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

November 15

Why did Western Europe take over the world?

For the record, I have read Guns, Germs and Steel and think that it does a decent job of explaining why the masters of Planet Earth were determined to come from somewhere on Eurasia. However, it falls short at explaining the takeover of Western Europe rather than, say, Arabia or China, both of which were much larger, organized, and advanced (culturally and scientifically) than any of the fledgling feudal European kingdoms during the Middle Ages. Both areas had basically all of the advantages to civilization described in Guns, Germs and Steel that Europe had, so why are Europeans and their descendents doing so much better than either modern Arabs or modern Chinese? Was it geographical factors, cultural differences, or are there distinct historical events that influenced this? 69.177.191.60 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Islam as a "unified force" that would take over the world was hampered largely by 2 factors, neither of which had much to do with Western Europe. First was that it was beset by political and doctrinal infighting; after a while various Islamic successors states to the Caliphate became more concerned with fighting each other than spreading the faith. Secondly, the Sack of Baghdad in 1258 by Mongol forces had a devestating effect on the Islamic empire; it was the equivalent of the loss of Rome to the Roman empire, and the Islamic world went into rapid political decline shortly thereafter. While Islam as a faith would continue to spread for a long time, Islam as a geo-political force was effectively done.

China's sense of superiority was also probably the source of its own downfall. Rather than seeing its superior technology as an advantage to be pressed in conquering the world, it saw other, lesser, cultures as unworthy of themselves, and this led to a long period of isolationism and inward turning. Even when there was a strong, centralized, chinese state, it was MUCH more concerned with keeping ferners OUT than in conquering other lands. Plus, China for large patches of history was FAR from a unified state, like Islam, it was often reduced to a bunch of squabbling infighting fiefdoms, more concerned with infighting than with conquest.

How do those reasons sound? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Another classic argument about the decline of the Islamic world (which I'm not sure I agree with) is that religious philosophies became increasingly anti-science, which stifled their status as a technical power. Wrad (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that geography can explain Western European predominance, except that Europe's fragmentation into islands, peninsulas, and watersheds divided by the Alps facilitated its political fragmentation. That fragmentation promoted a competition among European states that did not exist in the same way in China, where a single, central empire was idealized and existed for much of Chinese history. Even when China was fragmented, technology was seen as something rather grubby and beneath the interest of warriors and scholars. Science and technological advance occurred under the Umayyad and especially the Abbasid Caliphates, but they were not harnessed to extending the caliphate's power, perhaps because religious fervor and military prowess had been so successful at extending that power without technological enhancement. Also, Islam frowns upon the killing of Muslims by other Muslims, and this may have stymied military competition among the Islamic states that followed the devastation of the Mongol conquest. On the other hand, by the late Middle Ages, an intense rivalry had developed among the states of Western Europe. Furthermore, Western European rulers aligned themselves with the urban merchant class in a quest not only for military but also for economic predominance. This rivalry spurred Western European states and entrepreneurs to develop and adopt technologies that would give them an advantage over their rivals. It was this rivalry that spurred the development of the increasingly effective weaponry, shipbuilding technologies, and navigation skills, as well as accounting, bureaucratic, and managerial innovations that made European enterprise and civil administration more effective and efficient than its Asian counterparts. The rivalry of Spain and Portugal first with Genoa and Venice and then with each other led both to develop colonial and mercantile empires. The rivalry of the northern European states first with their Iberian counterparts and then with each other led to further technological and entrepreneurial advances, to further world conquest, and ultimately to the Industrial Revolution, which then gave Western Europe (and the United States) a vast advantage over other parts of the world. That advantage, however, has narrowed considerably over the past quarter century. Marco polo (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Europe became dominant only recently. In the thousands of years of mankind, Europe became dominant around 1500, which is when colonization really started happening. So that's only 500 years, and already we are seeing the beginnings of that being changed. Before Europe became dominant, India, the Arab world, East Asia were the most sophisticated and advanced cultures in the world at different points of time. As for how Europe became dominant, it's because of a few reasons. One was the establishment of unified states that warred against other unified states. This constant struggle meant that each unified state tried to advance their technology and defeat the other unified state which was doing the same thing. As a result, all of Europe advanced tremendously. Europe did not invent the gun (China did), but their acquisition of it, and their utilization of it against other European states meant that all European states would start to field their own gunpowder weapons in full force. Unified states also meant that people could perform trades to earn money to buy food instead of hunting or foraging for food in order to survive. Since they didn't have to hunt for their own food, they could focus their attention on education, which in turn helped advance their civilization even further. These advances improved their power projection in the form of sea going vessels. They then traveled to far away lands and brought with them all of the advanced weapons and technology they acquired due to incessant fighting amongst each other. The Americas and Australia were relatively isolated from the Old World and did not have access to the advances in weapons and technology made there, like the gun. They also were not exposed to Old World diseases, so they were annihilated when Europeans made contact with them. European colonization was most successful in these lands because of it, and sure enough, we see the results of that still to this day. European diaspora make up the majority in these countries. Europeans colonized other lands in the Old World like India and parts of the African continent, but they were not nearly as successful because India and Africa populations were already exposed to Old World diseases, and in the case of India, was also advanced in technology, weapons, and social structure. ScienceApe (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a long and complicated answer to these questions, but I've always been of the opinion that a big part of the reason why Western Europe and America dominates geopolitics today is the steam engine. Europe was the first to enter the Industrial Revolution, which massively increased production and GDP and thus came to dominate other cultures. Certainly, people might argue that Europe was important before that, and it was, but not necessarily much greater than, say, China. The Industrial Revolution sealed the deal, IMHO. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution happened in the late 1800s though. Colonization started around 1500s. If anything the Industrial Revolution accelerated Japan's industrial growth. Decolonization occurred just 50 or so years after the Industrial Revolution. The 1500s was when Europe really started to become dominant, so really the Renaissance was what did it. ScienceApe (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the industrial revolution started in the late 1800s, the article on the subject itself states that it started in the late 1700s. As I said, I've no special qualifications or advanced reasoning behind it (read as "Feel free to ignore anything I'm saying, because it's very possible that I'm wrong"), but while Europe was certainly a big power before it (quite possibly the biggest), it wasn't as head and shoulders above the rest of the world that we might imagine. I've always seen that as a kind of eurocentric perspective. Certainly, very few, if any, European powers was as important as China was in the 1700s. But then the Industrial Revolution happened, and BAM!, Europe and the US were absolutely dominant.

Lets make a thought experiment: suppose that China would've been the first ones to go through the Industrial revolution, and that the steam engine was invented there. Do you really think Europe would still have remained dominant? Personally, I've no doubt that the concept of "the West" as the most important place in the world would have been a historical relic, like the Roman Empire or Genghis Khan's Mongolian Empire 83.250.202.208 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayron's answer is well-considered, but it begs the question: if the Islamic expansion and the Chinese empire(s) were spoiled by in-fighting, what exactly do we make of western Europe, which was at least as divided politically and religiously? Catholics v. Protestants, French v. English, Spanish v. Moors, Vikings v. everyone, etc. House arrest for scientists, mountains running through the continent, islands and peninsulas keeping even close neighbours from integrating meaningfully, a church that thinks of the Dark Ages as the Good ol' Days. I don't know that the schisms facing China and Arabia were so much worse. Sometimes I think Europeans expanded outward so successfully because they were so desperate to get away from one another. Matt Deres (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a place

As I saw in Miracle Landing, one of the passengers who boarded that fateful flight claimed he entertained at the Liki-Liki. Is there really a place called the Liki-Liki somewhere in Hawaii?72.229.139.171 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a Drive in, but that is spelled Like Like. Apart from that it appears to be as real as Podunk. (The word means "tight" if you trust a dictionary. I suspect that one colloquial use describes a "red light district" establishment.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

These folks may disagree... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What does a Native American language have to do with whether a place in Hawaii is real or not?72.229.139.171 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing? 122.161.173.212 (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Something defines itself against the nothing. Both are cousins of everything which, depending on your view, may include nothing or exclude it. But nothing is quite something, even having its own article. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sticking to philosophy, while I didn't really understand that, answering all those tons of questions on the refdesk is surely giving you splendid karma, Julia 122.161.173.212 (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Whereas there is an artile about nothing there doesn't seem to any article about something (disambiguation) in the sense you seem to mean. So I have come to the conclusion that nothing exists whereas something doesn't. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily a valid conclusion, Dmcq. WP does not yet and never will have an article on everything (even if it does have an article on everything). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Because if there is nothing (rather then something), then you would NOT be here asking these sorts of questions. The fact that you are here asking these questions, means that there must be something rather than nothing. 122.107.203.230 (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

See anthropic principle. --Tango (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As always, Google (with a little help), provides the answer. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes 122.161 *blushes* though, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure there is a "something"? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember that this question was posed by Stephen Hawking in Brief History of Time. I read that book at a young age, and so I think it became a big part of me. I always assumed that it was one of those questions that, by definition, science couldn't ever answer; science relies an awful lot on "being." Because whatever there would be, there wouldn't be matter and energy or the stuff that our brain is made of. Also, as the very concept of "being" is just a human construct that helps us solve problems, I don't think we really have a concept of "not being." That makes this one of those philosophical questions that exist only because of the limitations of the human mind.NByz (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mu. — DanielLC 16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My philosophy class covered this last year. This is evidently a question which science can never answer. (Leave it to Wikipedia to try though. :) There is a proof for why this is true. I don’t want to misguide you with a half remembered paraphrase, but if you’re really interested in the question get a hold of Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings ($3 used from Amizon.com). The relevant proof should be in the first few chapters. Hope that helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

White Horses

Iranian Leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech in America. He mentioned " WHITE HORSES ". Please provide any references you have. Are the white horses part of Iranian mythology / religion, or perhaps ancient Hindu mythology / religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snodgrass3 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that followers of the Mahdi believe him (?) to arrive riding a white horse. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The white horse has a long history, rich in mythology. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to add some mythology to that article! It doesn't include any yet, and the horse worship article is exclusively Western European. Try these perhaps:

For Persian mythology: Rakhsh the hero Rostam's white horse, Tishtrya the rain god/star Sirius who took the form of a white stallion for an epic battle, Mithra the god who rides a chariot pulled by white horses (that part is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article). The four horses of goddess Anahita's chariot are also described as white. Saoshyant is sometimes described as riding a white horse, just as Kalki.

For Hindu mythology: Ashvamedha the sacred sacrifice of a white horse (our article doesn't mention the white part but see the images), Kalki the final world saviour who rides a white horse and Uchaishravas the white horse of Indra. (Indra liked to steal the white sacrificial horses, btw; this is a theme of many stories, see Sagara.)

For Islam, maybe see Sirat al-Mustaqim the straight path of God (again, though, you need an outside source for the white horse reference: the souls of the virtuous are helped to navigate it because their good deeds turn into a white horse they can ride to the end.)

As BrainyBabe says, several other cultures have white horse myths and symbolism as well. Cheers, WikiJedits (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's so interesting – any chance of a White horse (mythology) article? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure - have started it, but would love more help :) WikiJedits (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arguments made against womens' and blacks' rights in U.S. History

I am looking for newspaper articles or other things written before women and blacks had civil rights in the U.S.A. arguing that they should not be given those rights. I don't want paraphrased quotes or anything; I actually want to see things which were written in that time with (as detailed as possible) arguments against racial and sex equality. Are there any such documents available online? - 15:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC) User: Nightvid (unregistered)

You could do worse than starting with the Cornerstone Speech. Also, the New York Times, in a magnificent move, has made all of its articles back to 1851 available online. Just go here and search for "suffrage" in June of 1919 or "civil rights" in the Sixties. This one has some choice words on why the women of Alabama should not suffer the dangers and humiliation of being permitted to vote. Then, as now, states' rights, are a frequent high ground for anti-equal-rights folks. --Sean 17:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There must also be anthologies that collected these, after the battle was (mostly) won. Any historians or librarians around? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Plessy v. Ferguson is a famous court case about rights for blacks. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There was this thing about a good wife being able to influence how her husband and sons voted, I think. Or maybe it was that the husband also represents the wife. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

State of nations

Um, this is quite some question, but I thought this would be the best place to ask it as it has the most knowledgeable people who could answer it or at least guide me in the right direction. (Also please note that in formulating this question, my intention is not to sound racist or culturally insensitive, but to explore, and possibly rule out, all scientific possibilities) The question is - why are the different countries of the world in such different stages of development - economically, socially and culturally? Is there any basic set of principles that can be used to explain why, for instance, Europe and North America are economically advanced, law abiding societies with a vibrant intellectual discourse? Why virtually all of Africa is mired in poverty and warfare and has nothing much to show by way of civilizational development? Why Indians, after expounding the deepest philosophical principles in ancient times that still leave us struggling for comprehension, suddenly decided to take it easy and whithered away in a morass of apathy? What factors do we ascribe these differences to - race, climate, pure luck? And how do we take into account the apparent paradoxes - like North and South korea which share a common history and culture but the contrast between them could not be more stark. Please note that I don't want the answer in terms of historical developments ("North Korea became communist - that's why") - but what laid the foundation for those historical events - what was in the temperament of the people that precipitated or allowed the historical events to take place. I am sorry this is a very long question, but I will be deeply indebted for any clues which may help me investigate this further. Any books or literature which deals with the subject shall also be appreciated. Best regards -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, lots of people have written extensively on the subject, but I would recommend a book to get you started: Guns, Germs, and Steel is probably the most recent and best known book to tackle the subject, and is a great read. Many people would recommend it as an introduction to the topic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous response. Much of what makes one country succeed and another fail boils down simply to geography. In the North and South Korea example, it's due to the difference between the strict Marxist communism of NK versus the capitalism in SK, but geography explains why Korea was split in two. The North is simply closer to China, which means the Chinese reinforcements were operating closer to their home bases and were thus able to stave off US/UN forces in the Korean War. Had Korea been attached to China at the southern end, I'm sure NK would be the successful capitalist nation and SK would be the miserable failure of a communist nation. For another example, the geographic location of the US provided relative protection from the destruction of WW2, thus leaving the US in a good position to sell goods around the world to countries which had their factories and infrastructure destroyed in WW2. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David S. Landes is another great read on this front. People who take a serious interest in this area study development economics. This field tries to answer these questions by using all the normal economic methods. They hypothesize about what factors make an area rich or poor, gather data (often back through time as well), and perform regression analysis to see if they were on the right track. There are lots of insights that this branch of economics offers about how to form policies that encourage capital accumulation, optimal public finance (providing public goods etc.) and how important human development is.NByz (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to amend what StuRat said about Korea. Korea was split in two after WWII because Japan had been occupying it, and after the war had ended America and the Soviet Union wanted to come to some sort of agreement about the "spoils" (the Soviet Union had entered the war against Japan only just before Hiroshima, but they'd already started rolling in tanks in South-East Asia, so you couldn't ignore them). The US thought that the 38th parallel was as decent a border as any, as it cuts the country approximately in half. Kremlin agreed, and thus North and South Korea was born. At the end of the Korean war the armistice line was very close to the old border (the 38th parallel), where it remains today. The boundary between North and South Korea is thus not the result of some innate advantage to geography, it's more the result of a rather arbitrary decision made by a US official, and agreement from the Kremlin. It's entirely plausible that the US could have wound up controlling the northern part, or the whole thing, had they dropped the bomb a month earlier. 90.235.1.241 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that "The boundary between North and South Korea is thus not the result of some innate advantage to geography, it's more the result of a rather arbitrary decision made by a US official, and agreement from the Kremlin". The only reason both sides would agree to such an arbitrary line was if it was close to the armistice line. If not, whichever party would give up the most land would have refused, and the 38th parallel would just have been a footnote in history. Why was this the armistice line, then ? Because, as I said, the North, being attached to China, could be easily resupplied, while the South could not. If the entire length of Korea was attached to China, the result of the Korean War might have been a completely communist Korea, whereas, if Korea had been an island, it might well have been entirely a capitalist nation after the war. In fact, if we look at the Vietnam War, the nation did become entirely communist, because the entire length of the country could be resupplied by communists from adjacent China, Laos and Cambodia. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Languages

I've moved your question to the Languages reference desk, where many knowledgeable volunteers hang out. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Bangladesh.

The Satanic Verses published in Urdu?

Per VRTS ticket # 2008111510013913, is Rushdie's book available in Urdu? The closest I've found is in Persian. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-15t21:19z, -- Jeandré, 2008-11-15t21:26z

culture/art as oppression

Hi, Can we consider culture, and art in particular as a form of oppression, leading to a cultivated class dominating a non-cultivated class ?

Mass culture makes people more intelligent, and in the same time more stupid. Can we push further and say the same thing about culture as whole ?

Do you know any thinkers who wrote about that ?

thanks

79.87.251.15 (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

When's your homework due in? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.251.15 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to argue that culture limits free will, which is oppression. Consider the recent election. There was a black guy who got some minor publicity for publicly announcing he was voting for McCain. Because his choice opposed that of the assumed "black culture", he claimed to receive death threats. Similarly, it is possible to argue that pride is equivalent to hate and, when applied to culture, pride in culture is equivalent to hate for other cultures. Therefore, having pride in one's culture equates to oppression of other cultures. These are, of course, extreme views and are, in my opinion, distortions of reality. -- kainaw™ 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all of such assertions require a great simplification of terms... "culture" is a complicated concept. I'm not even sure one can say that "mass culture" makes people both intelligent and stupid. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel like society forces us to have a certain amount of culture, to know the major artists and writers. Otherwise, we are not respected. Like a class struggle, not between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians, but between a cultivated class, and an non-cultivated class

What you are talking about is not "culture", writ large, but a specific canon. They are not the same thing. People who know nothing of Shakespeare still have a "culture". A canon, by contrast, is a specific subset of culture understood to be mandatory of a "cultured" person ("cultured" here meaning something quite different than "culture"), which is not the same thing. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stepping outside of a more intellectual frame for a moment, it is possible to influence the way people think through mass-market communication. Propaganda, for example, can work through posters and billboards, but also through celebrity endorsement, television shows (cartoons, talk shows, soap operas, etc.), movies, radio, and in general, art and even word-of-mouth (rumor-mongering). Aside from deliberate propaganda, unintentional influence happens when writers, celebrities and others involved in mass-communication include their thoughts and values in the way they communicate. In the past, otherwise well-intentioned communication reinforced ideas that are now considered offensive. Enid Blyton's Noddy books were thought to be ill-considered because of the use of golliwogs as naughty characters, even though she was continuing a tradition of their use in that fashion. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two uses of "culture" here. Yes your "culture" in the sense of your sociological environment can be oppressive, but I think the questioner meant "culture" in the sense of art, theatre, etc. For myself, I don't see that culture can be oppressive any more than anything where some people can do (or appreciate) it and some can't. Sport could be considered oppressive to the same extent; so could community activism (some people are good at it and some aren't). DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Theological Libraries in the Northwest

Does anybody have any information about theological libaries in the northwest (or in North America)? I'm looking the largest theological libraries in the different regions of our countries. I need a list or information about the number of volumes in said libraries (perferibly the number of volumes in the 200 collection). Any info on the size of theological libraries would be appreciated as it would give a number for comparison. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) may be an option. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York says its Burke Theological Library has the largest theological collection in the western hemisphere, but then Princeton Theological Seminary claims theirs is the biggest in the US. Harvard Divinity School also seems to be pretty large. We have a Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States that you could look through, although it is not further categorized by region and not all the articles have info about the library. But it's a start I suppose. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

English

What is the term for the "Basement garden", you know, the space outside on the basement level... Gridge (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Um, huh? Wouldn't it be "solid dirt"... A basement is at least partially underground, so right outside the basement would be, you know, a big chunk of solid earth... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be a sunken garden - dug down to basement level with containing walls all around it but open to the sky. --Tango (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant. But what is the term? Gridge (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Ah. I am an idiot. Of course I have seen such things. I did a google search and a google image search for the term "basement garden". While it returns an occasional picture or discussion of what you describe above, most of them are about gardens IN the basement (i.e. indoor gardens with grow-lights). Its a good question, and I feel silly for misunderstanding it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. English is my second language, and I am still learning how to express myself better. Gridge (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

The OP may be referring to the light well (plus steps) which you find on the entrance side of some Victorian (and other) terraced houses in the UK or Down Under. This generally goes across the full length of the house but isn´t wider than two metres. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the proper term would be. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I know two answers to this in British English, based on the form of architecture known as a terraced house (American English: town houses are sort of equivalent). The space in front of the house was the entrance to the kitchen in the basement, and was called the "area" (hence, "area steps" and "area railings" -- the latter removed in WWII, leading to many deaths at night time). It was always concreted, and used to be used for coal storage and deliveries. Nowadays these may have been covered over and the interior extended, or conversely festooned with hanging baskets and large potted plants to give visual appeal when looking from inside. The space behind the house may be a proper garden, in which case the dwelling on that level is referred to as a "garden flat", or it may likewise be concreted and treated as a patio, whereas previously it was for rubish bins and laundry hung out to dry. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And whaddayaknow, we have an article: Area_(architecture). But strangely not light well (though I don't think areas are solely or mainly for light). BrainyBabe (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Gridge (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

November 16

Fail.

<removed discussion. The reference desk is not an advice column> --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

?Just Curious

I have a dictionary it is old i just dont know how old! It is called the new german english dictionary published by David McKay! If any 1 knows anything about this please respond back i have searched n searched n found nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.54.39 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You searched? I copied and pasted "new german english dictionary published by David McKay" into Google and the very first hit was:

Herbert, F. C. & L. Hirsch; A New German - English Dictionary: General Use

PHILADELPHIA, 1940C

Published by DAVID MCKAY COMPANY

I strongly believe that 1940C means that it was copyrighted in 1940 - which would be very close to the actual printing date. -- kainaw™ 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Gay Right movements

Hello Wikipedia,

I have a theory that gay rights typically develop by initially regressing (often significantly) before surging forwards.. Whilst this is certainly the case in the uk, where the passage of section 28 both galvanised the gay community and , with time, appauled a fair section of the straight one, i wonder whether its more universal. I would guess that a similar thing happened after the stonewall riot in the states but (at last my question!) is there any evidence for the same thing happening now? After 8 years of Bush, literally culminating in the passage of proposition 8, is there any evidence to suggest that actually support for gay marriage (especially in other "blue" states) has increased as people realise just how pissed off the gay community is? I've been following the protests and feel a little bit excited. am i being naive?

Thanks,82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Polls suggest that opposition to or support for gay rights (among heterosexuals) in the United States varies substantially between generations. That is, older people are more likely to be opposed to gay rights, while younger people are more likely to be sympathetic. I think that this is partly a matter of growing up with neutral or positive depictions of gay people in the media and partly of greater exposure to gay people as more gay people have come out over the years. Exposure to gay people may lead heterosexuals to find that they are not disturbing or dangerous.

Now, this is certainly OR and unencyclopedic, but I have been involved in the gay-rights movement in the United States for more than 25 years, and I don't think that you can generalize or theorize about rights regressing before they advance. Instead, I think that there has been a gradual advance with periodic setbacks. Also, I think that Proposition 8 is not exactly the culmination of 8 years of Bush. Bush is actually extremely unpopular at the moment—the most unpopular president for as long as the popularity of US presidents has been measured—and the support of Bush and the Republican Party for anti-gay policies should, other things being equal, make those policies unpopular. Finally, I'm not sure how gay protests against Prop 8 are affecting public opinion, if at all. While they may be empowering for those who take part, I doubt that the protests will change anyone's mind, though they might make the Mormon Church think twice before taking such a visible role in backing anti-gay laws. Marco polo (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your theory may mirror that gay rights activism swells in participation by being confronted with significant failures. I just posted an article on the Save Our Children campaign of 1977 and 1978 that has since been identified as a motivating factor for many gays to become politically involved. I imagine the passing of Proposition 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida will do the same. However, opposition to gay rights also increases at the same time. There are some patterns, but not a lot. Gay rights activism only started in 1969 with the Stonewall riots. Before that, it was a different approach called Homophile activism that was much less confrontational. The 1977 Save Our Children campaign was the first challenge to the new activism and the small advances made since 1969. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The comment about the Mormon Church "think[ing] twice" seems a bit out of place here. The claim that the Mormon Chruch, or even Mormons in general, caused Prop 8 to pass is a canard. Latter-day Saints (the more correct term for "Mormons") were a small part of a broad coalition that worked to pass Prop 8. In some states (e.g. Massachusetts) these efforts fail. In others, (e.g. California) they succeed. Regardless of failure or success (or opposition or protest) however, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unless directed otherwise through revelation, will continue to defend traditional marriage as it currently does. Kingsfold (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Employment by small business in Jamaica

Hey, I used to be an occasional contributor to the RD and now need some help myself. I'm trying to find out what portion of the Jamaican workforce is employed by small business. I'm not picky as to the definition of small business, and while I'd prefer as recent statistics as possible, I recognize that that may not be possible. Any help would be appreciated. --Ybbor^Talk 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, perhaps the Small Business Association of Jamaica would be a good place to start your research? Maybe if you contacted them directly, they could point you in the right direction... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also have only a contact to offer :) The Statistical Instutite of Jamaica only seems to have general employment figures (eg employed versus unemployed by age and gender) though they also have a chart of Employment in Large Establishments, by Major Industry Groups - perhaps you could guess that those not employed in large establishments are employed in small ones and combine the two to get a rough estimate. I don't know how much self-employment would throw that off. They also have an email contact for data requests. WikiJedits (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what my ethncitity is.

I was born to a Welsh-Italian mother (fully Italian), and a Welsh father. But my father has also of Armenian descent, and the man that impregnated the sister of me was from Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlokwittaka (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting your ancestors or their governments? Louis Waweru  Talk  03:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel a strong attachment to either Welsh, Italian, Armenian or Swedish culture? —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One's sister's ethnicity is not necessarily identical with one's own, so it sounds like you have no basis for including Swedish as one of your options. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The ethnicity of one's sister's babydaddy would seem to be less important than the ethnicity of the sister herself. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes you Welsh-Italian with some Armenian ancestry from your father's side. If you live in the say, the UK, then you'd be a Welsh-Italian Briton (or whatever your resident country is). Agree with Adam Bishop about your sister if you mean she has a different father. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I took it to mean his sister's boyfriend...even though that doesn't really make any sense. Now that I read it again I'm guessing English is not Mlokwittaka's first language. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think yours is the best guess. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are whatever ethnicity you want to be. Seriously, concepts such as "ethnicity" and "race" are really only relevent in terms of your personal relationship between you and the culture you live in. For example, my ancestry is about 3/32 Native American and 29/32 French Canadian, and yet I really wouldn't consider myself anything but American. Yeah, there's a few French Canadian bits knocking around in my cultural heritage (a few recipes in the recipe box, mainly) but I really don't self-identify with any culture except the American one. Do you feel a stronger connection to where you live or where one of your parents are from? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think the action of "self-identification" seals questions of ethnicity, any more than it does questions of sexuality. I can "self-identify" as much as I like but it is not in my gift to repudiate objective assessments of my ethnicity, which it is of course possible to make. My father was Welsh and my mother was English, therefore my ethnicity is Welsh/English. I can say that I feel English, because I feel a stronger connection to England than I do to Wales, but that doesn't make me English. I am certainly not whatever ethnicity I want to be. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Except, what makes a Welshman different from an Englishman, beyond arbitrary location of birth, and the arbitrariness of your parent's location of birth? I mean, you are just as likely to find Norman French, Scandanavian, Brythonic and Goidelic Celt, etc. etc. in your ethnic background as either a Welshman or an Englishman. It is entirely your relation to your culture that matters. Lets say that you consider yourself to be Welsh-English. Lets say you marry an English woman. What are your kids? Let's say they each marry another Englishperson. What are THEIR kids? Let's say you find that a great-great-great-great-grandfather of yours was a Spaniard. Does that make you Spanish-Welsh-English? What if that great-great-great-great-grandfather had an Arabic grandfather? Would that make you an Arabic-Spanish-Welsh-Englishman? You consider yourself Welsh-English, so that is your ethnic group. I generally put "French-Canadian" on the U.S. Census form, but I could also put "American" or "French" or "French-American" or "Canadian-American" or "Canadian" and be equally "right", from a legal standpoint. It IS all about self-identity; any other measure is just sillyness. See also One-drop rule for the rediculousness of where this goes wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the complexity and even arbitrariness of ethnic groupings. What I object to is the notion of self-identification itself, which seems to me to be the height of selfishness. If you self-identify as (insert type of ethnicity or sexuality here), then you are basically saying that the only person who can make those definitions is you yourself. You are sticking two fingers up at all the societal norms and conventions that have evolved over time. Myself, I prefer to abide by those norms and conventions, and allow myself to be defined by them. Where will it end? If I walk down the street in an elephant costume and declare to anyone who cares to listen that I am an elephant, does that make me an elephant? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes you an idiot, because an "elephant" is not an arbitrary classification as different from "human". Ethnicity, however, is entirly arbitrary. What makes one group different from another is entirely dependent on cultural context, and there are no objective means to measure it. Even when genetic studies are done, they arrive at this conclusion, for example, showing that it is impossible, from a DNA perspecitive, to tell the difference between a Greek and a Turk, or between a Palestinians and Jews, and yet no one would deny that these are 'distinct' ethnicities given their cultural context. Likewise, in America, the Sioux, the Navaho, the Mohegan and the Cherokee are all considered one "ethnicity", yet are as far apart culturally as are the English, French, Russians, and Greeks. However, you will find that most national governments use self-identification as the only method for gathering "ethnicity" data, because its the only method that works. See the U.S. Government's position, which states "The categories are designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country. They are based on social and political considerations -- not anthropological or scientific ones. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups." Also see this official US Census description of "Race": "Race is a self-identification data item in which respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify."

As long as you assume people aren't going to be intentional assholes about it, and aren't just going to lie to make a point or be otherwise obnoxious, it works rather well, since ethnicity is ONLY defined in the cultural context; only the individual can decide how they relate to the culture, and most people will make an honest assessment of the situation.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying "You are whatever ethnicity you choose to be" is a rather extreme position, nonetheless. It verges on doublethink as far as I'm concerned.

I could choose to describe myself as Chinese if I wanted, but that wouldn't make it true. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not "whatever ethnicity you choose to be" it's "whatever ethnicity you idenitify with, giving an honest assessment of your own situation." Again, if I asked you to be honest about your ethnic background, you wouldn't say you were "Chinese", you'd give whatever cultural definitions are important for you in defining your relationship to the culture you live in. Again, you could be an asshole and say "I'm a Klingon", but that's not what self-identification is about. Self-identification is not about whatever whim you choose to have, its about how you relate to your culture. You can't assume people are going to be obnoxious, and again most aren't. For one person, having one Italian grandparent may be siginficant in describing their own ethnicity as, say, Italian-American, but for others they may feel a closer cultural connection to their another part of their cultural heritage. I can't tell you what your own situation is, and as long as you are honest about it, there's nothing wrong with you self-identifying... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I misquoted you. What you actually said was You are whatever ethnicity you want to be, which you now appear to be retracting. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't misquote me, I spoke imprecisely. I increased the precision of my original statement with details, which should have provided the context for the discussion. The fact remains still that with the arbitrary nature of ethnicity, the most accurate system is still self-identification... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that ethnicity is mostly self-identification up to a point, as long you're free to do this. In another context you can be overruled by society's perception, or cultural context (eg, 2005 civil unrest in France – if you are a migrant in the banlieues, the projects or "ghettos", you might think yourself French and equal, but others may not be so tolerant of that). So, it's contingent still, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On fate: are we a function of the universe?

"These are the things that hydrogen atoms do when given 13.7 billion years."

That is what I heard Brian Cox say in a TED talk he gave a few months ago. He was picking up random objects and saying that, over and over. I found that to be very intriguing. I took away from the concept that the big bang happened, the laws of the universe turned on, billions of years passed playing out those rules, and they continue to play out today.

I can deal with the concept when it applies to non-living things, but what stumps me about that idea is when life comes into the equation. Since we're all made of the same things that non-living matter is, and the same laws of nature apply to us...then wouldn't we just be a result of this big bang seed? Meaning even our actions, and thoughts...

Essentially, I'm very curious to know what science (or not) has to say about free will. Not just for rational beings but for the universe as well. In other words, is our universe playing out a predetermined fate? And if so, are conscious beings somehow separate from such a predetermined universe, or is this WP:RD just what happens when you give hydrogen atoms 13.7 billion years? Would there be a universe that evolves to look at itself and ask questions in an attempt to understand it? Louis Waweru  Talk  03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

See fatalism and determinism. In my opinion it is a pretty useless philosophy (and certainly not science). Quantum mechanics pretty much says we don't live in a strictly mechanical universe. The result is that one would expect, given enough time, some sorts of complexity to emerge, but there's nothing to guarantee one specific form of it. So we rewind the universe and set it up again. Do we get the same thing? We get stars, planets, sure. The same stars, the same planets? Probably not. Do we necessarily get Earth, and you and me talking on the internet, right now? Probably not. Do we get life somewhere, complex structures doing complex things? Sure. I like to explain complex probabilities to undergrads like this: taken from the moment of your conception and your roommate's conception, what are the odds that you would be roommates at this institution? Phenomenally long odds. But what are the odds that you, if you came to this institution, would have a roommate here? Basically 100%. The specific roommate is not important, the statistics of their improbability are meaningless. Whether something is probable or improbable depends on how you demarcate the problem. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a very brief note on free will and fate that is usually overlooked... Fate does not preclude free will. If I know you are fated to choose to eat Fruit Loops tomorrow for breakfast, that doesn't mean you lost free will. The choice is yours, it is just known what your free will choice will be. So, it is rather simple to have a predetermined fate that includes free will. As for conciousness, the entire question of "Do we exist?" has been around for thousands of years. Do we really exist? If we exist, are we what we think we are? Are we really thinking? What is real? You can't answer these questions with science. Science is based on our perception of what we believe is existence. Philosophy is where you go for circular arguments about what it means to exist. -- kainaw™ 04:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what compatibilists say, anyway. — DanielLC 16:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what Brian Cox was talking about. If you leave a piece of bread sitting around, it'll get moldy. If you prick me, I'll bleed. If you order something online and pay by credit card, the item will arrive in the mail some time later and your credit card bill will show the charge. These are statements of the predictability of the world, and they're not at all what philosophers are talking about when they talk about "determinism". Cox is saying that a large enough amount of hydrogen, left to its own devices, will eventually produce stars and galaxies and all the heavy elements, and probably life—but not the same pattern of stars and galaxies, and certainly not every little detail of human history. It's not quite correct, since it has to be the correct concentration of hydrogen and there was a lot of helium too, but it's still interesting to think about. -- BenRG (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all...I haven't abandoned this question. It's just a huge can of worms...still sorting through the articles. The determinism article is very cool, lots of fun idea in there. Though it looks like I won't be able to really understand where these wikilinks lead unless I have a few years of physics under my belt. Do you guys think that's the case? Louis Waweru  Talk  16:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It just takes the will to learn. And it depends on the degree to which you want to understand them. Bell inequality and the EPR Paradox are pretty complicated and they both play into the quantum interpretation of determinism. But the basic points are not that hard to grasp with a little prep work and some clear exposition. (Unfortunately Wikipedia is not always the greatest source of either of those things. But that's why we have the Ref Desk, no?) If you want to really understand the math and the philosophy at a level at which you could really make sense of the nitty gritty details, yeah, that takes a lot of work. Systematic training is not the only way to do it, but it's the most common way. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See also the anthropic principle which says that of course the Universe came out exactly the way it did; if we believe the laws of the Universe to be both exact and universal, it couldn't turn out any other way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the anthropic principle applies here, not in the way you are using it. It is not an argument for determinism. It is an argument about the epistemological problems with asking certain questions. And we know the laws of the universe are not exact (quantum mechanics is statistical). Asking whether the final product would be exactly the same given the same exact starting conditions is not the same thing as asking whether the starting conditions could be different, which is what the anthropic principle usually governs—we have no reason to think the starting conditions could be different, but we have good reason to think that even with the same starting conditions the results would not be exactly the same. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

near collision with another flight

I saw on a video description on YouTube one of the ill-fated 9/11 flights nearly collided with a Delta Airlines flight. Is this true?72.229.139.171 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

UAL 175 missed Delta 2315 by approximately 200 feet about 10 minutes before it crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center. — Lomn 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Paradox

<moved from the science desk>

Don't know if this goes here or not, but it refers to the question of "immortality" of an organism above. (Will bump it to humanities if not.) Re the Theseus paradox: in the article I noticed a "road-sweeper character Trigger states that he's had the same broom for 20 years. But then he adds that the broom has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles." Part of its proof of being the same broom is a photo beside the owner. If Washington's renovated axe changed hands, would it then be a different axe? Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy isn't science, and the ship of Theseus and related stuff is philosophy. But a short answer: it depends on your definition of sameness. You consider yourself the same individual you were as a child, but over the course of 20 years or less you've been completely rebuilt. The axe is the same axe after changing hands because it would seem wrong to you or I to consider it to be a different one... And that's what it comes down to - if you would call it the same one, it's the same one, if you think it isn't, it isn't. You may think the sweeper's broom is not the same one he started with, he may think it is the same, so for you it's different, for him it's the same. You only need reasons for holding your opinion of sameness when trying to convince others, or if others are depending on the answer. --121.127.209.126 (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that Only Fools and Horses is a comedy and Trigger was always saying stupid things, that was the point of his character, he was the only one that considered it to be the same broom and only because he was an idiot. There was no attempt by the writers to seriously suggest that is was the same broom. --Tango (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only does your body get rebuilt continuously, there is also less of "you" in "you" anyway [1]] Nevertheless everyone would probably describe themselves as a human being. @Tango At what point of e.g. replacing bits on an old junker of a car does it cease to be the same, then? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any kind of a paradox here - it's just a lack of words within our language to describe various kinds of sameness. If we had a word that meant "thing which has had all of it's parts replaced but which at no time has been replaced in-toto" - then the so-called paradox would evaporate. Trigger is not incorrect in saying that it's the same broom - he's merely using one of the many meanings of the word "same". This variation of the meaning of the word also happens to be one that people are not good at thinking about. It's very unlikely that even one of the atoms that was in your body when you were born is still in there - but I'm sure you'd say you were the "same" person. Does that make you as stupid as Trigger? This lack of linguistic rigor causes all sorts of real world trouble. For example, in most US states, an "antique car" is one that is more than 25 years old. Antique cars are exempt from many kinds of roadworthyness and environmental laws - but an antique car, for which every single part has been replaced with modern parts is still an antique car. SteveBaker (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there are some atoms still in your body from birth. Perhaps some calcium atoms in your bones. This might be less likely in women who have breast-fed, though, as that tends to leach calcium from the bones (which may, or may not, be replaced later). StuRat (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the paradox be extended or limited by its association with someone or something (such as the car having a time-linked category or resemblance) or say, a human who has to prove their identity to a third party though they "know" they are the same physical/biographical person they've always been? Maybe this has already been answered in some way, but there seems to be more to it. Am thinking of what the metaphorical "fingerprint" of a thing's sameness/continuity might be. Is there a word for it?

Not sure if there's a term for it, but the important part to me is if a unique pattern remains from the original. In the case of a person; the DNA, fingerprints, appearance, voice, and a large portion of the brain structure remains of the original person even after most or all of the cells have been replaced. The same is true of a city, which will likely retain many of the same roads, buildings, etc., even if the people have all been replaced many times. In the broom example, however, there's no characteristic unique about the original which the modified broom also has. Thus, the resulting broom after all the modifications is no more like the original than it is like any other broom of the same design. StuRat (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not entirely correct. There is some degradation in DNA over time, fingerprints (at the very least at the microscopic level) do not remain exactly the same, voices do not remain exactly the same. In short, the "sameness" in pattern you observe is only an approximate sameness. The only difference between your examples and the broom is that the broom's "lack of sameness" is occurring at a more readilly noticeable level. Wikiant (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think the point is while approximate, the "sameness" is still sufficient that your fingerprints are more like your old fingerprints then probably anyone else's fingerprints. Also partly true with your voice. Even more true with your DNA (baring identical twins or clones). On the other hand, I doubt it's true for the broom, I suspect I could easily find a broom which is more similar to the original broom then the current 'version' of the old broom of at the very least, the difference between at least one other broom and the old broom, and the current version of the old broom and the old broom would be the same Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point. The pattern remains sufficiently the same, even after the components have been replaced, for a person to be identified later, especially if DNA is used. This is not true in the case of the broom, where there would be no way to tell which is the broom with all the components replaced. StuRat (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but one fact was hammered into my head in school: after your brain is done growing, you never get any more brain-cells. The brain-cells you have stay there for life, they don't regenerate. If there was one part of the human body that was associated with identity, it would be the brain, no? So the ship of Theseus paradox wouldn't really apply to people, because what makes you you (i.e. your brain) never changes. No? 83.250.202.208 (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you take it down one level, if you could "tag" the individual molecules and atoms in each brain cell (like water molecules, proteins, DNA, stuff like that) you would likely find that over time, they would all get replaced with new molecules. Water is and other molcules are constantly entering and leaving the cells, molecules break down and are repaired or replaced, etc. etc. This is EXACTLY the Theseus Paradox in the sense that the individual brain cell may remain unchanged as a larger object, yet every part of the brain cell is changed over time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In a way this is a non-person incarnation of the question of personal identity. Some people would say that same body means same person. Same mop parts means same mop, and this is not the same mop. The other position seems to be similar to Locke's Memory Criterion: If you can remember this mop being the same mop at some indeterminate point between the original mop and this mop, and at that time you could recall the mop at that time as being the same as the original mop (or a mop at a further indeterminate time where you could do this all over again) then the mop has maintained a consistent identity transitively, as in Thomas Reed's "gallant officer problem" solution. This mop has parts of the mop at time N, at time N the mop had parts of the mop at time N-1 and at time N-1 the mop had some of the parts of the mop at time 0. 69.210.56.62 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems a strange way to define "sameness", resulting in some odd results:

1) If you go to pick up your mop in the broom closet, but grab another similar mop, by this definition that IS your mop, since you think it is.

2) If identical twins pull the old switch-a-roo, and you believe they are who they claim to be, then they really are. This leads to the result that each twin is one person to those they fool and a different person to those they don't. So, each twin is simultaneously a different person.

I think I'll stick with a more objective definition of "sameness". StuRat (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

financial management

what is financial management ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.239.4.12 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You might wish to read Managerial finance and Corporate finance. Financial management leads to both. Parker2334 16:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Marx quote on Schopenhauer

Can anyone find a quote by Marx on Schopenhauer in which he defends him from the attacks of contemporary philosophers, and states agreement with his ethics of "Caring for others"?--Gary123 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The extensive Marxist Internet Archive doesn't have any quotes by Marx on Schopenhauer. It does have two quotes by Engels, firstly: "What prevailed among the public since then [1848] were, on the one hand, the vapid reflections of Schopenhauer, which were fashioned to fit the philistines..."[2]; and secondly "Our second-rank poets are scarcely readable after one generation. The same is true of philosophy: beside Kant and Hegel we find Herbart, Krug, Fries and finally Schopenhauer and Hartmann."[3]. In other words - entirely hostile. Warofdreams talk 10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Patent

I found in The chemical news and journal of physical science, William Crookes, London vol. 23, in 1876, that a patent was given to « J.L. Petit, Birmingham, Warwick, Novembre 28, 1874 ». Please, how must I understand « Birmingham, Warwick » ?? Many thanks in advance. --Égoïté (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

'Warwick' is presumably short for Warwickshire, the county which Birmingham was in at the time. Algebraist 17:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Has Birmingham moved into another county since then ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In the early 19th century (especially before 1832), Birmingham was known as not really fitting into the traditional administrative structures very weell, since it had relatively recently greatly increased in population at a location near the meeting-point of three different counties; it was rather notorious that Birmingham didn't have any representation in parliament, despite being one of the largest cities in the UK. Today it's part of the "metropolitan county" of West Midlands (county)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Many Thanks, --Égoïté (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that county-level boundaries in England these days change a lot more frequently than people in some other places might be used to. It's almost surprising to find a place that hasn't "moved into another county". (Okay, I exaggerate, but still.) --Anonymous, 05:17 UTC, November 17, 2008.

Such a situation is sometimes confusing for, say, Americans. It is often taken that both U.S. States and U.K. Counties are "first level divisions", and so must behave in the same manner. However, U.S. States are a "bottom up" organization, are semi-autonomous, and the U.S. is a Federal system. U.K. Counties are "top-down" administrative divisions, really have no local autonomy to speak of, and the U.K. is of course a unitary state. Another way to put it is that Counties in the U.K. are a creation of the national government and exist solely for the purpose of administration; thus their boundaries and existance is largely up to the whim and needs of that government. In the U.S., the states are self-organized entities (to a point...) and operate like little "mini-countries" with regard to handling their own internal affairs. The U.S. national government (by the U.S. Constitution) is only responsible for interstate relations and foreign relations. Such an analog does not exist in the U.K. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been territorial disputes between US states, though. See the Toledo Strip War. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Those disputes only back up the above analysis. These disputes show that the individual states consider their own territories to be somehow sovereign in some fashion... In the UK, if the national government wants to move a border between counties, or create a new county out of whole cloth, they just do it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? Think of British counties as analogous to US counties. Although the latter have not been altered in a long time (so far as I'm aware), if Sacramento were to decide to divide San Bernardino County or merge Alpine with El Dorado, I doubt the legitimacy of the act would be seriously questioned. —Tamfang (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham was historically part of the county of Warwickshire, whose county town was (and still is) Warwick. In 1974 it and the towns surrounding it - Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell and Coventry - were conflated into the county of West Midlands. This administrative county was abolished quite recently (2001 IIRC) but the postal region of "West Midlands" remains. ChrisRams 88.108.144.235 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As our article on West Midlands (county) states, it ceased to have a county council in 1986, but still remains as a metropolitan county. Some services are still delivered by county-wide agencies, such as the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive or West Midlands Fire Service. Warofdreams talk 14:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do such agencies answer to the Crown, or have locally elected boards, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive says "Policies and budgets for the Executive are set by the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority (WMPTA) made up of 27 representatives appointed from the seven West Midlands metropolitan district councils. The Authority has ten councillors from Birmingham, three councillors each from Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, and Wolverhampton, and two from Solihull." The district councils are elected locally, but I don't know how they decide which councillors become members of the authority, or how many from each council.--130.88.47.42 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good enough, thanks. I didn't think of district councils. —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why were lots of houses built during the 1930s slump in the UK?

In the UK, semi-detached houses built in the 1930s are very common. Yet the 1930s was a period of economic depression, so why were so many 1930s semis built? Who paid for their construction? Who bought them? By contrast in the current much more modest economic downturn, comparatively few new houses are being built or sold. Thanks. 78.151.145.226 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of council houses, many as a result of slum clearance programmes. There were two interwar acts of Parliament, in 1919 and 1930, which encouraged, and compelled, councils to built new housing. Of course there were lots of private houses built too. The 30s weren't doom and gloom for everyone, and some parts of the UK did not experience much in the way of a slump. This page has some interesting statistics on interwar housebuilding. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was mostly private housing I was thinking of, since I have spent many years living in the good old archetypal 1930's private semi. I understand why coucil housing was built due to government command, I'm still puzzled why so much 1930s private housing was built. The article you link to makes the interesting side point that the bigger houses, including bigger gardens, resulted in more gardening and less escaping to the pub to drink. Maybe, with the abolition of Parker Morris Standards and the horribly small houses on tiny plots, the reverse trend has already established itself. 78.151.145.226 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the depression was never uniform throughout Britain. Places like central Scotland, the north of England and South Wales; places dependent on traditional heavy industries and coal mining were seriously affected, yes. But the South of England, in particular, went through a boom period in the mid to late 1930s. Lots of new light engineering and other service industries developed at a time when prices were falling and incomes rising. Hence the boom in private building. You should read Orwell's novel Coming Up for Air, which gives some insight into this in the character of George Bowling, the 'ten-pound-a-week man.' Emma Dashwood (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the 1930s semi detached housing estates around London were constructed when the new electrified railways (in particular the Metropolitan Line to the North West and the Southern Railway commuter lines to the South East). These railways allowed people to work in the centre of London but live in a leafy suburb that was well connected to their work. 62.25.96.244 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a great deal of ribbon-building along the new arterial roads. I.e. semis stretched out all along the roads, one row deep. We ought to have an article on ribbon building. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We do (although it needs work) - see ribbon development. 15:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there was "nowhere for the market to go but up"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.195.51 (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Shipping cost, cheapest prices

Hello, I just saw this eBay page and was wondering how much it would cost me to ship a 24-inch CRT TV from Colorado to Texas. The UPS website calculator says it will cost upwards of USD 140 ... Does the rate go up that quickly between a 15 inch and a 24 inch? Does the eBay seller get a discount that I am not eligible for? Thanks. Kushal (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are comparing a 15 inch LCD monitor and a 24 inch CRT monitor. CRT screens are over twice as heavy as their LCD counterparts. A 24 inch CRT monitor can weigh in at just over 80 pounds. Whereas a 24 inch LCD monitor weighs in at 23 pounds. As of 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC), the UPS website shows that an 83 pound package would cost about $60 to ship via Ground. Carnth (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How many divorced Indians are there in India?

How many divorcees are there in India? What is the divorce rate in India? Sonic99 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a start. [4]98.227.90.212 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the above link here: [5]. It states that there's a 1.1% divorce rate in India. Hmmm, since there's only one India, and it's now divorced from Pakistan, wouldn't that be a 100% divorce rate for India ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Montesquieu/Diderot Impacts

How did Baron de Montesquieu and Denis Diderot impact social equality, democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, and nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.189.137 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you ask: How did Baron de Montesquieu and Denis Diderot impact social equality, democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, and nationalism? Merde, I have completely forgotten the answer to this brilliant question of homework. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 17

How to implement/awareness Human Rights in different community around world?

Human Rights is Concepts as a standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, so can any one suggest more on this? To aware masses towards human rights concepts in different community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindbagadgeri (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This does rather sound like a homework question. Start reading something like Human Rights and look and see if there are any Human rights organisations, try to get more infortmation about what they do already - what techniques they employ to raise the profile of human rights. Additionally consider just what is meant by 'rights', because we have few rights that are agreed upon universally. Each culture and society has its own practices and ways of life. Philosophically at least it could be seen as dubious that we decide our vision of human-rights is 'correct' and then those who fail to live up to those standards need 'education' or pushing to live to the standards we define. The United Nations Human Rights Council will also be a useful link. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Some only-slightly-cynical people would say that one step towards improving human rights would be to abolish the United Nations Human Rights Council, which allows countries such as Saudia Arabia(!) and Pakistan(!) as members, while devoting over half its time and agenda to the single country of Israel (which under any even remotely objective tally is not involved in anything even remotely approaching 50% of the world's human rights violations). Of course, Israel is uniquely excluded from United Nations Human Rights Council deliberations in a way that no other country in the world is, since Israel is a member of WEOG only in New York, while the United Nations Human Rights Council[ptui!] is based in Geneva... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone, by virtue of being human, may define "human rights." However, to have an effect on other cultures and value-systems, we need a universally accepted definition. To my knowledge, the only one is the Western-oriented UN version. So, start by defining what you mean, and then move on to defining why you have the right to impose this definition on other people. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the standard given by the UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is probably as close as you'll find to a general consensus on civil rights and human rights. The problem with international law in general is that it tends to be unenforceable except by force: that is a strong nation can ignore with impunity, and a weaker nation may be 'beneath' the notice of the UN. No one did anything about Pol Pot on one end of the scale, and on the other any nation with nukes is probably immune to UN military intervention. As to the right of enforcement, it's easy to justify philosophically once you agree that pure cultural relativism is illogical and leads to unjustifiable conclusions; basically states are members of a global community, and just like any community member a state gives up some rights to absolute autonomy in exchange for protection from the depredation of other states, of course this working model would require a UN that could actually deter attacks on other nations, with more than in-name-only police powers. 69.210.56.62 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Deskovic

Is the surname (e.g. Jeffrey Deskovic) pronounced in a Czech fashion (Deskovits) or in some other way.? 203.188.92.71 (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That would depend on where the name came from. It doesn't sound Czech to me, but if it is, it would be pronounced Deskovits; that is, unless it was originally spelled Deskovič, in which case it would be pronounced Deskovich.

But if, as I suspect, it's from one of the Balkan countries (Serbia or Croatia most likely), it's pronounced Deskovich. On the other hand, in English-speaking countries many -ic names originally from the Balkans have become anglicised and are pronounced -ik.

Hence, one Deskovic might be -ich, another might be -ik, and a third might even be -its. You'd need to ask them to be absolutely sure of how their name is pronounced. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I think they meant the wrongly convicted Jeffery Deskovic (wrong link there). By the way, I think, unless it's changed since I last saw it, the article needs categorization. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the very recent (and wrongly spelt) Jeffery Deskovic article to Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, which dates from 2006. Xn4 (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think my analysis still applies, though. Afaik his name is not well-enough known for anyone here to know how he pronounces it. A journalist who wanted to do a TV or radio piece on him would need to check with him or his family as to how to say his name. An online or newspaper article wouldn't have this problem. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see his Serbian WP article calls him Џефри Марк Десковик, which is pronounced Dzhefri Mark Deskovik. That strongly suggests to me that it's "Deskovik", because the Serbs would be unlikely to have changed ч (their letter for -ch) to к, unless they had good reason to believe he says it that way. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe question

what is the best methodology to a recitation named acritic of the fall of the house of usher by edgar allen poe??please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.86.124 (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the OP is asking how to recite a critique on one of Poe's works. If it has to be word-for-word, memorize it. Nobody wants to watch you read. If it doesn't have to be word for word, memorize small sections to prove your points and then give your recital from memory. Never ever stand and read from a paper or turn your back to the audience and read from powerpoint slides. -- kainaw™ 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The whole point of giving "oral examinations" or "dissertations" of this type is that ideally, you should know what you are talking about. It's relatively easy to write a paper about something you really don't understand; anyone can paraphrase the work of others, footnote it, and put a bibliography at the end. Doing so does not mean you know much of anything about what you wrote. The thing is, to speak extemporaneously on a topic you have to display some general knowledge on the subject, and that is quite harder. For example, pick something you love and know really well, like lets say your favorite band, or sports team, or food; and talk about it. You could probably spend twenty minutes talking quite knowledgably about these things because you truely know it. The idea behind these sorts of oral recitations is to demonstrate that you know something about the topic at hand, and aren't just reading from a paper. Anyone can read words on a paper; it means something to be able to understand something well enough to explain it to someone. My recommendation is to read the work over and over, and talk about it with others. Get some practice explaining the work you are supposed to be critiquing with your family and friends. Have THEM ask you questions about it. If you can't answer the questions, write them down and try to figure out what the answers are. The more you practice speaking on a subject in this way, the better you will get at it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to offer a different opinion here. For me, at least, it simply isn't possible to memorize pages of text verbatim. If this is true for you, as well, I suggest you glance up from the page and look at the audience's eyes, scanning a different part of the audience each time, then look down for the next line. Follow the text with a pencil so you don't lose your place when looking up. Hopefully, a word or two at the start of each sentence will be enough to trigger your memory, and you won't spend much time looking down. With an overhead projector or slide show, you also have the "excuse" of looking at the material in order to position and move the pointer, so it needn't look like you're reading it. For an example of someone who should NEVER attempt extemporaneous speech, we need look no farther than Bush. Amazingly, when he speaks in Spanish, he is quite eloquent, apparently because he follows the written text to the letter. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, as for the specific case of reading a critique, I'd include some dramatic passages from the work itself, as that's likely to be more interesting than the critique. Of course, you need to link them together, by adding comments on the passages you read aloud. As for the Fall of the House of Usher, no critique would be complete without noting how the end corresponds with the end of the movie Carrie. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

just so you know, the op probably means: what is the best methodology to a recitation named A Critique of "The Fall of the House of Usher" by Edgar Allen Poe?? It's possible that the poster means composing his own work, ie that "named" just means he should give it that title and then write it himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.195.51 (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All of his poetry can be sung to the tune of "The Yellow Rose Of Texas"hotclaws 19:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

video documentary about original composition of the bible

In the 90s I viewed a documentary about the history of the sources and composition of the Bible. The documentary's host and/or author was a heavyset, bald, biblical scholar who spoke in an English dialect (at least to my American ear). He was obciously a biblical scholar and I vaguely recall that he or his recent ancestors had emigrated from Greece. I do not recall his name nor the name of the series and I hope someone may that information and make it available to me. The documentary aired on PBS in series format over numerous evenings. Any assistance in learning more about this documentary will be appreciatd, especially information on how to obtain a copy. Thank you. 75.163.72.83 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be referring to the series Testament, aired originally on BBC's Channel Four, written by John Romer and produced by Antelope Films in 1988. Photos of Romer can be found [6] at both the top and the bottom of the page. Marmot seems to have all 7 parts of the series [7]. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (I don't know what the lock is after my link to Marmot. Perhaps someone more experienced in wiki mark-up can explain. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

The lock indicates that it is a secure http connection - see https. Warofdreams talk 10:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did the proto-indo-european peoples spread so far?

I've been reading about the history of Indo-European peoples and I'm sort of confused. What made these obscure tribes spread so far and what made them so dominant in the new lands they arrived in? Was there some sort of ancient pre-historic empire that existed then later fragmented leaving behind traces of their language like with the Roman Empire and Latin forming the Romance Languages? Or was there just some unexplainable mass migration? 63.245.144.68 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

1) There certainly wasn't any kind of centralized government (much less an "empire").

2) Language spread is not always the same thing as mass migration.

3) For a nice basic introduction to some of the relevant historical questions and hypotheses, see chapter 15 of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Language spread has generally reflected population move or conquest. Rarely do people just decide to start speaking some other language that is cooler than theirs or more useful for commerce or some other reason, although it does happen on occasion. Edison (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the conquest could have been accomplished by a relatively small elite, as happened in many historical cases of language change, such as the shift in Ireland from Irish to English. Probably a similar process spread Latin across much of Western Europe. There was not a mass migration from Italy, but a conquest by relatively small numbers of soldiers, some of whom may have settled among the local population. In order to retain their elite status, local elites began speaking Latin, and eventually the less privileged population followed their elites. The spread of English or Latin probably offers the best analogy for the spread of the Indo-European languages, since there is no clear archeological record of large population movements at the appropriate point in prehistory. The early Indo-European languages had probably already differentiated from proto-Indo-European before their speakers spread very far, based on evidence of reciprocal influence among the first generation of Indo-European languages. These peoples probably shared a military technology that gave them a considerable advantage over other European (and Southwest/Central Asian) peoples: a mastery of mounted warfare and perhaps the world's first cavalry. Since they were already fragmented into different peoples and tribes, they did not form a united empire, but they were able to dominate the peoples they conquered long enough for the conquered to adopt (and adapt) their language. Marco polo (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading several books on the subject, like Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins from Colin Renfrew or On the Origin of Languages by Merritt Ruhlen, or books from Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Jared Diamond, I am strongly tending to think that Indo-Europeans discovered agriculture in the fertile crescent and expanded from there. I don't believe they came from north of the Black Sea / Caucasus, nor that horses were better from where they came from. Agriculture gave them a major advantage over hunter-gatherers, and so they were able to take over the land with barely any resistance. --Lgriot (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most linguists do not tend to be convinced by Cavalli-Sforza's theories, and Ruhlen's "Mega-comparative" work is quite controversial... AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry I take everyone's opinion with a pinch of salt, including these authors' opinions (they actually disagree, btw). But after reading a number of theories, though, I still think that I-E. expansion was from the crescent and thanks to agriculture. --00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Why isn't this at the Language desk? AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because it is about archeology too. --Lgriot (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My take on the shift to English from Irish in Ireland is that it had much more to do with the famine than anything to do with elites or conquest. Communities spent some of their money in the middle of the famine bringing in teachers so they could learn English and get a job quicker when they or their children emigrated, and they actively spoke English at home to help with this. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I'm trying to ask, I guess is: Why did so many people adopt the Indo-European language and culture? If it was conquest, what made these people spread so far and conquer so many people? I read somewhere that it was because the Indo-Europeans were the first people to invent the chariot. Was it just a technological thing then? 63.245.144.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

Some people claim that Indo-Europeans mastered horses better than others, and so their tribes were able to beat the nearby tribe, settle on their land, and then the year after that, beat the next nearby tribe again, take their land or submit them to I-E rule, etc. for centuries and this resulted in a huge territory spread. As I said above, I (and some others) think they mastered agriculture among the first, which gave them an advantage in terms of population (food production can sustain 10 times more people than food gathering). With a much larger population, they were able to push away the other tribes, and send colonists to farm the land next door, which then would result in this colony to have many children, which when they are big enough, would want to farm their own leand, and would go colonise the next area of flat land, etc. for generations. But this is not agreed among all scientists that are involved (archeologist, linguists, geneticists, etc.) , so you would have to make your own opinion from reading studies written by other people, or better, start a carrer in one of these domains and start your own scientific study (which would be an extremely interesting domian to work on, I would recommend it if you have the scientific vibe). --Lgriot (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The genetic evidence certainly seems to indicate a movement from Asia Minor and the Balkans into western Europe at the dawn of the Neolithic, some 7,000 years ago. The question is whether the bearers of Indo-European languages were the people who took part in this migration, or perhaps more accurately, population drift (since the new arrivals seem to have intermarried with the indigenous inhabitants). What makes this unlikely, in my view, is that geographically distant Indo-European languages, such as Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, were far too close when first attested in writing 2,000 to 3,000 years ago to have diverged 4,000 to 5,000 years earlier. The linguistic evidence points rather strongly, I think, to an Indo-European origin among horsemen on the plains north of the Black Sea, probably around 5,000 years ago. There is some archeological evidence that would support a cultural shift, very plausibly carried by Indo-European speakers (without large-scale population movements), radiating from present-day Ukraine beginning about 4,000 years ago. (Though speakers of the language ancestral to Hittite probably migrated south earlier, before the other Indo-European peoples moved apart.) If that is right, then the existing agricultural population would have adopted Indo-European languages from a conquering elite. But, as others have pointed out, this is all disputed among scholars and virtually impossible to prove conclusively one way or the other. Marco polo (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's disappointing. I didn't know it was so controversial. I hope they can figure it out someday, though. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There's actually not all that much controversy among linguists -- a fairly strong majority of those linguists who deal with the detailed specific facts of ancient languages (as opposed to broad-brush mega-comparison theorizers) think that a South Russian Urheimat is more probable than an Anatolian Urheimat. AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the IE expansion was triggered by the rise of the Black Sea after the Ice Age. That idea appeals to me but I gather it is not generally taken seriously. (Hm, the deluge itself is more controversial than television had led me to think.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Black Sea Deluge theory is certainly interesting, but very improbable. Still, it's extremely confusing to me why these people would suddenly begin migrating like that. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November 18

Contract law essay

Donald Diggers Ltd tenders for the contract to construct a new hotel for Opulence Ltd. Donald quotes a highly competitive price on the basis that the contract is concluded on its standard terms. Opulence awards Donald the contract, which is duly signed on Donald's terms.

Initially, work proceeds smoothly and according to schedule. However, Donald's workforce is affected by an outbreak of bird influenza and it proves extremely difficult to hire the replacements needed to keep the project on schedule.

Donald is forced to pay premium rates. Donald approaches Opulent to see if Opulent will share the additional cost. Opulent needs the hotel to open on time as it has invested a considerable sum in publicizing the opening and hiring a top celebrity to perform the opening ceremony. All this will be wasted if the opening is delayed. Opulent therefore agrees to contribute $5,000 to the additional labour costs.

The work is completed on time, the opening goes ahead and the first guests arrive. Soon, however, problems start to appear. The swimming pool proves to be only six feet deep instead of seven feet as specified in the contract and it is marked on the outside of the pool. One of the guests breaks his nose after diving in. Some guests contract food poisoning after eating in the one the hotel restaurants. Overall, considerable adverse publicity has been generated, future bookings are low and some bookings have been cancelled.

When Opulent complains to Donald, the latter responds that the food poisoning has nothing to do with its work. Moreover, in respect of the swimming pool, Donald points out that all Opulent needs to do is to change the sign on the side of the pool to indicate its true depth. The market value of the hotel, Donald claims, is unaffected by the shallower pool. Moreover, Donald refers to clause 4 of the contract, which provides as follows:

"All liability for defective installation of swimming pools, whether arising by reason of negligence or otherwise, is hereby excluded."

For its part, Donald is seeking payment of the additional $5,000. Opulent denies that it is legally liable to pay this in any event. Even if it so liable, opulent is withholding that sum by way of set-off against Donald's maintains that Opulent is legally liable to pay extra $5,000 and relies on clause 7 of the contract, which excludes any right of set-off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blak thot (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating as the question is, I refer my learned friend to the admonition that we will not do your homework. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to find that "fascinating" question, Tagishsimon. It is an essay, a "case study" even, but what, specifically, we are being asked to assist with, I am not sure. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but here's my opinion:

1) For a standard contract, the client has no obligation to help the contractor defray unexpected costs. There are such things as "cost plus" contracts where the client agrees to pay all the contractor's costs, whatever they end up being, plus a profit margin. These are popular with US defense contractors. In a standard contract, though, the contractor assumes all the risk.

2) If Opulent did agree to pay $5000, even though under no obligation to do so, then they must pay it.

3) The food poisoning incident doesn't mean Opulent can demand money back from the contractor any more than they could demand the $5000 from Opulent.

4) Disclaimers such as the swimming pool liability waiver may be unenforceable, depending on the jurisdiction. You can't just waive all legal responsibilities for your work by getting the customer to sign something. The injured person could also sue the contractor directly for negligence. If there is proof that the contractor intentionally mislabeled the depth of the pool, knowing this might result in injury or death, then the decision makers at the contract company may even be found criminally negligent and sent to prison. Similarly, if Opulent can be shown to have known about the mislabeled depth, then they could be found to be civilly and/or criminally negligent.

5) The contract's statement that no set-offs are allowed also seems likely to be unenforceable.

6) The contractor's argument that a shallower pool is "just as good" is completely spurious. If Opulent contracted for a deeper pool, they are entitled to get a deeper pool, or have the amount of money refunded which will be required to deepen the pool.

In short, this sounds like the contractor from hell. They will lose in court and in the court of public opinion. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And your answers are, in short, why you are not a lawyer ;) I'd opine that for 1 - 3, we do not have enough information to answer the supposed questions. I disagree with your take on 4, 5 & 6. Oh - and that's why this desk is not the right place for this question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to explain your reasoning for any of this ? Item 6, in particular, seems quite clear-cut. Do you really think a contractor can provide a mislabeled, shallower pool than the contract specifies, say it's "just as good", and demand full payment ? StuRat (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's just take the "clear-cut" item 6 as an exemplar, shall we? If there's an exclusion clause in the contract in the form "All liability for defective installation of swimming pools, whether arising by reason of negligence or otherwise, is hereby excluded", that would tend to do. We have no evidence one way or another that the 6' depth arose out of negligence, so any discussion of whether that element of the clause is enforceable is moot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that you can just release yourself from any liability for negligence just by getting someone to sign something saying so, as I've already said. If this was actually the case, then every car ever sold would have fine print in the contract saying that the manufacturer isn't responsible for any injury or deaths their negligence causes. If the 6 foot depth did not arise from negligence, the other possibility is that it's an intentional deception, designed to fool the customer into believing they got what they paid for when they did not. That's the type of deception that would invalidate a contract. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1. We do not know that it was negligence on the part of the contractor. 2. Consumers (at least in the UK) tend to be protected by things like the Unfair Contract Terms Act, which is why you do not see the small print of which you spoke. Businesses are not so protected. 3. We do not know that is was deception - if you have to invent new data to support your case you are going outside the bounds of information to hand, and that does not work. The best we can say is that on the information we have, the hotel group cannot exclude the clause it entered into freeing the contractor from liability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What "new data" did I invent ? The OP stated "The swimming pool proves to be only six feet deep instead of seven feet as specified in the contract and it is marked on the outside of the pool". How can a contractor deliver something other than what was promised in the contract without it either being negligence or deliberate deception ? StuRat (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To give one example, if the contractor had relied on representations of a surveyor employed by the hotel, that the land beneath the pool was clay; but bedrock was discovered at 6'6" depth, that would be a good reason which is neither negligent nor deceptive. There are 1,001 reasons which do not involve either negligence nor deception. You invent information when you say it is negligence or deception: you don't know whether it is and you must know that you don't know whether it is. The conclusion that you are adding new data is unavoidable. And then there's still the clause which the hotel group knowingly signed up to which may very well be enforcable, whether or not the cause is negligence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your example doesn't explain why they painted the indicator saying the depth was 7 feet deep. If they were unable to make it 7 feet deep, they would still have a legal obligation to tell the customer that, provide a good reason, mark the sign correctly, and come to some agreement on modifying the compensation (or keeping it the same, if that's the agreement). They couldn't just walk away and call it "good enough". StuRat (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If I were Opulence I would contact an attorney. I assume Opulence foolishly signed the contract without any competent legal review by an attorney, which would have spotted and deleted the egregious "swimming pool clause." Edison (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What this is, is a standard question asked in law classes. Silly names, highly complicated and unlikely situation - all the signs are there. If the admonition to "do you own homework" wont' stop you, seriously what are the chances that a group of guys on the internet are going to know more about this than you? You did go to the classes didn't you? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Get thee to a Gilbert's Law Outline on Contracts and be especially nice to friends who attended class.75Janice (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 76Janice

---

(Removed random symbols.) StuRat (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Doubt these symbols are here for a reason. Anyway, if I might offer some advice, I used to be a lawyer. Well, still do a few wills and estates, but the point is, that gave me a headache. If you're relyin gon Wikipedia to answer homework now on what is probably a basic course, consider whether you really want to go through this. Nobody should thnk less of you if you decide it's not for you. Indeed, I had a lot of colleagues who applauded me for my courage in realizing after 10 years I'd changed a lot and felt led to go back to school.

If you're taking the time to put whole law school essays on the reference desk, you might be feeling what I felt after a few of the toughest litigation cases; just totally burned out.Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party's alliance

Who are allies with Awami League and who are allies with BNP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.49 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• The articles Islami Oikya Jote and Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh say they are in alliance with BNP. Since BNP is a conservative right-wing political party, it is natural right wing parties will be its allies. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Awami League, this forum will help you. Parties like Gano Forum, Bikalpa Dhara Bangladesh, Bangladesh Tarikat Federation etc. are allies with Awami League. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer but it still doesn't help me who are the official allies of Awami League and BNP, meaning like a list. Give me a list of both alliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.49 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychology question: name this feeling!

(Sorry, I realise psychology isn't within humanities, but I didn't see a reference desk for social sciences.)

Does anyone know if there is a name for this feeling (and I mean 'proper' name as used in psychology etc., not just 'acting-like-a-two-year-old' correct as that may be!)? If for example I wanted to watch a movie but my wife insisted on watching something else on another channel, and then half an hour after my movie starting she said she wasn't interested in her own programme any more and that I could watch mine after all, I'd get even more upset now that I was allowed to watch the movie partially than if I'd not been allowed to watch it at all.

I suspect this is for one or more of the following reasons (which one, I don't know, and there may well be other possible explanations too): 1) I feel upset but I can't properly justify that feeling, because in the end I was actually allowed to watch my movie; this leaves me with an 'unspent' or 'frustrated' feeling of anger. -or- 2) I feel that I am not in control, when someone else first decides that I cannot watch something, and then decides that I can (and, by implication, should), effectively making the decisions for me and treating me like a child. -or- 3) I have trouble relating to the change in circumstances: having reluctantly accepted the fact that I cannot watch the movie, I then find it difficult to adjust to the new situation.

Perhaps a movie isn't the best example, though - as any movie fan knows, watching part of a movie is worse than not watching it at all. In my case the same feeling can arise in all similar contexts where I can't do something that I want when I want it, and then get given the chance to do it when I consider it to be too late. And just to repeat/clarify, this is not about being upset at not being allowed to do something, this is about being *more* upset about being eventually allowed to do it, only too late. Also, I'm not that interested in hearing what a baby I'm being or that I should talk to a shrink, but rather knowing if there's a name for this particular complex (in other words, if the issue is recognised more widely, or is it just me!).

80.175.227.165 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'd say with me it would be because it appears watching what she wanted wasn't so important to her after all so there wasn't a good reason for not being able to watch your movie. Since you love her, you don't mind sacrificing your movie if it's important to her, but since it wasn't important to her you're annoyed that you sacrificed it for nothing. I'm not sure there's really a technical term for it, it's just annoyance that something bad has happened for no good reason. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This happens to me when I stay at my parents' house. I start watching a TV program, while Dad is in the other room watching a different program. Then, he comes in and turns over to watch the same program, while the program is still on in the other room. Then he falls asleep within 5 minutes because he is not actually watching the program. I turn back, and he wakes up 10 or 20 minutes later demanding his program to be put back on. I complain to Mum, who has been sitting in the other room all along, enduring his program and expecting him to come back in, so she comes in and switches over to a totally different channel, and I am expected now to watch 'my program' in the other room, even though there is only about ten minutes left of it. It's just an annoyance.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess the feeling is being "ripped off" due to shenanigans about control and being manipulated. You might like to look at Eric Berne's ideas about the dynamics of unsatisfying interpersonal behaviour ("games" involving "victim", "persecutor" and "rescuer") put forward under Transactional Analysis. There are bigger issues of powerplay, disempowerment and empowerment, but I can't find the interpersonal scale in wiki. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it resentment. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the book The Meaning of Liff. It might be in there. Jørgen (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article links to an online version: [8] (which, strangely enough, is hosted less than half an hour's walk from where I live) Jørgen (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions about social science would logically go on the Science Reference Desk. Social scientists, in my experience, tend to be "inhuman," so the Humanities Desk seems a less likely choice. Edison (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say you were exasperated. I vaguely recall reading about a psychological/sociological experiment with a similar effect - the subjects performed some task, and the subjects who got a nominal/no reward for doing so felt better about it than those who got a larger reward (because the latter group saw it as bad pay for their work). (Edit - see Boring Task Experiment). This makes me think it could be something relating to cognitive dissonance. 89.242.103.230 (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say its a form of passive aggresive behavior; by giving yourself the right to feel pissed in a situation which, by logic, you should not be (i.e. you are watching the TV show you wanted to watch first!!!) this shows a desire to maintain control in all situations; but to do so via emotional manipulation... The psychological umbrella term that covers these sorts of behaviors is passive aggressive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the passive aggressive nature in the question. What I see is anger due to lack of appreciation. He lets his wife watch her program. The response should be that she appreciates the gesture and appreciates the program. However, she doesn't enjoy the program, rejecting it. So, the gesture isn't appreciated. It is not uncommon for people to redirect feeling of disappointment as anger. The passive aggressive action is confronting random strangers on the Internet instead of telling his wife that he expected her to appreciate her program and, since she didn't, he was disappointed. -- kainaw™ 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. While I can't name the feeling, I can write something that works for me in situation like this: We ask each other to think of a number from 1-12 for how much this is worth to us, then we compare. It works because (1) numbers eliminate the need to interpret the tone of voice or "reading between the lines", and (2) it evens out in the long run, since both of us have a desire to be true to ourselves and each other. So neither tries to be too extreme towards high or low numbers, and we rather ended up meeting at 6, which isn't a problem because when it's equally important to each, it doesn't matter for our overall happiness which we chose, so we just picked one choice at random; no need to end up like Buridan's donkey. — Sebastian 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I should add that this will probably not work when you're already in the midst of a heated discussion, because then it's in our genes to put all attention to getting this one thing and to the extreme for it. But when you ask for a number right at the moment you become aware of the conflict of interests, it gives both sides a chance to examine their hearts and take the bigger picture into account. — Sebastian 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Bangladesh have a military alliance with India or Pakistan today?

If a country were to attack Bangladesh, would India or Pakistan send military to help Bangladesh? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering it was formerly a part of both of those countries, before the Bangladesh Liberation War and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, probably neither. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

See Foreign relations of Bangladesh. --Tango (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Bangladesh and India are more all less enemy countries. India is accused by Bangladeshi authorities for helping terrorist organizations against Bangladesh government such as the Banga Sena. See the article Illegal immigration in India, India and Bangladesh have a bitter relation over immigration issue. Bangladesh regularly accuses India of being an aggressive and imperialist country in South Asia (as many countries in the international politics accuse the United States of being an imperialist power), this is known as "Indian expansionism" in South Asian countries. Similarly India accuses Bangladesh for funding anti-government organization within India like the United Liberation Front of Assam. The founder of ULFA Paresh Baruah lives in Bangladesh and his extradition efforts by India proved to be unsuccessful and it is common knowledge in Indian political circles that Baruah is protected by the Bangladesh government. You can also read the article 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict. Border disputes and short armed conflicts between the Border Security Force and the Bangladesh Rifles are frequently reported in Indian and Bangladeshi media. Simply put, the bilateral relations between India and Bangladesh are not warm. Internal politics also plays a role in the bilateral relations. In India Hindu fundamentalism and in Bangladesh Islamic fundamentalism influences this bilateral relation. To properly understand India-Bangladesh relation, a quick overview of the history will be helpful. Historically India helped Bangladesh to be a separate nation from Pakistan, but please keep in mind that it was a complex period. India helped Bangladesh liberation war primarily with of the following motives:

• The 1971 Bangladesh atrocities resulted in huge refugee influx in India from Bangladesh. At that time India had only to three options: 1) let the refugees freely enter India (which will be devastating for India's economy) 2) prevent the refugees from entering India at border and 3) remove the root cause behind this refugee problem i.e. the East Pakistan government. India choose the last.
• India and Pakistan has a natural enmity from 1947 over Kashmir issue. It is obvious India will help the enemy of her enemy.

But even so, Indira Gandhi once told Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, "If I help you, after independence you will help a Bengali separatist movement in West Bengal against the Indian state." Mujibur Rahman assured Gandhi he will do nothing like this. So you can see from the very beginning, India and Bangladesh had a suspicion on one another.

I will say that the bilateral relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh have improved in recent years and now Bangladesh is more closer to Pakistan than India. In the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, while India is the strongest country, Pakistan plays the role of the major anti-India military and political power and Bangladesh generally supports Pakistan on this issue and views India to be an expansionist country which wants a regional hegemony. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are the illegal Bengladeshi immigrants heading to in India? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Since in appearance, Bangladeshis look like Indians, it become almost impossible to distinguish a Bangladeshi from an Indian only by observation. The illegal Bangladeshi immigrants generally secure ration cards due to the corruption in Indian administration. There are also reports where they even secured voter identity cards. Many Bangladeshi migrants have become Indian citizens and this is possible due to the fact that documents can be acquired fraudulently in India. They live in India just like an Indian, many are in legitimate professions like laborers, business or service, many are involved in organized crime. The article Illegal immigration in India (though it has POV concerns) will answer to many of your queries. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can also read these references [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Were battles in the middle ages fought 24/7?

I'm working on a research paper and i was wondering if battles fought in the middle ages were endlessly fought from dusk till dawn all the time until they were won. or if there were set resting periods that the armies took for sleep and such. if so, how long were such periods of time? 140.198.155.68 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, each battle and combatant will have different rules, of course, but, in general, it was difficult to fight at night due to the lack of artificial light. Carrying torches would illuminate you're own forces more than the enemy, and also limit your ability to carry and use weapons, and subject your side to fire-related injuries. So, most armies would retire for the night rather than take heavy casualties from falling off cliffs, riding their horses into trees, shooting at each other in the dark, etc. A full moon on a clear night might provide enough light for battles on certain nights, though. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When the fighting stopped because it got dark, did a soldier ever observe "It sure is quiet out there." With the response: Edison (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Yeah--TOO quiet," implying that perhaps the enemy was stealthily advancing under cover of darkness, and prepared to launch a sneak attack or to attack at first light. Edison (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am completely agree with StuRat. Due to lack of technologies which are necessary for war at night time, military strategists of the era certainly did not choose the night as a proper time for battle. Some references [15][16][17] suggest there were incidents of battle at night. Per this, Vikings are known to have attacked during night time. But certainly it was not the norm. Moreover the Vikings were pirates, thus their attacks do not fall under the definition of war. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Per this, night attack in the middle ages in Japan was considered to be a surprise tactic. It was not the norm. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that in Medieval times, battles were mostly formalized engagements, and were not really about "destroying the enemy" as it was to proving to them that, by your own superior number, tactics, and weaponry, the war wasn't worth fighting. They really did line up their armies at an open field and launch them at eachother like set pieces on some sort of giant gameboard. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the early 18th century was the height of the era of the formalized geometric set-piece battle, while the middle ages produced a number of disorganized chaotic bloody melees... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

These answers have covered the "24" part of the question, now what about the "7"? Did it ever happen, or often happen, that armies from Christian countries avoided fighting on Sunday, for example? And analogously for other religions. Today such an idea seems bizarre, but that's today. --Anonymous, 06:06 UTC, November 19, 2008.

The Peace of God movement was supposed to prevent fighting on holy days but it wasn't very successful. The Battle of Towton took place on a Sunday and I'm certain there are many others. For other religions, we have the awkwardly titled List of battles fought during Ramadan by Muslims. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Le Dimanche de Bouvines, bien sur! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing battles that occurred on Sunday is answering a different question. --Anon, 11:26 UTC, November 19, 2008.

Not really. The phrase 24/7 means "24 hours a day 7 days a week". He was answering the second part of the section header...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to sound argumentative here, but the original question asked if battles were fought continuously, and the answer was given that people stopped fighting at night. I then asked if it "ever happened, or often happened" that they also didn't fight on Sunday (or their equivalent). Battles that did happen on Sunday are irrelevant to that question. --Anon, 17:20 UTC, November 19, 2008.

Well, it demonstrates that avoiding fighting on Sunday was not always a great concern, for at least two major battles. Perhaps I should have said "yes of course they tried to avoid fighting on holy days, especially after the Peace of God movement, but given that these two important battles were fought on Sundays they do not seem to have avoided it all the time." I don't know if this a coincidence or what but checking the dates for all the medieval battles I happen to know the date of, they almost always seem to have been fought on a Friday or Saturday. As for Islam, the link I gave is intended to show that although Muslims are not supposed to wage war during Ramadan, they often do, especially if the other side expects them not to. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I skipped a few words in reading your original reply and missed the Peace of God bit. --Anon, 05:05 UTC, November 20/08.

% of us population that knows who noam chomsky is

What percentage of the us population knows who Noam Chomsky is? My friend estimated over 25%, but I think that is way too high. Also, as a baseline, we were trying to find out his total book sales in terms of absolute numbers sold. However, this type of information seems to be hard to come by in general. The best I could find were rankings of bestsellers by week, etc. Where would I be able to find this type of information (specifically, total number of books sold by Noam Chomsky). Thanks, --Thegoodearth (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky has a good amount of information about Noam Chomsky. It also has a number of external links which might help. He's certainly sold a lot of books. This says that his 9/11 pamphlet sold 1/2 million copies, for example. Gwinva (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky has a certain following. I'd estimate his fan base at around a million. I would guess pretty unscientifically that another 20 million people know more or less who he is. That adds up to maybe 7% of the US population. Maybe half of those have read anything by him. The basis for my estimate is that one-fourth of US university graduates know who he is, and half of those have ever read anything by him. I think that he is virtually unknown among the less educated. I would guess that a large majority of university graduates don't know who he is and that a small majority have never heard of him. I think that he is little known on the less prestigious university campuses (except maybe among the professoriate). On the other hand, I think that most Harvard graduates probably know roughly who he is. This is based entirely on very unscientific original research. Marco polo (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a completely unscientific guess, but I'd say no more than 5% and probably closer to 3%. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In part, it depends on what you mean by "know who Noam Chomsky is." Recognize the name as belonging to an actual person (as opposed to a character at Hogwarts)? Identify him as a living person? Describe him as a student of linguistics? Identify him with the phrase "transformational grammar" and explain that term so that my dad would know what you're talking about? Name one of his books? State truthfully that you've read one of them?

I don't think 15% of U.S. adults could pick Noam Chomsky out of a lineup that included Robert Indiana, Edward Albee, and Tom Lehrer, all of whom like Chomsky were born in 1928. Maybe 25% could pick fellow octogenarian Walter Mondale out of the same lineup, and maybe a few more, Gordie Howe. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't guess it would be that high, but I also think I am not surprised by that. He is certainly an important figure in academia, but most Americans aren't academics, and aren't really that familiar with him or his work. Being important is not equivalent to being popular. I would posit that other contemporaries of him, such as possibly Linus Pauling or Milton Friedman or any of another of academics are equally as "important" and likely equally as "unknown". I am neither unsurprised by this nor concerned by this. Most American's daily lives are not much affected by the work of theoretical linguists, or of physical chemists, or of macroeconomists, so it is unsurprising that they don;t concern themselves intimately with their works, regardless of how important they are to their individual fields. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a question for Jaywalking! :-) --Anonymous, 06:07 UTC, November 19, 2008.

Chomsky is actually too obscure for Jaywalking, where the joke is that random people don't know basic things that they should know. There's no reason for the average American to know or care about Chomsky, who is important to only a small segment of society, but they really ought to be able to identify Hillary Clinton, for example, and it's funny (or scary) when they can't. —Kevin Myers 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It will be good to understand the reason why so few people have heard the names of philosophers like Noam Chomsky. In every country, the common people are generally more interested in celebrities like actors, porn stars, pop stars rather than philosophers and intellectuals. People like to gossip. Several factors may be responsible for this:

• boredom and loneliness play a role in this interest in celebrity gossips. People attempt to overcome their personal boredom through celebrity gossips.
• personal outlook is a reason. Many people find news coverage on celebrity gossips more interesting than news coverage on philosophers, their books etc.
• education plays another factor. Some people simply do not understand the views of philosophers or what they are saying. Thus they show no interest in philosophers.
• in many societies, particularly in third world countries, sex is viewed in a negative manner. Countries like the Netherlands, the UK are also not exceptions. Even in the Netherlands, unrestricted sexual practice (for example public sex) is not allowed. Sex in objectified and institutionalized in all modern societies. Most societies cannot take sex like other activities food, sports etc. In all societies, due to economic and social factors, unrestricted sexual relationship become impossible for many people. This complex attitude results in more or less sexual frustration in many people which they try to overcome through pornography and make them more interested in porn stars than philosopher.

The media is somewhat responsible for this. Here is a reference according to which many people believe celebrity scandals receive too much news coverage. The capitalist media always want to build the public opinion in such a way which will favorable for the corporations and consumerist in nature, so media actually play the role of protector of the capitalist-consumerist system. Thus the corporate media always try to blackout left-leaning philosophers and intellectuals like Noam Chomsky. Finally, the people who will be benefited most from Chomsky's Libertarian socialism, i.e. the working class, do not know the ABC of socialism and left-libertarianism, thus they show no interest in philosophers like Chomsky. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing from your list is the most likely explanation: People don't know about Noam Chomsky because he's irrelevant to their daily lives. Actors, porn stars, and pop stars have at least entertainment value: Chomsky, not so much. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew it! I always suspected People magazine was part of a diabolical plot to keep the masses chained to the bloody wheels of oppression. Mwalcoff (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be interesting to ask, of countries that include philosophy in school curricula, what percent continue to take an interest? Eg, how many French people continue to be philosophically aware? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

is it true that japanese school-children stand?

Is it true that in at least some schools (elementary? private schools? don't know exactly) the children stand while being instructed instead of sitting down at desks or benches... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.250 (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of this being a common thing in Japanese schools (but I did have a boss that used to conduct meetings with everyone standing up under the belief that meetings would be shorter and keep to the point). I have found you an interesting website that outlines a typical day in a Japanese school [18] - hope it helps. --KizzyB (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And Donald Rumsfeld used a standing desk, which apparently deprived his brain of the blood needed to make proper decisions. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another description of Japanese grade schools. I've never heard of standing during class either. It's very unusual if it happens at all. -- BenRG (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

November 19

Why was Spain at the recent G20 Summit.

Looking at this picture, [[19]] I notice in the back row the President of Spain, Señor José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Why were Spain there if they are not listed as members of G20? Richard Avery (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

France was entitled to two seats, both as a nation, and as they hold the current EU presidency. After lobbying from various countries, they decided to give their second seat to Spain. Deutsche Welle has further details. Warofdreams talk 13:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to give the short answer: They were invited... But Warofdreams has given a much more specific one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I really must pay more attention. Thanks both. Richard Avery (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Did you not spot Jan Kees de Jager in that photo too? William Avery (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Leadership styles

In many organisations in Zambia the type of leadership style has affected the labour forces performance negatively. How do leadership styles affect productivity in corporate organisations in developing economies.Blak thot (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

oooh... That's a tricky question. I only wish that colleges and universities taught classes where information such as this was presented in the form of a lecture or a textbook, so that I could attend those lectures and take notes, or so that I could read that textbook and find possible answers to questions such as this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have linked your question to various articles, in case you are missing some fundamental concepts that are not in your text book this year. Try also to read those articles.--Lgriot (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Messiahs in History

In many Christain faiths, Jesus is considered the Messiah. In the term that I understand, Messiah is someone who delivers man from evil/chaos/etc. So Jesus is considered the first Messiah historically. So, are there any notable figures in history that can be Messiah-like after Jesus? I guess one comes to mind - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Is this a fair assumption? --Emyn ned (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the concept of a messiah in modern society to be a subjective title - as daft as it may sound Hitler was probably initially seen by the German population as a messiah, delivering them from social depression and giving them hope; long term history obviously shows otherwise. Throughout history there have been a number of people claiming to be the messiah - and even today a section of the American public will feel that Barack Obama has the qualities of a messiah! --KizzyB (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Messiah is a title for the expected deliverer of the Jewish people (who hasn't arrived yet). Christians refer to Jesus as the Messiah, claiming that he is the delivered of the Jewish people. (Yes, there are Jewish Christians who blur the distinction). In slang, it can mean anything you like. You can claim Bart Simpson is the Messiah if you like. Once you change the definition of a word, you can make it mean anything you like. -- kainaw™ 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of Messiah has changed dramatically over the years as well. To 1st century Jews, for example, the term was widely held to mean a warrior-king who would lead an army to deliver the Jews from their oppressors and form an independent state. Its why Jesus was treated as such a political threat. When asked "are you the Messiah" by Pilate, for example, what Pilate was really saying was "Are you the guy the Jews keep saying will overthrow the Roman government here in Israel (i.e. Pilate himself)". Jesus, of course, took himself to be a different sort of deliverer, one who would deliver all men from the oppression of sin. Jesus, of course, told Pilate "it is as you say" with his own definition in mind; Pilate took him to mean the more commonly understood definition, which is why he considered Jesus enough of a threat to put up for execution. Since Jesus time, the term has broadend to imply anyone who delivers others from an oppressive situation, but this is a more recent sort of synecdoche than the original, more narrow, definitions... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The original meaning of the Hebrew word Mashiaħ משיח was "annointed" (referring to the ceremony of consecrating priests and kings by annointing them with oil). In the actual original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the word Mashiaħ משיח refers to several Israelite priests and kings (and even the Persian emperor Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1), but never to an apocalyptic future savior... AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Side-spring boots in Heart of Darkness

What are side-spring boots? I came accross the term in Heart of Darkness, in which a minor character is described as wearing side-spring boots, and pink pyjamas tucked into his socks. I have searched all over the Internet, asked the librarian at my university library, and flipped through various books written about fashion in that period, but I have not been able to figure out what side-spring boots are. Neelix (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Was there anything before "side"? The term "spring boot" isn't common (as far as I know) anymore. It is a style of boot that has a pattern down the side. You can get leather side spring boots, cashmere side spring boots... just about anything (even zebra striped fur side spring boots). Because "pyjamas" is not written in the American modern form (pajamas), I assume that "spring boot" is still in use in British English. -- kainaw™ 17:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I asked the nurses for this answer (I don't know jack about women's boot fashions), I was just told that one of our nurse's from London owns and often wears leather side spring boots. -- kainaw™ 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The usage is "with sandy hair and red whiskers, who wore sidespring boots, and pink pyjamas tucked into his socks" - on googling one also finds "side-spring boots" in Victorian texts. I have never heard the expression "spring boots" in British English. Conrad used the British spelling of pyjamas because (despite being Polish) he was British. DuncanHill (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Asking again... I was told that "spring boots" is a very old term that isn't used anymore in British English either, but most women know what it means. Perhaps it is like "petticoat". Nobody uses the term, but they know what it means. Since spring boots are for women and there is nothing before "side", I assume that the author is not referring to spring boots. -- kainaw™ 17:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that the author is most likely referring to spring clasps (like those found on ski boots). You may find leather boots with spring clasps on the sides in stores that sell motorcycle clothing. I rarely see anyone wear them in real life, but I've seen them in many Japanese animation books, movies, games, etc. -- kainaw™ 18:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See this glossary in an edition of Heart of Darkness. The boots in question have elastic panels along the sides to make them easier to pull on and off. Deor (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done for finding that glossary - very useful to now have a name for that sort of boots. Rather embarrassing for me, however - the edition you linked to was edited by my uncle! DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of the gag, "Dad, what does 'tore his leather' mean?" "I don't know, son, why do you ask?" "Because this book says, 'Robin Hood tore his leather jerkin off.'" --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am quite amazed that I thought of that and refrained from posting it. Great minds run in similar gutters. Edison (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ankle length riding boots, paddock boots, jodpur boots and Chelsea boots, elastic-sided, sound and look like the idea of "spring-sided" or "spring" boots. I like them for casual wear in winter but people identify them as riding boots, though I don't ride). Nice gag, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

US Capitol Trolley Car

Is there information about this on Wikipedia? [20][21] It seems like something that someone would obsess over (like I would like to), but I can't seem to find anything. Does it have a more common name? My google-fu is failing. - cohesion 16:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

United States Capitol Subway System ? Nanonic (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that is the public subway, this one looks like it's some sort of congressional-only transportation? - cohesion 17:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article states that this is not for the use of the general public unless escorted, and the first website in the external links section contains a photo very similar to the first you provided here. Nanonic (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I saw that picture and didn't move on. I was looking for one exactly like the linked one, and the flickr one. I guess they have different types of cars. Thanks! - cohesion 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

When did it become necessary to have an escort on this system? I know I rode it unescorted in the early 90's. Rmhermen (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

When the government got all paranoid after 9/11. There also was a time when any person could just walk into the Capitol building and take a look around the public spaces like the rotunda and such. Now, there's a new "visitor's center" that is publicly accessable, while the main building is generally closed off to the public (a BAD IDEA in a democracy, if you ask me...). However, I don't think the Capitol Subway system has ever been truly a "public" subway. While I suspect that no one at the time asked you for credentials in order to ride it back then, it's also not like its the sort of subway people just use to travel around DC. Seeing as it is only accessible from the interiors of buildings which themselves have security controls, its likely that only those who have business between the Capitol and one of the congressional office buildings will be riding that subway. If you are in a suit and carrying a briefcase, and look like you know where you are going, its likely no one is going to stop you and ask you a lot of questions... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I can attest that before 9/11, it was very easy for members of the public to wander around and below Capital Hill. The subway system had cars reserved for "members (of Congress) only," and during votes it may have been off-limits to the general public. But I rode on it many times in the mid-90s. A particularly wistful story -- when I was on a high-school trip to DC, I was wandering around the Capitol building trying to get to the rotunda before it closed. A security guard asked me with a wink, "You want to get to the rotunda?" He took me around some back doors and said "Here you go!" I was the only person there. Just me and the dome and the paintings for about five minutes before another security guard came around and said, "Um, you know this is closed, right?" Nowadays they'd probably shoot me on sight. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That matches my experience in the '60s; I was just a kid, wandering freely around the Capitol basement (as well as the various office buildings.) Nobody looked at me twice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In those days, there were guards to shoo civilians off the trolley so Senators and Representatives could ride. Edison (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Imported Oil for India

Does anyone know if India gets imported crude oil? How much imported crude oil does India get? Sonic99 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by oil imports says 2 million barrels a day but it's estimated as of 2004 which is quite old. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is India getting its crude oil from? Is Burma supplying some crude oil to India?Sonic99 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

India imports around 70% of its crude requirements from around 30 different countries. Of the imports, around 71-72% comes from Middle East, 16-17% from Africa, 4-5% from South and Central America and 4-5% from South East Asia. India does not import import crude from Myanmar, though there are talks to tap its natural gas. Chancemill (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This source (http://www.bp.com/), with a little data manipulation, says production is only 85% of imports. This site (https://sdbs.adb.org/sdbs/index.jsp) says imports were 142.4 million metric tons in 2006. The largest share of imports coming from an OPEC member was from the UAE that year.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I heard that there are pirates hijacking vessels in the Gulf of Aden. I don't know how far the pirates would go out to the sea to hijack tankers and vessels. Would that have any impact on the price of oil imports in India?Sonic99 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There will be a definite impact. The premium paid on shipping insurance has shot up due to increasd piracy, and there are reports that liners are actively considering moving around the Cape of Good Hope, instead of moving through the Gulf of Aden and that adds to your shipping cost. Besides, traded oil prices at their sources also went up with the news of Sirius Star being hikacked.

However, if the impact of all this is going to be a $4-5 increase in oil price imports for India, it is still no match for the downward pressure from the economic downturn. Crude is below $50 - and thats one third of what it was three months ago. 220.225.217.2 (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chad

In Chad, what has more native speakers, as a first language, French or Arabic?. Referenced statisics only please.

I strongly expect it to be the same as the neighboring countries. The Christian population will speak French. The Muslim population will speak Arabic. Most of the country is Muslim. Because both French and Arabic are official languages, I suspect that most people speak both fluently. -- kainaw™ 17:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is actually Chadian Arabic (asked a Nigerian to see if he knew and, surprisingly, we have an article on it). -- kainaw™ 17:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if French is a mother tongue in Chad. Sure it's one of the official languages, but that's something different. -- 93.132.170.2 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue figures from the 1993 census give 754,590 native speakers of Chadian Arabic and only 3,000 native speakers of French. According to their figures, Arabic and Ngambay (on which we don't even have an article) both have around 750,000 native speakers, and are the most widely spoken first languages. Warofdreams talk 22:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We have the Ngambay stub now. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Izhevsk

I just saw this picture on the Commons main page, and I was wondering how many faces this building has. But our article Izhevsk has under Izhevsk § Remarkable buildings and structures only a TV mast. Anybody knows more about it? — Sebastian 18:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Monetary values compared between 1918 and 2008

I am searching for information about how much $10,000 in 1918 would be worth today. My history students are learning about the alien and sedition act and part of that was a $10,000 fine and 20 years in jail for violations. They asked me how much that would be in today's money. I gave them a guesstimate, but would like to know actual if there is such information available.72.36.61.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

According to this [[22]] site, and assuming you mean USD, it would be worth US$218,760 today.NByz (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that in purchasing power parity or just value compared against a standard like gold? SDY (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's using DoL CPI, so it would be "changes in the price level of an average urban consumer's basket of goods." NByz (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem, there, though, is that the contents of the basket will have changed considerably. How does one compare a 50 pound sack of flour with granola bars ? StuRat (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality and income disparity (both within and across countries) are major factors in practical measures of inflation using a price index. The most appropriate way of determining how much $10,000 in 1918 would be equivalent to in this context would be to find the average wage of the type of people to whom this law most likely applies. Because hours worked would likely be different, you'd have to include a scaling factor for that (quality of life or labour/leisure tradeoff). Using the ratio of the fine to that adjusted wage as a multiplier, you could scale up the average wage of the person in the equivalent socio-economic group today. Unless I've forgotten anything, I think this should give you a pretty good idea of how a person today would view a fine like that. Lots of data though.NByz (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying to compare the number of hours worked then for a given amount of money versus now, I can see one problem with that. Whereas now we buy close to 100% of the things we need from our wages, back then many people mostly grew their own food, sewed their own clothes, cooked their own food, built their own houses, bartered with neighbors, etc., so they only earned cash for a few "extras" they couldn't make for themselves. So, let's say you decide that $10,000 is a subsistence wage now, and $100 was back then. That doesn't mean that prices went up 100 times, though, because the $10,000 is to pay for everything you need to live, while the $100 is only for a small portion of the things needed to live, the rest being provided by the non-cash economy. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Weren't the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798? bibliomaniac15 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Awami League, Bangladesh Nationalist Party, Indian National Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, Pakistan Muslim League, Pakistan Peoples Party

Is there a source or a data where it shows how much percentage is when it comes six major political parties in South Asia?: relationship between Awami League and Indian National Congress relationship between Awami League and Bharatiya Janata Party relationship between Awami League and Pakistan Muslim League relationship between Awami League and Pakistan Peoples Party relationship between Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Indian National Congress relationship between Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bharatiya Janata Party relationship between Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Pakistan Muslim League relationship between Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Pakistan Peoples Party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.4 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Shia Muslim Pakistan

I know there was a question like this one but it didn't give a full answer with data and stats. I want to know that which branch of Shia Islam do they follow and which provincial capital cities have significant numbers of Shia Muslims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.4 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In most regions of the Muslim world (other than Yemen), it's fairly safe to assume that the majority of Shi`ites willl be Twelvers... AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

November 20

stock movements

Where can I find a source listing the largest stock movements within the last 15 minutes? The reason I ask is because I'm trying to find stocks at the moment where there is the greatest disparity between Yahoo finance quotes (which are 15 minutes delayed) and actual prices. Thanks, --Thegoodearth (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a "real time" web site except for those where you are a registered trader. If you have a trading account with a discount broker, for example, you may get "real time" quotes there. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of real-time quotes. For example, Google has real-time quotes for NYSE and NASDAQ (http://www.google.com/help/stock_disclaimer.html). --Thegoodearth (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning on cheating on a fantasy stock challenge by any chance? You know a lot of those fantasy challenges delay orders by 15-20 minutes to counter stuff like that. If you're asking for your own investment, almost any discount brokerage will offer free quotes. Many will offer NASDAQ level II free with a minimum number of trades per month.NByz (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Things like National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation

Anyone know about groups suing for the blind that they can't use things on computers? Like National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation. Firstly, people who are blind might not be able to buy much in actual shops because they can't enter pins for debit cards without telling their pin aloud, they can't sign for credit cards, and they can't see paper money so even if it had Braille dots or were different sizes, they'd not be able to detect obvious counterfeit money.

I'm just wondering about this because most websites don't work for blind users. Even so, almost no video games work for blind users, especially first person shooters. So couldn't the National Federation of the Blind sue every video game maker and just go crazy and cause trouble? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, the dollar bill controversy is a very serious issue (see Federal_Reserve_Note#Differentiation), and one which the federal government is consistently losing on in an ongoing lawsuit, considering that just about every other developed country has taken measures to make it possible for blind people to distinguish between different currency denominations, and that the U.S. Treasury is now constantly fiddling with the different dollar bills to introduce various anti-counterfeiting measures.

And with respect to websites, many blind people are kind of tired of website designers who impair simple text-based navigation of their websites in order to rely exclusively on rather pointless (i.e. visually glitzy, but rather empty from the content point of view) Shockwave Flash animations. It's been pointed out many times that it actually takes extra effort to make your website inaccessible to the blind... AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Many sighted people are also rather tired of such website designers. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that. There's nothing more frustrating than using a web site or desktop app where the developers went out of their way to make it less usable. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that eventually most people would go to sites which are basic HTML and loaded with content, like Weather Undergound's page: [23] instead of overly complex pages like are found at Weather.com: [24]. Computer screen reader programs have no problem with these type of basic HTML pages. Some sites offer the choice of "dancing babies" or basic HTML, but unfortunately, they start with the dancing babies first. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See Reductio ad absurdum... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The basic premise needs challenging. Blind people have been using paper money for a very long time; there are computer attachments that will read aloud text; and there are quite a lot of us (sighted and otherwise) who don’t need to look at keypads or keyboards to type in numbers. I don’t mean to trivialize the challenges society presents to the blind, but many of the ones listed in the original question don’t seem to be the ones most in need of attention. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the U.S. government currently has no meaningful answer as to how blind people should know that they're getting the correct change in bills back after making a purchase, other than "Depend on the kindness of strangers"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are portable readers that can give the denomination of bills. After all, this technology has existed for a long time in machines that accept bills. Once the blind determine the denomination of each bill, they have different techniques to keep track of them, like folding different denominations differently. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the machines which are truly portable do not seem to be very reliable and robust, and using the machines creates a socially awkward situation where a blind person has to hold up the checkout line while waiting for each bill to be verified by the machine. The much more sensible and reliable solution would be to simply add something like the Canadian currency tactile feature to U.S. currency bills, instead of forcing each blind person to carry around a machine and hold up lines... AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a very simple way of helping blind & partially-sighted people tell different denominations apart in the UK. The different denominations are different sizes (and different colours), and one can get a simple ruler with braille markings corresponding to the different notes. It is a shame that American technology isn't quite up to our level yet ;) DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also a feelable section of the note that allows differentiation by touch alone. Algebraist 22:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to the OPs question. My shallow understanding is that the governing legislation in the US is Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 which I understand says, you cannot discriminate on grounds of disability in a number of specified areas - Employment, Public Services (and public transportation), Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities) & Telecommunications. By my reading, video games would fall outside its scope.

Of interest, the UK counterpart, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, has two components outlawing less favourable treatment for a reason related to a disabled person's disability; and failure to make a "reasonable adjustment" when providing access to goods, facilities, services and premises. Under this legislation, I would guess a videogame maker would argue that it is unreasonable to expect a game of hand-eye coordination to be adapted for the blind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

places duties on service providers and requires "reasonable adjustments" to be made when providing access to goods, facilities, services and premises.

• I'd generally think that most of the web would violate blind disability laws due to CAPTCHAs. However, I suppose a blind person could buy the software some people living in China sell that reads the hardest CAPTCHAs 99% of the time as opposed to the 4% success rate of humans on the hardest ones (e.g. Gmail captcha). As for the other thing, like how Target was sued, I'm surprised auto makers aren't sued because it's rare to find an auto-maker with a website that isn't pure flash. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the best captcha breakers as used by spam merchants use humans as backup, e.g. by directing it to some human wanting to enter a porn site or a farm of cheap third world workers. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Source for military decoration citations

I'd like to add my father to the list of MC recipients. I have copies of the original documents submitted for the award, but would like to know how these should be referenced.Trekman53 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WP doesn't have a list of MC recipients . The Military Cross page only mentions a few highly significant recipients. The "list" is actually a category: a method of sorting existing pages, all of which need to meet general notability requirements. Consequently, there's nowhere for you to "add" your father. If he qualifies for a page of his own, then you will need a number of reliable sources to establish his notability. (Notability (people) suggests that someone is notable if "the person has received a notable award or honour", which seems to qualify your father, although you'll probably want a bit more to back it up.) Regarding his MC, it would be important to cite an accessible source, rather than his papers which only you have access to. What country is he from? Try the following databases: Australia, NZ, UK, Canada. Or these google books. You also might find someone at WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals who can help. Gwinva (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also note WP:MILMOS#NOTE, which suggests that winning a Military Cross is, by itself, not quite enough to warrant an article on the winner. This is because, for many of these military heroes, winning the award is just about all of the information we would be able to verify about them using reliable sources, which would make for not very good encyclopedia articles. —Kevin Myers 08:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case, why not have a "List of MC holders" as a page? -- SGBailey (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The MC is a third level award, presented to thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers; it is comparable to the U.S. Army Distinguished Service Medal. We generally only maintain lists for the highest level awards such as the Medal of Honor (3,446 recipients) or the Victoria Cross (1,353 recipients). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Afro-american male crime.

Why is a black male 6 times more likely to enter a correctional facilty than his white counterpart? (US department of Justice)

First you need to control for factors that we know contribute to the likelihood of criminal activity like socioeconomic status and geographic location (urban vs. rural). You need to take out all the known confounding variables before you can explain a group difference.--droptone (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Most likely due to a combination of social and cultural factors. Firstly males are more likely to take part in criminal activity than females. Secondly black males are more likely to be in poverty which is linked to crime. Thirdly black males are more likely to be educated to a lower level of standard, which is also linked to crime. They aren't more likely to committ a crime because they a black, it is much more complex than that. The problem here is that white and black are used as synonyms for rich and poor/educated and not educated/stable family and non-stable family etc. etc. In short, i've never been a fan of this kind of statement because it simplifies a complex question (the cause of crime). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall some research on the same question in the UK, during the 1980s, purely about interaction with the police and judiciary. It went something like: more likely to be stopped by police , more likely to be arrested after being stopped, more likely to be charged after arrest, more likely to be found guilty at trial, and more likely to be given a custodial sentence after being found guilty. It all adds up, or rather, multiplies. William Avery (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the question, it simply stated a fact and asked for the reason. Let's look at a specific example of cocaine use. White defendants are likely to have snorted cocaine, but have a job and family support, so are likely to be sentenced to drug treatment programs with a suspended sentence. Black defendants are likely to have smoked crack, be unemployed, homeless, without family support, and have committed other crimes to get drug money. Under those circumstances, hard time is a likely result. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Poverty, culture, education, families, bias in the justice system. Each of these demonstrably real aspects combine in different ways for the final raw statistical outcome. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons above, there could also be genetic factor. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there certainly is a genetic factor on the male part, in that having a Y chromosome leads to higher testosterone levels which increase aggressiveness and can lead to criminal behavior. I know of no evidence of any genetic factor leading to crime based on race, however. StuRat (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if there were, what credible entity would publish it? —Tamfang (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There are probably some genetic factors relating to crime but there's no evidence that it is clustered around the particular probabilistic prevalence of genes which we call "race" (which is a concept with a rather flimsy genetic definition anyway). There's really very little evidence of genetic factors even relating to crime—things like XYY syndrome would be your best bet but even that has very poor correlation when you get down the numbers of it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew a black man in the U.S. whose parents both had Ph.D.'s and lived in a northern state. He attended great schools and got a scholarship to college, where he got a Ph.D. and pursued a professional career. He benefitted from then-prevalent racial preference in graduate school admissions, which assumed that "black=disadvantaged," when he was actually priviledged socioeconomically and in educational opportunities in high school and undergraduate study. But if income and education are controlled, there is likely no significant effect of race left in a proper statistical study. Edison (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The obvious solution to all the Affirmative Action controversy is to offer full financial assistance to all university students with need, regardless of race. If everyone who qualifies for college can go, regardless of economic status, that will help out poor blacks, Hispanics, whites, etc., and also help out the nation by increasing the skilled worker base. StuRat (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your situation would make some sense if everyone in the country went to the same university and all universities were considered equal but they don't and they aren't. Affirmative Action has little to do with financial assistance. In my opinion (and the opinion of many experts) college is far too late to start trying to rectify educational disparities, in any case. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Affirmative Action isn't aimed at financial aide, now. I'm saying that it should be. The single largest barrier to minorities is not being able to afford college. This is both a barrier when tuition comes due and far earlier, when they do the calculation that "I won't ever be able to pay for college anyway, so why bother studying and getting good grades in school ?". Nothing is worse for a student's future prospects than a sense of hopelessness. Thus, my strategy would try to rectify the situation before college, while the current policy does not. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

guitar versus piano

I have a few questions about standard, 6-string guitars, as opposed to standard pianos.

1. Is a six-string guitar, like a pinao, EXACTLY a standard size, I mean a pianist can sit down and play any old piano, after at most like 5 seconds, though if a concert pianist is preparing for a recital in front of a huge audience, they might practice with the instrument in question the day before, or even for a couple of days (as I understand)... this is EXACTLY at odds with a violinist, who would take a REAL long time to get used to a particular violin. So, which is a guitar? A visiting guitarist played for us informally at my school, and when a string broke, someone saved her some time by handing her his own guitar, which she just continued playing on after I think changing the tuning. Is this normal? Are guitars played by feel, and pretty much feel the same, are interchangeable?

2. Playing by feel: there are many blind pianists, among the most famous pop ones Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles both spring immediately to mind. What about blind guitarists, are there any who receive just as much recognition as these two pianists? If not, why not -- do you really need to look down as you're chaning chords, etc... a lot of rock musicians totally don't look down at all!

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.160.199 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In regard to question 2, there have been several famous blind guitarists, some of whom are listed in the article on blind musicians - Blind Willie McTell is probably the most famous. Warofdreams talk 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All guitars are pretty different, a steel-string acoustic guitar is much different than a classical guitar for example, and steel-string guitars have lots of variations in neck length and string size and the shape of the soundbox. But the difference is not so great that anyone with a bit of skill, maybe not a beginner, could handle any guitar. There are lots of blind guitarists, check out Category:Blind bluesmen for example. Jeff Healey is one famous rock/jazz guitarist; he just died recently. He had a unique way of playing the guitar on his lap. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

TO answer both questions:

1. Scale length on guitars is not exactly formalized. An electric guitar may, for example, feature scale lengths of anywhere from 22.5 inches, as in the Fender Mustang (officially called a 3/4 scale instrument by Fender; though this length is NOT 3/4ths the size of a "full sized" Fender guitar) up to 25.5 inches on a standard Strat. The Gibson Les Paul falls right in the middle of this range, at 24.75 inches. However, it should be noted that these differences do not make guitars non-interchangable. I can pick up any guitar, as long as it is tuned to standard tuning, (i.e. EADGBe) and play it without really looking at it. Heck, I was able to play a baritone Ukelele (tuned DGBe) without even trying because the tuning is exactly the same as a Guitar, and that instrument is 1/2 the size of my guitar! The point is, scale length is non standard, but any competant guitar player can play any guitar tuned to standard tuning without trouble.
2. Stevie Wonder played piano/organ/keyboards in performance, but he was quite an accomplished musician in the studio. Stevie could play quite well on guitar, electric bass, horns, and most notably drums (theat great drum track on Superstition was played by him on the recording). That he could play the drums so well is even more impressive than EITHER piano or guitar, since he did not have constant contact with the drums while playing! As to other famous blind guitarists, besides the aforementioned Healy and McTell, Doc Watson and Jose Feliciano come to mind as very accomplished and very well acclaimed blind guitarists. Watson himself was an inovator on guitar; he is widely credited with developing a style of plectrum play known as "flatpicking" which would form the basis for the pick-based lead guitar work that predominates modern popular music. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty common to be able play any guitar without having to look at the fretboard and "re-size" the spacing between fingers. You may have to adjust your thinking if you normally use a feel for the space between the body of the guitar and a certain place on the fretboard (like the 12th fret) to shoot straight to that fret without looking. That can be hard on a guitar that you don't know well. The main thing I always find challenging when playing different electric guitars isn't the fret spacing, it's:

1) The height of the bridge. If you're used to using the palm of your hand to mute notes, a difference in the height of the bridge will feel awkward, and you may not mute cleanly. Also, I find that I often anchor my pinky when alternate-picking on anything but the high-e string. A bridge in a different place may reduce your pinky's helpful role as an anchor.

2) Spacing between the strings. Classical guitars often have their strings spaced further apart for example. This isn't a problem for strumming, but can be awkward for alternate-picking. (They're great for finger-picking though)

3) Upper-fret access. On some electrics you have to put your hand in an awkward position to get to the frets above say... the 17th.

4) Thickness of the neck. I have gotten quite used to a very rounded 50's style neck. It feels weird for me to play fast on a skinnier neck. NByz (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the main heading, pianos win, because they burn longer and provide more BTU of heat. Edison (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Twins as heir to a throne

If twins were born as heir to a throne, what would happen? Would they both be monarchs? I have never heard about such a case. Has it ever hapened that twins were born to a throne? That it, twin brothers? Is there any historical case of this? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the first-born of the twins would succeed to the throne. DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In the twelfth century the count of Meulan had twin sons, Robert and Waleran. They made a special arrangement so that Waleran inherited Meulan and Robert inherited his father's English titles (since Robert the elder was a Norman with possessions in France and England). Similarly, and around the same time, the twin sons of Eustace Grenier, Walter and Gerard, succeeded to his two different possessions of Sidon and Caesarea during the crusades. I don't know of any twins born to a king who only possessed one territory, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Prince Fushimi Hiroyasu (not really an heir to the throne) and Prince Faisal of Jordan had twin daughters. Prince Aleksandar Karadjordjevic (of Serbia, not currently a monarchy) has twin sons. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also the legend of the Man in the Iron Mask in 17th century France. One of the allegations on this famous prisoner's identity is that he was a twin brother of Louis XIV who was whisked away shortly after birth to prevent a tricky succession issue. Alexandre Dumas used that legend as the basis for one of the sequels to the Three Musketeers (The Vicomte de Bragelonne. --Xuxl (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This question was discussed a bit at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Hypothetical scenario. It's the one who's born first who becomes the heir, in the British system. Other countries may have different rules. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While the OP did say twin brothers, I should point out that if it were fraternal twins and one were female the other male, it doesn't matter which one is older based on current succession law. The same of course for any older daughter when there is a male heir Nil Einne (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on the country, the OP did not specify to which Monarchy he was refering. Many of the modern monarchies have changed succession law to pass the throne to the first born, irrespective of sex. For examples, Sweden since 1980, The Netherlands since 1983, Norway since 1990, and Belgium since 1991 all use a strict, sex-neutral primogeniture to determine inheritance of the throne. Denmark has passed the change very recently, but is waiting for approval from Parliament. The remaining European monarchies, those being Britain, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, and Spain, still use some form of male-preference primogeniture.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, perhaps I should have made this clearer but I was responding to JackofOz who referred explicility to the British system (hence why I mentioned current succession law). Or more accurately the commonwealth realm succession system since they are all the same at the moment. Since JackofOz didn't address other countries I didn't see much point bringing other countries into it Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me the Bourbon family tree has recent twins somewhere, but maybe they were/are not near a throne. A level or two lower, Wikipedia mentions two or three British peerages that have passed from a twin to the other. —Tamfang (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Child monarch in modern age

I know about cases in history with children as monarchs. But how would it behandled in Europe in 2008? Would it be accepted with, say, a seven year old as king in Europe today? Are they any rules for how this would be handled in modern times? When did Europe have its last child monarch? Has any democracy had a child monarch? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See Regent... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And for The UK see Regency Acts. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Simeon II of Bulgaria, who reigned from 1943 to 1946 and acceded to the throne as a 6-year old, is a (relatively) recent case in Europe. He's had an interesting post-royal career as well. --Xuxl (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Witch trials in 19th century Latin America

I have heard somewhere, that they were witch trials in Latin America in the 19th century. Is this true? If so, where and when? And if not, what does the rumor say, and how did it come about?--85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if the dates are what you want but this talks about colonial witch hunts in South America. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Incest, bigamy and homsexuality in L'ancien regime

I would like to know, what the method of execution was for: Incest, bigamy and homosexuality in the l'ancien regime, (that is, France before 1789). If anyone can answer this, or at least recomend a link, I would be gratefull, as I do need this information. Regards--85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One famous case (wasn't formally executed, though): Jean_V_of_Armagnac -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was interesting! But I would like to know the method of execution, particularly in the 17th and 18th century. Does anyone know? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

At that time period commoners were usually hung and nobles were beheaded with an axe (which required a skilled executioner). That's why the guillotine was so popular during the French Revolution, it made it possible for even commoners to be beheaded, which, to the French, apparently made the executions acceptable. An exception existed for religious crimes where more brutal punishments, like burning at the stake, were common. However, note that commoners were not held to the same moral standards as nobles, and wouldn't be as likely to be charged for those type of crimes. The attitude would have been "they're just stupid, filthy peasants, you can't expect them to behave like us anymore than you could expect a dog to have morals". StuRat (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for an interesting reply. Would you say that the method of burning would be used for the three acts mentioned above? Would they be seen as religious crimes? Or what method would be used for these particular cases? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, "religious crimes" means anything which challenged the authority of the Church. Of course, if someone actually claimed that God was in favor of incest, bigamy, or homosexuality, then that would indeed be seen as a threat and dealt with severely. However, if they just committed the acts, that doesn't challenge the authority of the Church. If a noble were convicted of those acts they would likely be beheaded with an axe. If a commoner were convicted (which is unlikely, because the authorities didn't concern themselves with the morals of peasants), they would likely have been hung. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe in France it was beheading with a sword, not beheading with an axe. Isn't that why Anne Boleyn sent to France for a swordsman, so that her execution wouldn't be botched? - Nunh-huh 23:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sub-districts elections

Who are elected by the people in the Bangladesh Sub-Districts(upazila) elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.103.45 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are 'latinos'

In the US, 'latinos' are only latin-americans or do someone also include French, Spanish, etc.? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Latino discusses some dictionary definitions, along with references 5 and 6 (from government agencies) that define the term in the way that I think you're looking for. NByz (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the best evidence that some Gitmo prisoners were sold to us the US?

Hi all,

What is the best evidence, if any, that some/many of the prisoners in Guantanamo were sold to us the US for bounties? There are many reports from released detainees, such as [25] and [26], but is there any evidence besides their reports?

Thanks!

— Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Us? I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had any prisoners at Guantanamo at all. Algebraist 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. It's perfectly clear from the links provided which country the OP is referring to. A simple reminder to be country-specific would have sufficed. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. Internet-stress levels clearly getting too high; time for break. Algebraist 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I suggest us = U.S. (the rest of us are prisoners of the pedia for no bucks at all) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

<grumble> I don't call my government "us". </grumble> Tamfang (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam, mostly the papers are sourcing claims by the prisoners (and quoting each other) but in this article[27] there ref to a book by historian James Carroll (“House of War”, Houghton Mifflin) and the article's writer has an email for contact – who knows, you might find out more. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that most of the "evidence" for it that is in the public realm comes from detainee accounts. The US government classifies such things (making it quite hard to get details regarding detainee treatment from sources other than the detainees accounts, but in many other areas they have been corroborated through other sources). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There have long been press reports that militias were turning over foreigners in Afghanistan, as well as Afghan enemies, to the U.S. for bounties. The BBC in 2002 reported that family members of Gitmo prisoners, like Kalid Al Udah, a Colonel in the Kuwait Air Force, and a self proclaimed friend of America, said his son was captured by bounty hunters and imprisoned at Gitmo. Udah claimed his son was working for a charity on the Afghan-Pakistan border when he was captured by bounty hunters who sold him to the Americans. This is not really a detainee account.Recall that the detainees are locked behind chain link fences and are not generally allowed any contact with the outside world. To prove the man's guilt in a court of law, and to show the limitless captivity ordered by Bush is not something out of Kafka, the captors might produce evidence and witnesses of the son's guilt, to demonstrate in secret to a judge, at the very minimum, that they have more "evidence of his guilt" than a receipt for a bounty paid to the Afghans who turned him over, and the assurance that bounty hunters never make mistakes. CBS News said that the U.S dropped leaflets in Afghanistan "offering $20,000 to Afghans who turned in an alleged terrorist. 'Many of these people were turned over in a bounty hunt, swept up in a bounty hunt, nothing more than that,' says Wilner. 'A lot of there people down here are innocent. They were picked up by mistake.'"(Wilner is a Washington DC attorney). The "best evidence" is locked in safes at the White House, the Justice Department, and Gitmo, and Bush has argued that he is under no obligation to demonstrate to any court, or any tribunal, anywhere, that there is any evidence of guilt of the captives. The quality of the evidence is thus unknown.A longstanding principle of justice in Western civilization is that the captor must prove the guilt of the captive, not that the captive must prove he is innocent, without access to counsel, and without the right to challenge evidence and witnesses against him. Edison talk) 04:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for the replies, they help a lot. Also, apologies for the silly "us" in the original question -- it has since been edited. — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November 21

Security Council votes

According to the news story on our Main Page, the Security Council has voted unanimously to enlarge the peacekeeping force in the Congo.

This started me wondering, how often does the Securrity Council agree unanimously on a motion?

Is this uncommon? Is there a place to look at a record of Security Council votes?

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

They have a website here. It includes the text of all resolutions, and records of all meetings. Looking at those meetings, the vast majority of resolutions are passed unanimously (I think they tend to continue discussing them until they have everyone's support wherever possible). --Tango (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Remember that if any of the permanent members vote no, that's a veto. So they at the very least need to work out something which the permanent members are willing to abstain on at worst. And it's probably going to be rare that all 5 permanent members agree on something but one of the others doesn't. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that would be fairly common, except that it's known in advance that one will veto, so the vote is never called. StuRat (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what Nil said. Nil said that, given that the permanent members agree on something, it would be odd for a non-permanent member to vote against. I haven't checked, but I expect he's right: each non-permanent member is probably closely enough aligned to at least one permanent member not to want to uselessly vote against them. Algebraist 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for any confusion I didn't phrase my response very well. Note that this doesn't mean they don't contribute to the outcome and discussions, or that their views are completely ignored, it just means it's rare you're going to have the 5 permanent members who are diametrically opposed in many of areas agreeing on something while someone else on the council doesn't. World geo-politics suggests that. In other words while an important part of the process ultimately the permanent members have a lot more power and it makes sense to consider them in that light. (Of course when it does happen that a non-permanent member or even multiple members disagree, they'll likely usually try and resolve it unless it's always happening with the same member.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the veto, a United Nations Security Council resolution still needs a supermajority of nine to pass. Though I can't recall one at the moment, there have been rare cases where the permanent members have been in agreement but were blocked by a minority of non-permanent members.John Z (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

solution to the financial crisis

What would happen if the US government told China and Russia that the US will cancel hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt they hold in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae securities but as a friendly gesture they give both countries proportional shares in an entity that has exclusive rights to drill oil in Alaska for 30 years? And for the sake of the scenario we assume that China and Russia are content. Would that solve the problem? If not would it at least help solve the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmerempire (talk • contribs) 09:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, your assumption seems a bit far fetched. According to Arctic Refuge drilling controversy "The United States Department of Energy estimates that ANWR oil production between 2018 and 2030 would reduce the cumulative net expenditures on imported crude oil and liquid fuels by an estimated $135 to $327 billion (2006 dollars),reducing the foreign trade deficit". It seems likely China and Russia would have to be dumb to accept even all Alaskan oil in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just realised my assumption here is also a little simplistic. That isn't the worth of the oil but how much it will reduce the trade deficit of the US. I presume US DOE recognises some of the money is going to flow out of the country. However I still think it's highly unlikely that Russia or China will be that interested in the oil (particularly given the fact the US is probably more likely to renege on the deal and that no one really knows how much is there) for hundreds of billions of dollars of debts Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it would help at all. Couldn't the US government just take the drilling rights themselves and use the profit to service the debt? That would have exactly the same effect. --Tango (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The US already has drilling rights to most US oil wells (including off shore), and theoretically leases them to oil companies to do the drilling. The only prob is that the Bush administration failed to collect those revenues, intentionally, to help out their buddies in the industry (which is quite illegal, BTW). StuRat (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's one thing that this crisis has shown us, it's that the US is still the 'flight to safety' beacon that it has been since WWII. The appreciation of the USD, the low-low treasury rates, they all suggest a global faith in the continuing productivity and safety of the US economy. As long as the US is able to keep this view alive, outpace the other major western economies in terms of absolute growth and technological innovation (over sufficiently long periods of time; I get the feeling the upcoming recession may change around the world order a bit in that regard in the near term) and protect it all with a military budget larger than the next 16 countries combined (and a political system that, even in the worst of times, almost guarantees continuity and stability), this view will persist. As long as this view persists, capital will flow to the US, holding down interest rates, cheap goods will flow from the developing world, holding back inflation and the US will be able to support a continued large trade deficit and foreign debt. It's only when this view changes that the massive foreign debt will - both literally and figuratively - become a massive liability.NByz (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise put: The US would be in big trouble if the large amount of wealth that China has accumulated via its' trade deficit WASN'T being invested in US-denominated debt!NByz (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What, me worry? Who was it who said, if you owe the bank $1000, it's your problem, but if you owe it $1,000,000 (or whatever), it's the bank's problem? China can't apply too much pressure, lest it lose both its investment and its best customer. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Trying to figure out the name of a classical music song

It's very simple - three ascending bars, repeated. Well a bit more complicated than that, but I don't know much about music, and that's the gist of it. Channel 10 (Australia) used it as the music for advertising the movie Flight 93 about a month ago. 58.161.194.134 (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pachelbel (spelling)'s Canon in d? Bit of a stab in the dark but it's a widely used piece that repeats (or canonizes?) itself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean three ascending notes, maybe the Moonlight Sonata or Barber's Adagio for Strings? -- BenRG (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I did see that movie, although I can't remember what music was played. If it had been the Moonlight, it would have stuck in my memory. Barber's Adagio sounds much closer to home; in the days after 9/11, it was played at symphony concerts around the world before their advertised programs. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain welfare

Is it possible to say that GB has a high level of social welfare provisions and a low level of contribution to these prov. by the citizens? My understanding is that the welfare system there is paid by taxes and that this is usually not considered (direct) contributions, right? Is that the intended meaning? That aside, is it true? High benefits, low cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.202.72.137 (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Great Britain ? At first I thought you meant George Bush, who is probably responsible for putting more people on welfare than anyone else. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How else would a welfare system be funded? You can call the taxes different things (eg. the UK has national insurance contributions which are basically just another tax which goes towards state pension, etc.), but it's still just tax. --Tango (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The only way to get a free lunch in a welfare system would be to increase the efficiency of the system by 1) reducing administrative overhead or 2) (Properly) allocating benefits to people who are in the most need first, then continuing out along the "marginal need" curve (sorry for the econ term...) by correctly identifying and re-ordering people who have an incentive to 'cheat' the system and hide their true preferences/abilities. Even maintaining large government savings (or, at least, low-cost borrowing room) to sufficiently fund a welfare system, like the national insurance you mentioned (or CPP or EI in canada and very much unlike, for example, underfunded social security in the US) crowds out private investment, imposing an extra cost (tax) on society. Tango is right. It's all just tax redistribution. NByz (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is the possibility of a government that has a significant income source of it's own, such as the oil wells in Kuwait. StuRat (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is equivalent to those wells being run by private companies with 100% corporation tax. I think pretty much all (if not absolutely all) government income can be viewed as a form of taxation. --Tango (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

李印泉

李印泉. Li Yinquan. Does anyone know who this individual is, and is there a source for that than can be cited in a term paper? (It's just a passing reference to him because he's in a piece of art that is discussed in the term paper). I've managed to figure out that he is an art collector, a contemporary of Xu Beihong, and that's about it. Any help? Thanks!

Duomillia (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)