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 26

West Bengal November 2008 election

Where can I find the results of election that took place in West Bengal on November 21, 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.191 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would try this site: [1] - 161.181.153.10 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5]. this was a by-election for one Rajya Sabha seat from West Bengal. Since there was no other candidate than Barun Mukherjee of the All India Forward Bloc, no poll was actually held and Mukherjee was declared winner on Nov 14. Mukherjee had been a RS MP 2006-early 2008, but was then pressured by the Left Front to resign and give way for a Communist Party of India candidate. Subsequently, AIFB general secretary Debrata Biswas resigned from RS, giving way for Mukherjee. --Soman (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythology

After Callisto was transformed, why didn't Zeus transform her back when he saw her? JCI (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He just couldn't bear t(w)o? Seriously, you shouldn't expect these stories to make sense.... - Nunh-huh 05:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Because then there wouldn't be an etiological story to explain why Ursa Major looks like a bear. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You may as well ask, "If Zeus was king of the gods, why couldn't he just sleep with anybody he wanted to without going through endless subterfuges?" --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlike God in a monotheistic religion, who is omnipotent, Zeus was supposed to be powerful, perhaps a bit more powerful than the other gods, but not omnipotent. So, if he was too arrogant and careless towards the other gods (or people under their protection), they might rise up against him and defeat him. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"So Zeus, I understand you went and impregnated a mortal woman ?"

"Yes, I saw her bathing, took the form of a bull, and surprised her while she was bathing."

"I'll bet you suprised her !" - Alas Smith and Jones

StuRat (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What do smart lottery ticket winners do with money?

What do most smart lottery ticket winners do with their money? What do they do to invest their jackpot money without getting taxed by the government? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The same thing all rich people do with their money. See Tax shelter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First, they don't take the lump sum, they take the yearly payout. Except from anecdotal data they seem not to do this that often. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And a lot depends upon the country in which the winners live. Lottery jackpots in Canada, for example, are tax free. We pay tax on any income earned on the jackpot, but not on the initial sum. Here, we would take the lump sum and run -to the nearest investment counsellor, I would hope. It's not a concern I have had personally, however. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In the US, one should also run to the investment counselor (or, as we call it, a financial advisor). The fact is that most people who come into large sums of money don't use it well because they haven't the slightest idea how to do it. A good financial advisor (and a lawyer) are musts if you want to stay afloat in such a situation. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is impossible to answer due to it being based on a false assumption, that is that smart lottery ticket winners exist. Smart people don't play the lottery, there are far better ways of throwing your money away. --Tango (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very dubious claim. There's nothing inherently stupid in buying lottery tickets. If, for example, you derive excitement and enjoyment (as most people do) from having a ticket, watching the draw, etc., then you are not 'throwing money away', you are spending money on something you enjoy; hardly a stupid think to do. Algebraist 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe what Tango means is that you can actually achieve similar odds of winning to playing the lottery by making a whole bunch of highly levered derivative investments in a row (or any other highly levered investment). Naturally, in the event of a win, your payoff would be higher with derivatives, because then you avoid the portion of the proceeds that go to towards tax revenue, charity (common in Canada) or administrative overhead.

As a side note, I always found it funny that, while directly gambling on certain events may be illegal in many countries, derivative (futures) exchanges like Intrade and the Iowa Electronic Markets can make a 'derivatives contract' that pays off in the event that an event occurs, that anyone can trade.NByz (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can bet on my house burning down legally in pretty much any country (it's called "building insurance"). A lot of derivatives are a similar concept (although plenty of people use them speculatively as well). --Tango (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If Credit Default Swaps were treated as insurance, Lehman and others would have been required to actually maintain reserves to cover them if they failed! Imagine that... having enough money to pay off the people that insured their instruments with you in the event that the instrument actually did fail!NByz (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What if I sold derivative contracts that paid off some predetermined amount every period (that, oddly enough, happened to be proportional to the payoff of some national lottery...) if the 'contact' that you bought happened to have the same starting numbers as the winning lottery number...? hmmmmNByz (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, ask a lawyer. Derivatives law is a very new and complicated area and I don't know that much about it. The law certainly recognises a difference between gambling and derivatives trading, but I don't know the details. --Tango (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Insurance companies don't keep total reserves, they could possibly, the risk is far too large (there isn't enough money in world to cover the cost of everyone's houses burning down at once). They keep enough reserves so that the chance of them not having enough is less than a certain very small amount. (Actually insurance companies take out insurance themselves to reduce their risk, it's the reinsurance companies that have the huge reserves.) --Tango (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is playing the lottery really the most fun thing you can think to do with 50p a week? I'd rather buy a chocolate bar... --Tango (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So would I, but having different preferences doesn't make you stupid. Algebraist 21:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to decide that the enjoyment they get from the lottery is worth 50p a week, but do you think many players have actually made that decision? I expect the vast majority just don't know what they're doing. --Tango (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

They donate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd stick it in the bank and live off the interest --RMFan1 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Most lottery wins aren't big enough for that. --Tango (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

$1 million at 5% gives $50000 pa, enough for a middle-class lifestyle. 121.72.170.238 (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Do north american governments tax the interest that you made from your initial lottery money in your local bank? Do you think it is a good idea to buy some gold bars?72.136.111.205 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe interest on lottery money is taxed the same as any other capital gains - it's just money in the bank. Gold bullion is a good store of wealth, but it does not provide income (at least, not reliably), which is what you need if you wish to live off the lottery win. --Tango (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In Canada, investment income is taxed the same no matter whether the principal is after-tax income (such as employment or business income) or tax-free (such as an inheritance or a lottery win). Interest is not the same as a capital gain; interest is taxed as ordinary taxable income, but capital gains (whether from stocks or gold bars) are taxed like half the amount of ordinary income. (If you had a capital loss on some other transaction, you can deduct it from your capital gains.) If you invest in stocks and receive dividends, the calculation is more complicated. One exception to capital gains taxation in Canada is your principal residence. If you sell your old house and spend your entire winnings of $2,000,000 on a new one and live there, and then you later sell that house for $3,000,000, you owe no tax on the $1,000,000 gain. Note: this is a casual overview and certainly not tax or investment advice. --Anonymous, 03:29 UTC, December 3,m 2008.

please help

can someone please explain me the meaning of Fiduciary,fiduciary relationship and estoppel in a layman language..??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.79.210 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fiduciary means "held in trust". A fiduciary relationship is one in which one person (or company) holds something in trust for another. An example would be the fiduciary relationship between a company that manages a pension or retirement account and the beneficiary of that account. Estoppel is a legal ban on a person contradicting what he or she has already stated to be the truth. Marco polo (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Punishment for Incest in 18th century

I wonder if anyone here knows about which method of execution would be used for someone sentenced to death for incest in 17th or 18th century France? I have heard that this was considered heresy and that the person would likley have been burned, but I do not know if this is true. Can anyone answer this? I would be most grateful! Thanks! --85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an almost exact duplicate of the question "Incest, bigamy and homsexuality in L'ancien regime" asked 5 days ago... AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but I realised that perhaps it is the wrong way to ask three questions in one, so I thought it was better to split them. The homsexual part has already been answered. Perhaps it was better to split them? I don't know. Anywhay, I hope someone can answer, here or there! --85.226.45.121 (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Does really no one have an idea? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardly any witches in Portugal - what about the exeptions?

I have heard, that only a mere handful of people was ever executed for sorcery in Portugal. This is odd. These few was to have been a group of women in Lissabon in 1599, and a few years later, and one wman in Evora in 1626. Can anyone tell me antything about these cases? The names perhaps, and why they were executed, as this was so unusual otherwise? I would be happy with a link. Thanks in advance!--85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Portuguese Inquisition evidently concentrated nearly all of its efforts on Sephardic New Christians who were accused of only pretending to convert from Judaism. According to Rodney Stark in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton University Press, 2003), "In Portugal, which had its own Inquisition... six witches were burned by secular officials in 1559. The Portuguese Inquisition burned a "witch" in Evora in 1626. And that was it! Hence Francisco Bethencourt's assertion that the "... witch craze which affected most central and western European countries... did not occur in Portugal"." And Stark goes on: "The reasons for the lack of witchcraft executions were precisely the same as in Spain." However, Steven T. Katz of Cornell University writes (see here) "In Italy, the Venetian Inquisition heard 500 witch cases between 1550 and 1650 and condemned no one to death; and in Portugal, between 1536 and 1821, there was only one conviction for witchcraft — in Evora in 1626". But here is the story of one Joana Baptista of Evora, a folk healer who was tried by the Portuguese Inquisition for witchcraft in 1737 and not executed at all, but merely banished, although that sentence seems to have followed two years of imprisonment and torture. Xn4 (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkey pardoning

Has any United States politician not currently President(besides of course Sarah Palin) performed the Thanksgiving turkey-pardoning ritual? And which offices' pardons be "valid" in the same way as the Presidential one, actually absolving the turkey from being killed? 69.224.113.5 (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is turkey pardoning? I gather from the original post it has something to do with Thankgiving. Apologies if this has an article (I searched and none came up). 82.35.193.236 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7742689.stm, National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation Algebraist 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For the non-Americans out there, at Thanksgiving Americans eat Turkey. Its what we do. For years (since Truman? I think?) American Presidents have "pardoned" a turkey a few days before Thanksgiving, supposedly saving it from certain death and digestion in the stomachs of some bickering American family. Its just some goofy thing. I am sure that other politicians (Governors, mayors, and the like) have done so as well. It doesn't mean anything. I don't even know if the "pardoned" turkey even survives slaughter in the end to die of a natural death, as the silly little ritual implies. My guess is it is just some show, and the bird will eventually meet its maker at the hands of a big axe anyways, even if not for that year's Thanksgiving. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. Just read the article. Looks like they do survive. And get a trip to Disneyland out of it to boot!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone tested the constitutionality of these pardons in the Supreme Court?  :) In all seriousness, the 'pardons' are purely symbolic. It's a silly tradition and a photo op. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, for the good old days, when Benjamin Franklin would electrocute a turkey as a party trick! —Kevin Myers 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On one condition, though. The turkey must be flawless in order to be pardoned (yes, it is a beauty contest). And they get to travel first-class and stay at a fancy hotel while they await their pardons. Then after they are pardoned, they spend the rest of their lives on a fancy farm that houses pardoned turkeys. I saw it on the Food Network last night, on an episode of "Unwrapped". --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I read this first and thought you were cleverly speaking of female celebrity brats, then I read the question... Now I see the turkey must not only be beautiful but impeckable. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

impeckable? — Sebastian 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's even worse form to explain a joke than to question it, so I'm not going there. But 10 marks, Julia. Now run off and gobble your dinner before it gets cold. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlike bird-brained Americans such as I, Julia, being an Aussie, doesn't have to worry about driving through a raging gizzard in search of the perfect turkey. Even worse, for those of us too far away to drive home, is the need to resort to a wing and a prayer over Thanksgiving. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though: There is a Buddhist tradition of bird freeing. As for the Turkey ritual, it would feel more sincere to me if whoever performs it didn't then just eat another turkey. You can't have your turkey and eat it too! — Sebastian 04:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation guys. I think this has to be filed under "those wacky Americans". 82.35.193.236 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

TV listings of US war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan

In the early years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, U.S. network TV shows would show pictures and names of those killed, either the day the information became available, or weekly as a collection. In April 2004, ABC "Nightline" read all 724 names of those killed to that date. The reading was controversial with the Sinclair Broadcasting Company calling it unpatriotic and an implied criticism of President Bush's policies and refusing to carry it on their 7 stations. I note that now the various news programs say when some have been killed, like "Three U.S. soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq" but do not generally give the names or show the pictures. My question is, did any network explain why they stopped? Was it because they too decided it was unpatriotic to identify those killed, or just that it did not help ratings? And when did they stop? Do other countries in the coalition with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan identify on the TV news those killed? Edison (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In Canada they do, because there is usually only one every couple of months. I think the biggest number killed all at once in Afghanistan was four. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW the News Hour on PBS shows names and pictures on Friday of each week. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

KXTV in Sacramento read a list of all soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years, on Veterans Day, and showed photos and gave brief biographies. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Kierkegaard quotation--Sealed orders

Can anyone find where in Kierkegaard's works he says something along the lines of "at birth we set sail with sealed orders." I have seen this thought in several psychology books but never with a proper source. Google and Google books were not helpful in my search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.99.62 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find the exact quote, but the same theme is mentioned in Stages on Life's Way:

"Then he sinks down, in all his desperate wretchedness, when that single word, that final, that ultimate, so ultimate that it is not within human language, is not forthcoming, when the testimony is not with him, when he cannot tear open the sealed dispatch that is only to be opened out there and that contains the orders from God" (Søren Kierkegaard, Howard Vincent Hong (translation) Stages on Life's Way : Kierkegaard's Writings, Vol 11 , Princeton University Press, 1988, p 181, ISBN 0691020493)

and in the following two excerpts from around the same time, out of Kierkegaards Journals and Papers (Papiren).

"Finally there is one thing to remember - that my original thought must still be subject to a certain control. How many times have I not said that a warship does not get its orders until it is out at sea, and thus it may be entirely in order for me to go farther as an author than I had originally intended ... " serial number *6356 in Journals and Papers (p 124)

+

"I ought to see that, as usual, I have received my orders out on the open sea, that things are laid out for me to go forward, ..." *6370 (p 131). (Soren Kierkegaard's Journals and Papers: Index and Composite Collation, Soren Kierkegaard, Howard Vincent Hong, Gregor Malantschuk, Nathaniel J. Hong, Charles M. Barker, Indiana University Press, 1978 ISBN 0253182468)

---Sluzzelin talk 01:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Crete

How did the location of Crete influence its cultural interaction and fortification system? What geographic features could facilitate or hinder the development and security of the Minoan and Mycenaean societies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.127 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds an awful lot like a homework question, so I'll just provide a quick hint. Think about what Crete is and how would one normally get there (apart from flying)? Matt Deres (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also pay attention to where Crete is relative to other important places you have heard about in your History class, like Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, etc. etc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Czech party name

What would the Czech name of the Independent Socialist Workers Party have been? --Soman (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Nesubvencovaný Socialistický Dělník Osoba", but that's just a free online translation from [[6]], not the real deal.NByz (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The party's name was "Nezávislá socialistická strana dělnická". Here is the article on the party from the Czech Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Soman (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hudibrastic poet named Green

In a 1865 biography of Samuel Adams by William V. Wells, Wells mentions a "Hudibrastic poet" named "Green", who poked fun at Adams by calling him "Sam the maltster". (The Adams family business was malting.) Wells doesn't further identify "Green" or give a date when he wrote, but only says that Green wrote "at a later day" than when Adams was a maltster, which puts Green's poem somewhere between about 1765 and 1865.

Any idea who this poet named Green was? —Kevin Myers 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No proof, but it may have been Thomas Green Fessenden (1771–1837; who seems to lack a Wikipedia article). The Cambridge History of American Literature/Book I/Chapter IX mentions the Terrible Tractoration, "1800 lines of Hudibrastic verse, full of references to contemporary persons and scientific matters, form a fair example of a not very admirable type of satire."[7]I searched the text on Google Books but couldn't find a reference to Sam there; however, it could have been in another work. Alternatively, it might have been another satirical poet, Fitz-Greene Halleck. Googling "Sam the maltster" doesn't reveal a source. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for those leads—Thomas Green Fessenden in particular seems to be a very likely candidate. Adams biographers who wrote after Wells apparently didn't further identify Green either, which may mean they didn't know who he was. Perhaps one day Google Books will scan in some obscure work by one of these "Greens" that will finally reveal the poem Wells referred to. —Kevin Myers 15:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is Christianity considered monotheistic?

Why is Christianity considered monotheistic when they worship God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. That's three supernatural beings, not one. Shouldn't Christianity be considered a polytheistic or pagan religion? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In Christianity, God exists as three persons, but is one being. See our article on the Trinity. Thomprod (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the little brain-bender called the Shield of the Trinity? AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

God has three "aspects" of his being; but is still one being. For example, I am all a father and a son and a husband at the same time, yet I am one person. What determines how I am seen is my relationship with someone else. God has different aspects in this way as well. Insofar as He is the creator, He is God the Father. Insofar as He became man in the person of Jesus Christ, He is God the Son. Insofar as he guides our actions and is involved in daily communion with us through prayer, he is God the Spirit. Its not God that is different; its the ways in which we can relate to him that is different. The opening of the Gospel of John does its best to contain all of this in a single set of ideas "In the beginning was the Word" - Jesus is the word, and he has existed since creation "and the Word was with God and the Word was God" - Jesus is an aspect of God that is different from the Father aspect, but is still God. "through Him all things were made, without him nothing was made that has been made" reinforcing the idea that Jesus and God are one. "In him was life" Jesus was God's aspect that became a living man. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm far from being a theological expert myself, but I think that some theologians might consider your "aspects" explanation to be coming close to the theory of "modalism" or Sabellianism... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Shouldn't the lead sentence of this article clarify that this applies to Christianity (and not other religions)? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But see also homoousian; Jayron's explanation holds for many modern Christians, but by no means all. The subtle differences in the manner of substance of god are hardly universally accepted among the faithful. The article I linked is small, but has several useful links explaining just how messy this point has been in the past and continues to be. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is explained by the Athanasian Creed, the complete text (in English) of which is found at [8] in Wikisource. It says "there are not thre almighty beings, but one." Edison (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And see The Trinity Is One God Not Three Gods, by Boethius. Xn4 (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I quote a reliable source: Robbie Coltraine's character in Nuns on the run. When asked about the Trinity, he replied, "It's a bit of a bugger". --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to throw this kind of question, you can lump in praying to Saints - and especially the Virgin Mary - together with statues and icons in certain parts of Christianity. It's been done before... with some fairly notable results on occasion. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out iconoclasm for example. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's called "veneration" or "(hyper)dulia", not "worship". Some ordinary believers may not be clear on the distinction, but mainstream Christian theologians have always been. AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Critics of the practice over the last millennium or haven't been mollified by the semantics, lol. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Martin Luther King article.

1. He was a Republican NOT a Democrat, you need to change this or else you are giving out false information.

2. I do not see anywhere in the article about him where he had many extramarital affairs and was somewhat a drunk.

I feel as though you are not making this information known because of who he is. This I find downright disgusting that you would allow many other great people in history to have their good deeds as well as flaws, but you revere this man. He did many good things, but why not show us all his flaws as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.138.38 (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why tell us? Why don't YOU change it? I'm puzzled that you were apparently smart enough to find the reference desk, yet not quite bright enough to to read the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" tag on the front page. Matt Deres (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is "you". I guess he thinks we're all one person. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa Matt, you must remember to be civil and not to make personal attacks. Instead, just direct him to the article's talk page. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And "you" is plural as well as singular. In the article, you might like to check out the FBI section. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're probably right. I just don't get how someone can confuse a reference desk with a complaints department. Apologies to the OP. Matt Deres (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that King was a Republican. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)'

Looking at the talk page, it seems the absence of reliable sources is precisely why this factoid isn't in the article.... - Nunh-huh 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the questioner didn't even read the article; no reason to expect it read the talk page. As far as "anyone can edit", the article has long been semi-protected due to an unceasing stream of abuse from ignorant editors or those with ill intent. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Did those terms even have meaning back then? I’m no historian. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Republican party was founded in 1854, the Democratic Party in the 1830s, and King was born in 1929. It seems there are two problems according to his talk page: his party affiliation may have changed, and the lack of reliable sources regarding his party affiliation. - Nunh-huh 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I’m sorry. I miss read the question. I thought we were talking about Martin Luther so I was a bit confused. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The actual truth is that he avoided endorsing any political candidate or party, and was quite guarded about his political affiliations. That is why it is hard to find reliable sources. King was willing to work with any political figure who endorsed the notions of civil rights; but as far as I know, he was not strongly affiliated with any party. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They had meaning, but not the same meaning they have today. In King's time, Eisenhower's civil rights moves were just as robust as Kennedy's, and the racist wing of the Democratic party was still very strong despite the turmoil that the 1948 Dixiecrat split had started. --Sean 12:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

MLA style

Hello! For an MLA-style research paper, what is the best way to include a diagram or graph? I make specific reference to it in my paper, and even though I cite the article that contains the graphs, I would like to include a copy of them in my paper to make my writing clearer. I was thinking of copy-and-pasting the graphs alone on the last sheet and labeling them "Figure 1" "Figure 2" ... in the caption with the source, then parenthetically referencing them in part of the paper. Is this okay? Is there a better way? While the Internet seems to have directions for this in APA, the information for MLA is surprisingly lacking. Thanks!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If MLA doesn't deal with the issue at all, then I would recommend following the APA guidelines instead. Also, be scrupulous to indicate exactly where you got your graph. If you copy it from another source directly, say "copied from..." and give full details. If you create your own version, say something like "based on a diagram at..." or something like that, also giving full details. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As another idea, you could also ask your teacher (assuming this isn't due tomorrow!). They really do want you to do it "right", and if you ask them directly, they will certainly give you a straight answer. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your way of doing it sounds fine to me. I say this as someone who has graded many research papers. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

November 27

Iraq Christians

When the U.S. army invaded Iraq, the Christian population was celebrating upon the arrival. Why did they that? Were they the victims of Saddam Hussein? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.77 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember (mind you, I watch the BBC, which I believe to be biased in its reporting of other world affairs) most of the Islamic population celebrated too, because Hussein and his sons ruled the country in an abominable manner. I doubt there was much celebrating in Tikrit though. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, Christians were (relatively) welcome under Saddam Hussein's leadership. One of the highest ranking officials (I forget his name) was Christian. Since the US attacked in 2003, most Christians have fled Iraq because they are no longer safe. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You are thinking of Tariq Aziz. Here's a BBC article on how conditions have deteriorated for Christians in Iraq:[9]. Fribbler (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked that because I saw a video of a girl who did the cross on her chest when the US came. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.250 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So you know that one person made a possibly celebratory gesture, and extrapolated to 'the Christian population was celebrating'? You should be more careful in your reasoning. Algebraist 15:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also possible that the making of the sign of the cross was not in celebration, but in supplication, which would be just as valid an interpretation, absent other information. Behind the supplication there could be as much "God save me" as "thanks be to God." With only one person's action being seen, as Algebraist cautions, it would be misleading to draw any general conclusions. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

how much money would the US have to print to make the dollar lose 80% of its value?

assuming people didn't think that even more would be printed (ie barring speculation), if the government wanted to decrease the price of the dollar by 80%, how many more dollars would it have to introduce by printing? I'm thinking that it would have to be a HUGE number, like $100 trillion in current dollars. Any guesses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.99.209 (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This question cannot really be answered, because there are too many other variables, some of them very difficult too quantify. For example, the dollar could lose a lot of value even if the US printed no money, if the investors who are still buying a lot T-bills would be convinced that this was no longer a smart thing to do because the US economy is such a mess. On the other hand, the US could print a lot of money and there would still be no inflation, even deflation, if this money would end up in the hands of people and banks who decide that it would for the moment be wise not to spend any of it. (One of the reasons the bailout plan so far has not been very succesful is that the banks that have been capitalized seem to prefer not to do anything with that capital.) 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be easily calculated. The assumption that people wouldn't expect more to be printed is almost certainly false - there would be an enormous loss of confidence in the currency if it dropped 80%. If we go back to the old days of a gold standard, it's easy, they would just have to print 4 times the current money supply, thus multiplying the money supply by 5, so dividing the value of each dollar by 5 (ie. cutting 80% of its value). I'm also not sure which measure of money supply is relevant, I suspect M0 (the amount of physical currency) since a change in that would propagate through all the others. In that case, the current M0 supply for US dollars is (if I'm interpreting these numbers correctly) a little less than $1 trillion, which would suggest they need to print $4 trillion to devalue it 80%. This is all based on completely incorrect assumptions, though, so take it with a very large sack of salt. --Tango (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be enough to print the currency. People would have to withdraw the currency from banks ATMs and spend it at something like 5 times their current rate of spending. For that to happen, realistically, people would have to suddenly get 500% raises of their wages and salaries. So, I think that the government would have to print the money and decree at least 500% raises for everyone. It would probably also have to do a little extra to destroy confidence in the dollar on foreign exchange markets, such as selling dollars and buying euros and yen to bring the exchange rate down. Marco polo (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The way central banks generally issue currency is to lend it to the government (ie. buy government bonds with it) which then spends it. If the government starts spending more money the people they buy goods and services from would have more money which they would start spending, and so on. It would take some time (I'm not sure how much), but printing money does cause inflation, no government decrees are required. --Tango (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true but increasing the money supply that drastically will very likely cause the rate at which currency is used (V in the equation below) to decrease. So while prices will doubtlessly increase, they won't increase by that much. Also, it's impossible to tell how much of an effect this would have on forex markets. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would increased public spending decrease velocity? Shouldn't it increase it, since it is extra money being spent? --Tango (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As fas as I understand the model, velocity refers to the average velocity of each dollar. So increased spending with "new" money won't necessarily increase the average velocity of each dollar. I believe it would decrease. Think about what would happen if the government suddenly spent the $4 trillion. The money would end up in the hands of contractors and generally wealthier people who usually save more. If saving increases, velocity decreases according to the Spending multiplier. Fractional-reserve banking does mean that these savings become a source of further money but again it would go to people who save more. The average consumer won't be able to suddenly spend 5 times more. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be almost impossible to target a specific amount of inflation that is so far outside of the normal range (I assume you're talking about annual inflation here, because the otherwise it would be pretty easy to just project out the current annual range, compounded, until it achieves 80%). Although inflation is, at it's core, a monetary phenomenon (someone important said that), there are plenty of business cycle and 'confidence' influences that the other posters mentioned above. Right now, for example, the Fed is printing and injecting money like crazy, but the last FOMC minutes mentioned that there was a possibility of deflation to worry about. This is because, as the banks are de-leveraging, the amount of artificial money that they've created through the money multiplier decreases.

So, with all of those assumptions out of the way, I'm reminded of John Mauldin's newsletter yesterday. He reminds us that, by definition, MV = PQ where M is the Money Supply, V is the number of times per year that each dollar is spent, or circulates, P is the price of the average good (when this increases, this is inflation, although we usually measure inflation as only a specific basket of goods, for ease and applicability) and Q is the quantity of goods that change hands. (we mentioned some reasons above why they shouldn't be), we can play with M and P. To get an "80% reduction in value" we'd need a 1/.2 increase in the price level: P=5 in the relationship M(new) = Q/V*5.

The current US M0 money supply is about 750 billion dollars, and current annual inflation rate is about 1.04 (approx.). This implies a current Q/V of 535.7143. Holding this constant, the new money supply to achieve the 80% annual inflation rate would have to be about 2.6 trillion dollars. Remember, this it he M0 money supply. One bank money creation takes it's toll, the M1 etc. would have to be much higher. This estimate is rough as all get-out, and has more problems than just the ones the other posters and myself mentioned above (confidence and/or a 'currency run' is the numero uno).NByz (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Fed actually printing money, or just lending out existing money? When a central bank prints money it buys government bonds which it then holds onto, so it has a massive stockpile of them, I think it is that stockpile that is being used for all these injections - the central bank exchanges government bonds for the high risk mortgages, etc., that nobody wants. I think that would increase velocity, rather than money supply. (It's probably just a technicality anyway, it doesn't affect your conclusions at all.) --Tango (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep you're exactly right (edit: about the "lending out existing money" part). For the purposes of determining the "money supply" taking Fed "shelf money" and using it to buy back bonds is the same as using newly printed money to buy back the bonds, though. Any money that the Fed either holds on to, or hasn't printed yet, isn't included in the "Money Supply" - it's not in circulation.NByz (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[10] these nickels, for example, didn't enter the money supply until passers-by started grabbing them and running... NByz (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But they aren't buying the mortgage back securities with money, they're buying them with government bonds that were bought with money ages ago. --Tango (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well anything that comes out of TARP is straight out of the federal budget. It increases the deficit, requiring more short-term borrowing by the government, but the M0 Money Supply stays the same (it's like Fiscal Policy). Any cash comes from the Fed and any standard monetary intervention (like that which is needed to cut interest rates) is done with the Fed's Money, which is money that's out of circulation. Were the most recent interventions done with securities instead of cash? If so, you're right, they don't increase the M0.NByz (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been so many different interventions and bailouts in so many different forms, I've lost track. When central banks have injected money into the short term money markets, I believe that was simply an exchange of illiquid mortgage backed securities for liquid treasury bonds. The other forms of intervention may have been different. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and just in the normal course of reinforcing their targets on the overnight rate, they're going to have to be flooding the market with liquidity. As far as I see it, if you're going to be 1) buying back general instruments to increase money supply and 2) buying back specific instruments to reinforce their value then you may as well 3) Buy back specific instruments to increase money supply AND reinforce their value. NByz (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Last King of Rapa Nui?

I got no idea who would know this so why I am doing this. Who was the last king of Rapanui aka. Easter Island? I came across three: Riro, who was assassinated, Atamu Tekana, who ceded island to Chile, and an unamed one who died in slavery in Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Steven R. Fischer's Island at the End of the World - The Turbulent History of Easter Island (Reaktion Books, 2005) seems to answer this. See here: "They were dying in Peru... A very small number ended up shovelling guano in the hellish summer heat of the Chincha Islands, where Polynesian labourers were dropping like flies. This was allegedly the tragic fate of Nga'ara's son Kai Mako'i 'Iti – Easter Island's current ariki mau – and grandson Mau Rata." I'll add a note to Kings of Easter Island. Xn4 (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

French history -early christianity

I am unable to find anything about it. Searching in French history gets me nothing on early christianity, searching in Christianity gets me stuff on schisms and major centres such as Antioch or Rome.

I know there are legends of early christians going to France and I want to assemble these and any facts on the matter.Elspethp (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, Saint Faith? AnonMoos (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

... and Roman Catholicism in France. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If Ireland left the UK...

Would the flag be reverted to the Kingdom of GB version? Would the coat of arms be amended? Would the Canadian COA be amended to reflect the UK's changes? Thanks! --217.227.91.34 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean Northern Ireland, surely. The Republic of Ireland has been UK-free since 1916 (declared) or 1922 (recognized). --Nricardo (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you do, indeed, mean Northern Ireland (otherwise the question doesn't make sense), do you mean the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom? If so, yes, I expect it would be changed. The Canadian one would probably be changed too. That's assuming NI doesn't remain a Commonwealth Realm, or at least a member of the Commonwealth - if it does, it may stay on the coat rather than go through the hassle of changing it. --Tango (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's by no means that clear-cut. Note that the fleur de lys of France remained on the royal coat of arms until 1801, long after the British monarch had any territory there. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's because the British monarch still claimed to be "King of France" (nobody believed it, but they said it anyway). I very much doubt the British monarch today would continue to claim dominion over Northern Island if it was granted independence (since royal assent would be needed for such a grant). Who ruled France was decided on the battlefield, there isn't likely to be a full blown war over Northern Island (either a war of independence or a standard war over territory with the rest of Ireland). --Tango (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is this Northern Island of which you speak? Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

NZ?DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How did I make the same typo twice? That's terrible... (My fingers have a tendency to typo homophones of the words I think, and Ireland and Island are pretty close, I would normally notice such a typo and correct it, though...) --Tango (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The royal coat of arms of Canada, adopted in 1921, contains a quarter for France, so I don't see dropping Ireland from it; the quarters, though they are arms of kingdoms, represent heritage not dominion. –Tamfang (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of example were national symbols are not automatically updated as territorial boundaries of a country shifts. Until 1973 the Swedish king was titled 'King of the Wends'. The Indian national anthem (Jana Gana Mana), contains a reference to Sindh (now part of Pakistan). --Soman (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Continental Aspects of American Constitutional Theory

I am an American lawyer of a certain age. I was taught and my personal reading confirms clearly that American constiutional theory was formed from British constiutional theory. The Inns of Court, the Magna Carta, development of common law, the role of a legislature are British constitutional doctrines. A college student said that I was incorrect that German almost became our common American language and that British legal history played an insignificant role. This is new to me. I am preently reading a tome on Henry II and the British examples are so clear to me. Has a shift occurred in academic thinking? Who are the continental political scientists, other than Rousseau, who contributed to American political theory. Did other couuntries pursue republican and democratic reform during this time period? 75Janice (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice

• The line about "German becoming our national language" is an urban legend of long standing; apparently it's been going around since the mid-19th-century. A pretty good explanation of what actually happened is here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We got that covered in an article: Muhlenberg legend. But as I understand the question, it is rather about History of the United States Constitution. — Sebastian 00:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article cited is simplistic. Perhaps it is difficult to convey the political theory and English common law traditons in a short article. I graduated law school and practiced constitutional law for several public interest groups. So I know more is involved. Now that I understand the comment about adoption of German as the official language, I'd like to know more about the European origins of the U.S. Constitution, if they exist. Several French philosophers are usually cited. The student's remark about German made me think of European examples. My knowledge of European history and thought is limited. Thanks.68.81.42.66 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 75Janice

I don't pretend much knowledge of specifically American political and constitutional theory, but don't overlook men like Montesquieu, Tocqueville, and Mazzei. Xn4 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Montesquieu, Cesare Beccaria, Rousseau, Pufendorf, Grotius, Vattel, Burlamaqui. —Kevin Myers 04:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How do the Inns of Court illuminate American constitutional theory? —Tamfang (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, b/c this is not a debating forum, the Inns of Court are an integral part of the development of British common law. Many of the Founding Fathers, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton are the clearest examples to me, were American commom lawyers, practicing British common law in the colonies. The American General Assemblies wielded great legislative power, practically . With the Stamp Act and other measures, Britain tried to exert its authority to help English, not American, commercial interests. The American colonies consciously chose to apply British common law to events that occurred soley in America. American law students are still taught common law principles by reading important English common law cases. One of the most striking I remember is a tort case from medieval England. They were asserting what they perceived to be their God-given rights as English citizens. Certainly the Magna Carta rights are a cornerstone of the American Constitution. It was not developed out of whole cloth. 68.81.42.66 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 75Janice

Among Continental countries that in some way influenced the US Constitution was Poland which provided an example of how not to organize elections of the chief executive. Gouverneur Morris argued that "the mode least favorable to intrigue and corruption, that in which the unbiassed voice of the people will be most attended to, and that which is least likely to terminate in violence and usurpation, ought to be adopted. To impress conviction on this subject, the case of Poland was not unaptly cited. Great and ambitious Princes took part in the election of a Polish King. Money, threats, and force were employed; violence, bloodshed, and oppression ensued; and now that country is parcelled out among the neighboring Potentates, one of whom was but a petty Prince two centuries ago."

Charles Pinckney also warned that "we shall soon have the scenes of the Polish Diets and elections re-acted here, and in not many years the fate of Poland may be that of United America."

James Madison, too, observed that "altho' the elected Magistrate [in Poland] has very little real power, his election has at all times produced the most eager interference of foreign princes, and has at length slid entirely into foreign hands", adding Germany and the Roman pontificate as other examples of foreign interference in elections where people other than natural-born citizens could run for the highest office. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism is a contradiction in terms.

Socialism involves the control or ownership of property by the State; Libertarianism involves private ownership and control of property. Flavors of Socialism include: communism, fascism, natzism, "mixed market", and current day conservatism, liberalism, and populism. Variations of Libertarianism include: anarchism, minimalism, "free market", and Austrial school economics.

Since Socialism and Libertarianism are opposites, please delete this entry, and any references to it (such as in your Socialism page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.194.71 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism is a very great deal better referenced than is your dubious analysis. So that would be a no, then. If you wish to discuss the article, please take yourself to Talk:Libertarian socialism. This is not an appropriate place for such a thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the OP makes a valid point. Libertarian Socialism *is* a contradiction in terms. However, just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean people don't believe it. People believe in lots of things that don't make sense. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The above is simply untrue. The article on Socialism mentions those strains that favour ownership by cooperatives and workers' councils, and while more radical forms of socialism (e.g. communism) are traditionally linked with the abolition of private property, Democratic Socialism in the west has always allowed private property (e.g. Scandinavian welfare model). Right-wing Libertarianism is closely tied with property ownership, which would be in contradiction with communism, but Left-libertarianism is based principally on ideas of liberty not on property ownership. The WP page on Libertarianism makes this clear. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article on "libertarian socialism"? They advocate state intervention, abolition of private property, anti-capitalism (a Marxist term), public ownership of the "means of production" (another Marxist term) and violent revolution. None of those are libertarian concepts. In fact, all of those are the exact opposite of libertarianism. It makes as much sense as warmongering pacifists, vegan cannibals or god-fearing atheists.

But Unlike the OP, I'm not saying we should't have an article on it. If there's a group of people describing themselves as such, the fact that it's a contradiction in terms is irrelevent. After all, we have an article on the 9/11 "Truth" Movement and truth is the last thing those nutcases are interested in. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Terms such as "libertarian communism" predate the adoption of the term "libertarian" by right-wingers; just because they use different definitions of "libertarian" doesn't mean that one definition is invalid or contradictory. If you want an oxymoronic political term, try radical centrism. Warofdreams talk 17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If libertarian socialism has nothing to do with libertarianism (which I agree they don't), why is it included in the libertarian article? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are you getting all of this statist stuff? Read from the second paragraph: "equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property," So where is this "They advocate state intervention, abolition of private property, anti-capitalism (a Marxist term), public ownership of the "means of production" (another Marxist term) and violent revolution." coming from. I don't see that in the article. I see the opposite (except for the violent revolution part). Wrad (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting this from the article: "Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property", "As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian 'must oppose private ownership of the means of production'", the section on anti-capitalism, etc. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That covers everything but the "They advocate state intervention..." bit, which is what surprised me most. Wrad (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism has been around for over one hundred years, and as a result is quite a diverse movement. It is certainly possible, as our article suggests, to find self-described libertarian socialists who call for an existing but very weak state, or for state intervention during a transitional period, although these currents of thought are not dominant. Warofdreams talk 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been analogous discussions on National Socialism, with some user claiming NS is a misnomer since socialism is inherently internationalist. The brief answer is that wikipedia doesn't judge in such disputes, but reflects actual usage of political terms in reality. If there is a Libertarian Socialist movement (which btw has 100+ years of continous history, and has had millions of followers throughout the 20th century) then there is also a Libertarian Socialism article at wikipedia. As per the term 'Libertarian', it translates differently in different languages and national contexts. In most parts of the world, the general political understanding of the term is quite different from that of the U.S. Libertarian party. --Soman (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. I was going to bring this up as well. We don't put National Socialism under the socialism article, so why are we putting libertarian socialism under the libertarian article? Can we at least be consistent? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Because most writers who categorise these things see libertarian socialism as a variety of socialism but don't see "national socialism" as a variety of socialism. It's not our opinion that counts; it's our sources' opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of trash talking?

Where does the accent I'll politely refer to as "Jerry Springer guest" come from? That sassy, in your face, mad-at-the-world, low education, english accent? --70.130.54.91 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"English"? Do you mean as in "from England"? Except in the sense that all English comes from England however many generations ago, I'd really be surprised if those accents were not homegrown "Ahmurcan". I would also suggest that none of "sassy", "in your face" or "mad-at-the-world" is accent, but attitude, and it is that very attitude that Springer and Co. search out. It is not something of place but of personality, I believe, and unattractive, in my view, at that. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But maybe the accent is part of the public face of the attitude? And, traditionally, low education English people have indeed been mad-at-the-world and in your face. Dr Johnson comments on it quite approvingly – "... they who complain, in peace, of the insolence of the populace, must remember, that their insolence in peace is bravery in war." Xn4 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon Line, possibly Appalachia. It's probably just plain old white trash. --Nricardo (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Any relation to trailer trash country? But attitude, yeah – a prerequisite for allowing the world to know all about your private life on Springer. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The language used on Jerry Springer is much more related to Whigger speech. For some reason, White trash/Appalachian/rural white Southern speech has become closely associated with urban African-American speech. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

November 28

I Have a riddle

This riddle refers to a place within the west midlands, i was wondering if anybody had any suggestions as to where it could be? thanks Thanks, Hadseys 00:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many places in the west midlands. We'll have a better chance if you tell us the riddle. Algebraist 00:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Lol sorry i got, here goes

Where the Gas and water meet the basin. A big pit in times gone by. Broaden your horizons and you will seek what you find,

Help beth to dig, The IR and innovations was the circle, but beware the wolf if you are to

find the key you are looking for.

It may be an anagram of "Help beth to dig, The IR and" ? Xn4 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I dont follow? Are you saying help beth to dig is an anagram?

At first glance I would say the "IR and innovations" would refer to the Industrial Revolution and "beware the wolf" means "it's not Wolverhampton. So, one of the other Black Country towns. My guess would be Tipton as it was considered the centre of the Black Country, used to be a big pit town (with the coal) and the "Gas and water" bit may refer to both the canals and one of James Watt's steam engines, which was built close to the town. I love cryptic crosswords and riddles :D Nanonic (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and on second look - the word Tipton itself can be read as "top of the hill", hence "broaden your horizons".. maybe. Nanonic (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps airing my ignorance, I see that tip can mean 'top', but how ton can stand for "of the hill" is escaping me. And can we see how "Help beth to dig" fits in? Xn4 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "ton" is "town" and the meaning is "town at the tip". I not only can't solve cryptics, but I also seldom understand the answers even when carefully explained. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be references to Digbeth and Gas Street Basin, which are both in central Birmingham.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, also broaden, could refer to the nearby Broad_Street,_Birmingham, which could be used to take you from Gas Street Basin towards Digbeth. At first I though circle migh be the Bull Ring, but the Rotunda was considered innovative when build. Key could be an homophone for quay. Is the riddle supposed to give you a city/town, because it seems to be to be giving you a route.83.100.232.150 (talk)

This is for one of the ISIS puzzle cash prizes. As with the ISIS itself, this clue is damn sneaky and just a big red-herring but it's easy to work out the true location using the sonicwarp forum ;) I've found Pyramid 17 but I still haven't worked out the PASSWORD from the clue - could someone please work this puzzle out and post the PASSWORD. It's driving me and nearly 100 other ISIS players insane!!

explain my spam

Is an election coming up in Romania? —Tamfang (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Algebraist 01:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Radar Base in the Czech Republic

They approved it, but surveys show that two thirds of the Czech population don't want it. What now? Vltava 68 (contribs)) 01:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

PRAGUE, Nov. 27: Czech Senate passes both treaties on planned U.S. radar base. That's representative democracy. The people elect the politicians, and the politicians ignore what the people want until they are thrown out. They nearly always are, in the end. Xn4 (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what's known as a system of Czechs and balances. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NB, the report I linked above says that the treaties approved by the Czech Senate will take effect if also passed by the Chamber of Deputies and signed by President Klaus, and that Klaus favours them. However, the centre-right government coalition has no majority in the Chamber of Deputies, so the result there is uncertain. Xn4 (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It'll either go ahead or it will not. If it does, there will be protests. As the ballot box is a blunt instrument, those who approved it will probably escape the disapprobation of the population because this is just one of very many issues on which they're elected. However I should point out that the RefDesk is not very useful for crystal ball type questions, and they are discouraged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to know whether doing this was even legitimate. Vltava 68 (contribs)) 02:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

By legitimate, I think you mean 'lawful'? The Czech Senate and Chamber of Deputies, subject to the approval of the President, are evidently the Czech Republic's legislative bodies. In many countries it's possible for law-makers to act unlawfully – for instance, if what they do is forbidden by a constitution which they are bound to comply with – and in that event their acts can generally be struck down by some other body, such as a Constitutional or Supreme Court. Someone may be able to tell us about the constitutional law of the Czech Republic, but I can't. We do have an article on the Constitution of the Czech Republic, with a link to an English version of it. Xn4 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If the basis of being "legitimate" is just a question of popular opinion (as represented by certain polls), then the answer is clearly "yes" in any sane system. Again, that's what representative democracy is about—you elect people, not polls. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Was the result of that case in favour of creationists or otherwise? The conclusion seems to say that it was unconstitutional but the judge was a churchgoer and rated high by ID, so it's confusing. -- Mentisock 13:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The decision was unfavorable to the creationist position, in that it bars the school district from ordering teachers to criticize the theory of evolution and bars the district from requiring the teaching of intelligent design. "To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID." 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), at 766.

Thus the practices are unconstitutional both under the federal and the Pennsylvania constitutions. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The ruling was anti-ID — it essentially said that ID was religion and not a science (where ID proponents want to argue that ID is a scientific alternative to evolution). The fact that the judge was a churchgoer and rated high by ID is just meant to bolster the idea that the opinion was objective, as the judge wasn't prejudiced against it from the beginning. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that the social and political forces favoring the teaching of Intelligent Design, would accept the decision of a solitary federal trial judge. I don't have ready access to Lexis/Nexis or WestLaw. If someone could research and report the subsequent procedural history, more insight on Dover school case may be provided.75Janice (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 75Janice

It wasn't the first ruling on the matter and it will surely not be the last. But it was very high profile and very recent (only 2005), and is one of the more sweeping rulings against ID (e.g. it wasn't ruled on some minor point or technicality, but on the substantive issue of whether or not ID was or was not science). The ruling was not appealed because the ID members of the school board were removed in the next election and the new school board chose not to appeal. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Last night I watched the C-Span broadcast of Associate Justice Scalia speaking before the most recent meeting of the Federalist Society in D.C. He states all judges worthy of the name frequently rule according to precedent and not where they would personally like the law to develop. He even suggested that law students active in the Federalist Society should just repeat what their law professors want to hear on final exams rather than arguing the "truth" and receive a bad grade. 75Janice (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice

I'm not sure I see what that has to do with the above (the question of whether ID is or is not a science is a fact-finding exercise, and is in the hands of the judge for scientific and technical matters—see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals). But if Scalia is going to be lecturing people on the importance of precedent, he ought to be reminded that he took part in the only Supreme Court ruling to date that explicitly disavowed its own ability to set precedent (Bush v. Gore). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree with Scalia's constitutional jurisprudence, particularly his notions of originalism and disdain for the "living constitution." I admire the work of Larry Tribe, a Harvard constitutinal professor considered the leading scholar in the field. I cited Justice Scalia's remarks, not to endorse his entire body of thought, but to illustrate that judges, such as the one in Dover who was believed to be personally favorable to intelligent design, not infrequently rule against their personal inclinations. I can respect Justice Scalia despite disagreeing with his judicial philosophy. 75Janice (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice

Literary "cycles"

Why do we refer to a series of connected works as a "cycle" (e.g. Schubert's song cycles) when they have a very distinct beginning and end? 69.177.191.60 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Most simply, because they tell a story in many songs. Die schöne Müllerin and Winterreise are about, respectively, a young man who falls in love with the Miller's daughter, and what happens between then and his suicide; and a young man, rejected by his lover, who departs from her and travels through a snowy landscape until he freezes to death. It's not happy stuff unless you are listening to it, because it is astonishingly beautiful. In Schubert the songs are more unified by the telling of the story than by musical material. Antandrus (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In case I misunderstood your question -- if you mean the use of the word "cycle" itself -- one of the definitions of the word is "a group of poems or songs around a theme" -- you don't have to go back to the beginning in a circular fashion in that definition. Antandrus (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But that does not get us very far. The etymology of the work points at rings & wheels and such, and so the question remains, why is one use of the word to describe what is in reality a serial set of works? We know the dicdef is there: How did it arise?

The production of a set of works is a cycle. The author starts a new set, works on it, finishes it, and then starts the cycle over again. This is a very common use of the word. For example, I could say that Tyler Thigpen starts training for a football game on Monday. He practices all week. He usually has Saturday off for travel and/or relaxation. On Sunday, he plays (and loses) a football game. He goes and tells the press his opinions about the game. Then, on Monday, he starts the cycle over again. Note that he trains for and plays a different game each week. But, the concept of the beginning, middle, and end of his work week is considered a cycle. -- kainaw™ 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) I wonder if the questioner is not asking about why the word used is "cycle" rather than, say, "series" or, in the case of the story-in-music, "chapters". A "cycle" suggests that things resolve back to where they started, whereas a story can do that, but the more usual map of a story would be a line, perhaps with a branch or two, but not anything that turns back on itself to the beginning. Perhaps the song cycles do that in musical terms, but that I could not identify. I looked at Song cycle and found the following:

A song cycle is a group of songs designed to be performed in a sequence as a single entity. As a rule, all of the songs are by the same composer and often use words from the same poet. Unification can be achieved by a narrative or a persona common to the songs, or even, as in Schumann's second Liederkreis, by the atmospheric setting of the forest. The unity of the cycle is often underlined by musical means, famously in the return in the last song of the opening music in An die ferne Geliebte. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That works for a collection of songs that were conceived as a group rather than as independent songs (although, they can be sung independently as "excerpts from the cycle"). But sometimes "cycle" is also used for works that were most definitely not conceived as a group by their creator. We hear about "Maestro Winkelstein will next year be recording the complete cycle of Mahler symphonies with the Tierra del Fuego Philharmonic Orchestra". That to me has always seemed a misuse of the word "cycle". "Set" or "series" would seem better choices. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I always understood it to mean that it is a cycle in that, you start from the beginning, and you're supposed to go all the way through to the end before you start again. That is, it's not meant to be performed/recited/etc. in a chop and change sort of manner. You start at the beginning, and go through them sequentially. Only then can you get back to the beginning. Steewi (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

First human - according to Bible

In Luke there's a note about lineage of Jesus, which goes through to Adam. There are 75 generations from Jesus to Adam, therefore we could guess when the first human created. Is there any one of you know about any research to when the first human is created? A source from any religion could suffice. Thanks for your answer. roscoe_x (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dating Creation has some useful information. Warofdreams talk 17:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishop James Ussher, Anglican Primate of Ireland, ( famously quoted in the Scopes Monkey Trial), in the 1600's calculated that the world was created 22 October, 4004 BC. Now on which day did God get around to creating Adam after He created the world? ~~

If he was going to bullshit everyone to that extent, why not say that creation started at 1:13:37.45756735737589645 AM on that day (assuming God need some time to think about it first) ? StuRat (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the days of the creation of course begin at dusk, as days do in Hebrew. Algebraist 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, let's calculate when dusk began on that day to 20 decimal places. (Or would have begun, if there was light, darkness, etc.) :-) StuRat (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

StuRat -- In most of the ancient middle east (excluding Egypt), the year was generally considered to begin either on the day of the new moon near the vernal equinox, or on the day of the new moon near the autumnal equinox. Ussher also adopted the scheme of history apparently invented by Sextus Julius Africanus, according to which the history of the world is 7,000 years long, divided into seven millennial (thousand-year) periods from Creation to Final Judgement (the last millennium being Jesus' reign as described in Revelations).

So Ussher basically derived his date by deciding that the birth of Jesus marked the beginning of the 5th millennium out of the total seven, reconstructing Jesus' birthdate as 4 B.C. (based mainly on the probable date of the death of Herod), then subtracting 4,000 years to get 4004 B.C., and deciding that he was going to use a year whose beginning was determined with respect to the autumnal equinox (instead of the vernal equinox) -- and voilà, when he looked up the sunset of the day of the first visible new moon after the autumnal equinox of 4004 B.C., the date October 22nd, 4004 B.C. was the result. Of course, there was also a lot of technical fiddling with the ages of Biblical patriarchs, lengths of reigns of Israelite kings etc. to get everything in the Bible to seem to add up so that the Creation fell 4,000 years before the birth of Jesus (that was actually the difficult part...). AnonMoos (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Either on the sixth day, or at some indeterminate point after the seventh, depending on whether you believe chapter 1 or chapter 2 of Genesis. Algebraist 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It was the 1600s, and they weren't aware time could be measured so precisely? Wrad (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but what was the Greenwich Mean Time?75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that didn't exist yet. Wrad (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But the Julian calendar did? --Tango (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

GMT didn't exist until the late 1800s. This is all in good fun, though, since the whole idea is ludicrous. Wrad (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure it did, it was only used in Greenwich, and only in spring and autumn, but it existed! --Tango (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Wrad (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From a science-based perspective, there has been research into the origin of humans and when the 'first humans' might have been around. From that perspective, of course, there's no way to pinpoint "these are humans - their ancestors were all not". Steewi (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do American universities really give credits for appearing in porn?

Is this really true? Do American universities really give you marks for appearing in porn films? The thought of middle-aged professors coercing teenagers into this kind of thing is disturbing. "Judging by the number of student-slash-adult film actresses I met at the WPC, it's clearly becoming easier to get college students to do it. Some gender studies departments have added school credit to the list of incentives for participating in porn films. Annabel Chong, a USC fine art and gender studies major, who attended the WPC, had sex with two women and two dildos in class for credit." http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1998/10/cov_05feature2.html 78.146.5.17 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you used the plural, "universities", I'd say no, unless there is proof that at least two do this. You have a source that claims that one did, but I'd like to have some corroborating evidence before I accept even that. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two possibilities here, either a university is giving out credit for people having sex in class or a rather questionable looking website is talking complete nonsense. Which do you think is more likely? I think unless there is more evidence than that one webpage, we can dismiss this. --Tango (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are classes at a few universities which teach how to film or write porn. Obviously they would offer credit if a person could show equivalent experience in that area. I don't really think that sort of thing belongs at a University, but it does exist. Wrad (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Filming and writing, maybe, but appearing in? --Tango (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that takes it a step further into "huh?" territory. Wrad (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think appearing in a movie, even a porn movie will give you resonably experience as how they are filmed and written. I believe many directors did appear in porn at one time. It would seem to me entirely normal if it were some drama class even if it was concentrated on filming or writing you'd still get credit for appearing in a play, TV show or movie Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been popular for some time for some universities to feature as part of their "gender studies" programs classes that investigate pornography as a serious source of information about contemporary (or historical) sexual attitudes. In my experience these courses exist outside of the main curricula for fear of parents going nuts (at Berkeley they had student-taught courses on subjects like this, which you could indeed get real credit for). But rest assured courses of this sort are never required and nobody is "coerced" into doing anything they don't want to do. In fact in most courses of any sort of controversial nature the student is told about 10 million times that this is totally optional and forced to sign all sorts of releases explaining that they know this is optional and etc. (I took a course on forensic pathology, a very different sort of thing, that required this sort of thing, before they could show us photos of corpses). So don't get your knickers twisted up with the fantasy nightmare about coed college kids getting forced into making pornography. It's extremely unlikely to be the way you have portrayed it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on here where anyone has said anything about students being forced into this. The thing people seem upset about is the fact that students can receive college credit for having sex in front of a camera. Even if it is unforced, it hardly seems academic. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, the OP discusses teachers "coercing" students to do this and this being what was disturbing him/her. I took that to mean "forced". As for whether it is academic, it would depend on how it was done. There many academic things to be said about pornography, just as there are many academic things that could be said about popular culture. There have been academic papers written about the philosophy of the Matrix movies, there are many papers written about the imagery in gangster rap. I hardly see why pornography would be exempt from this. There is a plausible argument that something could be gained in understanding it if one was a participant as well. What is "academic" is not a question of content but context; in how things are discussed, not what is discussed. (See, for example, the work of Judith Butler, to name just one very famous example of someone who is very well respected and has said quite a lot about pornography, if I recall correctly.) Just watching the Matrix because it is cool is not academic. Watching it as a cultural expression of certain ideas about existentialist philosophy (a la Hubert Dreyfus) is. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the two compare. We aren't talking about just critiquing something, we're talking about doing it. Hopefully, as you say, the OP is wrong or exaggerating. I wouldn't approve of sex acts in class for credit when studying porn any more than I would approve of attempting to fly off of a building to better understand The Matrix. Wrad (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're simplying talking about critiquing perhaps. But if you're studying filming porn then it seems plausible that experience in filming a porn, including as an actor may give you credit, just having a part in the Matrix may give you credit in a class about filming movies or SF. I'm not saying I don't find it unusual but really if consider it there's little difference beyond the fact that a lot of people don't think porn is worthy of studying Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Years ago when I was an art student, we were forced to take nude pictures of ourselves. Most people found it disturbing. I recall someone who objected to this was given a much lower final grading than I think he deserved, so yes, we were coerced. I was also shocked that tax payers money was spent on hard-core pornography. And I recall that when President Clinton and his wife were at university, they and the rest of the students were required to have photos of themselves taken in the nude - I forget the crackpot idea behind it - which were destroyed at around the time he was president. So such gross violations of privacy have happened. 78.144.244.16 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

When was taxpayers' money spent on hard-core pornography? You've only mentioned nude photos, which is not hard-core. If I'd been an art student being forced to pose nude I would have gone through the formal complaints procedure (I don't have any real problem with posing nude, just with being forced to) - did you try that? While I think it's completely unacceptable, if you don't complain about it, nothing is going to improve. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like if its a state school it's harder to get away with. In my state, a professor was fired for showing porn videos in his (equivalent of a) sex-ed class. Wrad (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say we need more information before we start judging. This does seem a little disgusting to me but if it was made clear that part of the course would involve you photographing yourself nude before people signed up for the course, and it was not compulsory then I don't see how your could say it's wrong for people to be given lower marks for not fulfilling the requirements of the course. Should such a course exist? Perhaps not, but really if you sign up for a course which clearly states it requires you to photograph yourself nude and then I wouldn't call it coercion if you were given lower grades when you didn't fulfill what was a clear requirement for the course Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

William Herbert Sheldon is the person behind the nude photos of Ivy League students.--droptone (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Salon article in the OP is ten years old. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In which historical period did Orlando and Marmaduke marry?

When reading Orlando: A Biography, in my ignorance of history, I can't tell what period she and Marmaduke get married in. It's at the end of Chapter 5. Can anyone help?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It was sometime in the 19th century during the reign of Queen Victoria (so between 1837 and 1900). That doesn't pin it down much. I would infer a date between 1840 and 1870. Marco polo (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite close enough for my purposes, thanks Marco Polo Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Another history question - inns in 16th Century Venice

Was there the equivalent of restaurants in Venice in 1582? - what were inns called by the Venetians of the time? - I'm especially interested in ones catering to the aristos.

Thanks again Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

According to our article on restaurants, they did not come into existence as such until the 18th century. During the 16th century, the closest thing would have been taverns or inns that served food. Instead of sitting at one's own table and ordering from a menu, one would likely have shared a table with other patrons and eaten whatever the hosts happened to cook that evening. The Italian word for "inn" is locanda. I have not been able to confirm whether this word would have been used for this type of establishment in 16th-century Venice, though such establishments would certainly have existed. Whether they catered to aristos is questionable. Typically, they catered to traveling merchants. Of course the wealthiest merchants of Venice were the republic's virtual aristocracy, but they were not technically nobles. There just might have been some luxury inns in 16th-century Venice, but I suspect that traveling aristocrats would more likely have been guests at the houses of rich merchants who hoped to gain their business. Marco polo (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Although the rowdy sons of the aristos would likely have caroused in cheap stews. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As a cheap Stu myself, I resent that remark. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Residents of the city often used a euphemism for an inn to throw the cops off the scent -- this was a well-known Venetian blind. (If the cops found out, the guests would try to rapidly get out of Doge.) --- OtherDave (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't the Doge be able to track the scent ? :-) StuRat (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been inns in Europe that boasted not only aristocratic, but even royal guests in their history. This list, for instance, of people who stayed in Hôtel du Corbeau (Raven Hotel) in Strasbourg (dating back at least as far as 16th century) is quite impressive, including kings of Prussia and Poland, and even an emperor! — Kpalion^(talk) 13:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all, extremely useful Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

November 29

Famous quote

There is a quote out there that goes something like "To men of rationale, the world appears happy. To men of emotions, the world appears sad." Or, it might go something like "The world is a happy place to those with greater rationale, while it is a sad place to those with greater emotion." This is not exactly how it goes, and I cannot remember who said it, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.62.20 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Horace Walpole is credited with "Life is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy to those who feel" (see [11]). -- JackofOz (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That's exactly what I was looking for!

A shadow detaching from its owner, and turning into an evil being

I remember as a child hearing a radio theatre story about a person whose shadow somehow got detached from its owner. The shadow transformed into an evil being, that turned against its former master. Recently, I read Las luces de septiembre by Carlos Ruíz Zafón, in which this theme is an important part of the plot. Now, Zafón wasn't even born at the time I listened to this, so the theme is certainly older. My question is, in which previous legends/stories/novels has this theme been used, and can someone point to an original version of the story? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea turns up in Peter Pan, as I recall, but I have no idea if that's the original occurrence (I don't think Pan's shadow was particularly evil, just mischievous). --Tango (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out Living Shadow at tvtropes.org. The oldest example they have seems to be The Shadow (fairy tale), but it's hard not to believe that it's much much older. -- BenRG (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In David Eddings Belgariad and Mallorean series, sorcerors could send their shadows away from themselves but they'd stay under their control for the most part. Eddings tends to use the standard story forms from medieval romance, taking various elements, themes and archetypes from them and writing his own stories so he probably borrowed the idea from earlier writings. Exxolon (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I also recall in the Fighting Fantasy gamebook Midnight Rogue at one point you walk through a magical torch's light and your shadow detaches from you and attacks you. You could fight it or try other methods of dealing with the problem. Exxolon (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! After reading the synopsis of The Shadow (fairy tale), I'm pretty sure that's the one I heard. The article mentions the story Peter Schlemihl by Adelbert von Chamisso as a precedent. However, in that story, the main character sells his shadow to the devil, and it is the lack of a shadow that leads to misery; the shadow itself doesn't come back to haunt its former master. Zafón explicitly references the Doppelgänger motif in his novel, although Doppelgängers are generally thought of as separate beings, not detached shadows. Another related motif that comes to mind is vampires' lack of a shadow and reflection. I agree that the detached shadow theme is probably lot older than the 1800's. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In Lord Dunsany's Charwoman's Shadow the detached shadow is not evil as such, but a person who has consented to having his shadow detached can be condemned to hell... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hate poems

I’m looking for poems which express hatred or rage. Suggestions? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess my preferred angry poetry, such as that of Heinrich Heine, lets hatred and rage sublimate into biting sarcasm. I suspect that is not what you are looking for, however, so how about Marina Tsvetaeva? Choosing an unusual object of lyrical hatred, she sounds quite angry in "Readers of Newspapers". ---Sluzzelin talk 07:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's that good in English, it must be incredible in Russian. Oy. Antandrus (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

death metal lyrics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Browning wrote a famous one to Edward Fitzgerald, that came to mind immediately.[12] "Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister" [13] is another one by him.

Ogden Nash wrote a humorous one praising hate in general (try searching on "hating, my boy, is an art") but that's probably not what you want.

If folk songs count, "Here's to the state of Richard Nixon" is brutal. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Catullus is unsurpassed; I don't think anyone approaches his ferocity. And if it's an ex- you're after, even better. Unexpurgated translations into English did not even appear until mid-20th century. It's strong stuff. I like the Peter Whigham translation (Penguin) pretty much. Antandrus (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Another would be the opening several hundred lines of François Villon's Grand Testament. He'd just gotten out of prison at Meung where he'd been horribly abused, and wasn't too happy about the bishop who put him there. Antandrus (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest the lyrics to "Death on two legs" by Queen, which starts "You suck my blood like a leech/Break the law and you breach/Screw my brain till it hurts" and contains the line "You're a sewer rat decaying in a cesspool of pride". I've never seen a more concentrated flow of vitriol in a poem! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow -- there's a lot. Depending on the exact focus and scope of what you are looking for:

The Iliad, which is, after all, about rage, and still retains the power to shock after almost three thousand years;

Dante, The Inferno, much of which is saturated with hate and rage eternal;

Paradise Lost, many of the speeches of Satan, particularly that splendid condemnation of the Sun, I think in Book IV, where he tells it how much he hates it for what it represents of Divine Light and what he has lost;

Shakespeare is full of good passages: check out Coriolanus, for example his denunciation of the people as they are banishing him, and Timon of Athens, and then the rages of King Lear. Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'll suggest O Fortuna as a general rant against fate: "Fate - monstrous and empty / you whirling wheel / you are malevolent / well-being is vain / and always fades to nothing." or, if you prefer a more poetic, but less accurate translation: "Fate, as vicious as capricious / You're a wheel whirling around: / Evil doings, worthless wooings, / Crumble away to the ground." And so on. Of course, it sounds more impressive sung in Latin by a choir, while backed by an orchestra. Matt Deres (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Book IV of the Aeneid, when Dido goes nuts and kills herself. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are looing for something more current, why not listen to any number of jamaican dance hall artists- hate music at its finest! (although i second the catullus vote -he had some serious sass!).82.22.4.63 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out the lyrics to Ludo's "Love Me Dead", which includes such lovely lines as "You're a parasitic, psycho, filthy creature finger-bangin' my heart". Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Try Howl by Allen Ginsberg. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Otto Nadolski

Dear Editor,

I have recently written a short description of who Otto Nadolski was.

The following thread has been declined, reasoning that the person is not of significance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Submissions/Otto_Nadolski

This is evidently a false judgement, because there is sufficient evidence of the contrary.

1) He is mentioned as one of the most notable professors in wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lviv_Polytechnic also his is the only name still red, asking for further elaboration.

2) He has been mentioned in other Wiki pages in other languages.

3) Sufficient evidence has been given , as he was mentioned in official literature published by the Lviv Politechnic. (see source on proposed article).

4) He was by far of more importance than the other notable professors mentioned on the page, as they were appointed by Otto Nadolski himself.

5) Being three time Rector of a politechnic described as: "Since its foundation in 1844 it was one of the most important centres of science and technological development in Central Europe" deserves sufficient importance to be mentioned in Wikipedia.

I dont know why this evident information is not sufficient for Wikipedia, I therefore suggest reconsidering the article, taking the above into account.

daniel29680 / [email address removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel29680 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to appeal such decisions. The main requirement for a person to be notable is that they are mentioned is reliable, secondary sources (something from his own university doesn't really qualify). If you can find a newspaper article about him or maybe something saying he's been awarded a major prize in his field, then he may be notable enough for an article. The guideline for academics is here. If, after reading that, you are confident he is notable and you have sources to verify it, then I suggest you just create the article yourself (you already have an account, so you just need to wait about 4 days until you'll be allowed to create articles), or you can make another request at Articles for Creation detailing the sources you've found. --Tango (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

British police operation

Opposition MP Damian Green released too much information embarrassing to the government, so the police was sent to arrest him. The leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, and the mayor of London were told beforehand, but the Prime Minister insists neither he or any other government ministers were informed. [14] Is it usual for the police to brief the lower level politicians but not the higher level ones? 121.72.170.238 (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Denials, yes, but isn't there a story which is relevant? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on UK constitutional law or practice, but I would say what is suggested her is entirely believable. The problem appears to be your assumption 'lower level politicians' and 'higher level ones'. Okay I'm not sure about the Mayor of London bit but informing the leader of the Opposition is understandable since Damian Green belong to his party so it would likely be considered prudent to inform him that one of his MPs is being arrested. (If it were a Liberal-Democrat being arrested, it seems entirely plausible that the Leader of Opposition wouldn't have been informed, instead simply the leader of the LibDems.) The Speaker is responsible for handling all matters concerning the conduct of MPs therefore he or she should generally be informed if a MP is being arrested. The PM however should have little to do with the arrest and while it may be normal to inform him in very high profile cases, e.g. when people are being arrested for terrorism, it may also be considered prudent not to involve him in any matters concerning alleged wrongdoing by opposition MPs to avoid the implication that the police are helping the government. They do have independence in such matters after all. In other words, your mistake is thinking of lower level politicans and higher level politicians when what you should be thinking about is their role and why they were or were not informed. As said, I'm not so sure about why the Mayor of London was informed, but perhaps because this involved the Metropolitan Police carrying out raids inside London. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Mayor of London is responsible for policing in London, as chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The closest precedent is the cash for honours inquiry, but it was only Labour politicians and supporters arrested then[15] so it is hard to apply exactly to the current case. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

National Bankruptcies..

Hello Wikipedia,

I'd just like to understand a little more about what it means for countries to go bankrupt.. I understand that all countries borrow form others and that some countries debts are higher than others. When some countries feel that they won't get their money back, they stop lending so there is a 'cash-flow' problem on a national scale. Assuming thats about right (and if its not, let me know!) how likely is it that the UK will soon face possible bankruptcy? (i've just read an article on the Guardian website which suggests its quite likely - which is obvioulsy terrifying!) Further to that, he suggests that joining the Euro would be the easiest escape route - i'm not sure i understand why... (the article is here [16])..

a quick economics lesson would be much appreciated!

Thanks, 82.22.4.63 (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the usual term is "defaulting" on their loans, for countries. That simply means they don't pay what they owe, as opposed to "bankruptcy", which is a legal process which makes it no longer necessary to pay all of your debts. Understand that the government of one country doesn't typically borrow money from the governments of others countries, but rather from individuals and corporations and pension funds from all over the world (including their own nation), in the form of government bonds. So, defaulting on those loans harms everyone, not just foreign governments. There may be some benefits to the nation which defaults, such as not having to pay off the interest each year, so being able to apply that money to the regular budget, instead. Also, not being able to borrow money in the future may finally force that nation to live within it's means. I'm not sure if the positives outweigh the negatives, however. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the proportions, but a significant amount of government debt is held by other governments in the form of foreign reserves (eg. China's government holds large amounts of US government debt). It's not necessarily desirable for a country to "live within its means" (it's a rather controversial topic, there are plenty of people the disagree with what follows) - as long as debt increases no faster than the economy grows, the country remains in a strong financial situation with a higher standard of living than they would have had with lower public spending (or higher taxes, or both). Saving up only makes sense if you expect to need to spend those savings in the future - as long as you keep your debt low enough and your credit worthiness high enough so that you can afford to borrow more when needed, there is little need for reserves. It's all a matter of weighing up the benefits of spending more now with the risks of need to borrow more in the future - borrowing in small amounts can easily be the right decision (borrowing in large amounts should, of course, be limited to times of crisis, such as now, and needs to be followed by a surplus to pay it back in preparation for the next crisis). If you are going to rely on borrowing like this (and most countries do - there are very few than run consistent surpluses) then you need to maintain a good credit rating, which means not defaulting on your debts (even though there is no law stopping you from doing so, since you make the laws!). As for the UK, our debt is actually still fairly low compared to other countries in Europe (although it's expected to increase dramatically over the next couple of years). The UK government has been sticking to a target of 40% of GDP (it's failed to stay within that recently, of course), the EU rules are 60% and some major EU countries haven't even managed to stick within that prior to the current crisis (and will presumably go well over now). The UK is going to take on massive debt and that's not good news, but I see no reason to believe it will be unable to service that debt (no-one is looking forward to the tax rises that are going to be required to pay it back in a few years time, but we'll manage). I haven't read the article yet (I will do now), but I don't see how joining the Euro would make any difference (I doubt it's even practical to have such a major upheaval during a recession). --Tango (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The negatives of running a structural deficit (as opposed to only having a deficit when absolutely necessary, like during WW2 or as a result of bailouts for the current financial crisis) are many:

1) Not only must the money borrowed be paid off by future generations, eventually, but the interest must be paid, too. This means that future generations will need to pay more than the current generation gets. Only if the interest rate was less than inflation would this not be the case, and, if that was true, people would be foolish to loan the government money. There is a "taxation without representation" argument on saddling future generations, who have no vote, with our debts.

2) If we always borrow close to the limit of what will cause economic collapse, then we can't borrow much more when we really need it, such as during wars and the current financial crisis.

3) Being dependent on lenders such as China puts us at a political disadvantage, as they can threaten to withhold future loans if we complain, say, when they invade Taiwan or have another Tiananmen Square Massacre. We can, of course, threaten not to pay our current loans to them, but that would make others even less likely to lend us money. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it 'we' and 'us' refer to the United States here? Algebraist 17:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it means any Western nation which borrows heavily from others. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1) The interest must be paid, certainly, but there is no need to ever pay back the principle. You just take out new debt to pay off the old. As long as the economy continues to grow fast enough that interest payments as a percentage of GDP do not become too high, there is no problem (if you hit a recession, you have a problem, but it's just a temporary one - once you come out the other side you have to pay back some of the debt to get back to affordable levels, but after that you can continue as you were). 2) Absolutely, I believe I said as much. 3) There is a problem when a foreign country owns a significant amount of your debt, it's true. Ideally most of your debt is held domestically and the rest is mostly spread between friendly nations. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Two comments on point #1: First, the interest (minus the inflation rate) on a perpetual loan will eventually total more than the principal. Second, I still say that the principal will either one day need to be paid or the country will be in default. A global depression, for example, will eventual occur so that the money is no longer available to borrow in order to "rollover" the debt, meaning the principal will need to be paid off under the worst possible circumstances. StuRat (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point, what is the significance of the total interest paid becoming greater than the principal? As for your second point, in a depression there is less money to go around, certainly, but people will generally want to lend what money they have to (reliable) governments since it is safer than investing in anything else (barring gold, perhaps) during a time when businesses are struggling to survive. Have governments had problems borrowing money in depressions in the past? (I haven't studied the subject in any depth.) --Tango (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that, while it's immoral to borrow $1 and make your grandchildren pay back $1 (adjusted for inflation), it's both immoral and stupid economics to borrow $1 and make your grandchildren pay back $30 (adjusted for inflation). I don't believe we had anywhere near the level of debt we have now, before the Great Depression, so borrowing money wasn't quite the issue it is now. For those people with money in a depression, there are many fantastic opportunities, like buying up failed companies and cheap prime real estate, so government bonds would be a rather poor choice. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to compare cash flows at different times, you don't want to adjust for inflation, you need to discount by the risk-free rate, which is generally taken to be the interest rate of government bonds. If you do that then I think you end up with the amount being paid back being exactly equal to the amount borrowed in the first place. (I'm assuming the risk-free rate is constant, which isn't true, but it will do for a rough impression.) Buying up failed companies is only good if you're an expert on rescuing failed companies, most people aren't. Buying up cheap real estate is only good if you are happy to wait a long time for the depression to end and property values to increase, people that want more short term investments will and do turn to treasury bonds. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your argument at all. If money is borrowed, and interest is paid on it continuously (over the rate of inflation), and the principal is never paid off, then the portion of those interest payments above inflation is money the government loses each year. The only way this could be good economics in the long run is if the government invests that principal in some way that grows faster than the interest rate minus inflation. And government rarely makes good investments. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That investment is the economy, if economic growth is greater than interest on government bonds minus inflation (or, not minus inflation, depending on how you measure growth) then even if you pay the interest by borrowing more, your debt as a percentage of GDP is still decreasing (allowing you to borrow more to cover a budget deficit). It's when economic growth drops (such as now) that you have a problem, but over a long enough time scale you can be pretty confident it will average out to a decent growth rate. --Tango (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I challenge the assumption that borrowed money is wisely invested to cause the economy to grow. If the government is limited to only spending money it actually has, then it's apt to make wiser decisions about where to spend that money than if there is an unlimited supply of money available due to heavy borrowing. An "open treasure chest" leads to wasteful spending. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(Rm indent)

@Tango: I think another way to illustrate the theoretical problem of future generations funding current expenses is that the future generations bear the risk of rolling over the debt at higher interest rates. If the current administration stuffs up (gets downgraded for example) then future administrations have to bear the burden. Of course, the current generation can also improve the situation and leave the future generation better off but the fact is that there is always the risk that it might get worse.

@Sturat: I don't believe much of the spending is wasteful wrt to future generations. It can even be argued that the money spent on wars leave future generations better off. The problem is that the future generations aren't involved in the decision making but still bear the risk as explained above. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the debate turns on the definition of debt used. The figures quoted above exclude various liabilities which might reasonably be included, such as the Private Finance Initiative. The largest government liability excluded from official figures is the enormous bill for unfunded public sector pensions. The government supposes that this liability amounts to GBP 650 billion, broadly the same as the official figure for debt, but others suggest higher figures. The Institute of Economic Affairs are quoted as coming up with a figure of GBP 1200 billion or thereabouts. So, yes, the official figure for UK debt is relatively low, but there are good grounds for thinking that it is a nonsense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Do other countries not fiddle the books in the same way, though? --Tango (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the US certainly does. The party in power always says the debt is tiny and the opposing party says it's huge. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the theoretical discussion of government debt, which I think Tango has covered quite well, and turning to the present case of the UK, as discussed in the Guardian article, I believe that there is indeed some risk that the United Kingdom (and ultimately the United States, for that matter) might eventually face a debt and currency crisis. The reason why this is a real possibility is that the debts of the United Kingdom (like those of the United States) have been expanding at a dramatic and accelerating rate as the government rushes to bail out an enormous and disastrously insolvent financial sector. Because the British financial sector is larger as a proportion of the total economy (GDP) than that of the United States, the government's debt-financed assumption of the financial sector's bad debts threatens investors' faith in the ability of the British government to repay its debts.

While the debt of the UK as a percentage of GDP is currently modest by comparison to other developed nations, the scale of the financial sector's insolvency is unknown and could amount to trillions of pounds. If the British government were to try to finance this, it would alarm investors. Apparently, investors are already alarmed, because they have been selling sterling assets at such a rate that sterling has lost a quarter of its value in just three months. If investors were to lose all confidence in the creditworthiness of the UK, its currency could plummet and/or become nonconvertible, as the currency of Iceland did for a few weeks recently. The only way for the government to fund its debts might be for the Bank of England to print pound notes, or their electronic equivalents, and use these to buy government bonds. This would further unnerve holders of sterling assets, who would see their value diluted by the expansion of the money supply without corresponding economic growth. This would add to the downward pressure on sterling and would lead to sharply higher prices for imported goods and a risk of destabilizing inflation. None of this is certain to happen, it must be emphasized, since no one can predict the future.

The author of the Guardian article argues that it would be prudent for the UK to adopt the euro now as a way to avoid a run on sterling. If the UK were to join the euro, the scale of the euro zone's financial insolvency would probably be much smaller relative to that of the total economy, since the financial sectors of the euro zone's other economic powerhouses, Germany and France, are much smaller in relative terms. Investors are less likely to be anxious about the solvency of the euro zone as a whole, especially when the euro's main competitor, the US dollar, somewhat like the pound sterling, faces a greater relative risk of a crisis of confidence.

What the article's author neglects to point out is that EU members seeking to adopt the euro are expected to participate in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years before adopting the euro. That is, they are required to keep their currency closely pegged to the euro, generally by limiting their budget deficits and raising interest rates to limit current account deficits. These policies would make it impossible for the British government to continue its bailout of its financial sector, or to attempt economic stimulus on a larger scale than the less-stricken euro-zone countries. So the author's suggestion that adopting the euro would be an easy way out is misleading. Marco polo (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec with your last paragraph) I think what you describe is unlikely, but it certainly isn't impossible. However, joining the Euro wouldn't help - if the UK government's creditworthiness drops to levels where it cannot reasonably borrow money, and it can't print money since it has surrendered monetary policy, what would it do? It could raise taxes up to a point, but it would quickly reach the peak of the Laffer curve, and after that it would be left with no choice but the dramatically cut public spending. Joining the Euro would increase confidence in the currency, but that doesn't mean there would be confidence in the UK government's ability to pay its debts. At the moment, the yield on UK 6-month government bonds is 1.14% [17],compared to Germany's 1.93% and the US's 0.42% (same site), which suggests to me that investors are pretty confident in the UK government's ability to pay its debt in the short term (the yields also factor in the risk of other investments in that currency, so it's not a perfect measure - I'll see if I can find some credit default swap numbers, which would be better). --Tango (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tango, I think that the low yields on short-term bonds in the US and UK do not so much reflect investors' confidence in governments was they do investors' lack of confidence in other asset classes and the rate at which the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are flooding their systems with liquidity. All of that cash has to go somewhere. According to this article, the UK money supply is expanding at an annual rate of 15%. According to this source, US M3 (broad money supply) is expanding at a year-over-year rate of well over 10% (albeit decelerating). Meanwhile, according to this source, euro-zone M3 is growing at "only" 8.7% (admittedly still quite high relative to economic growth). Meanwhile, the discount rate is now higher in the euro zone than in either the US or the UK. Investors need some compensation for holding a bond rather than cash. They need more compensation for a German bond because of the higher interest available for a euro cash investment. The only way that I can explain bond interest rates so much lower than interest rates on bank accounts is the fear of people and institutions with high net worth of depositing funds in excess of government guarantees in possibly failing banks. Maybe that fear is greater in the United States and the United Kingdom than in Germany. Of course, this is speculation, but in the world of finance, especially today, there is much that is not transparent. Marco polo (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Credit default swaps are a far better way of comparing percieved risk of default, but I can't find prices for them (I found a price of 88 basis points for UK debt on the 24th Nov in a Bloomberg article, but couldn't find anything to compare it to). However, I wasn't meaning to suggest that them being low meant they were percieved as low risk, but rather that the UK yields weren't higher than the German yields which is what one would expect if the UK were a higher risk than the Euro zone (it could just mean that private UK investments are a higher risk relative to UK government debt than private German invests are relative to German government debt, though, which is why it's all difficult to compare). --Tango (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the number of questions about national bankruptcy, should we start an article? Warofdreams talk 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan

Is this true that all four major ethnic groups of Pakistan can have followers of Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i, Maliki, Ithna Ash'ariyah, Ismaili Mustali Sulaimani Bohra, Ismaili Mustali Dawoodi Bohra, Barelvi, Deobandi? but for the Khoja Ismaili Nizari, all I know is that they are Sindhi. Which province have the most population of Christians? Which province has the most population of Hindus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.184 (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something which would demand sustained library research (possibly necessitating a knowledge of Urdu) to answer very well. By the way, I suspect that some Deobandis and Barelvis might possibly take issue if you insinuated that they were outside the four madhahib.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad Company song

I was making out with a girl last night in her bedroom, and in the background she put on some music so other people wouldn't hear; there was a song by the band Bad Company, and the song mentioned the band name Bad Company in the actual lyrics. Which song is this?-Norman the Doorman (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is really a question for the entertainment desk, but could it be that the lyrics "Bad Company" were from the song Bad Company from the album Bad Company by the band Bad Company? Talk about self references! Fribbler (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The girl sounds enthralling.NByz (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. Are you 45? Do people still make out to "Bad Company"? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Would you rather make out to Fall Out Boy? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Gawd no, I found that Closer is the best makeout song ever. The chorus generally gets you where you want to go... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm 22. The girl was about the same age as me, actually slightly younger. And plus she is from Eastern Europe so maybe her country is kinda behind with music a little, but I like Bad Co. too, or at least what I've heard. Hey, I told her I liked My Chemical Romance as well and that nearly puts her off me completely. And I already made out to that particular Nine Inch Nails song with another girl like 3 years ago but this girl is a lot better. Not fat like that other chick back then. And Bad Company is cooler than NIN, even though I like the latter as well.-Norman the Doorman (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know that I cannot recall a single time in mumbledy-mumble decades of active sex life where the music made a difference, before or during. Is this just me personally, or is it a male-female thing? I think all of the preceding remarks have been made by males. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as much as I appreciate the music of John Philip Sousa, it would make a rather odd choice in my sensitivity, so I guess I do think the music can make a difference (but then I'm male ;) ---Sluzzelin talk 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I can just about imagine John Cleese or Michael Palin bonking to Liberty Bell. But then, I can hardly imagine them doing anything at all except in a bizarre way. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does stereotypical 'gay' behavior originate?

I was curious where stereotypical gay mannerisms and speech originate from? Is the speech and mannerisms a learned behavior? If so, what are the sources? It seems to be completely unique and easily identifiable across ethnic, linguistic and cultural borders. This isn't questioning of homosexuality. But there are friends I know who are referred to as "screaming queens" and others who aren't. They are usually referred to as "effeminate", but I don't see that type of speech and mannerisms as trying to replicate a woman. --70.130.54.91 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One clue is that it was once fashionable for upper-class men to behave like that, wearing high-heeled shoes, wigs, and perfume, and talking/walking in an effeminate manner, even when they were straight. See fop and dandy. Then there's the modern equivalent, the metrosexual. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because women don't actually act effeminate in the same way doesn't mean that it's not meant to be in reference to some projected idea of that. I find it very interesting how gay males act in a way about what it means to be "feminine" which is more about an inversion of "masculine" than it is anything that women actually do. Similarly I find the "butch" variety of lesbians do very similar things—taking on various "masculine" characteristics that are really extreme projections of the idea of "masculinity" (in particular the uneducated, brutish form). (On the latter point I've always wondered why one would want to do that, as a non-particularly "macho" man I have found the hyper-masculine, thuggish sort of attitude always reprehensible and find it so very odd that lesbians would embrace it for any reason, since it seems entirely opposite to the values they embrace, though I understand these things about identity are complicated.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I read your question as whether stereotypical gay or lesbian behaviour is genetically or culturally transmitted. I can't answer that question, but acknowledge the fact that that an autosomal gene that predisposes to behaviour that attracts male sexual partners, might have an evolutionary advantage, i.e. that the advantage in female carriers might outweigh the disadvantage in male carriers. If anyone has references to studies that address this question, it would be most welcome. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) Pick a movie from the 1940s, anything featuring, for example, Joan Crawford, Veronica Lake,Myrna Loy, Mae West or Bette Davis. Watch them vamp their way throughout the movie. (See even the photo on the Crawford article.) These are the models, I believe, for the excruciatingly exaggerated mannerisms for the sexy female. (This is WP:OR through and through, by the way.) I think that when stage actors first came to the movies, they brought with them the same overdone gestures that were useful on stage when the audience might be too far away to see facial expressions or small body movements. Everything from smiles to ambulation had to be "visible" from 15 metres. It took quite some time for the nuances of the big screen to be exploited. And thus, at the time when movies had the most inflence on popular culture, they were displaying these grossly overdone caricatures of female presentation as indicative of star quality. I think that is where the stereotype came from, but as to why it is supposedly worth being copied, I can only speculate that it is its very exaggeration that is its attraction: more female than a female, as it were. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

i'm sure its about emulating women actually.. i'm gay and on the camp scale, whilst not a 'screaming queen', i am what you would call 'obvioulsy gay', like I imagine graham norton is off-camera. anyway, i think i started adopting gay mannerisms after meeting my first 'real-life' gay and, whilst basically falling in love with him, thought he'd love me back if i was like him..(he didn't). at that time i regarded this type of self-expression as reaction (in a positive sense) against a conservaive upbringing and as such saw it as an integral part of me (and, to a lesser extent, i still do).

Thats my point of view anyway. If you were to ask, say, my (elder) sisters or some of their friends, they would tell you instantly that i was clearly gay from an early age (someone claims to have outed me when i was 12, whilst i outed myself at age 17/18). If true, this makes me think that perhaps i was only exaggerating what was already there. (Which ties in with the earlier evolutionairy point made earlier). Certainly i was the stereotypical gay child (hopeless at sport etc) but there were plently of others like that at my school who are now resoundly heterosexual, so lets keep this scientific....

I guess my main concern about the 'emulating women' argument is that its quite hetero-centric (the corrollary being that there are woman-gays and man-gays). Lets not assume heterosexual norms are still universally valid for homosexual realtionships!82.22.4.63 (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, you seem to be the resident expert, so here's some follow-up Q's for you:

1) Does it attract you if another man acts "stereotypically gay", with the lisping voice and such ?

2) Does it make it easier for you to identify them as homosexual ?

3) Do you believe you attract men by acting that way yourself (men who would not be attracted to you otherwise) ?

4) Is it all "an act" you put on for others, or would you talk like that when conversing with, say, a dog, with no witnesses ?

5) Could you act convincingly straight if you wanted to ? StuRat (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooh the 'resident expert' - i like it! Here goes with some answers... 1) actually i don't think it affects me. There is certainly some considerable anti-camp predjudice in the gay community but i don't seem to roll that way.. (i've been attracted to some camp guys and some non-camp guys)

2)yes, it makes it 'easier', in the same way that crossing the road is 'easier' if there is less traffic, but usually its not difficult to tell if someone is on 'your team' or not. (intra-gay 'gaydar' seems to be quite accurate -there are doubtless more factors at play than just campness).

3)i repulse men so either way i couldn't comment

4) i would say on balance, no. like most people i do nuance my behaviour according to my surroundings. i do not, for example, act the same in a job interview as i do at a party. Having said that, i would hazard that most people who interview me would have an idea that i am gay... so yes -i would talk that way to a dog!

5)i take issue with the term 'act straight' (becuase it implies that gay and camp are synonymous - which they're not (see Brian Paddick/David Beckham)). anyway, to answer the question, no. i've tried both consciously (as a bet at a party) and sub-consciously (whilst growing up) and alas it can't be done (at least by me!).

That was fun but where does it leave us? 82.22.4.63 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of men saying they are a "straight-acting gay", so my question number 5 seems reasonable, to me. It seems from your responses that you don't really benefit from "camp" style, and can't convincingly change, so that implies that it's not so much a choice to act that way as it is "just part of who you are". Perhaps there's a genetic component to "acting camp" which is linked with male homosexuality, but not exclusively so. For comparison, many blonds have blue eyes, but there are also those with only blue eyes (like me) or only blond hair, so this is the same type of weak genetic correlation. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure stereotypical gay behavior is identifiable across cultures because gender norms are different from one culture to the next. What stereotypical gay behavior is, at least in this discussion, is the refusal to adhere to what is masculine for men and feminine for women. Not all gay people behave this way. There are gay men who are hypermasculine and profess to dislike twinks and effeminate men. Similarly, there are very feminine lesbians who refuse to have anything to do with butch women. For some gay people their behavior is noticeably more gay when they come out, are younger, and are near other gay people. This may wane as one's identity expands beyond sexuality. I think that is essential to the original question: behavior is an expression of identity, or what one finds admirable. For a man to admire femininity and emulate it instead of desire it is not widely seen or accepted, therefore a subset of behavior that sets some gay men apart. Women who express strength in masculine ways are similarly unique. --Moni3 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

European citizen outside the EU

Can European citizen use the diplomatic representation of any European country abroad?--Mr.K. (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if by a "European country" you mean a European Union member state and if the EU citizen's home country does not have its own diplomatic or consular representation in the country where the person is travelling. According to Article 8c of the Treaty Establishing the European Community:

“ Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. ”

— Kpalion^(talk) 22:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer is no you can't. Only if you are a European citizen and there is no diplomatic mission of your country in that country's territory you may use the diplomatic mission of another European Union Member State. My parents were on holidays in Sri Lanka when the tsunami caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake hit, they got away with their lives but lost all of their money, documents and most of their belongings. The nearest Polish diplomatic mission was in Mumbai, India, but my parents they got the same help as the French citizens in the French Embassy in Colombo. Mieciu K (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

They are only obliged to help you if there isn't a consulate of your country in the country, but do you know if they would help you even if there was a consulate in the country, just not one nearby or accessible? For example, a war breaks out and you can't get from one side of the city to another, could you just turn up on the doorstep of an EU embassy that's nearby? I would expect so, simply out of humanitarian concerns. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented" the literal interpretation of this text implies (to express indirectly) that under this specific law they do not have to help if there is "his" diplomatic mission in the same country. You do not have to go to "your" embassy in person usually a phone call is enough for them to organize some sort of help for you. Another story is when "your" embassy refuses to help you. I have recently read a story about a Czech citizen getting scammed out of his money and wanting to return to the Czech republic. The Czech consulate refused to help (citing that they don't help irresponsible people) so the Polish Police officers started a private fund drive and bought this guy a ticket back home. Mieciu K (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Czech consular service aren't as nice as the UK one, but my understanding was that your consulate would normally put you on a flight home in that situation and then bill you when you got back home. --Tango (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course if you aren't in an EU country you'll be sent back by the local authorities anyway once you no longer have the legal right to stay in that country (e.g. once your visa runs out). You may also be detained, fined or even jailed so it's not necessarily a great idea. And yes, you will be billed once you get home Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

November 30

Barcode Tattoo Scenario

What are the chances of the Barcode Tattoo scenario coming true. I know I should be concerned about being implanted with a micorchip but do I have to worry about it happening? Should I be a strong activist against it or be comfortable knowing it's very unlikely it will happen? --Melab±1[[User_talk:Melab-1|☎ 03:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your best defense against this occuring is to wear a tinfoil hat... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The government just loves to spy on us, but one of the prerequisites for spying is that the subjects be unaware of the surveillance. Since it would be literally painfully obvious when they tattoed you with a bar code, this would cause people to vote out any politician which voted for such a thing. We would need to have democracy abolished before such a program could be forced upon us. And, since Dick Cheney didn't run for President, there's no chance of that happening any time soon. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

See Mark of the Beast. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You could look at the book Database Nation written in the late 1990's. No tattoos needed, all that info can instead be stored on remote computers. Consider a V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask for when you go out in public, to defeat being recognized by the surveillance cameras that are already everywhere. Who needs RFID? 67.122.210.149 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you carry a cell phone? If so, anybody who really wants to can know where you are. -Arch dude (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The respondents so far seem to be treating this in a fairly light-hearted manner and I'm not sure that's helpful. Any politician that took the platform of "Hey guys, we'd like to microchip you and maybe slap a UPC on your neck just for show!" would obviously get drummed out of office pretty quickly, but I don't think that's the route an attempt at tracking would take. As StuRat says, it's not really spying if everyone knows about it beforehand... or is it? Our cellphones are equipped with GPS technology so our positions can be targeted at all times. You're under video surveillance every time you enter a retail store or buy gas and sometimes even when you go out to dine (especially fast food). If you drive on toll roads, your license plate is captured when you get on and when you get off. Unless you're using that old "cash" thing, most financial transactions you make are recorded down to the minute of purchase. If you buy goods at a "club" store (i.e. where you need to be a member), you'll get a call if one of the items you bought was involved with a food safety recall. We appreciate the safety and convenience, but seldom consider the downside. Will we be forced to get micro-chipped? Nah, not in the very near future. On the other hand, many of the children in my kid's school have already been finger-printed (to "help track them down in case of them getting lost or abducted"), which is basically only one step away. Many people already chip their pets (with short distance RFIDs). I would not be at all surprised if the next generation chips their children in the name of "safety". In other words, "Yes, you should be worried about it happening, but beware that we're already partway there - of our own choice." Matt Deres (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I mean like actually being chipped. It's one thing to be followed by satellite but it's another to have someone (gov't) force you to chipped. And I'm asking is our gov't and others like UK, Germany, France, Canada, and the EU level headed enough not to do so. --Melab±1☎ 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps copies of the fingerprints? The schools or the parents? If only the parents have copies, I don't think that's too big of a problem. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I should point out a number of countries already have, and have had for a while, finger prints as part of a national identity document. Also many mobiles still don't have GPS although this is likely to change over time and you can track phones resonably well without GPS. And BTW, people are already RFID their kids [18] (whether any of these are implants or not, I haven't found out, I suspect not though since most parents interested quickly realise it's somewhat useless. They'd much rather have a trackable chip and we can't achieve that in implants yet) see also Microchip implant (human) Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Person mentioned in Letters to Olga

Who is/was Andulka? Havel mentions her several times, but there's no explanation of who she is in the notes about the names mentioned in the back. Vltava 68 (contribs) 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a passage where Havel asks Olga to congratulate and greet "Andrej and Andulka" and asks what they will call their daughter (Letter to Olga dated August 13, 1979). One of the Havels' good friends was the theater director Andrej Krob. Maybe Andulka was his wife, but I found no information confirming this. Just a guess. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which copy is this? The letter for that date in the copy I'm reading doesn't mention anything like that. --Vltava 68 (contribs) 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it's dubious, Vitava, sorry. I saw it in a French lesson on epistolary literature on "Académie de Versaille"'s website. here, search for "Andulka". On that site, it is dated "Lundi 13.8.79" I assumed the date and content were correct, but of course this isn't what is considered a reliable source at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian language query: Dolgozók vs Munkás

What would be the difference in generic meaning between Magyar Dolgozók Pártja and Magyarországi Munkáspárt? At present one is at Hungarian Workers Party and one at Hungarian Labour Party, but I think that difference might be rather arbitrary. Perhaps one should be 'Toilers' or 'of Labour'. Also, whats the difference between Magyar and Magyarországi? --Soman (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This should be on the Language Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Shifted there now. --Soman (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Authenticity of a history doctrate

I'm aware of my ex brother in law referring to himself as a 'doctor' of history.Is it possible to find out whether this is a genuine qualification?

Probably. Whether university documents would be public access info depends from country you live in. The easiest is probably to call up the historical faculty of the university in question. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A doctorate in history is a Ph.D. in history. Call up the department or university and they'll tell you, it's all on records. Depending on the university it might eve be online, as dissertations are usually listed in their library catalogues. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that you have to publish your doctorate dissertation. If this holds true, you could just search for this publication.--Mr.K. (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

UMI indexes and sells copies of almost all doctoral dissertations submitted to U.S. institutions... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Or anyone with access to ProQuest could look it up. But again, you almost always have one in the home institution library system, which is an easier way than trying to look up the dissertation itself if you don't have easy access to tools that do that. (Academics do, but most other people don't.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to publish your dissertation, but most people re-work it into a book or break it up into a bunch of articles. Otherwise you just waste a lot of time and money! (People sometimes disown their embarrassing BA or MA dissertations but for a PhD it's harder to get away with writing a bunch of crap.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard a person with a Ph.D. in X say, "I'm a doctor of X". Are you sure he didn't say he was "a student of history"? --Sean 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with weasels?

And please don´t point me to How to Win Friends and Influence People, since I don´t want to make friends.--Mr.K. (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Stock up on horned owls, martens and wolves. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you can badger them or rat them out. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget about the "influence people" part. What precisely is the issue and what exactly do you want to accomplish ? StuRat (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't want to win friends, but give their spin doctor the sack, there's the spin-spotting tool, weasel words. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

First make sure it's a weasel you're dealing with, not a stoat. It's easy to tell them apart. A weasel is weasily wecognised, while a stoat is stoatally different. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are weasels. Making "innocent" comments that serve no other purpose than to cause discomfort to someone, believing that they are much more competent than others, watching for mistakes of others, remembering everybody of said mistakes, selectively perceiving and questioning, and more, much more... The only useful advice -when the relationship is between co-workers- that I received until now is making their strategy the topic of conversation in front of them, since they are acting as if everything is business-as-usual and they have normally a long list of enemies. As employer is probably better just to fire these people. Mr.K. (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a stoat to me Nil Einne (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a boss like that. Pretty much everyone who worked for him decided that avoidance was the best strategy. When we saw him coming we would all manage to be elsewhere. We all found that the less contact we had with him on a given day, the more we got done, and the better we felt. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Marriage in the New Testament Bible

Where does it say that marriage must be sanctified in the New Testament? If the Bible say marriage must be sanctified, does it mean people must go to CHURCH to get marry. Sonic99 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. The NT mentions the institution of marriage (see Christian views of marriage) but never specifies anything regarding the act of marriage. Our current concept of church marriages with liturgy was not developed in Europe until the 11th/12th centuries, but it was a while before they were universally adopted. Common law marriage was legally and religiously acceptable for quite some time (its legal status in England was abolished in the mid 18th Century, and lasted longer in Scotland, USA, and other countries). Gwinva (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In early Christian times, if weddings were connected with a church at all, they would be celeebrated at the church door (not inside the church), and marriage was not usually considered a sacrament... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In our era, marriage, in almost all cultures, is both a religious and a civil matter. In many of the so-called western cultures, the religious aspect is fading, except by way of the rituals involved, and it is only the legal aspect that matters. If the civil authority says you are married, then, for the purpose of all civil matters (laws on child support, taxation and the like), you are. Some religious authorities may not accept this as a marriage under their doctrine, however. If that matters to you, then you will likely have both civil and religious involvement. Marriages in the province of Ontario, for example, no matter how profoundly religious the celebrant, the place, the ritual and the vows, still require a marriage licence from the civil authority and take from the ceremony, as proof of the civil contract, a properly witnessed Certificate of Marriage. Sometimes the solely civil marrriage also has a ceremony with a non-religious celebrant, licensed by the civil authorities, officiating. In Ontario, even this much is not required as the concept of common-law marriage is alive and well, and all the laws that apply to those married by ceremony equally apply to those who have lived together for a minimum period of time and so declare themselves to be married. As far as I can tell, the only need for a marriage licence and subsequent marriage certificate would be for jurisdictions in which one might find oneself where common-law unions are not recognized, or for evidence in some estate or other legal matter should one partner no longer be living, (or to please your mother.) :-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

People didn't go to church in Old Testament times (to get married, or to do anything else), though some close enough to Jerusalem might have gone to the temple. Genesis 2:24 does say that a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife -- an odd statement, since Adam had no father or mother. Matthew 19:6 has Jesus deprecating divorce (permitted under Mosaic law), though five verses later he concedes that not everyone can accept this.

In Roman Catholicism, there's no requirement that a marriage occur in a particular place; the core of the sacrament is the mutual consent of the two parties -- the officiating priest is present as a witness for the church, but he doesn't marry the couple; they marry each other.

Many people conflate religious marriage with civil marriage, especially here in the States. In fact the state of Maryland couldn't care less what religious denomination you adhere to, so long as there's a qualified person who will attest that you and your partner met the requirements of the state. This person might a judge, a minister, a priest, a rabbi, and so on. Similarly, the archdiocese of Baltimore couldn't care less what's on the records of the state of Maryland; the archdiocese concerns itself with whether the two parties met the requirements of the church. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that last sentence: most dioceses won't marry you without a (civil) license, or begin proceedings for an annulment before there's a (civil) divorce. - Nunh-huh 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was only that the diocese isn't interested in the state's definition of marriage; you're right that the diocese follows procedural instructions for the state (e.g., signing the certificate and sending it in). If you get divorced in Maryland, you're no longer married in the state's eyes. This has no effect on the archdiocese and its marriage tribunal, who consider themselves experts on whether you're still married from the church's point of view (you are). A civil divorce is in no way a requirement for a Catholic annulment, particularly since the church doesn't recognize divorce; there are thousands if not tens of thousands of Catholics with civil divorces who cannot have their religious marriages annulled. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Annulment (Catholic Church) "An annulment from the Catholic Church is independent from obtaining a civil divorce, although before beginning a process before an Ecclesiastical Tribunal, it has to be clear that the marriage cannot be rebuilt." To me this sounds like commonly you'd need a civil divorce first otherwise the tribunal would not be convinced you aren't able to rebuild your marriage or may be concerned you aren't serious about the annulment if you haven't at least initiated the process for a civil divorce. This is supported by [19] in the US (well there is uncertainty about the reasons). Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

December 1

More Fops Please

After reading the above question regarding 'gay' stereotypes--and subsequently reading both Fop and Dandy

I'm thoroughly confuzzled! Both pages use Beau Brummell and the Scarlet Pimpernel as prime examples of their referent.

What, if anything, is the difference?192.136.22.4 (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is also Macaroni (fashion). As far as I remember (from reading a book about the Regency period, the title and author of which I forget...) there isn't really a difference except time period. Fop and dandy (and macaroni) are names for the same time of thing in different generations. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not gay, but extravagant-on-purpose were the Zoot suits and their wearers – see also Metrosexual, among others and Bling. What they seem to have in common is vanity, disposable income and an affinity with the city. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And believe it or not, we don't seem to have an article on the dark side of vanity, Pimp style, but mostly there's a touch of this[20] or this[21]. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Ehrenreich

Is that Barbara Ehrenreich on the cover of her book? Gridge (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

I don't think so. Her picture is on the back cover of that same book, in the lower left hand corner; long hair, different nose, slightly different facial proportions. The cover credit on my edition is "Gilles Peress/Magnum Photos" but does not identify the subject. Harrowing read, by the way. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Gridge (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

Senator's terms

On what day in January 2009 are the U.S. Senator's sworn in for their new terms of office? 24.29.246.224 (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

January 3 - which in 2009 will be a Saturday, I think; I believe unless it's on a Sunday, they are sworn in on that date.Somebody or his brother (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tousch

I've been doing some research into Alma Moodie for her article, and I came across the word "tousch", apparently meaning a kind of special acclamation at a concert, reserved only for the most worthy of performers. I'd never heard of "tousch", and all my searches have failed to come up with references to it. I've tried various spellings, but no luck. The exact context goes:

According to Reger’s wife Elsa, Reger sent Alma to Meiningen where he had indeed engaged her to play the Brahms concerto with the Meininger Hofkapelle on 9 December 1913. ... The same program was given at Eisenach on 6 December and Hildburgshausen [sic; it's spelled Hildburghausen] on 7 December. Now, her reception as a young prodigy virtuoso was unambiguously triumphant. At Meiningen, she wrote back to Louis D’Hage in Rockhampton, the members of the audience stood on their chairs and shouted ‘bravo’—this despite Reger’s warning that the audience was too aristocratic and the ladies too frightened of cracking their gloves to clap. Finally, the ‘tousch’ was given, a rare acclamation which, Moodie told D’Hage, had not been given since von Bülow’s time (thirty years earlier).

Any help anyone can give me with this would be much appreciated. Over to you. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I swear I've heard the word being used as an acclamation, but I can't remember where that was. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is the German term der [22] Tusch (I thought it to be onomatopoeic, but it stems from the French touche). This is basically a drum roll, but other instruments can be involved and is a marker for the audience that some highlight is about to happen / has just happened. A sort of orchestral exclamation mark. You may typically associate those with a circus performance when the band plays a Tusch at moments of some particularly tricky and spectacular points in an artistes performance. I have never heard it used in English, but this is a reference to a historic event in Germany, so it may have been used in the context. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The dictionaries I checked translate "Tusch" with fanfare or flourish. The German Wikipedia article on "Tusch" has interwikilinks to the English article on Sting (musical phrase) (but see also Sting (percussion)). I agree with Cookatoo, that a "Tusch" (in German) is usually one of two things:

• a drum roll, building tension and announcing a spectacular act which is marked by ending the drum roll with a loud BOOM TCHING on bass drum and cymbals. Typical for circus performances, as pointed out by Cookatoo.
• a short fanfare on brass instruments, usually bugle style (i.e. emphasizing tones in the harmonic series of a "natural" brass instrument). It can be very simple (e.g. an ascending triad ending in the octave note) or more complex, (for example Alfred Newman's 20th Century Fox's fanfare).

---Sluzzelin talk 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for those bits of information, folks. So, what could this mean in the context? She played her concerto, then they started clapping, then they stood on their seats and shouted 'bravo', then came the Tusch. She'd have been returning to the stage to acknowledge the applause, leaving, returning, leaving ... until she left and didn't seem to be coming back. This might have been the audience's cue to let her know that they weren't finished with her yet, and even louder noises were now called for. The audience drumming on the floor with their feet is the image I had when I read "drum roll". While it's certainly not an everyday occurrence at the concerts I go to, I don't think I'd call it "rare". But times and manners vary; if the ladies at Meiningen were terribly conservative and stuffy by the standards of today (or even of those days, going on Reger's crack-glove comment), then a 30-year gap between occasions of audience drumming might well happen. So, I'm interpreting the Tusch as audience noise. Is this reasonable? Or could it mean that she'd signalled to the conductor that she was coming back to perform an encore, and he decided an appropriate introduction was called for under the circumstances, so he got the drums and trumpets to herald Alma in with a fanfare, drum roll and cymbal clash? He wouldn't have done this on any old occasion (I've never encountered it), so he must have had a special reason to do this. Exceptional levels of audience applause would be such a reason. What I'm trying to get at is: was the Tusch a statement by the audience, or by the orchestra, or both? Or is there not enough information to be sure? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that too. I have never heard Tusch (remember I'm always talking about the German word used in German, not "Tousch" used in English) used for audience behavior. Nor could I find anything in German music dictionaries or online. The Tusch can trigger audience behavior by signalizing "applause!" to the audience (as in the circus). I'm leaning toward your last interpretation (conductor deciding to give the orchestra a cue for performing a Tusch much to the audience's excitement). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How do I demonstrate that animals do not have religion

How do I demonstrate that ( schools of )dolphins do not have religion and cannot form religious cults? 122.107.203.230 (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While not answering your question, it's possible whales do form religious cults. They seem to commit mass suicide an awful lot. Also a lot of cats thing they're God Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The first step is to define "religion" and "religious cult". --Tango (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You could ask the IRS if they have any dolphin religions registered[23]. This article[24] discusses the concept of what is a religion in US law. James Madison called religion "the duty which we owe to our creator, and the manner of discharging it", which is rather vague. There is some question in US law of whether religion requires a belief in God, but in 1965 in United States v. Seeger the Supreme Court suggested a religion is "a given belief that is sincere and meaningful [and] occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God". This would seem to suggest both belief and practice are involved (so it's not merely taking your dog to church, your dog must have some beliefs about god, morality, eschatology, transcendence, or similar). Philospher Daniel Dennett thinks animals have beliefs at least in some minimal sense.[25] Therefore it would appear hard to show that animals do not have religion, if they are capable of both belief and religious practice. Of course, the definition under US law is only one definition of religion, and you might say that a dog's relationship with his or her owner is analogous to that of a human being with God. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the most common features associated with religion in humans is elaborate death rituals. That is, instead of simply discarding their dead, a formal burial, cremation, etc., is often performed. The problem is, I don't see how this would be possible for dolphins. Perhaps if they always beached their dead on a particular beach, that might qualify. StuRat (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That still leaves the problem of definition, unfortunately. After all, non-religious humans also take part in elaborate death rituals. Algebraist 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that the elaborate death rituals of religious humans have rubbed off on those who aren't. If no humans were religious, I'd imagine human body disposal would be much simpler and based mainly on hygiene requirements. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Elephants surround and seem to comfort each other as they die.[26] Anyone know about dolphins? Maybe whale mass-beachings?

Whale beachings mainly seem to cause death, not be the result of death. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Prophets for profit

Isn't the tax-free status of churches in the US incompatible with the separation of church and state ? That is, if churches enjoy the benefits of taxes, like roads to bring their flocks in to be shorn, without paying their portion for those benefits, doesn't that amount to a state-sanctioned subsidy for the church ? StuRat (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Establishment Clause of the First Amendment#Financial assistance? Algebraist 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Walz v. tax commission of the city of New York seems to be the most relevant Supreme Court case. Algebraist 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems quite relevant, but also quite long. Do we have a summary ? StuRat (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia article as yet. Google has some summaries, such as this. Algebraist 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: the section header -- Due to a settlement document signed by the IRS to end an IRS-Scientology legal battle, Scientology gets special extra tax breaks which no other religion is entitled to (see [27]). AnonMoos (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Librarian looking to help

How does one get involved as a volunteer on the reference desk?LibraryPix (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to questions when you've got an answer. That's it, really. The reference desk follows the general wiki principle of collaboration; anyone with something to contribute is free to do so. For more detail, there's Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You could also contribute to the rules, by letting us know what a real Reference Desk (in a library) does in the following situations:

1) When asked to give a medical diagnosis, legal opinion, or other professional advice.

2) When asked a matter of opinion.

3) When asked something you know the answer to personally but can't find a source to verify (AKA, "original research"). StuRat (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Ref Desk. Whenever I've asked a Real Life Reference Librarian for help responding to a question here, I have been very favorably impressed. Here we often just go with references which are available free online, You have acess to lots more online databases, such as Proquest and other premium databases. You also have many expensive reference books readily available. I look forward to your input. Edison (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To permanately end terrorism by Extremists

What would need to happen in order to end terrorism by Muslim extremists from the Middle East and Asia, short of completely annihilating the USA? What exactly are they after?--Emyn ned (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Killing the enemy will not end violence. A new enemy will be chosen. The only way to end war of any kind is to kill all humans. Then, we only need to be concerned with minor scuffles between animals and insects - especially ants. Those little buggers really get into violent encounters. Honestly, if you want to have a rather enjoyable read on this topic, try TH White's The Once and Future King. Much of the book is spent trying to figure out what to do with an army (or a few knights) when they aren't needed for combat anymore. -- kainaw™ 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that they should be killed. I was thinking, if we (USA, Europe) gave them what they want or met their demands, what would they be? Also, how will it change our world? --Emyn ned (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Power? The thrill of violence? The religious reasons given are generally just excuses, as is made obvious by the fact that the vast majority of Muslims don't support terrorism. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You are placing logic in a completely illogical situation. There are no demands that must be met. If anyone were to meet any demands, there would be new demands. If everyone we consider a terrorist were killed, there would be new terrorists. Humans fight just to fight. There is no logic. Just look at the justifications for fighting - they never make sense. So, as I said, the only way to stop the fighting is to kill all humans (not just the terrorists, all humans). -- kainaw™ 16:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an overly simplistic explanation, if not completely wrong. As they say, war is a continuation of politics by other means and terrorism is no different. Virtually all terrorists groups have political goals. Whether it's the PLO trying to establish a Palestinian state or the IRA trying to win independence from Great Britain or Christian terrorists trying to stop abortion, it's all about politics. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. Thanks for answering. --Emyn ned (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Islamic terrorists aren't a homogeneous population. Different groups have different agendas, some of which are contradictory. Just look at Iraq where you have Sunni terrorists fighting Shiite terrorists. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with attempting to claim that the members of a terrorist group (or any group that participates in violence) have an agenda is that the members usually do not have an agenda. They are just there to fight. If the leaders with their agenda go away, the fighters will join some other group so they can keep fighting. Due to an unfounded belief that humans are somehow special, people have always tried to claim that war (of any kind) is caused by something that can be fixed. The simpler explanation is that war is a common result of humans being alive. Not all humans participate in war, but humans naturally divide themselves into groups and humans naturally see the world as a zero-sum game. So, the groups naturally fight. Try to find a single year in the history of humans in which there wasn't combat going on somewhere in the world. It hasn't ever happened. There are always people looking to fight and always somewhere for them to fight. -- kainaw™ 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think you can get a suicide bomber to strap a bomb to his chest unless he believes that he was dying for a greater cause. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

They do it "for the greater glory of Allah" or similar, not for some real world cause - it's simple religious indoctrination. --Tango (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion is a factor, but it really isn't that simple. There are other motives. A good movie to watch about this is Paradise Now. Wrad (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw, you can't seriously believe that things can never improve from where they are now. Things are much better right now in some parts of the world than in others. If we could just reduce the rate of terrorism (and hunger, and disease...) in the rest of the world to the rate in, say, western Europe, it would be an enormous improvement. There's evidently no barrier to that in human nature. Educate people, raise their standard of living, and they'll stop killing each other. The evidence is everywhere. And what's this about "an unfounded belief that humans are somehow special"? Humans are obviously special, among extant species, in all kinds of ways. You seem to be saying that we'll never be rid of war because humans are just like other animals, but not many animal species wage war in the first place. (Single combat, sure, but that's not at all what we're talking about here.) -- BenRG (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of terrorists are from western Europe. They often go to training camps in Pakistan, and similar, but they are frequently citizens of the countries they are bombing. --Tango (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is opportunity. Terrorism, as it is referred to now, cannot end. It's been around since before the establishment of the USA. But, if opportunity is spread, the numbers of volunteers will fall. This happened in Northern Ireland and I think it serves as a good example (albeit a small one) of conflict resolution. There are still a small number of Irish Republicans (estimated at around 100) still targeting police officers and the Loyalists aren't very active either. The large majority of the general public (>90%) refuse to support any form of political violence there. This was not the case twenty years ago. Removing volunteers requires the removal of public support, which is small in the Islamic world but high in certain areas where the terrorists are strongest. Support can be removed by creating opportunity through investment and non-partisan media controlling the airways. How this can be done is anybody's guess. Donek (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, terrorists exist because there is nothing else to do that provides the same acceptance. Many of them come from countries or areas where there are few economic opportunities and where terrorists are glorified by the public. People want to be accepted, if you have no job and your life seems to have no future, you will obviously be more easily persuaded to blow yourself up for some cause. Wrad (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To end hunger all over the world..

Hypothetically, say the USA alone decided that it will end world hunger right now, all by itself and it had unlimited funding (also pretend that the worldwide credit/mortgage crisis didn't happen). What would USA do first? How will it attack this? What will need to happen? And, after every impoverished country has the food, resources and knowledge to feed itself, how will this benefit the USA in the short and long run? --Emyn ned (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

By your last two questions, it appears that you have mistaken this reference desk as a discussion forum. This is not a forum to discuss topics. This is a place to get references. If you want a reference on a specific topic, please ask. If you want to discuss hypothetical situations, please use one of the millions of discussion forums available on the internet. -- kainaw™ 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to "discuss" this. I want to know exactly what has to happen in order to end world hunger. Assuming my teacher is right, we have the resources (USA, Europe) to do this. But when I asked him, "OK, How?", he had no answer. Aside from politcal and other hurdles, what is the first thing to do? --Emyn ned (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As Tango says below, it is a problem with warlords, terrorists, corrupt governments, etc... It is not a problem with food production. How do you get rid of all warlords, terrorists, and corrupt politicians? Kill all humans. If there are just two humans left, at least one will try to steal from the other (but I suspect they'll steal from each other). -- kainaw™ 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of food in the world, the problem is getting it to where it is needed, which is a political problem. There is no obvious solution - invading the whole world and putting it under a totalitarian regime that ensures food gets to the right places would work, but I doubt it's a very popular solution. A less drastic form of world government might also work, but it's rather difficult to implement such a plan. --Tango (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so all political issues aside worldwide, hypothetically. If there were no poltical issues whatsoever (which I know is impossible), what would be the first logical step in order to end world hunger? Ship extra food to the impoverished countries or send seeds and farm equipment? And once this is all done, I wonder how the world would change specifically? --Emyn ned (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If there were no political problems, there would be no mass hunger. The free market would probably do the job just fine (there may be a need for food aid sent to some of the absolute poorest, but most would be able to buy food if it weren't for political problems in their country). --Tango (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems quite optimistic. While it is certainly true that food shortages are often connected with political corruption or unwise government policies, there are many other factors, economic ones being at the fore, and I wouldn't rely on the free market to address these. Warofdreams talk 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If there was one peaceful world gov, the next step after distributing food would be to distribute birth control and/or embark on a massive sterilization program to prevent the third world population, no longer limited by starvation, disease, and war, from increasing to the point where even the world gov couldn't feed them any more. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Let us start with a really simple one before we get to the more complex global problems:
Hypothetically, say the USA alone decided that it will end injustice in the Iraq right now, all by itself and it had unlimited funding. What would USA do first? How will it attack this? What will need to happen? And, after this dictatorial country has the food, resources and knowledge to free itself, how will this benefit the USA in the short and long run?
Having solved this in a jiffy, we (or rather, you, God´s own country) may now proceed to problem 2: world hunger. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not just political, there are physical constraints which are putting up food prices beyond the reach of the poor. Modern agriculture depends on the energy from cheap oil and also a water supply, which is another problem. Farming the moon under an artificial environment, using a solar powered electromagnetic railgun to transfer the food to Earth and parachuting the food to ground where it is required would be one solution. The water could be obtained from comets. Once nuclear fusion works, massive quantities of seawater could be desalinated and return desert areas to agriculture, though this could be done with solar energy. But with fusion multi-story underground buildings with solar lamps could supply indefinite amounts of food, given virtually free energy. Later, replicator nanotechnology could produce food efficiently from dirt-but energy is the bottom line in food production, because indirectly we all rely on pure energy from the sun-until a sun can be created on earth. One other method would be to redirect rivers to desert areas across national boundaries, but whilst it might be politically acceptable for Canada to divert some of its massive water resources to the United States, It is less likely that Europe or Russia would do this for hostile Islamic states on its Southern border, though a big enough food crisis might make this situation viable.Trevor Loughlin (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

E.coli

Can anyone come up with a good estimate for the worldwide market size for diagnostic products for E. coli detection? Donek (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That would depend entirely on the product and cost. If you had a one cent strip you could stick in any suspect food, and the color would tell you instantly if it's infected with E. coli, then you could sell maybe 100 billion such strips a year. If you're talking about a $1,000,000 E. coli diagnostic machine, then there may not be any market for it at all. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the strip you refer to exists but I take your point. It's pretty cheap and easy to use. I'm not looking for possible sales of a particular product, just the current market for cheap diagnostic products. Donek (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Chadian City

Apparently there's a Chadian city named Saigon. However, the only reference I can find about this locale is on maps. Does this place exist in real life or only in the mapmakers' imagination? DHN (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect there are a LOT Of places in Chad which you can't find anything about on the internet. The fact that it has the name Saigon may seem to make people more likely to talk about it but then again, there's no Saigon anywhere else now so it's not so interesting as it may have been Nil Einne (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

N.B. Some things say Saigon, Biltine. If they mean Biltine Prefecture that doesn't exist anymore. So who knows if Saigon in Chad still exists either? It's possible they mean Biltine Department but that's bit odd since you'd normal specify the region I presume. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the apparent irrigation canals there in the satellite view [28], I'd say it's a small farming community. And, judging by the name, I'd guess it was settled by Vietnamese fleeing the Vietnam War. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Article translation database

Is there a database of translations of articles? (Like "Index Translationum" does for books.)66.245.141.147 (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What kind of articles do you mean? Wikipedia articles? There is a list of version in other languages on the left hand side of every article. --Tango (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Versions as in not direct or cross-translations – you might find some are more brief, less developed or more developed than the English equivalent. Still useful though, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Resources on Gorky and God Building

Are there any good books/websites which give infomration about Gorky and Godbuilding? I have read that embalming Lenin was part of an attempt to resurrect him and others at some future date. Particularly in what Zizek calls mystical Marxist pantheism. ""bio-cosmism," the strange combination of vulgar materialism and Gnostic spirituality which formed occult shadow-ideology, the obscene secret teaching, of the Soviet Marxism. Repressed out of the public sight in the central period of the Soviet state, bio-cosmism was openly propagated only in the first and in the last two decades of the Soviet rule; its main theses are: the goals of religion (collective paradise, overcoming of all suffering, full individual immortality, resurrection of the dead, victory over time and death, conquest of space far beyond the solar system) can be realized in terrestrial life through the development of modern science and technology. In the future, not only will sexual difference be abolished, with the rise of chaste post-humans reproducing themselves through direct bio-technical reproduction; it will also be possible to resurrect all the dead of the past (establishing their biological formula through their remains and then re-engendering them - at that time, DNA was not yet known...), thus even erasing all past injustices, "undoing" past suffering and destruction. In this bright bio-political Communist future, not only humans, but also animals, all living being, will participate in a directly collectivized Reason of the cosmos... Whatever one can hold against Lenin's ruthless critique of Maxim Gorky's the "construction of God (bogograditelk'stvo)," the direct deification of man, one should bear in mind that Gorky himself collaborated with bio-cosmists. It is interesting to note resemblances between this "bio-cosmism" and today's techno-gnosis. - " --Gary123 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2

Poster in the West Wing (TV serial)

In the TV serial The West Wing, the character Toby Ziegler has a poster in his office (at least the first season) which looks lika a reproduction of an art print [29]. Does somebody know who the artist is? I have posted this question in the Entertainment Reference desk, but nobody knew the answer. /B****n (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Boer War diaries

Question moved from the midst of the hunger question and given its own heading. Gwinva (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Did Francis Jeune who was the Judge Advocate General during the second Anglo-Boer War, or his deputy, left/wrote a bookor a diary about it? Did Sir Robert Finaly or/and Sir Edward Carson who were both the Solicitor General of the Crown and part of the Law Officers of the Crown (gave legal advises to the Cabinet and to the government)at the time of the Second Anglo-Boer War, wrote books or left diary on that time?

Oded89.138.121.145 (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous Australian population

Is there a site where I could find in-depth statistics about Indigenous Australian population from 1788 to present?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.107.151 (talk • contribs)

Strangely enough, we have LOTS of articles on Indigenous Australians. That's probably a good launching point. If you dig deep from there, and follow the sub articles and/or references from that maun article, you will likely find what you are looking for. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1)Spritual Dimension of YOGA? 2)Yogic concept of human body? 3)Mental health for better living through Yoga? 4)Application of yoga in Education?GEENA SAJITH (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)