Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 3

Unknown German Currency

I am not exactly sure what this currency is, and what value it would have today. It appears to be German. dlempa (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer the first part of your question, a very similar note (with the same value) is the example image at the top of the German gold mark article. Warofdreams talk 03:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the exact same sort of note, but the watermark is more pronounced in the gold mark one. (And the names are different on the 1914 one). The "unknown" one says it was issued in Berlin, 1908. They sell on eBay for around $5. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering it says "Zwanzig Mark" in giant letters across the front, it looks like a Twenty Mark note from 1908. As far as what twenty 1908 marks would be worth in modern currency, I have no clue. But in 1908, it would have been worth twenty marks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

While the German gold mark was officially equivalent to gold at the rate of 2790 Mark = 1 kilogram gold (20 Mark = 7.1685 g ~= 145 euro at the current ~20.30 euro/gram), I doubt any bank would honor the promise to pay gold made by Bismark's German Empire. I'm unclear as to the legal differentiation between the gold mark and the 1914's Papiermark (I think they are equivalent, absent gold backing), but the German Papiermark went through hyperinflation in 1922-1923. In 1923 the Papiermark was replaced by the German Rentenmark at a rate of 1 Rentenmark = 10¹² (one billion) Papiermark. The Rentenmark was soon replaced by the German Reichsmark at a 1:1 ratio. After WWII, the Reichsmark was replaced by the Deutsche Mark with a sliding scale. I believe cash was set at 1:1. In 1999, the Mark was exchanged for the euro at ~ 2 marks = 1 euro. With the switch to euros, marks ceased to be legal tender, but coins and banknotes valid in 1999 can still be exchanged for euros at central banks. If one was to exchange the 20 gold mark note at a central bank at official exchange rates (assuming a 1908 Gold Mark was valued the same as a 1923 Papiermark, and 1908 marks haven't been voided in all the currency switches), you'd only be able to get 0.000 000 000 01 euros for it. I highly suspect it's more valuable as a collectors item than as official currency. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the help, I looked around for it but couldn't find anything. dlempa (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Time zone

1. If you were standing on the boundary of two time zones, what time would it be for you?

2. Since the poles are where all the time zones meet, what time would it be there?

60.230.124.64 (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is convenient. See also: North_Pole#Time--Shahab (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be both. Or to put it another way, there is only one time at any particular moment but many names for it. E.g. right now it is approx. 12:30am EST, but also 9:30pm PST, 6:30am CET, and 5:30am UTC. I'm on the east coast of the U.S., so if asked what time it is I would answer 12:25am with the EST being understood. In places where there is no local convention (such as at normally uninhabited places) you'll have to be more specific. It all depends on context. If you're in Antarctica at a U.S. research station, you'll use a time coordinated with someplace in the U.S. If you trek over to the nearby Norwegian station, they might use a completely different time zone. —D. Monack ^talk 05:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All time is conventional, even the division of the day into twenty-four hours. Time zones simply keep everyone on the same track, so that starting times, etc. can be coordinated. In medieval monasteries this was done locally with a bell. Days were divided into the same number of hours, winter or summer: summer hours were short, winter night hours long. Precise times became important for ordinary folk with the creation of railroad schedules in the 1830s. And are you sure that time flows evenly, that it doesn't actually arrive in extremely small packets?--Wetman (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've entertained this question in the past myself. Like what if you were standing on the boundary between PST and Mountain Time in Oregon? See this map that illustrates the USA's time zones. I understand that the concept of time is of course just based on the local consensus, but in a "what if" situation, it is entertaining to wonder about. Killiondude (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Amateur pornography and 2257

Wouldn't the 2257 law make amateur pornography illegal to distribute, at least in theory, in the United States? This is not a request for actual legal advice; it's just a general question as to what the reality is.--Veritable's Morgans Board (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. 2257 § 75.1 (c)(4) lays out some exemptions for the requirement to carry the records. A website that allows users to share content is not required to carry records if it "does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service." This would allow a loophole for posting amateur pornography without records. Note, however, that a lot of so-called "amateur" pornography is actually produced professionally with the performers acting as if they were amateurs. The producers of this kind of "amateur" pornography often keep records anyway.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 19:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How can I stop the use of RFID tags?

RFID tags are evil. How do we stop them from being abused by the powers that be?--Veritable's Morgans Board (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Aluminum foil. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't buy any products so-tagged ? If enough people did this, they would no longer be used. But why do you think they are evil ? Radio wave exposure ? Or are you talking about people being tagged ? StuRat (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RFIDs aren't "evil" at all - they're incredibly useful. It seems you've been listening to Slashdot and the like, the glittering anus from which all nonsense flows. Like any useful tool, RFID is subject to abuse. A knife can kill you, or can be used by a doctor to save your life; RFID is just like that. Used without care RFID can turn into a universal tracking token, a veritable mark of Cain which ties you to your inevitable doom. But used wisely it's a great boon; rather than "ban the evil technology", the smart thing to do is to control and use this to our benefit, without cowering in fear of anything that has electricity in it. RFID has some great uses:

• You need surgery. All the instruments and swabs and garments used in your operation have RFIDs in them, so the theatre nurse can make sure all the stuff that went into the theatre comes out (that they're not sewing a gauze bandage or a cotton swab into your bloody innards, as happens all too often). If it wasn't for the "evil" RFID, the nurse might miscount, leave a swab inside you, and you're dead two days later from a massive infection.
• All the workers in the chemical plant have an RFID in their ID badge. When they move from one sector to another a detector records this. When the plant goes on fire, the fire department want to know into which inferno they need to send the firefighters. The RFID based system tells them which, and which not. If it wasn't for the "evil" RFID a firefighter would have to go into each area, and risk dying to rescue someone who wasn't even there.
• You operate a warehouse for forensic samples for the DHPD. The samples to do with a rape case are missing - they're somewhere in the giant (and packed full) evidence room. If you can't find them by tomorrow the case will fail, and the rapist will go free to attack again. But some jackass has filed the samples in the wrong place. Even if you stay all night, searching one bay at a time, you'll probably not find them in time. But all the sample packets have RFIDs on them, so you can set your RFID wand to search for a given tag, and then wand a given bay in a few seconds. This way you can wand the hundreds of bays in an hour or two, and find the misfiled packet. If it wasn't for the "evil" RFID, the rapist would go free.

Now you've read on Slashdot, or Digg, or Reddit, or Fark, that RFIDs are evil, and if you buy anything with one in it you'll be forever owned by the man. Nah. In the worst case, you buy a cheap RFID reader, wand your stuff, and cut or pull out the RFID. There aren't magic RFIDs that only some bad nasty man who wants to hurt you can read, but that you can't. They're just little blobs that return a serial number when you zap them with some radio waves. There's no reason to be scared. -- 87.112.6.240 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You say "There aren't magic RFIDs that only some bad nasty man who wants to hurt you can read, but that you can't. ", but that's not entirely true. Some RFIDs are encrypted. (Passports) Others are not true RFIDs, but non-standard tags based on similar technology. (some Pet ID tags). In the first case you can 'read' the tag, but you cannot decode it. In the second case you need specialized, expensive, hardware to even read the tag. To say that anyone can read any tag is simplistic and deceptive. APL (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They're not intrinsically good or evil. The people on slashdot would be concerned by the security and civil rights implications, there's enough people around without any security mindset who can think of ways of making money or doing something useful. For instance a person wthout the security mindset thinks aha an RFID on a passport would make it easy to scan people through the airport and check who they are. A person with the security mindset thinks aha I can easily read people details at the airport and ransack their houses while they're out of the country or impersonate them and get through the lazy security without decent checks. As to civil rights I live in a country where an old age pensioner can be arrested as a terrorist for heckling at a party conference, how much power do you want your government to have over you? Dmcq (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One use of RFIDs that people are particularly uncomfortable with is the new tagged passports. (I got my passport during the transition period and was happy to get one of the old ones. The new ones are ugly, anyway.) There are various sites on the internet that will give you all sorts of ways to disable the tag. Do a google search. I'm sure this isn't entirely legal, but you sound like you're up for it.

In general, though RFIDs are used pretty much the same way bar-codes are used. In the future they'll probably mostly replace barcodes and no one will much care. APL (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Smith's influence on Kant

I’m interested in the (possible) influence Adam Smith’s works had on Immanuel Kant. I’ve read many articles drawing parallels between both, but none where Kant's writing have formally and concretely shown to have been influenced by and drawn reference to either the Theory of Moral Sentiments or the Wealth of Nations. Given that both were contemporaries and leading Enlightenment figures, I find it not implausible that Smith influenced Kant; indeed Wealth of Nations was translated into German within a year of its English publication. Kant was no economist but even so I wonder if there are traceable references in some parts of his work to core Smithian topics, e.g., division of labor, open, decentralized markets; good governance etc alongside more familiar alongside philosophical references. Can anyone help? Many thanks - and happy New Year.87.155.40.140 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In the fall of 1988 I taught a course on eighteenth-century moral sentiment theory that ended with a brief consideration of Adam Smith's Theory of the Moral Sentiments. I was struck by the way much of it seemed to look forward to Kant and, after teaching Kant's moral philosophy in the spring of 1989, pursued the possibility of a link between these two thinkers over the summer. To my delight, I discovered both that Kant had in fact read Smith and that this connection had never been made the subject of thorough scholarly study. I developed the connection in an article published by Kant-Studien in 1991.

from Samuel Fleischacker's preface to A Third Concept of Liberty: Judgment and Freedom in Kant and Adam Smith OCLC 59381978.—eric 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fleischacker, Samuel. (1991) "Philosophy and Moral Practice: Kant and Adam Smith," Kant-Studien.
• (Autumn 1996) "Values Behind the Market: Kant's Response to the Wealth of Nations," History of Political Thought.

Chopin Nocturne in F minor in a film

I have searched on google to find this but couldn't come up with anything myself. I was playing this Nocturne ( http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/6/6c/IMSLP00467-Chopin_-_2_Nocturnes__Op_55.pdf - the first nocturne) before and was wondering if anyone knew of any films it was on the soundtrack of. I also tried searching IMDB but their search system isn't the best for finding soundtrack info. Thanks --82.27.103.79 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I googled on 'Chopin nocturne "F minor" 15 movie site:imdb.com', and wound up here at IMDB's Chopin page. It seems they treat him as a songwriter like any other. A <CTL-F> search on that page for 'nocturne' got me Mockingbird Don't Sing and The Peacemaker. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

January 4

I want to know about the B.Ed in India

I want to know about the B.Ed in India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.48.84 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What about it do you want to know?--Shahab (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain what "B.Ed" means, but maybe see "Education in India". --Milkbreath (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would expect it to mean a bachelor's degree in education. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Hamas

Why do Hezbollah and Hamas don´t fight Israel simultaneously? Both are much weaker but fighting together they could perhaps do some serious damage. (I am not saying that they should attack Israel, I am only asking about the logic of their strategy).--Mr.K. (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of reasons, outlined nicely in this recent news article. Basically Hezbollah lack resources after the 2006 conflict and also the Lebanese army now has a presence in southern Lebanon (Hezbollah's turf). Fribbler (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The branches of Hamas can't even fight Israel simultaneously. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, terrorist groups, which, almost by definition, believe in killing anyone with whom they disagree, have trouble cooperating with each other, even when they have common goals (such a group of civilians both want to massacre). StuRat (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the goals of terrorist and methods groups are usually a lot more subtle then that, including in the case of Hezbollah and Hamas. I won't say more but this is covered a lot in the web and even our articles should provide some detail. Terrorists groups can and do cooperate in variety of ways. The IRA for example has cooperated with some Palestinians groups in the past. Again described in many places although be wary because some people use this to try and just group all groups together as evil without any distinction or analysis of their goals, methods and nature and often set out with the sole purpose of doing so. These are of course usually more cases of mutual benefit then any desire for some sort of shared outcome but they happen nevertheless. This sort of thing is of course hardly uncommon, Israeli cooperated with apartheid South Africa in numerous ways in the past (See Israel–South Africa relations). It's really not surprising that two groups in similar situations will cooperate if it will benefit them both particularly when both can find few others to help them Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ethnic backgrounds

It seems like some are hung up on ethnic backgrounds and they seem to appear for no apparent reason. Case in point. Go to the page of Kim Kardashian and all of a sudden you see Armenian, Scottish, Dutch roots. If you go to the father's (Robert) page, all you see is "Kardashian was born to a prosperous American couple in Los Angeles". Mom? "Kristen Mary Houghton (born November 5, 1955) is an American television personality and socialite." Can someone explain how the child of 2 American parents, born of American parents in the U.S. can suddenly be "Armenian, Scottish, Dutch" when the parents aren't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckobrien (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The source given for "prosperous American couple" actually says "Armenian-American couple." You should discuss this on the Kim or Robert Kardashian talk page, the reference desk is not really the appropriate place. (Though, as with anything to do with Armenians or Turks on Wikipedia, I would have slim hopes for any progress being made.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hung up" is your opinion, apparently, but here in the U.S. it's common for people to identify with the national origins of their ancestors several generations back. Some retain the use of languages other than English (Finns in Hancock, Michigan, for example); others simply remember and celebrate roots, particularly in places that were enclaves (as Hamtramck, Michigan has been for Polish-Americans). So someone saying "I'm Armenian" is often saying "(some of) my grandparents (or other ancestors) came from Armenia." Not everyone does this, but it's not at all unusual. Just as everybody's gotta be someplace, everybody's ancestors gotta be from someplace. --- OtherDave (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it always comes up eventually. In fact, "what are you?" is not even a rude question hereabouts (southern New Jersey). It's just interesting, that's all, especially the incongruous ones like "My father is Russian, and my mother is Cherokee Indian." Or, "I'm Italian and Swedish." (Me, I'm Slovene, German, French, English, and Irish.) --Milkbreath (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian is in showbiz and her father (joking aside) wasn't; perhaps you should be asking why showbiz journalism is so eager to analyze its subjects' ancestry. I would guess (knowing of her only what I see in WP) that her looks are important to her job, and ethnic ancestry does make a difference in that department. —Tamfang (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the "-ian" suffix of names such as Kardashian is known by many people to often occur in Armenian names, so some would assume that she has an Armenian paternal line based just on the name alone... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The source I used for the "prosperous American couple"quote is the Wiki page, just as is. Yes, hung up is my opinion, obviously, but when people ask me"what I am", I tell them American cause that's what I am, born and raised here. Yes, my grandparents came from Ireland, Italy, Germany but I don't introduce myself as an Irish-Italian-German American. IMHO, that's dumb. Technically the only ones who can be hyphenated Americans are the recently arrived immigrants. Once born here, sorry, it's all pc. And that ain't me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckobrien (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but I meant the source given in the Wikipedia article, which actually says "Armenian-American." Click the little "1" and it will take you to the footnotes where there is an external link. Our article itself says American for whatever reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that you might be hung up on avoiding references to ethnic roots? What is the source of this technicality by which only recently arrived immigrants can use a given label? Since Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of speech, it shouldn't surprise you to find Irish Americans, Russian Americans, Armenian Americans, or people who acknowledge and highlight virtually any national or ethnic origin. Using a stricter standard, many individuals born in the U.S. nevertheless hold citizenship in other countries, despite how politically correct you might find that fact. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

An O'Brien surely has great difficulty in hiding Irish roots. --Nricardo (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I know one who's Swedish by birth. —Tamfang (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I am not clicking an external link, I am taking for granted what is written on the page. if the source is otherwise, it should be mentioned as such, not as a footnote.I don't want to waste the time clicking on little numbers-they seem to hide something of the truth. Why can't it all be quoted as truth in advertising?

2. Being hung up on avoiding ethnic roots, it's a new thing to which I doesn't subscribe. 40 yrs ago, didn't exist but we all got along together. It's linguistic. A ***-American is someone who came off the boat from another country, as did my grandparents. The offspring of such people are Americans---that means NATIONALITY---where they wuz born. If you be one, your passport saiz you is American ('Merican, in the words of LBJ). Hyphenationizm is a pc critter, not a reality. It's like asking your gender. Hello, gender is a grammatical term for nouns in those languages that differentiate between masculine and feminine (or neuter),like the Romance and Germanic languages. A human is distinguished by SEX. Or are we back in the Victorian era? 3. Being an O'Brien, I am proud of my roots, as with my Italian side. Both are great cooks and drinkers. But I don't hold my roots badge on my heart. I am a fucking proud AMERICAN. If someone asks me about my predilections regarding food and drink, yes, I start out with the background. However, it ain't the total picture. My best dishes, after Italian, are Spanish. 4. Dual citizenship is granted when one of several instances are met- born in another country, parents of 2 countries, etc. Don't see what freedom of speech has to do here, it's a common fact. Lots of love to all. Chuck

Do you have anything for the refdesk there, or are you just here to rant? Algebraist 02:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In any event, you're confusing ethnicity with citizenship. They're very different things. There may one day be such an ethnic group as "American", but that isn't the case at the present time. All American citizens belong to one or more ethnic groups, none of which is American. Yes, it's not the first thing you generally mention about yourself when you meet someone, but in certain contexts, such as encyclopedia entries, it's relevant information about a person. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the article in question doesn't say she is Armenian, Scottish or whatever; it currently says (ungrammatically) Of Armenian (father) with Scottish roots, Dutch and Scottish (mother) descent ... It doesn't even say whether she's as proud of those roots as Chuck is of his. —Tamfang (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not here to rant, I asked what I thought was a valid question regarding nothing of ethnicities in the parents and the mention thereof in the offspring. I am only answering questions addressed to me. Regarding "ethnicity with citizenship"... citizenship, in the old term, means comportment. There used to be a class in citizenship. As I mentioned above, it's nationality (not citizenship) or ethnicity. If born in the US, your nationality is American. Your citizenship may suck, but you are an American. Ethnicity equates to cultural background of ancestors. I don't mean to rant, but I feel I can answer questions directed toward me, or am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckobrien (talk • contribs) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the WW1 and 1920's campaign against Hyphenated Americanism. Of course, the 1920's was the most openly "scientifically" racist period in American history... AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

finance

Does Wikipedia have what is know as a virtual portfolio trading platform to assist in learning about the stock market?

Thanks Gordon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodrog500 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing "finance" so it appears as a separate question. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we don't, because it doesn't really fit with our nature as an encyclopedia, although we have articles on the stock market that you may find interesting. It sounds like something for Wikihow or Wikiversity. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You can google "fantasy stock market" to find places where you can sign up and trade with fake money. If there is an order type or term that you don't understand "investopedia.com" or "investorwords.com" are ok resources.NByz (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Supposed British spy

If there are any military or espionage history buffs out there, perhaps they can help me with this one. Back in the 1950s, the story of a supposed British agent in Germany who posed as a German General, UK Col. Alexander Scotland, was told in the Jack Hawkins movie The Two-Headed Spy, which supposedly was based on Scotland's wartime exploits. Scotland was also notable for heading a Abu Gharib precursor called "The London Cage," and wrote a memoir of that title. I think he may be notable on that basis alone, and worthy of a wiki article.

I was wondering if there might be more information available on Scotland? I've searched through Google, Google Books and Google Scholar and found virtually nothing apart from his experiences with the London Cage. I have a suspicion that his supposed "spy" and general-impersonation explots were made up out of whole cloth. If a reliable source says as much, that should be stated in the Two Headed Spy article. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not in Who Was Who, but he seems to be mentioned in Rupert Butler's SS Hitlerjugend and in Tony Foster's Meeting of Generals. Strawless ^(talk) 20:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I'm curious to know if those books mention his supposed espionage or instead deal with his undisputed role in the "Cage." Stetsonharry (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have them. This may be the same man. A Sergeant John Alexander Scotland was commissioned into the Royal Air Force's General Duties Branch as a Pilot Officer on 22 July 1944. See London Gazette Supplement dated 26 September 1944 here. Strawless ^(talk) 20:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See also this page, The Murderers and their Accessories at historyinfilm.com, which refers to the Cage and calls him Lt. Col. A P Scotland. Strawless ^(talk) 20:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Scotland, A.P. The London Cage. London: Evans Brothers, 1957. 195 p.

Scotland's service to British intelligence began when he enlisted in the German Army in West Africa (1904-07) , and climaxed as head of British prisoner of war interrogation during and after World War II. These memoirs only discuss selected periods of the two world wars and the postwar search for war criminals. House, J. M. (1993). Military Intelligence: 1870 - 1991 : a research guide. OCLC 231577495

22 September, 1940...I have just been told that the officer from MI9 who was present at the interrogation of TATE yesterday took it upon himself to manhandle the prisoner without saying anything to Colonel Stephens, Dick White, or Malcolm Frost.The interrogation broke off at lunchtime, when Colonel Alexander Scotland left the room. Frost, wondering where he was, followed him and eventually discovered him in the prisoner's cell. He was hitting TATE in the jaw and I think got one back for himself. Frost stopped this incident without making a scene, and later told me what had happened. It was quite clear to me that we cannot have this sort of thing going on in our establishment. Apart from the moral aspect of the whole thing, I am quite convinced that these Gestapo methods do not pay in the long run. We are taking the matter up with DMI and propose to say that we do not intend to have that particular military intelligence officer on the premises any more. I am told that Scotland turned up this morning with a syringe containing some drug or other, which it was thought would induce the prisoner to speak. Stephens told Scotland that he could not see TATE, who was not in a fit state to be interrogated. Actually there was nothing seriously wrong with TATE.

After the war Colonel Scotland published The London Cage, an account of his experiences as an interrogator questioning prisoners of war in Kensington Palace Gardens.

West, Nigel ed. (1995) The Guy Liddell Diaries: Mi5's Director of Counter-Espionage in World War II. p. 98

TATE was Wulf Schmidt.—eric 21:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

here there is a photograph of a "Tribute to Lt Col. Scotland at the Military Intelligence museum" in which he is Alexander Paterson Scotland OBE. Strawless ^(talk) 21:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The London Gazette for 25 July 1916 (here) has him as Private Alexander Paterson Scotland of the Inns of Court Officers Training Corps. So it seems he was a barrister. Strawless ^(talk) 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

According to klausdierks.com, here, "Alexander Paterson Scotland worked as an undercover agent for Britain in German South West Africa" (Namibia National Archives Database). Strawless ^(talk) 21:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Snippets on Google books suggest there is quite a lot about A. P. Scotland in Roderick De Normann's For Fuehrer and Fatherland: SS Murder and Mayhem in Wartime Britain (Sutton, 1996, ISBN 0750912820, ISBN 978-0750912822). Strawless ^(talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Biography Index‎ for 1979 says "SCOTLAND, Alexander Paterson, d. 1965, British spy" and points to "Juvenile literature, Knight, David C. Spy Who Never Was and Other True Spy Stories Doubleday '78". Strawless ^(talk) 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent) You know, gents, I think that we have come close to exposing a literary (and film) hoax. The Knight book does indeed describe Scotland as posing as a German general. The full text of the AP Scotland chapter was published in a message thread at the Internet Movie Database discussion thread on Two Headed Spy[1]. That appears to be the original and indeed the only reference to Scotland as a spy, and it is a book for juveniles that contains no references, footnotes or sources. That appears to be the basis for all references to Scotland as a spy (though I would like to get ahold of the Butler book to see what that says and how it is sourced).

Now, the JM House book Liddell diaries indicate very clearly that Scotland was employed in the UK in 1940. This further seems to indicate that Scotland was in the UK, interrogating prisoners, and not posing as a German general. I think we can be quite sure that if he did indeed do so, his story would have appeared somewhere in the fifty years since Two Headed Spy. I think the Tribute to Scotland in the Military Intelligence Museum would clinch it. Lamentably the text in the photo is illegible.

I think that I may contact the museum myself, to see if it can shed any light on this subject or point to some sources. Many thanks for all the good research done on this. Stetsonharry (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a postcript: according to excerpts of the Liddell diaries available on the web[2], Scotland was interrogating prisoners in England in 1943 as well as 1940. I think this demonstrates fairly conclusively that the movie story is utterly fictional, and that the chapter in the Knight book is an a fabrication. I've a reference to the Liddell diaries to The Two-Headed Spy. Thanks again for pointing me toward that. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

international reaction to current Israel action

What is the international reaction to the current Israel action please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.10.173 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See our article International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Algebraist 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

that's kind of dry. could you tell me in a more lively way? or do people really not care much around the world, one way or another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.10.173 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's dry, and people do care. They also care not to start debates as such on the desk. But, if you can raise a question from the article, or invite further information or comment through something that needs more explaining, there'll be more comment. (Unless I misunderstood your post.):) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we could tell you something "in a more lively way". You could try re-reading the article again, but imagine there are exclamation marks instead of periods. Here's a livelied-up version of the Canada section:

Canada’s foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon, also issued a statement in which he pointed to Israel’s "clear right to defend itself" against continuing attacks by militants he accused of "deliberately" targeting civilians! "First and foremost, those rocket attacks must stop! At the same time, we urge both sides to use all efforts to avoid civilian casualties and to create the conditions to allow safe and unhindered humanitarian access to those in need in Gaza"! Cannon also urged renewed efforts to reach a truce! Yowza! Matt Deres (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This worked nicely! Someone should make a firefox extention that replaces all periods with exclamation points :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.29.166 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two reactions: (1) Hamas attacking Israel is justified, but Israel attacking Hamas is not justified. (2) Israel attacking Hamas is justified, but Hamas attacking Israel is not justified. Although, I might have it backwards.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

MD, a headline for your yowza with subhead for DOR:

Canada points big gun at ME! Avoids civilians, aims at militants! Truce in reach!

related articles— Take your sides, by Our man in Hong Kong

— ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Piggly Wiggly

How did the Piggly Wiggly grocey stores get name? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing definitive, but the inventory was almost exclusively foodstuffs as opposed to other retail shops at the time, and customers followed a circuitous one-way route through the short narrow aisles from entrance to checkout aisles—'wiggling' through the store.—eric 00:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to their website,

Saunders' reason for choosing the intriguing name Piggly Wiggly ® remains a mystery; he was curiously reluctant to explain its origin. One story is that he saw from a train window several little pigs struggling to get under a fence, and the rhyming name occurred to him then. Someone once asked him why he had chosen such an unusual name for his organization, and Saunders' reply was, "So people will ask that very question." He wanted and found a name that would be talked about and remembered.

Algebraist 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

January 5

State Canvassing Board

can anyone tell me when and where the Minnesota State Canvassing Board is meeting on Monday, January 5th, 2009 to deal with the Senate election? I can find lots of references that they ARE meeting, but not when or where. Can anyone help? EdwinHJ | Talk 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Room 10, State Office Building.[3] Map here. Please note first source says 1:00; second says 2:30. There will be real-time coverage on second. Kablammo (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabs, Jews, and basically the entire Middle East

I can't keep all the groups straight, who hates who, which group operates in which territory and such like that. But I would like to at least know some basics about why nobody in the Middle East seems to get along with anyone else, even their own neighbors who are often the same religion/ethnicity/etc. So, if you want to direct me to an easy to understand article on the subject that kind of sums it all up in a straightforward manner, that's fine. Or if you want to try to sum it all up yourself, take your best shot. Where do I even start? Is it all just religious fanaticism? Why do the Jews and Muslims not get along? Did something happen way back in the day to set it all off or what? I realize that I'm asking a lot but I'd at least like to know the very basics of that area of the world. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because they both want the same land, pure and simple. They actually got along fairly well long before the Partition of Palestine. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely more complicated than that and simply not true that they always got along in the past. Here are a few relevant articles: History of the Arab–Israeli conflict, Antisemitism in the Arab world, Anti-Arabism, Islam and Judaism. —D. Monack ^talk 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As religious communities, Jews and Muslims got along reasonably well during a number of historical periods (though by no means all of the time), and Muslim authorities occasionally favored Jews over Christians, because Jews weren't any kind of military threat. But such Muslim tolerance of Jews was always predicated on Jews understanding and accepting a secondary status in society as dhimmis, and not directly challenging Muslims in any public way.

However, when European style romantic nationalism started entering the picture in the late 19th century, Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism were naturally incompatible. There was temporary hope of some kind of accommodation in the Feisal-Weizmann agreement, but that was shot down in flames when the British decided to honor the Sykes-Picot agreement rather than keeping their promises to Feisal of the Hashemites. According to Bernard Lewis, both ethnic nationalism and religion-based anti-Semitism were European-based imports to the middle east; in particular, bigoted Frenchmen were very influential in stirring up the Damascus Blood Libel of 1840, arguably the first significant incident of "modern" style anti-Semitism in the middle east... AnonMoos (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to complicate things further: Iran-Arab relations and Anti-Iranian sentiment. My take is that the whole thing is hopelessly muddled and definitely resistant to reductionist approaches. The fundamental and current causes of conflict in the middle-east seem to change depending which lens(es) any given "expert" is viewing it through; be they geo-political, religious, colonial, ethnic, racial or otherwise. One interesting perspective, that I've been seeing the conflict in terms of recently, is the popular sentiment in many Arab countries regarding the Palestinian/Israeli Troubles and how that relates to those countries governments' (many of which have a somewhat tenous grasp on power at home) response towards Israel. However in the end, fair or not, my particular perspective, time and time again brings me back to, "religion poisons everything." 161.181.153.10 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Bernard Lewis would draw the conclusion that "Nationalism poisons everything". Modern-style fundamentalisms weren't really a significant "macropolitical" factor in the region until the beginning of the 1980s (i.e. only after at least thirty years of things already being royally screwed up on the Arab-Israeli front)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really. A fair enough point regarding "modern-style" fundamentalism's place in the timeline of the current regional conflict between Israel and neighbors as a somewhat recent flashpoint. I don't think your conclusion of what Lewis would conclude and my conclusion are mutually exclusive. Regardless, I meant my last statement as a more general comment on endemic problems and the root causes of said problems. I consider religion an important and inescapable "macrosociological" factor in the region's troubles. Finally, I disagree that reading Lewis obviously suggests the stated conclusion in the first place. Respectfully, 161.181.153.10 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

From the mid-1950's to 1977, the predominant political orientation of those in power in Egypt, Syria, AND Israel was secularist socialism (note: "secularist" means something quite different from "anti-religious"), and during that period three bloody wars were fought. Maybe "socialism poisons everything"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, well I hope the U.S. GOP party doesn't get wind of that, they might use it as part of an attack on the Democrats as socialists or something. I completely get the point you're trying to make, but I still think you're missing the forest for the trees. Maybe as a compromise: "people poison everything"... 161.181.153.10 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OP: "But I would like to at least know some basics about why nobody in the Middle East seems to get along with anyone else."

Saki, c. 100 years ago: "Some places produce more history than can be consumed locally." BrainyBabe (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any historical cases of attempts to verthrow a state government (not federal) in the US?

Aside from the Civil War and the early days of the Republic, are there any instances of the people attempting to overthrow their state government (not the federal government)? For example, if the Illinois legislature fails to impeach Blagojovich and the people of Illinois rise up to overthrow the government in Springfield. Has anything like that ever happened or come close to happening? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

John Brown (abolitionist) seemed to try to violently overthrow the state of Virgina. See John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry. This was right before the Civil War, though. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any clear examples of this; the closest would be attempts to secede from the state government. The only successful state secession is West Virginia. See secession in the United States for more. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dorr rebellion... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool! 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps also of interest: there was a successful violent overthrow of a large city government in the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898. --Sean 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the Whiskey Rebellion too early? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Kentucky legislature in the late 1960's early 1970's invoked the right of a people to abolish a government and institute new government, by placing on the ballot a call for a new constitution, to disregard the provisions of and replace the 1890's constitution, which in its text nade revision almost impossible. The voters did not approve the revolution. Edison (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there was an attempt to overthrow the government of Louisiana in 1874: [4] and [5]. AnyPerson (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Minorities candidates in Bangladesh general election 2008

How many candidates were Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Indigenous peoples and which political parties had these minorities and how many did they had? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.212 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

tallaghts oldest public house

what is the oldest public house in tallaght county dublin ireland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.185 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

portsmouth history

I am trying to find pictures of buildings, ships and such like in and around the city of portsmouth, particularly from the 18th and 19th centuries, but so far this has been rather difficult. Is there anywhere I might be able to go to, to find this sort of stuff? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A few at American Memory [6].—eric 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which Portsmouth? --LarryMac | Talk 20:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My first port of call would be the city library. Also local museums.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

American Electoral Question

I've dabiled with volunteering to protect voter integrity for my political party in both primary and general elections. My knowledge is superficial. My training was directed at teaching us to spot issues for other lawyers who were well versed in state law to respond. My state permits people to register to vote when they renew their driver's license. The information is guarded with due regard to privacy. Yet when I engage in canvassing, the party has a list, including names, addresses and telephone numbers of voters. One of the most important details clearly visible is the party affiliation. These lists are not stolen items. Indeed, when I attended a political training, the instructor asked the purpose of the party. To everyone's surprise, he said that maintenance of the party rolls was the legal reason for the party. Independents raise different issues.

In my state, the counties and not the state itself run the elections.

May I ask to what general extent in the United States, voter register information is private? Where do the parties acquire the voter registrations rolls with details of elections voted (but not the actual vote result). For instance, the press recently reported that Caroline Kennedy neglected to vote in several important primary and general elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Data about party affiliation, address, and elections voted in for each registered voter are public records in most states (not sure about phone no., though). AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In a state with a closed primary that would be true. But how do they find out in states with open primaries? Rmhermen (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In Texas, when you voted in a party primary, you were handed the ballot appropriate to that party, and a "DEMOCRATIC", "REPUBLICAN", etc. was stamped on your voter registration card, indicating that you were not supposed to engage in certain activities incompatible with your partisan status during that election cycle (such as signing a petition for a third-party candidate to be included on the ballot). There must have been some central record of which primary you voted in, or otherwise how could they exclude invalid signatures from ballot-access petitions? AnonMoos (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have served as an election judge in Maryland, which has closed primaries (you have to state party affiliation prior to the election in order to vote in the party's primary). When you appear at a Maryland voting precinct, your affiliation is already in the poll book (the printed version, or the more common electronic version). There is no requirement about what you do outside of the voting booth. In fact, I would think a limit like the Texas one would be incompatible with your first amendment rights. The party might try kicking you out, but I doubt it. Wouldn't a ballot-access petition be directed to the state election authority, and thus allow for any eligible voter's signature?

The party organizations aren't directly involved in it at all, as far as I'm aware. The local precinct poll-worker handed you your ballot and stamped your card, and state elections officials were tasked with going over the signatures on ballot access petitions to make sure that those who signed had not also previously voted in a party primary that year. It's very hard to see how the Democratic and Republican parties can meaningfully "expel" anybody. At most, they can refuse general election support to a candidate who won the party primary (see David Duke), but this is obviously irrelevant for ordinary voters... AnonMoos (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

can you tell if someone is lying?

as soon as Cheney's interviewer mentions they have just 30 seconds (signaling that the interview questions are over) Cheney's face immediately changes 180 degrees. Does that signal that up until that point he has been carefully lying through his teeth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.29.166 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "changes 180 degrees", and I cannot download the interview to check for myself. (I can't say that I am disturbed about that; I might then have also been forced to listen to the exchanges.) It is not, I am certain, that his head does an Exorcist spin to face backwards. Most changes that signal "truth" or "lie" are extremely subtle, especially in a practised public speaker such as Cheney is. If you mean that he goes from a tense state to a relaxed one, that is possible even if the content is all lies, all truths or a mix; he would just be signaling relief that a stressful situation was about to end. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many things that people claim are things that indicate someone is lying. It is very easy to prove all of these claims false. Actors lie. That is the job. When an actor is acting, it is all a lie. So, do you believe that when the director calls "cut", all of the actors' faces turn 180 degrees? Of course not. So, such a claim that it indicates lying is just speculation - and bad speculation since it is impossible for a face to turn 180 degrees all by itself. -- kainaw™ 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think lying and acting are the same at all. The difference is intent. If you are trying to entertain the audience, you aren't likely to feel the same type of stress and react in the same way as if trying to deceive. Watch a child intentionally lying and one pretending and you will likely notice a very different expression on their faces. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Acting is different from lying since the actor feels absolutely no guilt or shame about the lie. They share the fear that someone will "catch them" but professional actors get over that. You can't definitively say someone is lying, but there are a lot of clues, most of them cultural and some of them specific to the liar. Failure to make eye contact in an American is definitely suspicious. Inappropriate changes in inflection or pacing, apparent nervousness, and certain body movements are also red flags. There are many things to look for but none of them are consistent or absolute, and they all hinge not on lying, but on the reservations the person has about lying. SDY (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think Cheney feels any guilt or shame — chandler — 11:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also extremely subjective. Different people have different facial reactions to lying, and if they're good at it (and you can't get a much better liar than a politician in my opinion) they can work through their own body language so they have the ability to appear more genuine when in fact they are lying. On the other hand there could have been any number of reasons why Cheney changed his facial expression during the interview, from the interviewer reminding him of something that's stressing him out to his piles playing up. So in short, no it's extremely difficult to tell if someone is lying. -- role^player 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I caught Condoleeza Rice apparently lying, as she was saying yes while shaking her head "no" (or was it the other way around). This also implies to me that she was being forced to lie but felt bad about it, and the truth found it's way out. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Was the questioner fishing for a "no" answer? Or driving at some sort of point? She could be shaking her head to indicate that the point the questioner was driving at was wrong, misguided, depressing, etc, but she answered the literal question with a verbal "yes"? ( "I say you're crazy! Are you honestly saying you're sure you're not crazy?" [Shaking head] "Yes. For the last time, yes!" )

It could even just be simple body language to indicate that her "yes" answer was depressing. ( "Is the world going to hell in a hand-basket?" [Shaking head]"Yes, yes it is. All is lost. We're all doomed." ) APL (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched the linked video and have a possible and -- I think -- more probably interpretation. First, his mood doesn't shift as radically as you say, though he does seem more relaxed. It's no secret that Cheney has an antagonistic relationship with the media and doesn't like appearing on camera. To me, he's simply relieved to be through with a tough interview and is probably thinking that this is the last TV interview he'll ever have to give. Nothing in his demeanor indicates to me that he was necessarily lying. —D. Monack ^talk 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not about Cheney but not exactly OT, there's a video/still technique in photography where the camera keeps going just when the subject is off-guard. Photographer Lewis Morley famously kept snapping after Salvador Dali thought the shoot was over, and what appeared in those shots was a vulnerable, possibly insecure old man behind the previous "mad artist" persona. Another example was a documentary of bad-boy actor Steve Berkoff who dropped the monolithic storm when he thought the thing was over. They tried to do the same with post-pm Tony Blair to less effect imo. That kind of division intra-self is always interesting. Don't know if you'd call it lying exactly but if it's there to be seen, that's the way to find it. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the interview mentioned by the OP, but I remember from earlier interviews with Cheney that he has a tell. When he lies, he averts his eyes: [7] (3:40) 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Most politicians would have no trouble internally with what you might think of as a lie because they normally believe what they are saying is the right and correct thing to say. So there is no point in looking for tells. You are better off closing your eyes while they talk or even just reading what they have said and not even listening so you aren't persuaded by their manner. Use your intelligence rather than switching it off and relying on tells, they're far better at that game then most people will ever be even with trying. Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Cheney, many of his claims about WMD in Iraq have been proven to be false. However, when he's forced to comment on those claims, he merely says "I was given bad intelligence" or "we were mistaken". Thus, to establish that he intentionally lied to the public to justify the war, we need to rely on nonverbal clues. StuRat (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We're being a bit mean on politicians (and public figures in general). The difference is not lieing - being different to who 'you really are in private' in public is not lieing, that is managing your persona for a given audience. Everybody in the world does that. You act different infront of your friends than your parents, or different when with work-colleagues. It's not lieing. You do it to meet expections, to fit into the social group. Infact not doing it would be considered by many to be foolish and a sign of someone lacking social-skills. The politician has it harder as their every word is scrutinised for indepth meaning by the media, and they have to maintain a political-unity with their party publically, even if privately they are fighting hard within the party to change a stance they disagree with. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between "putting a good spin on things" and the type of outright lies that have come from Cheney. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to see anything relating to Nazi Germany on tourist trips to Germany and/or the surrounding countries?

I know that Germany does have strong laws prohibiting the promotion of anything to do with Hitler, the Nazis and the Third Reich. But is it possible for tourists today to see anything relating to the Nazis from a realistic historical perspective whilst visiting Germany, or is this just impossible due to the laws that exist in modern Germany? I'm just wondering this as an outside observer and I'm not a neo-Nazi sympathiser myself or anything. But I do think that it's something that some tourists would potentially have an interest in - it's a valid historical topic after all which must have left some physical artefacts in existence...

Like, for example, the Fuhrerbunker cannot be visited or seen by tourists in itself and is at a relatively obscure location with just a signpost, according to the article. And what about the Auschwitz concentration camp (yes I know it's in modern day Poland); can that be visited by tourists?--Witticism (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Auschwitz is open to the public. bibliomaniac15 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dachau concentration camp is open to tourists. It's depressing as hell, but people still go. I don't know about others. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sachsenhausen concentration camp is open to the public, and conveniently situated for a day trip from Berlin. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Berchtesgaden has a few sites. I stayed at the General Walker Hotel several times; originally the Platterhof, it has been demolished. The Obersalzberg bunker system was open twenty years ago, but it just a bunch of empty tunnels; the Kehlsteinhaus (Eagle's Nest) is open as a restaurant; you need to get a guide to explain the history as there are no plaques. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a school group to Berlin last year, and there are in fact quite a few places where you can see historical information about the Nazis available for tourists in and around Berlin. The Topography of Terror based in the former headquarters of the Gestapo at Prinz Albrechtstrasse is open to the public, and openly displays pictures of Hitler and the Swastika among its visual displays. The Story of Berlin Museum in Kurfürstendamm covers the Second World War extensively. There are displays at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche showing exactly what happened to the church and why. The Jewish Museum in Berlin is a building I would recommend anyone to visit, and the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe is a pretty powerful place. In short, go to Berlin, although I'm fairly sure there are more places dotted around Germany. -- role^player 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Nazi-German concentration camps may be of use; the individual entries tell you what is left (or provide links) and there are several scattered across Germany. You can also visit the site of the Wannsee Conference near Berlin, which is now a memorial. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Place of Hitler's Bunker in 2007.

Both the en and the de Wikipedia state that the Führerbunker was largely removed 1988-98 (just prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall) during construction works for a housing development. It could not be blasted as the walls and ceilings of the main bunker had a thickness of 3.5 / 4.5 meters (I happen to live in a city where WWII flak towers remain standing, partly for the same reason). There is a large information board since 2006 with relevant historical information in German and English. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In France you can see many things related to the Occupation and the Resistance. In Oradour-sur-Glane there was a famous massacre (the villagers were locked into the church which was set on fire); it has been left exactly as it was, there is a visitor's centre and it receives thousands of visitors a year. There were many other similar shootings and massacres, in Cotignac, for example, and usually there is at least a plaque. Tourist information offices and websites will be able to help you. If you wander around Paris you will come across plaques stating that a Resistant was shot at that spot. There is a museum of the Resistance in Limoges. In Normandy, you can visit the D-day landings beaches and a D-Day museum, while at Dieppe there is a Canadian cemetery and other memorials to the abortive Allied raid there. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My parents visited Auschwitz when they were in Poland about a year and a half ago. It's open to the public and apparently quite a moving place to visit. Steewi (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Czech Republic there's the former ghetto and concentration camp at Terezin and the ruins of the town of Lidice destroyed by the Nazis. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) count? AnyPerson (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

January 6

UN Deputy Secretary-General, pre-1997?

I've left a query on the Talk page for United Nations Deputy Secretary-General. An unsourced citation (elsewhere) cites that one Bogdan (or Bohdan) Lewandowski filled this position—or a similar one with a different title?—presumably during his tenure as Poland's Permanent Representative to the U.N. (1960-1966; dates culled from the Polish WP). I'd appreciate any help in confirming or otherwise clarifying (or refuting) this. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good day to you! Seems that the information given in several different places indicates the Deputy Secretary-General is a new position. The United Nations Deputy Secretary-General page says the first person appointed to the post was Canada's Louise Fréchette. Before that, even the information on the UN's own website doesn't hint at it's existance. Operator873 (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of under secretary generals at any given time covering various UN departments, and it seems Bohdan Lewandowski was one of these. There is a biography of him on this page (scroll down). Note that this is a different person from the Polish Wikipedia's Bogdan Lewandowski (b. 1946). --Cam (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote this?

Does anyone know who wrote this please?

"If there is a God, I don't think He would demand that anyone bow down or stand up to Him. I often have a suspicion that God is still trying to work things out and hasn't finished".

Many thanks--79.79.187.69 (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FOUND IT NOW, Rebbeca West it was. --79.79.187.69 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

First Play-writer

Can you tell me that who was the first play-writer in English Literature and from where did he/she belong? Also what was the name of his/her first play? many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.70.227 (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably we don't know. See Medieval theatre. A named dramatist who may be a better answer than none is John Skelton (c. 1460–1529), who wrote three plays, including Magnificence. John Bale (1495–1563) wrote an early historical verse drama on King John and c. 1538 a morality play with the memorable title Three Laws of Nature, Moses and Christ, corrupted by the Sodomytes, Pharisees and Papystes most wicked. See also Everyman (play). Strawless ^(talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Medieval quasi-allegorical morality plays are the earliest. Two famous ones which were from an era after morality plays and before the Elizabethan theatre boom, and that were intended for actual popular theatrical performance (as opposed to being a purely written literary exercise or an esoteric aristocratic Court entertainment), are Gammer Gurtons Needle and Ralph Roister Doister... AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And in terms of "firsts", Ralph Roister Doister is pretty well established as the first English comedy, though it postdates Bale's dramas. - Nunh-huh 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Christianity vs languages of Pakistan

Which languages do the Pakistanis Christians speak? Urdu? Pashto? Punjabi? Sindhi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are very likely Christians speaking every one of those languages. Christianity is a missionary religion, and spreading the religion "to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8 for anyone looking) is a central component of being a Christian. Jesus himself issued the Great Commission to all christians; Matthew 28:19 "Go and make disciples of all nations." Why do I bring all of this up? Because within any sizable language group, you are likely to find Christians among them. There are active Christian missionaries working among some languages with only a few thousand speakers; in ANY language where the speakers number in the millions, which all of the ones you list do, you are likely to find a sizable number of Christians among them. Depending on the culture and laws of the local nation, those Christians may worship underground to an extent; but they are certainly some there. This page lists some interesting statistics about Bible versions. According to that page, at least some portion of the Christian bible has been translated into over 2200 languages. This page claims complete translations into over 2000 languages, and "countless" partial translations. Nearly every site I can find at this google search comes up with a number somewhere between 2000 and 2400. Why do I bring all of this up? Because it is quite likely that there are practicing Christians speaking just about any language that is spoken by more than 1 million people, and likely for any language spoken by more than a few tens of thousands of people. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, I find out that this Jehovah's Witnesses'this one It shows that the languages of Pakistanis are Pashto, Sindhi, Punjabi and Urdu. 192.30.202.22 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, we do have an article Christianity in Pakistan... AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Christians vs. languages of India

Which languages do speak Indian Christians speak? Hindi? Bengali? Tamil? Telugu? Malayalam? Kannada? Gujarati? Punjabi? Oriya? Assamese? Marathi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are at least a few Christians speaking each of these languages. Christians in India are not confined to a single ethnic group. Marco polo (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, I find out that this Jehovah's Witnesses'this one It shows that the languages of Indians are Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi and Tamil. 192.30.202.22 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And least we forget, Portuguese. Why? Goa was a Portuguese enclave in India until 1961 and the majority of Goans spoke Portuguese and a majority were Christians. Many also spoke pretty good English and of course Hindi and Marathi. I lived in Bombay, now Mumbai, in the late sixties and experienced their diaspora. I suppose by now fewer speak Portuguese.67.85.139.112 (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Sasquatch

Pakistani hindus

Which languages do Pakistani Hindus speak? Punjabi? Sindhi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Some speak Punjabi, some speak Sindhi, and some speak other dialects. Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

According to your articles "Punjabi People", Sindhi People", "Hindkowans" and "Saraiki People", they all say, in their little facts box, they have Hindu followers. 192.30.202.22 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian lit: Killing a man to see his soul

In a novel or short story or play by a Russian author, a character is a soldier in the Russian army. In a battle he overpowers his enemy, then deliberately murders the man because, as he later puts it, he wanted to see if man has a soul. This scene does not take place as "live action" but is reported, either by the soldier himself or by someone who heard it from him.

What literary work contains the scene and who was the author?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor who was your original unfeeling scientist. Dmcq (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, warn't him fer shur. But, thank you for pointing me to the delightful article on Frederick II, which I had not seen before. Confoundingly, that article is rated only C-Class, while others not half as good are Featured Articles – more proof of the inadequacy of Wikipedia's rating system.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's C-Class (or Start-class for those projects not keen on this new-fangled C-class) because it lacks inline citations necessary to make B-Class or above. There's no way of knowing whether the delightful facts/prose are indeed true or just made up. Gwinva (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Frederick II article doesn't describe the man in a cask experiment, it is described in Excerpt from the Chronicle of Salimbene on Frederick II which is referenced from the Salimbene di Adam article. I'll go and add it to the Frederick II one. Dmcq (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way if you like Frederick you might like a more modern take on the same idea, see the references from the article on Gerry Nahum. Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Crying Frenchman after Nazi victory

There's an iconic film of a Frenchman crying after the initial Nazi victory over France (or perhaps when Paris was occupied). He's standing up straight (I believe in a crowd) trying to keep composure although you can tell he's obviously very broken up inside. I've seen it dozens of times in various WWII documentaries. I was just wondering who this guy was and what his backstory was. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a still of the film. It's the second picture on this page [8]. Does anyone know his name or anything about him? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be an Associated Press photo. They include it among "some of its most famous photographs of World War II, as well as rarely seen pictures from its archives at [9]. The caption there says he is "standing among other residents of Marseilles" on February 19, 1941 "as he watches the flags of France's historic regiments depart into exile in North Africa." It is claimed by most other sites, including Wikipedia to be from the initial Nazi occupation of Paris, on June 14, 1940. Wikipedia also says, in Military history of France during World War II "A Frenchman weeps as German soldiers march into the French capital, Paris, on June 14, 1940. (This famous photograph is also said to have been taken as French troops were evacuating through Toulon.)." The source stated for the Wikipedia image is "Records of the Office of War Information, NARA." If AP owns the photo, they seem more credible. Most books at Google Book search say it is from the fall of Paris in 1940, but [10] says (p463)it is from Marseilles, February 1941, and credits Movietone News for permission. [11] credtid it to "NARA 535896" and says Paris 1940. My impression is it was really Marseilles 1941 and someone in the U.S. government got it wrong, because it tells a better story as the fall of Paris than perhaps an old soldier seeing his old unit's colors disgraced. When a print of it, made in 1948, sold at Sotheby's in 2002, they said " Frenchman weeping as French flags leave just ahead of Germans " which would correspond to Marseilles, but said it was originally photographed in 1940. A "circa 1960" UPI wire photo copy sold at auction in 2007 [12] said the photo was by "George Mejat" from 1940, taken in Marseilles, as the Nazis marched into the city, and that it was also a Fox Movietone newsreel. There is more discussion at Talk:Military history of France during World War II#Altering Caption of "Weeping Frenchman" Picture. Edison (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm doing a Google search and I'm coming up with some of the same things, but I didn't find the Marseilles thing or the Wikipedia discussion. Thanks! Note that the woman next to him is clapping. To me, it seems more likely that she'd clap for departing French troops than invading Germans but who knows. As far as the Wikipedia discussion goes, I find the comment that "it still doesn't make sense that a crowd was anywhere in Paris" to be a bit off. Paris wasn't evacuted, so there should have been enough people around to form a crowd should they choose to. (Of course, if it were me, I'd stay home with the doors locked and the shades pulled down.) I wonder why none of the editors (apparently) didn't try asking someone on the French version of Wikipedia. One of the French editors might know. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I'm remembering this as a LIFE magazine image. --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found the 1943 U.S propaganda film and compared the closest frame to the photo. The famous still is clearly from the movie. If it were a separate still photographer, he would have had to have his still camera lens less than 2 inches from the movie camera lens, given the geometry of the lines from the weeping Frenchman to the people behind him. The woman to weeping man's left is clapping. No one is giving a Nazi salute. It is not credible that this is a crowd welcoming/mourning the Nazis entry to Paris in 1940. It appears to be the French observing some French troops and their colors leaving France bound for North Africa, where French forces served after France fell. Vichy France under Petain were enthusiastic Nazi collaborators, but some of their forces in North Africa were more independent. When did the French troops/colors depart Marseilles/Toulon? What do the editors of French Wikipedia say about the man and the movie/photo? If it were from my hometown, living persons could identify the site, the occasion and many of the people. I expect no less from the French. My best guess: The "weeping Frenchman" was an army veteran and mourned the departure of the colors of his former unit, from Marseilles. Edison (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sociology? Anthropology? or ?

Let's say I want to understand:

how is Japanese culture different from my culture?

and/or what are the core values of Thai culture? etc.

What branch of the humanities would this be? thanks, Sethie (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnology / ethnography? Significant research was also done by anthropologists (eg Claude Levi-Strauss), cultural anthropologists (eg Margaret Mead) or linguists (Brothers Grimm). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend Area Studies. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware that classic-style cultural comparisons between national cultures (one of the most famous of which was Ruth Benedict's The Chrysanthemum and the Sword) have kind of been out favor in academia in recent times... AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Several reasons for this uneasy and politically correct avoidance are expressed in the opening section of Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, 1997, which explores the fundamental environmental shaping of traditional cultures. --Wetman (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks all! Sethie (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 7

Googly eyes?

I was wondering why they call those little arts and crafts eyes [13] googly eyes. When I searched on Wikipedia for it, it just brought me to Strabismus. And is there an alternate, more correct name for the eyes? Evaunit♥666♥ 03:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all I've ever heard them called as well. And this would probably get a better response on the Language desk. Dismas|^(talk) 04:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an unsourced speculation: early cartoon strip character Barney Google ("..with the goo-goo-googly eyes / Barney Google / with the wife who's twice his size...") -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See also [14]. Barney Google had "googley eyes." There is still a comic strip featuring Snuffy Smith which is the successor to "Barney Google and Snuffy Smith." I can't recall the year Google last showed up in the Smith comic strip. Edison (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has no problem with the word "googly", giving it a main entry without comment. What etymology there is is fuzzy and convoluted, but it seems to go back to "goggle" and the unattested "gog", a word "expressive of oscillating movement", not unlike "jog" or "joggle". So to call those notions "googly eyes" is actually quite correct, employing the core sense of the word. Thanks, by the way; I hadn't known they were called that. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys : ] long live googlism!!! Evaunit♥666♥ 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

E1 transaction

i have come across E1-transaction (may be i am late know about it) regarding excise duty payment. After browsing the net i found a few references related to E1-transactions of insurance policies of medical treatment for patients. Will any one elucidate me about E1-transactions related to Excise duty and other commercial taxes please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatilau (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

whaling

I recently heard of a show called Whale Wars (it's not wars between whales, which would be a totally different show)

hearing about this has me wondering:

Is whaling legal in Japan? For that matter, are laws governing the killing of endangered species mandated in any way OTHER than country by country?

If whaling is legal in Japan--how do these protesters get away with infringing on the japanese right to whale? Protesting is one thing, but it sounds like they're forcibly trying to stop them207.172.70.176 (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

On the first part of the question, see whaling and in particular whaling#Japan_2, and International Whaling Commission. On the second part, I don't know the specifics of these protests, but governments that don't want to be seen as authoritarian sometimes don't like to prosecute illegal activities that they see as not too serious and that are part of a bona fide protest. (On the other hand, some governments seem to go out of their way to treat protests as illegal.) Curiously, I don't see anything in either the protest, right to protest, or direct action articles that directly addresses that question of reluctance to prosecute. --Anonymous, 06:17 UTC, January 7, 2009.

Whaling has a real PR problem, and arresting protesters just gets more media attention, which might lead to a public outcry for changing the laws to ban whaling. Therefore, they may decide the best way to continue whaling is to ignore the protesters. StuRat (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of legitimate protests that try to forcibly stop a government-sanctioned practice that the protesters think is wrong (e.g., illegally forcing white diners to share a lunch counter with a negro). See civil disobedience. --Sean 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a recent article that discusses Japanese response to anti-whaling protestors, which you might find interesting [15]. Note that the Japanese 'harvest' whales under international rules that permit this for research purposes. Apparently the Japanese are still conducting vital research into why the whales die when harpooned, skinned and gutted. 161.181.153.10 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Koan: Flax or hemp?

Is it possible that the Koan that describes Buddha as "three pounds of flax" was a mistranslation, and that "flax" should have been "hemp?" Hemp seems to have more of a reputation than flax for answering philosophical questions. 38.117.71.235 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tōzan Shusho's reply was "Masagin!" (ma, flax; sa, three; gin, pound).

The golden crow swoops, the silver hare bounds;

The echo comes back, direct and free.

Who judges Tūzan by his word or phrase

Is a blind tortoise, lost in a lonely vale.

If a Westerner not knowing the meaning of the word had heard Tōzan say "Masagin" he would probably have been impressed by the action and the situation in which it took place: by the vigor of Tōzan's speech, the immediacy of his response, the stress placed on the word, and, most important, the image received of Tōzan himself. And all this might have produced a strong effect. But people who understand the meaning of the word -- three pounds of flax -- when they study this case will get caught by the idea the word conveys to them and be too preoccupied by it to see the action as it is. Their understanding of Tōzan will be destroyed, and they will be like a blind tortoise, bewildered and lost. "A lame turtle and a blind tortoise" is a Zen phrase applied to the mentally blind.

Huikai, & Yuanwu. (1977). Two Zen Classics: Mumonkan and Hekiganroku. pp. 71-2, 180-1. OCLC 2818787.—eric 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While not at all being a totally irrelevant question, philosophically--particularly in the context of Zen--it would make no difference, as the verse indicates. Not to presume that's what you're asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.247.249 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

fanfiction writers and copyright

I spent the whole day googling this and I read all the wikipedia articles on it, too, and it still came up short. Does anyone know about copyright and fanfiction? Now I know that the authors of the original work retain copyright on their basic story and fanfiction is a copyright violation. However, the fanfiction writer made a unique organization of words and does copyright for this unique organization of words automatically make the author of the original work to be the copyright owner of the fanfiction work that someone else wrote? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, and Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice, which is just as well because the advice I'm about to give is worthless conjecture. An illegal act cannot claim legal protection; you can't sue a hit man for not killing your spouse like you paid him to. Fanfic is not automatically protected by copyright because it is itself a violation of copyright, and I'm sure the original author would find it easy to take everything such a work might earn, making copyright moot. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio may be of interest. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well legal advice relates to a specific issue, rather than just a general understanding of a basic idea and I was just asking about a basic idea. Well I did more research based on what people said and it appears that as a derivative work, the fanfiction writer holds copyright over their new content, but the author of the original work can restrict the publishing of such content. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's possible the fanfiction author could argue that their work is a parody and thus not a copyright violation and they would hold copyright over their work. Since fanfiction is usually available for free on the internet and in no way harms (and may in fact help) the original work, I doubt there are many court cases on the subject, so it's mostly guess work as to how the relevant laws would be interpreted in this particular case. --Tango (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Some authors do not allow fanfiction for their works (Anne Rice and Nora Roberts being two that I can name off the top of my head). Others are okay with it (J.K. Rowling, for instance). I'm not sure about its legality, but it appears to be a right that an author can allow or disallow fanfiction for their work. bibliomaniac15 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually J.K. Rowling is against all the gay slashfic sex Harry Potter fanfics, which sadly is the majority of the Harry Potter fanfics. chillingeffects has some records of DMCAs going back for six years over this. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. In the whole though, she "gave her blessing" to non-commercial, non-obscene fanfiction.[16] bibliomaniac15 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It all gets caught up in the rather messy world of derivative work law. Original authors do own copyright on their creations. Hence Rowling's ongoing legal disputes and Lindsey Davis's upset over Simon Scarrow's "tribute plagiarism" (which she defines as "bandit usage of another author's material") when he had her character Falco make a cameo appearance in one of his books. Gwinva (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The case Anderson_v._Stallone is relevant here. GreatManTheory (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Like media copyright of music, etc., there are issues between theoretical illegality and "getting away with it". JK Rowling isn't the only author to imply that they won't pursue cease and desists for reasonable fanfics, just as some musicians actively don't pursue file-sharers. Others, Robin Hobb, for example are fiercely defensive of their intellectual property, that is, their characters and fictional world.

Back on topic, though. Because a work of fanfic is technically illegal, regardless of the rights-holder's tacit approval, it seems unlikely that there would be a legal path for defending your fanfic from being distributed by others. However, the world of the internet has its own paths of retribution. Someone who has been caught distributing works they've stolen from others as their own will often be flamed, hacked or otherwise given DoS treatment. These less ethical means have a similar effect. Steewi (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fanfiction writers have the copyright to their works in the same way that Nina Paley has the copyright to her film Sita Sings the Blues. She can't legally publish it because of licensing issues but no-one else can legally publish it either.[17] Haukur (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fanfiction tends to intrude on what U.S. copyright law calls the right to derivative works. From this viewpoint, Rowling, who created the characters in the Potter books, owns the rights to other works derived from them. So a fan's book about Harry Potter's life as a merchant banker or an insurance agent depends to a large extent on what people know from Rowling's books -- the banker or insurance agent could be seen as a derivative work. The extent to which (a) Rowling would seek to preserve her rights, or (b) a court would uphold this view is open to question. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, parodies are generally allowed, and The Wind Done Gone was published... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you still have the copyright to your derivative fanfiction - you just can't make much use of it for now. But here's a four point plan: 1) Write Harry Potter fanfiction, 2) Arrange for J.K. Rowling to be struck by lightning, 3) Wait 70 years, 4) Publish your work! Haukur (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Because copyright applies to sections of works as well as to entire works (e.g. a new introduction/afterword to an out-of-copyright text is protected), you would probably be able to claim copyright on part of your fanfic if that portion is based around original characters and situations. For instance if an original character spends a while doing something else before going to Hogwarts. However, you would not get rich from the damages. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost everyone including the original poster seems to have assumed that a work of fan fiction is automatically a derivative work. Actually that's far from clear. A story about people named "Harry Potter" and "Draco Malfoy", but having nothing else in common with J K Rowling's work, would not infringe her copyright (names and short phrases are not copyrightable). A story that copied whole descriptive passages or lines of dialogue from her books would be infringing. In between those extremes there's a substantial gray area. You also have to keep trademark law in mind—it's very different from copyright and people often forget about it or conflate it with copyright. The Chilling Effects fanfic FAQ is worth reading, and the Nichols v. Universal decision is also a good read. -- BenRG (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Married into Hungarian nobility

Hi, on the Harriet Howard article it is mentioned that her son married into Hungarian nobility. I am very interested in tracing the descendants of Miss Howard, and I was wondering where it was possible to look to find out whom Martyn Constantine Haryett married? I do know that in 1904, following his first wife's death, he married Germaine Baillon in London. -- role^player 13:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Her name was Marianne-Joséphine-Caroline Csuzy. [18] --Cam (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's extremely helpful. -- role^player 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is israel an occupying power?

What are the arguments for and against the idea that Israel is an occupying power? I don't mean to start a debate -- I'd just like the facts and arguments lying on either side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.185.231 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Occupying power where? Its whole territory? Gaza strip? West Bank, Jerusalem? The arguments are different in regard to each. For the Gaza strip, you could start with Six-day war. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

well where, relative to the other places, is the argument strongest for Israel being an occupying power? For this place, what are the arguments and facts for and against it being an occupying power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.185.231 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Israel's argument is that it's voluntarily undertaking to follow most of the legal restrictions that would apply if it were legally an occupying power, but that technically Israel is not legally an occupying power, since the Gaza strip and the West bank were not under any internationally-recognized sovereignty in May 1967 (Egypt conspicuously refrained from annexing Gaza, and Gazans did not have Egyptian citizenship, while depending on what you read, either no other countries recognized Jordan's annexation of the West bank, or exactly one other country did: Pakistan). AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For the Gaza Strip, see Gaza_strip#Dispute_over_occupation_status. It's one of the few places which nobody seems to want. Both Egypt and Israel have had the opportunity to annex it, but neither wants to assume responsibility for the miltants therein. There are smaller nations, so it could become a self-governing country, but Hamas is more interested in provoking war than working for peace, as prolonged peace would inevitably lead to a non-terrorist (that is, non-Hamas) controlled government. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Events of the past few years in Gaza aside, there has been no real legal dispute that Israel has been an occupying power since 1967, although there has been enough written to obscure this fact. Israel's main argument is not that it is not an occupying power, but that by its reading of the second article of the Fourth Geneva Convention since late 1967, the body of the convention does not apply to its occupation, which Israel has always admitted was an occupation. Israel, under e.g. Military Order 3 for the West Bank even maintained the applicability of the Convention for the first five months of the occupation. The UK definitely did recognize Jordan's annexation, it is very unlikely that Pakistan did, but the overwhelming consensus of experts and authorities is that such recognition issues are quite irrelevant to "occupation", that Israel's argument is very weak. The basic argument "for" is very simple. There was a war, Israel "won" and put territory under its control (and did not annex it). That is the definition of "occupation."John Z (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That article section is oversimplified, since the Israeli government's position has been that it wasn't an occupying power in a formal legal sense in Gaza even during 1967-2005... AnonMoos (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Per what I wrote above, that is incorrect. In spite of many misleading statements and much propaganda outside of formal legal contexts, the Israeli supreme court, and the government of Israel's statements to it and other bodies in formal legal contexts called it an occupation since 1967.John Z (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

do you mean 'have called it' (ie continue to do so?) anyway a SINGLE reference from the israeli supreme court calling it an occupation would satisfy me. are there any online in English that I could find? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.185.231 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[19] seems to suggest that there is little question both the West Bank and Gaza were occupied terrority. E.g. 'The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on its Web site, notes that in 1967 the Israel Defense Forces completed the "occupation of West Bank and Gaza Strip."' Our article Israeli-occupied territories also states "In a related case the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, stated that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967" sourced to [20] and "However, in recent decades the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence. [13][14] According to the BBC, "Israel argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place." sourced to various places ((Judea and Samaria are parts of the West Bank). All in all it seems JohnZ is mostly correct to me Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in international law, but to be an occupying power, wouldn't you have to be occupying something that belonged to someone else? And wasn't the West Bank kind of a diplomatic no man's land, not recognized by most countries as part of any country? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Many Arabic news sources, whenever reporting from Jerusalem, say "Occupied Jerusalem", not just "Jerusalem". There is a strong feeling in the ME that Palestine is an occupied territory. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Some refuse to use the word "Jerusalem" at all, probably leaving some people scratching their heads as to what an "al-Quds" may be... AnonMoos (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

political discussion spinoff

There is no conclusive evidence that 'Hamas is more interested in provoking war then peace'. Hamas's primary reason for allowing shelling of Israel to continue was because of Israel's continue blockade of the Gaza Strip and this is supported by a number of sources such as the NYT (check out our article on the war). Note that the shelling did die down a lot (but not stop completely during the ceasefire) however Israel never relaxed the border controls much. Many international commentators and agencies not supportive of Hamas have pointed out that the blockade was not only grossly unfair but empowering Hamas and making smuggling tunnels the only option to bring in any goods (which of course meant they could also be used for smuggling in weapons). How exactly the Gaza Strip was supposed to function as a state when they had no connection whatsoever to the outside world is unclear (as far as I'm aware none of the states smaller then the Gaza Strip, heck none of those bigger function with no connection to the outside world. You could just as well say that Israel appears to be more interested in provoking war then peace because a lot of the political leaders in charge got and remain there mostly because of their perceived strength in defending Israel and if that suddenly is no longer an important factor then they may find themselves out in the cold. Surely an overtly simplistic analysis but so is the claim 'Hamas is more interested in provoking war then peace' which was supportef by no sources. Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for an unsourced response to the above, but if this is the place for a "political discussion," I'll note the common understanding on the Israeli street that Hamas is an Islamist-nationalist militant organization that actively seeks the destruction of Israel and has been firing rockets and occasionally mortar shells—from its positions deeply embedded in densely populated (civilian) locations— into Israeli civilian territory (e.g. the city of Sderot) for the past eight years, stepped up after Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gush Katif region in mid-2005. Operation Cast Lead is a long-restrained IDF response to those attacks. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And the common understanding on Palestinians streets is rather different. None of this proves the unsourced claim from Sturat that 'Hamas is more interested in provoking war then peace' which was the sole topic of my response. I for one thing their goal is a lot more complex then that, as is Israel's and viewing it so simplisticly helps no one. P.S. I did not spin off this into a seperate section, that was done by AnonMoos I guess to avoid it distracting from the topic which was probably a good thing Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your post was the first in the thread to contain nothing but political disputations unconnected with answering the original question (as opposed to the brief asides in previous comments), so I thought it best to segregate it into its own subsection. AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nil, do you have any sources (such as statements by Hamas) that show that Hamas does have a long term goal of living side-by-side, in peace, with Israel ? If so, I'd be extremely interested in seeing them. If not, then I'll stand by my opinion of them. Also note that I'm only talking about Hamas here, not Fatah and certainly not the Palestinians in general. (I do, however, have an equally low opinion of Hezbollah.) StuRat (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can read Hamas' own statment of its goals here. Pay special attention to the bigoted "Hadith of the Gharqad Tree", and the declaration of eternal jihad against the Lion's Club and Rotary! AnonMoos (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Respondents may note that the OP specifically asked for "arguments for and against the idea that Israel is an occupying power", he or she did not ask for anyone's personal opinions of Hamas. Here are some talking points promoting the legitimacy of Israel. You might also consider reading The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz (ISBN 0471679526) and it's counterpoint, The Case Against Israel by Michael Neumann (ISBN 1904859461), Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History by Norman Finkelstein (ISBN 0-520-24598-9) and From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters (ISBN 0963624202) Rockpocket 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How many US presidents have been alive at the same time?

One future, one current and three former US presidents are meeting for lunch at the moment. But what's the largest gathering of former presidents that could ever have been arranged? What about British Prime Ministers? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got the data for English Prime Ministers in a table but need to do some work to get it move definitive. In 2005 there will have been 5 (James Callaghan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair - at that point Gordon Brown hadn't been Prime Minister). There may be a bigger version throughout history - will update once had chance to compare. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents by date of death may help. After Bill Clinton's departure from office in 2001, there were 5 alive Ford, Carter, Reagan, George HW Bush, and Clinton. In 1993 there were Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHWB. In 1989 Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan. Interestingly, after Jan 22, 1973 when LBJ died, there were NO former presidents alive until Nixon's resignation. I suspect the situation in 1993/2001 is the record breaker. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

From Oldest living United States president: "The most number of living presidents is six. There were three periods where there this has happened." --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, I just worked that out. The other occasion for a meeting of 5 former presidents was after March 4, 1861 when incumbent Abraham Lincoln could have entertained his 5 predecessors Martin Van Buren (1837-41; d.1862), John Tyler (1845-45; d.1862), Millard Filmore (1850-53; d.1874), Franklin Pierce (1853-57; d.1869), and James Buchanan (1857-61; d.1868) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As for British Prime ministers, there's been 5 former prime ministers quite often since 1900:

• 23 May 1923: New: Stanley Baldwin (d. 1947), Former: Andrew Bonar Law (d. Oct 1923), David Lloyd George (d. Mar 1945), Herbert Asquith (d.1928), Arthur Balfour (d.1930), The Earl of Rosebery (d. 1929)
• 22 January 1924: New: Ramsay MacDonald (d. Nov 1937), Former: Baldwin (d. 1947), Lloyd George (d. Mar 1945), Asquith (d.1928), Balfour (d.1930), Rosebery (d. 1929)
• 4 November 1924: New: Baldwin (d. 1947), Former: MacDonald (d. Nov 1937), Lloyd George (d. Mar 1945), Asquith (d.1928), Balfour (d.1930), Rosebery (d. 1929)
• 16 October 1964: New: Harold Wilson (d. 1995), Former: Douglas-Home (d. 1995), Macmillan (d. 1986), Eden (d. 1977), Churchill (d. 1965), Attlee (d. 1967)
• 5 April 1976: New: James Callaghan (d. 2005), Former: Wilson (d. 1995), Heath (d. 2005), Home (d. 1995), Macmillan (d. 1986), Eden (d. 1977)
• 4 May 1979: New: Margaret Thatcher, Former: Callaghan (d. 2005), Wilson (d. 1995), Heath (d. 2005), Home (d. 1995), Macmillan (d. 1986)
• 28 November 1990: New: John Major, Former: Thatcher, Callaghan (d. 2005), Wilson (d. 1995), Heath (d. 2005), Home (d. 1995)

Terms tended to be longer before 1900, so I'd be surprised if it occurred before then, but I don't know for sure. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is only marginally related to the question, but I thought you'd all like to know that, since the swearing-in of the incumbent (and first female) last September, Australia currently has 6 living former governors-general, more than at any time in the past. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorting of Indonesian names

How are Indonesian names normally sorted in Indonesia? Are Indonesian phonebooks sorted by first given name? I tried asking this over on the Indonesian Wikipedia a year ago but I didn't get a definite answer.[21] Does anyone here know? Haukur (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Indonesians have only one name, and even in the case of many who have more than one word in their name, none of the words may very closely correspond to western concepts of a hereditary surname, so western phonebook ordering rules might not be too useful... Do you know whether "white pages" type phonebooks are even very prominent in Indonesian cultures? AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a hereditary surname either and I'm used to people being sorted by first given name. No idea how common phonebooks are in Indonesia but I'd be interested in how any such list of names is sorted. What they do on the Indonesian Wikipedia seems to be to sort by the last name, whether that is a given name or a patronymic or whatever.[22] I don't understand the logic behind that so I'm wondering whether it's a widespread Indonesian way of sorting names or whether it's some sort of borrowing of typical enwiki sorting. Haukur (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While I can't answer the question hopefully this will help. In Malaysia at least, IIRC (it's been a while since I looked at one) in phone books are mostly sorted as they appear/are written. For a chinese name, E.g. Lim Kit Siang will be sorted by Lim (surname/family name). [This is the only case I'm sure of.) For a Malay name, e.g. Mahathir bin Mohamad as Mahathir (given name). The same for Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi even though Badawi is actually a surname not simply a patronym. For Indians I believe it's the same even for those with surnames. E.g. Karpal Singh will be sorted as Karpal not Singh. This is the same as the way they are referred to in a formal context e.g. see [23] where he is referred to as Karpal not Singh. For Western European names (or names with a Western European influence e.g. Kristang people or Tony Fernandes I'm not sure. He would usually be referred to as Fernandes but I'm not sure if that's how it's sorted in a phone book. Of course Indonesian names are often quite different from Malaysian names but my gut feeling is the same general idea will apply. If you refer to the person as Megawati then you will likely sort as Megawati. Since this is usually the first part of the name, then it's a rather simple system too. Again the tricky question may be what about those cases where it's not? Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and I should mention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Malaysia-related articles)#Names_and_sorting recommends sorting by first given name. Haukur (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

January 8

US Cabinet confirmation process

I saw this on MSNBC.com:

"If approved by the panel, Clinton could be confirmed by the full Senate before Obama takes office on Jan. 20. "

But don't cabinet secretaries need to be nominated by the President before they can be confirmed by the Senate? And Obama can't do that if he's not yet president. Or will the incumbent nominate the President-elect's choices as a courtesy? Sam 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

It looks like a case of poor reporting. Only a president can nominate a cabinet official, so unless Dubious is going to nominate Sen. Clinton, there is no way she could become Secretary of State before Sen. Obama becomes President. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Who occupies this position when Obama becomes president? Does the previous cabinet member stay on until there's a replacement? Or does the position unfilled? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my perception that all the ground work for Congressional hearings is occurring now. I've read about Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton's hearings going ahead. Is this accurate? I don't see a committee report can be issued, however, without a formal nomination. It is also important to remember that there is a powerful bureaucracy sitting in place. There is some minor trouble surrounding transition. Lately, the party that is leaving trashes the offices. 75Janice (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)75Janice

There's usually one of two things which happen, either the person from the previous administration stays on until the replacement is confirmed, or there may be a temporary replacement until the permanent one is confirmed. The current United States Deputy Secretary of State, or someone lower on the totem pole, could become Acting Secretary of State until Hillary arrives. If Obama doesn't like anyone who is currently working at the Secretary of State's office, he can consider Hillary to be his Acting Secretary of State, at least as far as offering him advice and representing the US abroad. Her salary and formal powers (such as her position in the United States presidential line of succession) would have to wait until she's confirmed, however. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Saraiki Sikhs

Is this true that in Pakistan, some Sikhs speak Saraiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.143 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is likely true that "some" of any group speak just about any language. "Some" Japanese speak Korean; "some" Mexicans speak German, . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to DOR's correct answer, most Indian Sikhs live in Punjab state, which is in the north-west, which is where most of India's 70,000+ Saraiki speakers live, so there's more overlap than the German-speaking Mexicans have. If you're asking whether there is a large population of Saraiki-speaking Sikhs, I don't know. --Sean 12:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Saraiki people, some Saraiki, who typically speak Saraiki, are in fact Sikhs. According to our article on Sikhs, some 20,000 Sikhs live in Pakistan. No doubt some of these speak Saraiki. Marco polo (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

literary insight

I've seen the term "literary insight" in several places (examples: J. Michael Eakin, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson). What is a good definition of "literary insight"? --68.109.175.242 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that "insight" was the wrong word in the first instance you link to, where I'd like to see "flair". "Literary insight" would be, I guess, an ability to perceive hidden meanings and subtleties and references and mechanics in writing. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Pakistan doing enough to combat terrorism?

Sometimes I hear people (especially from India, but also from the US) say that Pakistan is not doing enough to fight terrorists in Pakistan. What exactly is Pakistan doing wrong? They seem to be doing as much as they can. ExitRight (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a decent starting point (poor style, but well-referenced) at War on Terrorism in Pakistan. In short, there have been numerous allegations in the past few years that Pakistan is actively aiding terrorist activities. "Doing enough", though, is and will remain a value judgment, and the reference desk can offer no firm answer. — Lomn 13:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1) The ISI played a strong role in the rise of the Taliban, and has never been thoroughly purged of those with strong connections to radical extremist groups. It's widely suspected that influential figures within the ISI continue to support the Taliban in its war to regain power in Afghanistan, and maintain close relations with groups involved in terrorist attacks in Indian Kashmir and elsewhere. Not very long ago, Taliban leaders were reported to be moving openly and freely around the city of Quetta.

2) Pakistan has never properly controlled or administered the North-West Frontier etc., or provided government services there -- allowing it to remain a lawless tribal zone which has become a center of al-Qa`eda and Taliban support.

3) The Pakistani government has taken no meaningful measures to significantly reform extremist madrassas (including some from which many recruits for the Taliban have come).

In general, since about the mid-70's, the Pakistani political/military elites have followed an overall strategy of tacitly encouraging Islamic religious extremists in order to put pressure on India with respect to Kashmir and other issues. This strategy has failed to win Pakistan a single inch of land in Kashmir, but it has greatly contributed to prolonging misery in Afghanistan, made the lives of many women and non-Muslims in Pakistan wretched and miserable (see Zia ul-Haq's Islamization, Hudood Ordinance, Blasphemy law in Pakistan, Human rights in Pakistan etc.), led Pakistan to the brink of war with India several times, and effectively distracted attention away from other critical issues and vitally-needed reforms in Pakistan (which is considered by some commentators not very far from being a failed state...). AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with anything that AnonMoos has said, a problem from the Pakistani perspective is that the Pakistani state does not really enjoy legitimacy in its own right in the North-West Frontier, much of Balochistan, or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which despite their name are largely outside the control of the Pakistani federal government. These are primarily the parts of Pakistan where the Taliban and other Islamist insurgent groups are based. (Whether these groups should be called "terrorists", a term that is difficult to define objectively, is a matter of perspective.) Attacks on Islamist insurgents in these regions, who enjoy the backing of a substantial part of the populace, further erodes Pakistani legitimacy in these regions and tends to reduce Pakistan's chances of ever freeing these regions of Islamist insurgent domination. It is a Catch-22 situation, not helped by the steady weakening of the Pakistani state even in its heartlands of Punjab and Sindh. (This weakness is due partly to misrule, as AnonMoos suggests, but also to extreme poverty, birth rates that are too high, a lack of resources, and a related lack of economic development, which are themselves partly but not entirely the result of the dysfunctional political system.) So I think that, notwithstanding all of the grave errors of Pakistan's political and military elites in the past, they face a difficult task in making headway against the Taliban and their like in the present. Perhaps their only hope would be to recognize the country's desperate need for good government and economic development, to concentrate the country's limited resources on education and economic development, and then gradually be in a position to offer the people of the North-West Frontier, Balochistan, and Tribal Areas a prospect of peace and prosperity in return for turning away from the Taliban and their like. However, that would require a shifting of resources away from military operations along the country's western frontier, which would bring Pakistan criticism and perhaps penalties from Western countries wanting Pakistan to stop terrorism. Yet another Catch-22 for Pakistan. Marco polo (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If Pakistani elites had spent a lot less resources trying to rival and strategically threaten India (something which Pakistan's general geopolitical situation does not allow it to easily do) and a lot more resources on real internal development and reform of Pakistan's rotten "feudal" system, then Pakistan would certainly be a lot better off than it actually is now. By the way, the article War on Terrorism in Pakistan doesn't have anything remotely resembling a proper Wikipedia article introductory paragraph (and never has had one, as far as I can tell...). AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that Pakistan may "do all they can", but that this still may not be enough to stop Pakistan from becoming a terrorist-controlled state (with nuclear weapons). Here are some additional things Pakistan could try:

4) Don't ever sign peace treaties with al Queada or the Taliban and give them money, as they have done in the past. This gives those groups legitimacy, resources, and time to build up their armies.

5) Train their military in anti-insurgency tactics. They currently seem to be trained for a war with India, which is foolishness, as that's a far smaller threat than the insurgents are.

6) If they can't manage to control the frontier areas, they should allow others to do so. If they have no presence there, it shouldn't even be considered part of Pakistan. Allow those states that can't be controlled to secede. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stu I agree with most of your given suggestions but the last one (6) is completly foolish. No goverment and state of this planet is going to surrender any piece of land whatsoever without a extremely powerful reason. All countries/national goverments are very interrested in keeping the unity of their entire territory and in surpressing movements of secession, peacefully if possible, and by force if neccessary.

Even if the central goverment is unable to control effectivly a "renegade/secceding province" for whatever reason (usually political, economic, and military weakness) it will not easily recognize a de facto independence. It will simply wait, gather its strength, and hope for the right opportunity. With a bit of luck the seccesionists will kill each other and/or the national military will eventually crush them. Exactly this seems to be happening recently in Sri Lanka. Better to fight through years and entire decades if neccessary in order to mantain national unity.

At the first glance it might seem a bit ilogical ("What would be the big diff of accepting a de facto independence?" and "Better peace than war") but it is completly logical. If you allow one province to seccede, other provinces - encouraged by success of the first - will also try to seccede. Exactly that's why the Chinese goverment is not going to accept an official independence of Taiwan any time soon.

It's not because they hate the Taiwanese, its democracy, or something like that (despite what the American media likes to proclaim). It's because if China lets Taiwan, it's going to have an exploding powder-keg with Tibet, the western province with the muslim majority, Manchuria (Manchus are not Han Chinese), the special northern Mongol area, and God knows what else in their hands.

And what will happen if a province seccedes? Foolish and arrogant local politicians/fools (mostly of the new nation, but also from neighboring countries) are going to demand a "redrawing of the borders" with the age-old argument that in the past "our" nation was bigger. And this usually leads to war.

Study history, this happenend nearly all the time. The few occasions in which this didn't happen (e.g.: the Velvet divorce of Chekoslovakia) are simply the exceptions that prove the rule.

If Pakistan gives up the the northern provinces, others will also demand their own independence. In the bitter end a lot of ppl will have to die and for what? So that in the end some politician proclaims that they are all so free? They still are going to pay taxes. It simply isn't worth it, UNLESS the central goverment starts a ethnic genocide against a ethnic/cultural/religious minority (like Serbia was doing in Kosovo). In such cases all bets are off. Flamarande (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

the amateur detective who didn't move much.

Hi everybody. I have the vague memory of an amateur detective stories where the heroe never moves from his home and solves the cases remotely. Do such stories ever existed ? I'd be glad to get help on that. Gino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.115.193 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nero Wolfe stories by Rex Stout. Good times. —Kevin Myers 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mycroft Holmes is kind of like that (though he's not the protagonist...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And of course some detecive fiction fans have enjoyed speculating that Wolfe is the son or nephew of Mycroft Holmes. —Kevin Myers 23:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You ! Gino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.115.193 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Though it sounds like it's Nero Wolfe you're looking for, there is of course also L.B. Jeffries. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They don't move much less than the Dead Man in Glen Cook's series Garrett P.I.. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mycroft Holmes is the protagonist in a series of books by "Quinn Fawcett". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnyPerson (talk • contribs) 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I once read a funny article where someone argued that Mycroft Holmes was an early digital computer. The Doyle stories actually referred to Mycroft's "digits" and to the glowing of his "eyes" (displays?). Digital computers I have interacted with tended not to move around much. Edison (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting theory - and, of course, there's a well-known fictional computer named after him in Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Grutness...wha? 07:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also the Hercule Poirot story The Disappearance of Mr Davenheim (1923), in which Poirot wins a bet with Japp that he can solve the case within a week without leaving his apartment. Xn4 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i've heard that americans are lazy but this question takes the cake!! 86.217.98.213 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (sorry!)

From my recollection, Poirot was Belgian, Mycroft Homes was English, and Nero Wolfe was Basque. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I resent the implication that Americans are lazy, and would disprove this statement with numerous facts and studies, but I'm feeling in need of a nap just now. StuRat (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wolfe was from Montenegro, actually, in all but one of the accounts, as the Nero Wolfe article explains. Well, he was from Montenegro as much as any fictional character is from anywhere... --- OtherDave (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OtherDave is quite correct, and I apologise for my faulty memory. There is something to be said for checking the facts before saving the text. :-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there was NO attempt made to create any sort of logical chronology or backstory between the MANY Nero Wolfe stories. The author intentionally did not try to create one, and intended each to be a stand-alone story. The characters do have consistant personalities and there are some vague commonalities, but there is no consistant "Nero Wolfe" universe that can be reasonably created... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed the same lack of consistent back story in a very popular ongoing series of detective/adventure novels which are reportedly ghostwritten. Apparently the newest writer did not bother to read all the earlier novels. Edison (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This subgenre is known as "armchair detection", and the oldest example of it is Edgar Allan Poe's tale of The Mystery of Marie Roget.Rhinoracer (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 9

Leap Years

I understand that the Hebrew Religious Calendar back in the turn of the century B.C. to A.D. had a Leap Year every six years where a month was added (Adar Sheni). Adar is the twelth month (February - March in our Julian Calendar0; Sheni means second. I would like to know when was the closest Leap Year month added to A.D 1. Thank you for your assistance. Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.92.249 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Adar bet is not added once in 6 years, but rather more often, see Hebrew_calendar#Leap_months. The year 2008/2009 CE is 5769, which means the year 0/1 CE was 3761. Since 3761 = 19*197 + 18, that was 18-th year of the 19-year cycle. Therefore both the year before (3760) and the year after (3762) had Adar bet. That is, assuming the rule for adding Adar bet was the same before Hillel (I'm not sure about that). --Dr Dima (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you read our article Hebrew calendar, you will find that the current method of following a standard cycle of leap years on the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th years of a 19-year cycle was not adopted until probably the 4th century CE (AD). In the first century BCE, Jewish religious leaders inserted leap months so as to keep the lunar calendar on a seasonal cycle by judging whether barley was ripe at the end of Adar. If it was not, a leap month was added, and that year became a leap year. In the first century, when it was done by observation, the insertion of leap months would have been irregular and based partly on the weather that year. For example, if Judea had had a cold, wet spring that delayed planting in the year after a leap year, the barley might have ripened so late that a leap month could have been inserted two years in a row. If Judea then had a series of gradually warmer and sunnier springs that allowed for earlier plantings for several years in a row, a leap year might conceivably be delayed for several years. In practice, leap years would have tended to be years with colder, wetter springs. Given this observational basis and irregularity, there is no way to calculate when leap years were declared in pre-Talmudic times. We may not even have a complete historical record of those ancient leap years, so we may not know which leap year was closest to 1 CE (AD 1). Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

uni degree

what is an uni degree and how do i get one i want to travel to japan and teach english but i need an uni degree first.66.55.209.235 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A university degree is a qualification issued by a university. The standard way to get one is to attend a university for 3-5 years (depending on the nature of the degree and what country you are in). If you want a career as a teacher, then you will probably need a degree, but teaching English as a way to fund some travelling can often be done with a lesser qualification - see TEFL#Qualifications_for_TEFL_teachers for some more detail. --Tango (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Although all of my friends who have gone to China or Korea (not Japan) to teach English have had university degrees (usually in unrelated disciplines...), many have reported that the demand for English teachers is so great that the university degree rule was very lax. Many of the firms they worked for employed people who lied about having a degree, didn't provide any evidence of a degree or simply said they didn't have one. This is not a suggestion. NByz (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Contract Law

Hello. I am asking this question out of curiosity. I AM NOT ASKING THIS QUESTION FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Are contracts made by two minors in Canada legally binding? If so, can either party legally rescind from the contract if the contract involves non-necessaries and if there were no financial benefits?

This what I mean by "there were no financial benefits".

A minor bought vintage comics worth $4233.75 altogether, using money from his parent's credit card through cash advances. The minor wanted to refund the comics after thinking more about his purchase. The store owner refused but offered advice on selling the comics. The minor sold some of the comics. He went to court to void the contract with the store owner, arguing that the contract was voidable because it involved non-necessaries. The court dismissed the minor's action because some of the comics increased in value and the minor would have received a financial benefit.

Thanks very much. --Mayfare (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You may well be asking the question "out of curiosity" but a request about the binding nature of a contract, about the capacity of minors to enter into binding contracts, and about the significance, if any, of a financial component, is a request for an opinion on matters of law, which is otherwise known as "legal advice". Any other opinion, not based on legal knowledge, would be useless in respect of any answer to your question. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if (a) contracts signed by minors were legal; and (b) stealing and using a credit card comprised a contractual obligation. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The articles on Contract, Age of Majority, and Capacity (law) have some information. The law varies between Canadian provinces, but generally minors can void most contracts with varying exceptions (they may not be able to void contracts for for sale of necessaries; for student loans; etc). A minor is either below 18 or 19 depending on the province. "Necessaries" is a vague term; a rough US definition is "food, lodging, clothing, medicine, medical attention, and education ... to the extent such items are suited to the minor's social position and situation in life." [24] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To try again: the question with the inset paragraph appears to be a case that has already been before the courts. (I am still trying to work out who the second minor is, unless he/she is the purveyor of the comic books.) The OP is asking for the opinion of the Ref Desk respondents on matters of law as have already been decided. If we are still not convinced that this is a request for legal advice, then perhaps we could consider that the question reads most like homework for a class on contract law, and avoid providing commentary. Links may be useful; they may also be misleading. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are chain letters containing threats illegal in the UK?

This is not a request for legal advice (honestly!) - but I'm wondering if it is, in fact against the law in the UK to forward chain letters/emails/text messages which threaten bodily harm, death or various other 'bad things' to those who 'break the chain' and don't forward the message on to <x number of> people? I know that the pyramid scheme-type chain letters are illegal - but what about the ones of the potentially psychologically-damaging variety?

I know otherwise-rational men in their 30s who'll get freaked out and forward this junk on to everyone they know, 'just in case'. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Chain letter or no, I'm fairly certain it's illegal to threaten people with violence in the UK, especially in an attempt to force them to do something they would otherwise not do. Algebraist 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

From the ones I've seen, it's never a case of "I, the guy who just sent you this whom you probably know well, am going to murder you if you don't send this on to everyone in your address book" - rather it's content like "<Whoever> from <Wherever> didn't forward this piece of crap on to everyone in his address book within 72 hours and died in an unexplained car crash/was murdered by an unknown assailant in broad daylight the very next day". It's not quite a direct threat, but it's certainly rather nasty... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The ones I've seen vary. Some are rubbish,, right from the first word. But some others have excellent content, which I read with great pleasure, only to be turned off by "If you send this to 10 people within 72 hours, <something good> will happen to you. If you don't, <something bad> will happen to you". And I think, why did they ruin such a positive message? I refuse on principle to ever send them on. I'm quite prepared to take my chances. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Under the common law of England, a threat of bodily harm or death is usually a common assault. Xn4 (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine this would come under the auspices of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (full text). Nanonic (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if a threatening chain letter is sent to you by the same person more than once, which seems unlikely. Xn4 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contains an "Offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress" which might apply[25]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian painters

Might someone be so kind as to name the more significant Russian painters? Any era is of interest. Neither Russian painters nor Russian art sheds any light on this question. Thank you. –Outriggr § 03:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is the Category:Russian painters as well as your list. Off the top of my head – among these, Malevich founder of the Suprematist movement, dynamic cubist Goncharova, and constructivist, Rodchenko stand out. There's also a List of 19th century Russian painters. Oops I forgot Sonia Delaunay art deco orphist, Kandinsky and Marc Chagall. Léon Bakst painted Nijinksy. Once you get into these articles, just click on their contemporaries to get going. There's a beautiful early painter who was a serf but I forget his name. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now we've got two, Vasily Tropinin and Vasily Sadovnikov, but Tropinin's work is the eye-candy for people and Maxim Vorobiev also 1700s is for landscapes. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree with calling Tropinin's work "eye-candy" (self-portrait pictured) although, curiously enough, in his youth he worked as a confectioner. Xn4 (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Such a list must always be somewhat subjective, but don't forget Andrei Rublev. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ilya Repin is probably the most-famous Russian painter of the XIXth Century. --Xuxl (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The most valuable Russian paintings (based on auction prices) are by Natalia Goncharova (her Picking Apples is top), Konstantin Somov, Aleksandr Yakovlev, and Ivan Aivazovsky.[26] The modernist Goncharova is a brilliant artist, and her husband Mikhail Larionov is also very good. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about the Blago mess

Hello all,

I'm been keeping up with the scandal over Illinois Governor Blagojevich. A State House panel has recommended he be impeached. Since Governors have pardon powers, could the Governor pardon himself and end all of this? 75.180.235.209 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The governor's pardon power is defined by Article V, Section 12, of the Illinois state constitution, which specifically says that he can grant pardons after conviction. Supposing that he did commit a crime, he could be impeached and convicted first (after which he's no longer governor), then tried in criminal court and convicted there, and he would not be able to do anything.

Note: we are not allowed to give legal advice here. If you are Governor Blagojevich, please disregard this response. --Anonymous, 09:39 UTC, January 9, 2009.

Thanks for your help, Anon! The post above was by me; I just forgot to login; and I'm not the Governor by any means! - Thanks, Hoshie 10:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And keep in mind if officials could pardon themselves out of an impeachment then there wouldn't really be an impeachment power, would there? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonfarm

Why do job reports, specifically in the US, measure job loss as the reduction in nonfarm employment? Why don't they count the agriculture industry in the employment reports? Borisblue (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonfarm payrolls says "[t]he farming industry is not included because of its seasonal hiring which would distort the number around harvest times". Haukur (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

January 10

we are ispanic family.

our question is hoe we can become part of your nation because we'r living in this country for some many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.18.117 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you're a Hispanic family which wants to become US citizens ? Or are you in another country ? What is you're current status ? Do you have green cards, or are you in the country illegally ? StuRat (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to get all Hermione Granger about it, but let's make sure this doesn't cross into legal advice territory. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This could be a question about gaining a sense of participation, of belonging, that is not legal, but emotional or psychological. However, as we are not even certain of the country involved, it is difficult to know which way to orient an answer. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's better than getting all Hermione Baddeley about it. If they are interested in citizenship, there's plenty of ways to help with that without giving legal advice. We could refer them to an INS site which lists the requirements to obtain citizenship, for example. StuRat (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We aren't sure exactly what you're asking or which nation you want to become a part of. Wikipedia is international. This is just an opinion, but if you have been living in a country for many years, then I think that you are part of it, even if you don't have legal status. If it is legal status that you want, we are sorry that Wikipedia cannot offer legal advice, but you may be able to find a lawyer or other expert advice at an organization dedicated to helping immigrants. We might be able to find such an organization in your country if we knew which country that is. Marco polo (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Situation in Myanmar

Does anyone know of any good ideas that can help improve the conflict in Myanmar, aside from economic sanctions? Any ideas would be much appreciated.

-Julie

Julie, this is a reference desk.--Wetman (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am aware of that. Sorry I do not understand, but what you are implying?

What I think he's getting at is we're quite good at answering questions that have a definitive answer - e.g. "What percentage of the average human body is water?" and less good at answering questions that have more subjective answers - e.g. "What is the meaning of life?". To go back to your original question - there are various methods of pressure that could be applied aside from economic sanctions - diplomatic pressure, UN resolutions, offering economic aid in exchange for democratic reforms or even military action. However the bottom line is that only the people of Myanmar have the right and ability to decide the future of their country - there are over 50 million people there - and 500,000 soldiers. No military dictatorship could continue in power should the entire country turn against them. Exxolon (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaugural Youth Concert

I know this is a pretty atypical question for the RD, but I've tried googling all different variants on the question and am surprisingly not getting anything. Does anybody know where to get tickets to the youth concert on January 19 in Washington DC? It is officially connected to the Inauguration. Admission is free but tickets are required… where can we get them? Thanks, Fbv65edel — t — c // 05:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Verizon Center site [27], there has yet been no announcement about tickets, though the schedule does show the event at the Center. If you click on the link in this paragraph, there is a further link to a site where you can leave your email address in order to receive information as it becomes available. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

looking up entry/exit requirements for travel

is there a place where one can find entry/exit requirements to various countries for chinese nationals who are also u.s. permanent residents (green card holders)? there are various countries for which the consular sites say that us nationals do not require a visa while chinese nationals do. However, these sites do not say anything about chinese nationals with green cards. --Blahmebe (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In how far is Palestine a souvereign country?

How much is Palestine a sovereign country? I don't mean international recognition, but domestically. There is a government, albeit split now, but how completely does it govern? For example, afaik it doesn't have a regular army (which I suppose is why Hamas is called a terrorist organisation). Israel invaded the Gaza Strip, so it had no military presence there. But on the West Bank, Israel puts up road blocks and walls, so does it effectively police that area? Or does the PLO also have a police? On this map, do the Palestinians have complete control over the green areas? For another aspect, does Palestine have its own money and can it freely trade with other countries without interference from Israel? For example, I understand that Palestinians (at least in the Gaza strip) need permission from Israel to leave their country (or whatever it should be called). Is this true? DirkvdM (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, the West Bank is divided into Israeli-controlled (Area C) and Palestinian-controlled (Area A and B) areas. Generally speaking, Fatah controls the Palestinian population centers of the West Bank. The Jewish settlements and most of the rural area are under the jurisdiction of the Israeli army. Because the Jewish and Arab areas of the West Bank are so mixed up together, one often has to traverse Area C to get from one Palestinian town to another. Hence the checkpoints. Again my understanding is that Fatah has complete control over the Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, including the security forces. The Israeli shekel and Jordanian dinar are used as currency. Israel controls the Jordan River, so there is no way out of the West Bank without traversing an area of Israeli control. The Gaza-Egypt border is generally closed at Egyptian insistence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course one has to traverse Israel (occupied) territory overland to leave the West Bank. But is that just a practical obstacle? For example, what about air travel (assuming there are Palestinians who could afford that)? And what about the Gaza strip? It borders on the sea, so can't Palestinians travel and trade over the Mediterranean? Gaza has a small port, but on Google Maps I see only small boats. Oh, and can't journalists get in through there? DirkvdM (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The only exits from the West Bank are over the Allenby Bridge or through Israel. There's no commercial airport on the West Bank itself. The Gaza airport has been shut down, and Gaza basically blockaded from the sea (except for intermittently-tolerated brief local fishing trips) since late 2000... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I now read in a newspaper a remark that Israel should stop the blockade of the Gaza Strip. That was originally the reason for my question. I read hints about this, but no clear explanation. Does Israel stop all international trade by the Palestinians? So not just guns? DirkvdM (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Large-scale commercial trade into and out of Gaza is usually only allowed by Israel at times when there is almost complete cessation of all violence -- something which has been increasingly rare since late 2000. Israel normally allows humanitarian supplies and basic necessary commodities to flow into Gaza except when there are major onging hostilities, but this shoveling in of international aid over the wall does very little by itself to sustain an active economy within Gaza. AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What territories did Israel conquer in 1967?

I've read that Hamas has effectively (if not officially) abandoned its goal of destroying Israel when a few months ago it said that Israel should withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967 (the Six day war). But the article doesn't make clear what those territories are. Is there a map of that? Or of the situation before that, so I can compare it with the present situation? Oddly, I find lots of maps of battle plans and such, but none of the resulting actual situations. DirkvdM (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, the international community recognizes Isreal proper as the territory from before the 6-day war; During the 6 day war, Isreal occupied these territories: the Golan Heights (occupied from Syria), the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, (occupied from Jordan) and the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, occupied from Egypt. While Israel would later return the Sinai to Egypt, they still techinically "occupy" the remaining territories(Golan, Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem). I'm surprised that you had trouble finding this in our article on the Six Day War, that article clearly explains these 3 territories, and the links to each territory contain some nice maps... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read the text, but what precisely constituted, for example, 'the West Bank' before the war? Oh, hold on, the second map in that article answers that question. The problem is there is such a humungous amout of articles on the area. That map should really (also) be in the Six Day War article. Oh, I see it is also in the 1949 Armistice Agreements article. Anyway, question answered; what is now regarded as the Palestinian areas is the same as what it was before 1967. I understand the borders of the UN Partition Plan were never effectuated. DirkvdM (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Language in Shakespeare

I'm writing a paper on the use of language in a scene from Shakespeare. Here are some approaches that I could bring to that subject. Does anyone else have any other thoughts on possible approaches?

1. I could discuss meaning: what do the words actually mean, what story are they telling?
2. I could discuss levels of meaning: what do metaphors, similes and puns mean on their metaphorical and literal levels, and what is the relationship between the two?
3. (Following my point about puns) I can discuss the use of wordplay and humour. If I wanted to be more specific I could follow Partridge/Rubinstein/Williams and focus on sex and bawdy.
4. I could discuss imagery.
5. I can identify and discuss the use of rhetorical devices, perhaps using the extensive database at Silva Rhetoricae.
6. I can discuss subtext and emotional content, and how that relates to the actual text, including how much scope there is for the actors to engage in interpretation.
7. I could follow, say, Mark Rylance, in focusing on religious, paranormal or supernatural aspects.
8. I can follow Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan and ask what the language tells us about the psychology of characters and/or the psychology of the writer.
9. I can deal with the words as poetry and therefore:
   1. Like Ian McKellen or Vivien Heilbron, focus on the last word of each line: establshing whether those words carry more than their share of the meaning of the scene as a whole.
   2. Like John Barton, focus on contrapunctal stresses: that is to ask whether the stresses that fall outside the normal pattern carry extra meaning.
   3. Like Antony Sher and others, view late Shakespeare like jazz music: identifying the broken stress patterns themselves as driving the sound of the poetry.

Or, you can just give me the usual thing about doing my own homework. AndyJones (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

See if you find this useful

• Analysis of the language used in its cultural setting and the audience. What common ideas, knowledge, views, etc. is the play based on?
• Compare how language would have to be changed for a different cultural setting or audience. (E.g. imagine an island population without hierarchical system. How could you explain/transpose the ideas of kings and queens? How would the Tempest work for Kalahari Bushmen?)

(N.B. This will require a lot of reading up on other cultures and languages)--76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps.

Statue of Virgin Mary

In the Roman Catholic religion, what does the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary standing on the world with snakes at her feet signify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.26.104 (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC) It's the immaculate conception,she is crushing Satan(the snake) beneath her heel. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/The_Church_Year/Immaculate_Conception.hotclaws 16:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the iconic triumphalist formula connection with the alleged Marian apparition of 1830: see Catherine Labouré. The serpent connects Mary with Eve, crushing the serpent with her heel (Genesis). The serpent is an emblem of Error: we know that means us. For the demonization of the serpent, see Serpent (mythology). The image is intended to remind the viewer of its complementary opposite, Regina coeli, "Queen of Heaven", an epithet inherited from Ishtar. --Wetman (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It also incorporates Mary-as-the-Woman-of-Revelation. - Nunh-huh 16:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

is it sounding or side of

is it by the sounding sea or by the side of the sea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.98.213 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the question is mroe a Language Desk question, and really depends on context, but I'll give it a go.

"By the sounding sea" could be correct if it's an unusual poem, where the sounds are the waves crashing, etc.; "sounding" would be an adjective, in this case. It's not normal English, though, as if a person wished to write of the soudns of the sea, he or she would be better off writing, "By the crashing sea," or "the turbulent sea." It is proper grammar, though, even if awkward.

So, why didn't I just automatically say "by the side of the sea" is correct? because, frankly, that doesn't sound right, either. You can be by the side of a road, but think about it; the sea is so vast, it's hard to envision it with sides the way a road has two clear sides. So, I'm not really comfortable saying that's right, becasue while it may be poetic, it's a little redundant; why not just say "by the sea"? Although, when using a certain rhyme scheme, if you need six syllables, then, by george, "side of the" are three good little syllables to throw in to make a six-syllable phrase.

Edited to add, if you'd wanted the title of something, you should have capitalized the appropriate words. The way your sentence is worded, with no capitals in the first letters of words, it doesn't look like a title. It looks like you heard something, though, and may not have heard quite well enough; can you ask the original speaker, or was this on the radio or TV somewhere?Somebody or his brother (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the OP had given us all the information . . . Poe wrote a poem called Annabel Lee of which the final two lines are controversial. I quote from our article:

There is debate on the last line of the poem. The Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore, Maryland has identified 11 different versions of the poem that were published between 1849 and 1850.[9] However, the biggest variation is in the final line:

Original manuscript – In her tomb by the side of the sea

Alternative version – In her tomb by the sounding sea

The short answer is that it depends upon which version you are reading. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes exists! :-) (Although I guess it wasn't that hard, I did at least mention the possibily of a poem, though I'd never call what I did a guess at it, even. And, to have solved that with so little information is amazing to me. Congratulations.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

technology and it's impact on jobs

Hi, is there any consensus among economists about whether technology increases or decreses the overall level of employment, or has no real effect? I'm especially interested in projections for the future, since for the moment nothing seems truly alarming. Thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

russian short story Author/title

When I was in college approx. 35 years ago i read a short story about a fella who arrived at the end of his miserable life and pleaded for another chance to live his life again and make different (hopefully) better choices. Somehow he is given this wonderful gift however as he growsthrough childhood, teens, adult . . the memory of another life and the promise to live better in this new opportunity slip away first as some sort of murky memory, then perhaps a distant dream and at last the menmory is totally lost to time and of course he makes the same tragic mistakes as he did previously in his former life. I can't for the life of me remember the russian author or the title though i'm pretty sure the title consisted of only a man's name (russian). Any help is gratefully appreciated.Pastorpete1 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the sort of short story that Anton Chekhov might have written, but I can't say it rings any bells with me. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Strange Life of Ivan Osokin by P. D. Ouspensky, though that's 166 pages. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 11

Electoral vote counting

Does anyone know where the transcript of the counting of the electoral votes on 8 January, 2009 is? I checked the Congressional Record from the GPO site, it had the separate AM sessions of the two houses but not the joint session for the official count. Thanks, 216.160.50.46 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is it, I think. --Cam (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, that doesn't work. Anyway it starts on House page H75 of the Congressional Record for January 8. --Cam (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Two Questions before making a decision. Q1 and Now what?

There was a really good quote about asking yourself two questions before making a decision. A question which I have now forgotten, and "Now what?". What is the first question? Many thanks, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find a quote with the exact words "Now what?" but there is one which captures the intent: “Decide what you want, decide what you are willing to exchange for it. Establish your priorities and go to work.” by H.L. Hunt. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In Saxony

I was wondering what was story behind the title Duke/Duchess in Saxony, which were held by the son and daughter of Ernestine dukes. But Queen Victoria, who married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duchess in Saxony; yet Infanta Antónia of Portugal, who was a Wettin female dynast in the Braganza line, was Duchess of Saxony. I also notice the sons and daughters the Albertine were Duke/Duchess of Saxony instead of in Saxony. Can anybody tell me why? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a rather thin explanation of "Duke in Bavaria/de:Herzog in Bayern", and also of "Duke in Mecklenburg/de:Herzog zu Mecklenburg" but I couldn't find one for "Duke in Saxony/Herzog zu Sachsen". If you do find out, stick it in an article somewhere. And what about "von und zu Liechtenstein"? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

after EC::: Looks like a typo or translation issue. The German page de:Victoria (Vereinigtes Königreich) has "Prinzessin von Sachsen-Coburg und war Herzogin von Sachsen" and this "Antonia Maria Fernanda Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Francesca de Assis Ana Gonzaga Silvina Julia Augusta von Bragança und Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Infantin von Portugal" for de:Antonia Maria von Portugal. So the title is the same. There are occasionally German titles with "zu" instead of "von" but I don't know wheter there's any difference. That doesn't seem to apply here, though.--76.97.245.5 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference between "von" and "zu" can be conceptualized as the difference between "from" and "at", or "origin" and "possession". If the family still retains overlordship/control/ownership of the place in their surname, they get the "zu"; if they don't, they get the "von"; if they have two lines of inheritance they can be "von und zu". "Zu" is often used with a new possession of a new line to distinguish it from elder branches, especially when the younger branch obtains an entailed Majorat. Use tends to be sloppy, so you can't really depend on the use of the particles being accurate. And other uses occurred as well, with some mediatized families using "zu" as a marker of prior sovereignty. - Nunh-huh 12:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Arab/Israeli Conflict

Can anyone recommend a good book about the conflict over the last hundred years? Something from a disinterested point-of-view, as much as such a thing is possible. 80.229.160.127 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of Confusion of the Lexeme 'Priest' or 'Priester'

When was the German lexeme Priester or the English lexeme 'priest' first used to translate kohen or hiereus? Question including modicum of background: Since the confusion by which Jewish and Christian usage may render Hebrew and Greek for either 'old man' (zaqen > presbyteros) or 'sacrificer' (kohen > hiereus) as 'priest' (originally simply 'old man', rarely a true comparative, in re instances in the LXX = OGr) seems to have been an early case of so-called 'dynamic equivalence', by which a term for a principal figure in churchdom was applied to a distinctly different principal figure in ancient israelite religion, when between the old English homilies of Aelfric (who still uses sacerd from the Latin) and the Germanic usage of Luther did this substitution occur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhattalmiyd (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

BR20: Flags of All Nations

Reading this article, I see of a British government publication "BR20" - Google seems to throw up nothing helpful. Does anyone know where I can find out more, obtain a copy, etc.? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Googling gives an ISBN of 0117729329, the publisher is Stationery Office Books. Amazon has a CD for EUR 130, but it is not in stock. Maybe your trusted bookseller can look it up and find a source? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What is SURYA NAMASKARAM?

WHAT IS MEANT BY SURYA NAMASKARAM?