterSymonds | talk 11:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We cannot say for certain, Marilyn, what it was that attracted Henry to the cult of the Confessor, though is devotion was real enough. In The Reign of Henry III David Carpenter suggests the key period in the development of Henry's interest in the Edward cult came in the mid 1230s, closely tied up with a number of religious and political considerations. It's possible that the senior monks of Westminster, who had much to gain from the amplification of the Confessor, persuaded the king to take an interest in the native English saint. Henry also adopted Edward at the time of his marriage to Eleanor of Provence in 1236, suggesting that the acquisition of a personal saint was a sign of growing up. The monarchy, moreover, was beginning to lose its Norman origins, acquiring a more English identity in the process. And what better way of doing this than by linking its destiny with that of an English royal saint. Henry was to take this one step further by giving his sons Edward and Edmund Anglo-Saxon names.

I should say that while Edward was certainly a suitable subject for devotion he was not the best model of Medieval kingship, which required altogether more earthly qualities. Henry's lavish devotions were high among the factors that led to a new round of baronial wars, in the course of which a far worldlier Edward came to the rescue of the crown. Clio the Muse (talk)

journalism through other people's skins

I have been reading about John Howard Griffin, author of Black Like Me.This biography tells how Griffin, a white man, darkened his skin, changed little else, and passed as a black man in the Deep South of the United States in 1959. No one, white or black, challenged him: all accepted him for what he presented himself as. In 2006 Norah Vincent published Self-made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man, describing how she transformed herself for a rather longer journalistic experiment, and how everyone, male and female, accepted her version of herself. My question is, are there other experiments like this available online or in print, of lengthy serious personal transformations undertaken for the purposes of investigative journalism or sociology (as opposed to e.g. transgender curiosity)? These could be people switching class or gender or race. (I seem to remember one young woman disguising herself as an old woman, perhaps for a PhD thesis?) Has anyone tried race switching in South Africa since the downfall of apartheid -- not reclassification for personal benefit, but as an investigation to expose harsh truths to the public eye? Any related info would be welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To Be Fat Like Me is based on a true story. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Hello ! Can you tell me when Henry Ford has written (or said ?) "Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently" ? Thank you for your help ! (Please, excuse my bad English, my mother language is French.) --Égoïté (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Try wikiquote

Thank you. I tried, but : unsourced... --Égoïté (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the Oxford Reference Library, which suggests that they couldn't find a reliable date/source for it. I've looked quite hard and come up with nothing, sorry. PeterSymonds | talk 19:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The exact words are "Failure is only the opportunity more intelligently to begin again." This line appears in Henry Ford's book My Life and Work, published in 1922, page 19. It can be read online at Gutenberg. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Marvellous ! Thank you very very much Milbreath !

Nietzsche and Wagner

When and under what exact circumstances did Nietzsche begin to distance himself from Wagner? Mark of Cornwall (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It was in 1878, when Nietzsche published Human, All-too-Human.[22] I can't find exactly why though. but the author of the article suggests that it was due to N's friendship with Paul Rée. PeterSymonds | talk 18:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You can trace Nietzsche's disenchantment with the Wagner cult in his notebooks, Mark, where he discusses the master's addiction to luxury and glitter at his Bayreuth shrine; his misuse of the music medium; the false liberation his music brings; his desire to submit audiences to the power of his will; and above all his vanity, and yet again his vanity. Nietzsche was maturing beyond the kind of abject devotion that Wagner, a monster of egoism, demanded. His task was "Neither to suffer so intensely from life, nor live in such a flat and emotionally deficient way, that Wagner's art would be needed as a medicine." Wagner was undermining Nietzsche's efforts to lay hold of life, so he removed himself physically from his orbit and intellectually from his cult, as he shows in Human, All Too Human and still later inThe Wagner Case. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Worst poems and poets

Hi. I'm looking for some examples of the worst poems and poets in English literature. I'm thinking here of published poets, those who at one time may have been rated highly but underwent a subsequent reappraisal. Can you think of any?86.157.195.234 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the most famous bad English poet of all time is William MacGonagall, but I'm not sure if he was ever rated highly. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

HEY! William McGonagall wasn't a bad English poet, he was a bad Scots poet... 86.18.31.159 (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry about that. The OP used the phrase "English literature", which I take to mean "literature in English". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He was never rated at all, Richard, for the simple reason that his 'poetry' is truly terrible! It is absolutely hilarious, though, which was not the writer's intention. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio, I'm well aware of McGonagall's work. And of course the writer's "intention" is neither here nor there when it comes to critical evaluation of literary texts. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 06:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really happened in that order. Certainly vice versa, but if a poet was loved at the time, they generally become better with age, not worse. PeterSymonds | talk 19:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings? — Kieff | Talk 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if 'he' qualifies: Ern Malley. AndrewWTaylor (talk)

I'll probably be shot down for this, but how about Algernon Swinburne?--Eriastrum (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was considered for Poet Laureate after the death of Lord Tennyson. Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The person who actually got the job, Alfred Austin, is worth mentioning here. He succeeded Tennyson only after a gap of 4 years while Queen Victoria made up her mind. She offered it to William Morris, who declined. Eventually, Austin got the nod, and agreed. But after all that waiting, it proved to be a bad choice. Apparently, 2 anthologists of the world’s worst writers have separately considered him the worst Poet Laureate ever. His verse was indeed tedious, but it was not actually as bad as it was made out to be - in 1871 a story was put about that to mark the Prince of Wales's recent typhoid attack, he had penned the immortal lines ”... along the wires the electric message came, He is no better, he is just the same”. This has now entered the hallowed halls of apocrypha. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Your tail-plane has broken into flames, Eriastrum, as Clio opens fire, swooping down out of the sun! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is, for me, only one candidate for this prize: Felicia Hemans's Casabianca The boy stood on the burning deck/his bum was full of blisters (ass, for the benefit of our American readers)! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually read a little of Alfred Austin's work (the "World's Worst Writers" book made me curious). It isn't horrible or unreadable by any means; it's just often unintentionally humorous. He can have a weird, bouncy, jolly style. I think he seems worse by comparison to the many great poets of the 19th century. Nowadays, he would probably shine! Vultur (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Americans say "bum" too; the The Bum Bum Song was a big hit here. Speaking of Americans, Edgar Allan Poe was viewed as an atrocious poet both by his contemporaries by some critics today (most notably, Harold Bloom). There's an interesting essay/blog about Poe's awful-but-great writing here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? Thanks for the enlightenment! I thought bum would be understood as a hobo (a tramp, in England). Clio the Muse (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Bum Bum Song was a "big hit"...but anyway, local pride compels me to submit James McIntyre:

We have seen thee, Queen of Cheese,

Lying quietly at your ease,

Gently fanned by evening breeze;

Thy fair form no flies dare seize.

Classic. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated, but there is the Bad Sex in Fiction Award, of which some awardees have created mind-bogglingly horrific descriptions. For example, the classic "She made a noise somewhere between a beached seal and a police siren," by Nicholas Royle. bibliomaniac15 04:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"It was a dark and stormy night/None of my lines would scan right." BrainyBabe (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Train passes in the Uk

Does anybody know where i could get a train pass from in the United Kingdom and maybe send me a link to where you could apply for one, thanks --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c -- twice!) :Train pass? Do you mean ticket? If so, then this is the site I use: TheTrainLine.com. PeterSymonds | talk 18:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(also e/c twice) To be sure that I understand: do you want to buy a train pass 1. in the U.K. for use in the U.K. 2. from outside the U.K. for use in the U.K. 3. from inside the U.K. for use outside the U.K.? If the answer is 2 or 3, please tell us where "outside" is. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• For use in the UK, and its from Solihull but i need to get all over the country so just wondered if trains had something like bus passes --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Much to my astonishment, the world-famous Brit Rail passes appear only to be availble for purchase outside the U.K. Curious. And even curiouser, I couldn't find anything like a national pass for nationals. I wonder how that is enforced? Could you take a quick drive through the Chunnel and buy the pass on the French side, or do you need to show a passort to make such a purchase? ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c -- only here!) I don't think there are passes for the whole country, simply because there are so many different operators and companies that it wouldn't be possible. The closest thing is a railcard which gives you money off, but I don't think there's a system similar to bus passes. PeterSymonds | talk 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask the man in seat 61. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The man in seat 61 says "If you're a UK resident, Rail Rovers give unlimited travel over all or selected parts of the UK network" [23]. --Heron (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you learn something new every day, [24] this is the page. Ouch, expensive! PeterSymonds | talk 09:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since a Rail Rover is the equivalent in availability to an "open" ticket (available on any train at any time, without reservation), then £375 for a 7-day standard class or £565 for 14 days isn't that extortionate - an open standard class return from Manchester to London Euston is £230, it's only when you compare the price against restricted availability savers that the eyes begin to water. If you tried to buy a season ticket for anywhere much further than Newcastle to London, you'd be advised to buy a Rover as it's cheaper. (I actually do have a 1st class pass that covers the old London Midland region and is good for 5 years and renewed for the rest of my life, but that's because in a previous existence I worked for many years for the railways and reached a particular point in the management pay scales!). -- Arwel (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

George Orwell

I've just finished reading a biography of George Orwell and it occurs to me that a good case could be made for comparing him to Edmund Burke in that both were concerned with the negative effects of revolution and modernising ideologies. Would anyone agree with this? Div Dec (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He was certainly interested in revolution (he called the court of George V alien and uninspiring), but Animal Farm was written to show Stalin's betrayal of the Russian Revolution. So yes, that shows that he was concerned with the negative effects of revolution. PeterSymonds | talk 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter, Animal Farm was not written to show Stalin's 'betrayal' of the Russian Revolution, a fairly common misconception. Orwell's satire is about a revolution that starts to corrupt almost from the outset, before Napoleon/Stalin takes power. Snowball/Trotsky is part of this process. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how odd. I didn't think the BBC could get it wrong: "n 1945, Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was published. A political fable set in a farmyard but based on Stalin's betrayal of the Russian Revolution..." [25]. PeterSymonds | talk 07:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was H. G. Wells who made the "alien and uninspiring" remark. (To which the King replied, "I may be uninspiring, but I'll be damned if I'm alien".) Choess (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, so it was. PeterSymonds | talk 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter, do you really believe that the BBC does not get things wrong?! If so, that is a bad mistake! Anyway, read the book, keeping your eye on those windfall apples. This is where the rot begins. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting parallel, Div Dec, with much to commend it. Both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Reflections on the Revolution in France might be read as prophecies and warnings. Orwell's chief concern is with the globalisation of totalitarianism. Edmund Burke, writing in 1790, warned that the upheavals in France would only lead to further political destruction, terror and dictatorship. Both men also expressed views that were not wholly welcome in their own political and intellectual milieus; in the case of Burke, the radical Whigs of Charles James Fox; and in the case of Orwell, the circle most associated with the left-wing demimonde. Their critiques were thus all the more trenchant because they were made from within the citadel, so to speak, not from the perspective of the establishment.

Orwell and Burks also shared a distrust of their fellow intellectuals. Orwell expressed his contempt of a certain kind of 'Bloomsbury highbrow in The Lion and the Unicorn, his wartime essay on socialism and patriotism, just as Burke disliked Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the 'literary cabal', as he put it, of the French philosophes. On the fate of Marie Antoinette he wrote "But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists and calculators, has succeeded."

Both Burke and Orwell, two of the greatest political writers in the English language, were, in essence, defending human values threatened with destruction by waves of violence and intolerance. Both stand against the notion that cruel means justify abstract ends. I'm reminded, in particular, of Burke's warning in Letters to a Noble Lord to those aristocrats of his day who embraced radical chic-"...these philosophers consider men in their experiments no more than they do mice in an air pump." But it is in his riposte to Rousseau, the grandfather of Fascism and Communism, that he is at his greatest: "Society is indeed a contract...but becomes a partnership...between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born." You will find an echo of this in Orwell’s defence of patriotism as "…the bridge between the future and the past." Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What a GREAT answer, Clio the Muse. I would give you a prize if I could! Div Dec (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would accept it-if I could! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

quest

how many islands does puerto rico have i cant find it any

Here's the complete list: List of islands of Puerto Rico. PeterSymonds | talk 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Existentialism "Cure"

Is there any way to rid oneself of existential thoughts, other than by embracing religion? --207.63.254.167 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion will just make you ignore your own thoughts and accept the ones someone else created. It won't cure or replace them. But why would one want to do that? Choosing your own purpose is the best thing you could ask for in life. — Kieff | Talk 20:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the above opinion is only one POV. A recent study proved people with a religion to cope better with death or indeed dying...Just thought you might like to know...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

on the study? Either way, it's all a matter of opinion of what's "better". The point is that living this life while expecting another life after it may be a huge waste of your only chance to be alive. If there's no afterlife, and there's no reason to assume any of the several different versions of it are correct, then all these people who coped better with the death of others and themselves because they expected something else may very well have wasted their lives and not fulfilled their true aspirations. It's a terrible thought. I just can't see anything exceptionally wrong in encouraging people to make their own decisions in life, even if they decided to choose some faith, at least they did so deliberately. — Kieff | Talk 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this isn't the place to do it, let's avoid a religious debate. The question was excluding religion anyway, so it's best to stay focused. PeterSymonds | talk 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I excluded religion from the possible solutions because I am an atheist and am not interested in becoming religious. --207.63.254.167 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Think about other things :) Wrad (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes; but it's rather drastic! I should say that there are other absolutes beyond religion, political and ideological in nature, which serve to minimise, or eliminate, the 'dilemmas' one faces in thought and choice. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You could just try embracing being existential, in moderation of course. Not to sound Emo, but you could try writing poetry, reading some good books (Camus, Gorky, Neil Gaiman) or watch some existential films (Fight Club, The Matrix, anything by Bergman).

What you need is to find something to believe in, like faith but not of a religious nature. I believe in my artistic vision, that I'm capable of producing something of great literary value. Or perhaps, just wanting to fall in love again. Zidel333 (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't embracing one of the many forms of atheism and its way of looking at things a way to do this? Wrad (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by “atheisms way of looking at things.” People are born atheists. Atheism is, by one definition, simply the lack of belief in a deity without proof. How can the lack of a belief structure generate a specific point of view? --S.dedalus (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "people are born atheists", S.dedalus? They come out of the womb believing in the non-existence of God? I hardly think that's true; babies aren't born believing anything at all. Belief (including non-belief) is not innate but comes a considerable time later. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be correct. A-theism is literally a lack of belief, so it's accurate to say we are born atheists. -- Kesh (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, atheism is a lack of belief in god. Babies are not born with a belief in god because “god” is a concept that must be imprinted on a child. Therefore all people are born atheists. From another point of view if babies were born with a belief in god why do holly books instruct followers to teach children about the “true god”? Wouldn’t the children already know? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly one absolute, Wrad! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that a person should find a balance between trusting himself and trusting authority. Assuming God exists, I doubt he want us to be his puppets. If he did, why would he let everybody do things he says not to? Assuming he doesn't, there's always the danger that your personal perception of reality is wrong and could bring you harm (I'm thinking of the film Beautiful Mind.) Wrad (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, guys, and duly noted. I'll try to find some sort of fulfillment through existentialism, atheism, art, or a combination of the three. --207.63.254.167 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is not with your existentialist thoughts per se, but that they clash with your expectations for life, the world, and yourself. If this is the case, it is the expectations that need to brought to heel, not the existential thoughts. Vranak (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

April 20

Complete Soundtrack Listing

<welcome to wikipedia - moved to Entertainment desk for a better chance>

Year founded?

I'm working on this article about the Long View Center. I'm having trouble finding out what to list as the founding year for the intro and category. The Center's website states it was in 1870. The NPS says 1879. The N&O says 1881. On top of that, the Long View's website also says the sanctuary was built in 1856. Does anyone know what year(s) I should add to the article? APK be confused. Thanks. APK ^{yada yada} 08:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Blacks in the hippie movement

Why there were virtually no Afro-Americans among hippies despite hippie cosmopolitanism? --85.132.14.38 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hippies were largely white and largely middle-class. As someone said today on NPR, when we today say "Green" (as in Green technology, or the New York TImes Magazine's "Green issue" today) we often mean "white", much less of certain relatively affluent income groups. And please don't take the hippies at their word about the cosmopolitanism—sure, some of them were quite contemplative and cosmopolitan but many were just in it for the drugs and sex and fighting an unarticulated "man" who was responsible for their ills in some vague fashion. But of course one should not, either, overestimate the importance or the impact of the "hippies". Most people in the 1960s were not hippies and thought the hippies were ridiculous.

It's of note that many African-Americans of the 1960s were trying to do things that were of some distance from getting stoned in the Panhandle—the Civil Rights Movement was in full stride, racial tension was at a new height. While the San Francisco "liberated" were going to rock concerts to express their principles, people in the South were marching, getting beat up, and sometimes getting killed for their principles. One group believed in somehow creating a new humanity based around psychotropic drugs, muddled Eastern religious principles, and the tinny sounds of their day; the other was trying to directly fight against base hatred and discrimination. I exaggerate both positions, but I think you see what I am getting at, why they might not seem so akin to one another.

I should say, as a postscript, that I spend a lot of time today around people who consider themselves cosmopolitan, radical/liberal, open-minded, etc. (Cambridge academics). Some of them truly are. Many are just conforming to the expectations of the particular bubble they live in. In my experience, the people who proclaim the loudest that they love all people are the ones who think the least of the people they actually know, who consider them to fail in some ideal of what "people" should be. (I should probably note that I am a liberal myself, not a member of the much-parodied subset of angry campus Republicans.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's important not to stereotype imo, because that openness and change was part of the zeitgeist at the time in whatever way it was being expressed. The diverse mentalities fed into each other, all reflecting some kind of radical idealism expressed passively, actively, individually or in community and mixes of at least those. Afro is interesting too. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There were very close links between white and black radicals in the 1960s. The Students for a Democratic Society, for example, worked with the Black Panther Party. "Hippie" was largely a slur heaped on people involved in the 60s counter-culture rather than a self-identifying term used by members of any kind of organized movement. If you were to hang out at a radicals' party in Berkeley in 1969, it's likely there would be both white and black people, but only long-haired whites would be called "hippies" by passers-by. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Racism in Conrad

Is it indeed true, as some have argued, that Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is itself racist, that it shows evidence of artistic imperialism, reproducing the very thing it sets out to condemn? Topseyturvey (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep.

I suspect, Topseyturvey, that you have some familiarity with the arguments of Chinua Achebe and Edward Said? If not, the key texts here are Achebe's 1975 lecture An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and Said's Orientalism. Yes, Conrad's work, not just Heart of Darkness shows signs of both racism and sexism. But does it matter? It seems altogether too trite to say that Conrad was a man of his times, reflecting the views of his times. Achebe expects a perfect penetration, a complete and translucent understanding, which is not within the scope either of the novel or of Conrad's comprehension.

It was not for Conrad to fill this space, this gap in the European imagination, which, in any case, proponents of the post-colonial thesis would no doubt judge as presumptuous, or patronising, or both. It was for Conrad to write The Nigger of the 'Narcissus', Youth, The End of the Tether and all of his other wonderful racist and sexist stories, just as it was for Mark Twain to write Huckleberry Finn, and Harper Lee to write To Kill a Mockingbird.

I as sensitive as most to issues of racism and sexism, but I would always seek to judge the past in its own terms, to see things through different eyes. More to the point, I would rather have great literature that a barrel-load of political correctness, delivered by the likes of Achebe and his kind. I hope this does not come across as too bad-tempered, but I simply loath attempts to rewrite the past or to sanitise art. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Splitted

<Hi Sean, moved to language desk for expertise : ) >

Future of the European Union

Hello. Thinking about the future of European Union, of the decline and, perhaps, obsolecence of the nation state, is it likey that specific European identity will appear that will substitute for the disappearance of more traditional alliegences? I'm just looking for some indications, if possible, of the future political shape of Europe based on an extrapolation of present trends. I think that this is within the remit of the Humanities Desk. Many thanks. Raymond Budge. 217.42.98.87 (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Raymond, you might consider it this way. The nation-state, in its modern form, is a largely artificial creation; the child, not of nationalism, as is usually assumed, but of the Age of Enlightenment. The European Union might be said to be a reaction against this, a process by which the nation state will be rendered obsolete. But all the evidence suggests that there is no European identity as such. Rather what can be seen is the liberation of a patch-work of local identities, formerly sublimated within the nation state. What we can see, in other words, is Transylvanian, Basque, Breton, Flemish, Scottish and a host of other fragmentations; what we can see is a revival, it might be said, of the crazy patchwork of the Holy Roman Empire. How the Gods of History love irony!

This process of division and subdivision is likely to continue, always looking inwards, towards ever more parochial loyalties. Consider the Scots, whose sense of identity-once the bogus tartenry is removed-has an entirely negative basis, along the lines of 'we are Scots because we are not English'. But once the old 'oppressive' English state is factored out, once the sense of historical grievance is removed, what then? How will the Gaelic Highlands see the Saxon Lowlands? How will the east sit with the west? How will Glasgow sit with Edinburgh, a place they seemingly hate, as I discovered once from a reading of this page? Wider still and wider! But There'll Always Be an England, she writes in hope, as St George's Day fast approaches! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are two issues at stake here: the fitness of the nation state and the relation between politics and identity. To start with the first: the European nation states are simply too small to be able to deal with economic globalization. Alone those states cannot deal with/protect themselves against global economic problems and crises. They can only survive, if they, as they did, band together. So certainly the nation state of the size of the Netherlands is obsolete as an independent political identity.

However this does not mean that one European identity will supplant the European identities. What is likely to happen (and already happening) is that people have multiple identities, a European one, a National one and Regional one. Consider people in Belgium, these people have the strongest European identity, but they combine it with an identification as Belgian, and French-, Dutch- or German-speaking and often again with a provincial or urban identity (as Brusselaar or Limburger).

In a further unifying Europe this trend is likely to continue. Europe's economic integration will continue, and the European will have multiple layers of identity, including national and European. C mon (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager vs. the Problem of Hell

Pascal’s Wager says that you should be a Christian just in case you go to hell if Christianity turns out to be the “one true religion”. The Problem of Hell says that God is unjust if he sends people to hell.

What would Blaise Pascal, the inventor of Pascal’s Wager, thought about the Problem of Hell? What do believers, supporters, and advocates of Pascal’s Wager think about the Problem of Hell? What do Christians who believe that Pascal’s Wager means that you should be a Christian think about the Problem of Hell? What do Christians who claim or believe that you should be a Christian just in case you go to hell think about people claiming or believing that God is unjust if he sends people to hell? Would they agree with it? If not, then why not?

What would the first original people who thought and made up the argument of the Problem of Hell think about Pascal’s Wager? What do believers of the Problem of Hell think about Pascal’s Wager? What do people who claim or believe that the Problem of Hell means that God doesn’t exist or is unjust or Christianity is false think about Pascal’s Wager? What do people who claim or believe that God is unjust if he sends people to hell think about Christians claiming or believing that you should be a Christian just in case you go to hell? Would they agree with it? If not, then why not? <signing for> 202.7.166.174 (Talk)

Someone else asked a similar question recently. Is it a homework assignment? I'm just curious. --Masamage ♫ 05:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Each-Way (bet) and bookmaker betting, the bookmaker wins whatever the outcome. Maybe Pascal had his tongue in his cheek. There must be more than that to Pascal's Wager, even given some Christians (some faiths?) say you go to hell for betting. As for the problem of hell, no-one really likes the powerlessness of being on the receiving end of a unilateral contract such as the Covenant where terms are dictated rather than agreed. So cries of that's not fair and formulating arguments about the problem is a way of dodging an undodgeable (?) issue. Which brings us back to Pascal's betting solution. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No offence to Julia Rossi but I honestly think you will get a better response if you post your question on the Humanities Desk, 202.7.166.174.

Cool. Let's take it there. Julia Rossi (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

According to our article, Pascal's wager is about the supposedly infinite gain of Heaven rather than the infinite loss of Hell. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note: doing things out of fear rarely, if ever, works out well. This does not apply to clear and present dangers, e.g. this or this. You may point out that believing does not constitute 'doing', which illustrates the inconsequentiality of many (if not most) of our beliefs. Vranak (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fear does foster belief in the case of the Stockholm syndrome. And AndrewWTaylor, I think the OP is concerned with two separate problems. Imagine Reason (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My, what a lot of questions! I think, 202.7, that you seem to be conflating and confusing two entirely different issues. Andrew is right: the Wager, as set out in the Pensées, is about the gain of Heaven, not the loss of Hell; it is about the most meaningful way to enter the presence of God. It is not a negative argument, or a threat.. It is, rather, a challenge to atheism and to the limits of reason. Above all, it is calmly intellectual in approach; Pascal does not set out to achieve his aim like some kind of Medieval preacher, by using irrational concepts of fear. Hell is never explicitly defined. Anyway, you might consider some of the following:

Between us and heaven or hell there is only life half-way, the most fragile thing in the world. (213)

As far as the choices go, you must take the trouble to seek the truth, for if you die without worshipping the true principles you are lost. 'But', you say, 'if he had wanted me to worship him, he would have left some sign of his will.' So he did, but you pay no heed. Look for them then; it is well worth it. (236)

One of the ways in which the damned will be confounded is that they will see themselves condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion. (563)

So, death is certain; all follows from that. Reason cannot determine if God exists or not. It is not a matter that is subject to any rational proof. Believing is thus a leap beyond the limits of reason, which carries the possibility of infinite reward. For, "if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.' I would go so far as to suggest that fear of hell is not valid reason for this leap of faith. It would deceive neither God...nor Pascal!

Your wider questions on the Problem of Hell have no validity, because I cannot say what Pascal would have thought of this in the terms you have expressed it. I imagine that most people who believe in Heaven and Hell would choose to be in one place rather than the other. And for those who believe that God does not exist, well, why should they be concerned either about the Problem of Hell, or about Pascal's Wager? Clio the Muse (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

According to most surveys, I'd say that about 80% of Americans are Christians, 70% believe in a Heaven, and 60% believe in Hell. Imagine Reason (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Carnap and Wittgenstein

Rudolf Carnap of the Vienna Circle of philosophers said that he could derive all meaningful sentences from logic and sense-experience alone, claiming the support of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Does this make sense? Can language be reduced in this way, to a formal logical construct?F Hebert (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudolph Carnap claimed, as you suggest, F, that from a reading of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he could construct precise forms of language, free of metaphysical corruptions. But such an understanding is based on a partial reading of Ludwig Wittgenstein's complex little dissertation. For Wittgenstein meaning came from the world, not from sense-experience. Carnap's approach was both impossible...and impossibly funny! The idea of restricted language was applied so rigorously among the Vienna Circle that it reached the stage of making any form of expression all but impossible;

We appointed one of us to shout 'M' (for metaphysics) whenever an illegitimate sentence was uttered in our discussion. He was shouting 'M' so much we got sick of it and got him to shout 'not-M' whenever we said something legitimate.

Ha-ha! Fortunately for Carnap he began to think a little more clearly, introducing what he called the 'tolerance principle', according to which there is not one but many logics. So, by this standard, any expression of language is acceptable as long as there are sufficient rules governing its logical application. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible there was history between 1918-1920?

In the US, at least 500k people died of the Spanish flu in that short period. Wouldn't stuff have stopped? How were there so many events then (Red Summer, Red Scare, etc.)? Lotsofissues 13:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's only a fraction of a percentage of the US population, which was well over 100 million then. No need to stop anything.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially since a large number of those deaths were no doubt the young, the old, and the infirm. In any case, the examples you give are all of social strife, breakdown, and/or fear, which are in fact quite often the handmaidens of pandemics. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

History happens in places besides the US. Paragon12321 (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For as long as people act, and events are recorded, there is history, even in the midst of the deepest catastrophe. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Barbarity and Civilization: Can't find this quote!

Please help me locate a quote, which I only dimly remember. Something like:

'Every relic of civilization is also a relic of barbarity'.

Might be Erich Auerbach. Not sure! Joshua.c.j (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind - found it! Walter Benjamin: "There is no document of civilization...that is not simultaneously a document of barbarism." Joshua.c.j (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon Joshua c, where is it from? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Theses on the Philosophy of History".—eric 03:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks eric!  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

crime

what are the causes and solutions of crime?41.244.178.74 (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a big question. Did you try reading our articles on crime? How about greed, jealousy, and lust?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And while you are at it, read poverty, slum, and unemployment? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps drug addiction? I am not a dog (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Crime begins with humanity and will end with humanity. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Shoplifting began here, in ancient Phonecia. Thieves would literally lift the corner of a shop in order to snatch the sweet, sweet olives within. Oh, Shakazaramesh, will you ever learn?" (Sorry!) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous pianist

Who was/is Martha Goldstein? Apparently, her media is being used on countless articles about solo piano, and oftentimes, it is Chopin repertoire on an "1851 Erard piano." There's no use in searching for an article - nonesuch exists. --^LaPianísta! 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pianosociety has a tiny bit about her. It seems she is famous in the piano world for what you know her for—recording the entire Chopin repertoire on an 1851 Erard. HYENASTE 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found this page, which only says "Missing Biography". She is an enigma. HYENASTE 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Economic solutions

In my field of expertise we have various solutions (literally) sitting on the shelf ready to be used when a process calls for them to be used versus making them up from scratch. Consequently I am a bit miffed why we do not have economics solutions already prepared and waiting to be called when the circumstances, such as recession, merit them. Instead we seem to let ourselves be dependent upon politicians to come up with solutions that only benefit one special interest group or another. I mean doesn't it make more sense to lower taxes for those who can least afford them during a recession and increase taxes for those who can more easily afford to pay while adjusting government spending and borrowing to best accommodate the circumstance of recession? 71.100.13.197 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your confusion is understandable. The problem is that economics is complex. the word "recession" is used to describe a huge problem space, not a single failure. Therefore, there is not single off-the-shelf solution. By analogy, "recession" is equivalent to "stack overflow" in computer science, or "thermal problem" in computer hardware. Sure, there is a crude off-the-shelf generic solution but it is not really applicable to a particular real-world specific case. -70.177.166.200 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But if you're convinced of the value of off the shelf solutions, the only people politicians listen to are big business and lobbyists, so you'd need to get your information out there through a key channel like these.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found the site I last visited in 2001. Now I'm wondering why I am listening to John McCain (who admits that economics is not his strong point) explain his economic solution when my computer can handle more variables and come up with a (better) solution at higher speed and on my desktop? Hasn't McCain heard of the Virtual Economy? 71.100.13.197 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Because his script has to allow for dumbing down to the public and sound bites. I'd assume any statement he makes isn't worth the footage the mass media has graced our screens with, but that financial/economics specialist newspapers may provide the background and analysis. Check if your local political group needs an economics voice among them or ask them who you could approach if you want to be heard. Even writing as the public to specialist newspapers may be a start. There's also the glitch that politicians don't really want things "fixed" but I don't know what it's called. Probably somethiing like inbuilt dysfunction with a purpose. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dumbing down... you know you're right. I forgot about the fact that that is what politicians do. They have the smart bureaucrats on the one side and the public on the other side and their job is to be the interface between. Yes, their job is to dummy up and to dummy down and our job is to pick the one that does it best. Just thought it would be nice for a change to see a bunch of charts and squiggly lines. God I miss Ross Parroe. 71.100.13.197 (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Charts and squiggly lines would hold them to it. Nah, better you have awareness and you never know, thesmokinggun.com would have come out of the same dilemma – get together with fellow economists, only publish facts and proofs and call your site something hip and irrefutable. Best luck, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

PS You've likely seen in the Ross Perot article he puts his views re sound bites and where his latest plans include maps and charts here[26].

How to create and write your own music

May anyone give some advice for creating and writing your music? I listened to a song by Kenny G the other day and it gave me both a craving desire and inspiration to write and make my own tune perhaps even make up my own version of his song!

--Writer Cartoonist (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Most composers are also musicians and can play at least one instrument. However, the ability to play an instrument is not strictly necessary. There is now a lot of software that allows you create music and lets you play it on your computer. as an example, please see TamTam -70.177.166.200 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I don’t know of a single great composer or song writer who has not played an instrument. The basics are essential! If you can’t play an instrument well, start lessons immediately! Also find and take challenging music theory, composition, ear training, and music history classes. I don’t want to discourage you, but it can take decades to become a truly skilled composer. There is quite a bit of research which indicates that 10,00 hours of study is approximately the amount of time necessary to master complicated skill like this.[27] That works out to about twelve hours of study a week for five years. Without a solid foundation you will likely never be able to progress far. The greatest song writers have all put in their 10,000 hours of study. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are also people who will write the music to your tune if you need that, ghits here[28] and WikiHow[29]. Many people put others off with high standards. The important thing is to start. Douglas Adams said it takes a long time not to write a book. The next important thing is to keep going. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is to start, but understand that you will not be Kenny G in two weeks. Accomplishment is usually directly proportional to effort. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and if you’re planning to make “your own version of his song” you’ll need to get Kenny G’s permission first. His work is defiantly copyrighted and you don’t want to get in trouble with his copyright collective of choice. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The OP is inspired by Kenny G and will probably perform live with air guitar in his/her bathroom, after graduating from his/her computer desk before entering the dog eat dog world of Entertainment. By then, Kenny G might be glad to endorse him/her as a bona fide impersonator or, the OP will acknowledge the great Kenny G as their god while clutching the fifth gold figurine they have received where thanks also to S.dedalus' precognitive advice about copyright they will have arrived legally unscathed. I hear the faint rise of applause drowning out the rest of it. And whistles... Can hardly wait!! Julia Rossi (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 21

Peace of Prague

How much of what was said in the Peace of Prague (1866) before User: 75.70.***.*** deleted the parts were true? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

12th Royal Lancers, post Waterloo

I'm currently trying to bring James Graham (soldier) up to GA, and since there's not a lot of personal biographical information, I'm trying to expand on his military service. He was serving in the Coldstream Guards at Waterloo, and returned to England with them in 1816, (doing exciting things like arresting Cato Street Conspirators) remaining with the regiment until 1821, when he joined the 12th Royal Lancers. Graham was with the lancers until his discharge in 1830. So, nine years of service, but no idea what he did. Basic searches for the regiment offer no information for the years between Waterloo and the 1840s. The previously excellent http://www.regiments.org (which provided all this sort of information) has been down for weeks. Anyone know of another good source? Or, even better, is anyone an expert on the 12th Royal Lancers? Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Diaspora in US question

Hello, I just wanted to ask why certain information in the Republic of Armenia page has not been updated. For example, I understand that the Armenian Diaspora in the US is actually over a million, with almost 500,000 (if not more) in Southern California alone. Please see if you can find out the correct info on this. Thank you for your time.

141.158.53.215 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Mina

Copyright Question Concerning Titles

Would a title of a book be considered copyright if it was never published? In this specific case, there are four books in a series called Creepers. There were going to be six, but only four were published. The ONLY place the titles of the two missing books can be found are on the inside covers of the previous four. There is NO information about the two books anywhere online or in bookstores or anything. There is also no information or background behind the titles. ONLY the titles themselves. (And the titles do not have unique words or names.) My question is, are those titles copyright or can they be used? -WarthogDemon 07:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent question to ask a lawyer, and I suspect even a lawyer might have difficulty. We can't give you legal advice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghits gives[30] and one of them says, if it looks like a copyright issue, it probably is. Only a lawyer could tell you exactly. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)