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 31

Law question

A hypothetical case: Tom beats up Dick. Dick is left badly injured, but for his own reasons, does not press charges against Tom. Harry, a friend of Dick's, wants Tom punished. These are my questions: (1) Is it even necessary for someone to bring charges, or will Tom be prosecuted anyway? (2) If yes, would Harry be able to bring charges against Tom, or would he lack standing? Lantzy ^talk 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly possible for charges to be pressed in certain scenarios even if the victim refuses to do so or co-operate with law enforcement - this is a major strand of domestic violence law - the legal system recognises that victims may be reluctant to press charges but has the ability to do so anyway. Exxolon (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Battery (crime) is a felony and is prosecuted by the state against the perpetrator. Harry can go to any police station and report the crime. Battery (tort) is a tort aagainst (in this case) Dick. Dick can go to a lawyuer to raise a claim against Tom. Harry has no standing. This response is general: for specifics in any particular jurisdiction, you nee to ask a lawyer. -Arch dude (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In most common law jurisdictions crimes are almost always prosecuted in the name of the crown (or "the people" in the US) and there is no need for a complaint or someone to press charges. However, for many crimes it is generally the practice of local police and public prosecutors to not bring charges unless a complaint is made or the victime "presses charges." There is nothing stopping them at law, however. For an interesting application of the "no complainant needed" idea check out BDSM#Legal_status--Jabberwalkee (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What others have said is correct, but it is important to note that without the testimony of the victim it would be very difficult to get a conviction. I think that's why such cases are rarely brought - I imagine there are exceptions, though, where other witnesses are sufficient. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the quick replies. Lantzy ^talk 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

New paintings in Oval Office

29 January, 2009

2008 November 2008

Could someone knows what this two shrill colour paintings are ? There were not in the Oval Office during the last days of G.W.B and seems to have replace his personal Texas paintings. Did Obama chose it ? TCY (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They look a little generic to me (a flag on the left, the statue of liberty on the right). I wouldn't be surprised if they were just stand-ins for the moment. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, apparently those two paintings were in Bill Clinton's office as well: [1] --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In the first picture, according to our article on the Oval Office, the painting on the left is by Childe Hassam called "Avenue in the Rain" (here's an excellent link). The other item is the Statue of Liberty. Underneath the statue appears to be a bronze sculpture by Frederic Remington called "The Bronco Buster". --Blue387 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this answer. I've heard about the Avenue on the Rain painting was in the White House (as I partially translated on the French Wikipedia the Childe Hassam article) but i did not recognize it. The statue of Liberty painting is a little colorful for the actual shade of the Oval Office.

Some of the Obama Oval Office paintings changes noted in the english wikipedia Oval Office article are wrong. It said

"Barack Obama has also installed the portraits of two Presidents: George Washington has been placed above the fireplace and Abraham Lincoln to the right of the Resolute desk.". But the Abraham Lincoln painting was not really at the right of resolute desk and this two portraits, as shown below, were already there during Bush presidency. I'm going to correct it. TCY (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• 
  George Bush in the Oval Office in october 2006 with the two paintings on the wall, George Washington placed above the fireplace
• 
  January 8, 2009 with Lincoln portrait during the last days of Bush administration
• 
  January 29, 2009 with Lincoln portrait at the same place

RELATED QUESTION: An episode of the tv show The West Wing mentioned that the president can have anything from The Smithsonian to decorate the White House (President Bartlett jokes that he wants Apollo 11.) Is there any truth to this? Taggart.BBS (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  edit: d'oh! posted accidentally in the archive (what i get for responding to a week old question.

name the novel (children/young adult book)

name the novel (children/young adult book)

I read this great novel a couple of years back, and I want to read it again but I can't seem to remember its title, so please help me

It's a story about a young man named David (I think... i'm not too sure). It's set in modern times (as in the 21st century). david has recently moved to the city, and he is looking for a place to stay. He finds a great place, an inn owned by a single mother and a daughter (aged roughly 8-12). the mother is an artist, and she makes ceramic dragons in her own studio upstairs at the inn. the mother and the daughter make one for David as a welcoming gift. What he doesn't know (and this is the basic groundwork of the story) is that the tiny dragons are alive and sometimes come to life. He once tried to go into the studio but is shocked and burnt when he tries to turn the doorknob, as if it was heated from the inside. ...... hmmm I can't remember the rest, but david decides to write a short story as a thankyou gift to the young girl (daughter). It's about a squirrel who ventures to the city. My memory's quite blurry, but i think that the squirrel story actually comes true and one of the squirrels gets hurt and they call the wildlife care center. the female wildlife carer is named sophie (i think...), and david and sophie begin dating. Also, sometimes the mother tells a special bedtime story to her daughter about a dragon and a girl named (guineviere ?? im not sure) Later on, David begins to realize that his ceramic dragon may be alive. sometimes when david is writing and cannot think of anything, when he pictures the dragon in his mind, the dragon sometimes gives him a hint or a keyword to help him. But after a while, he begins to dislike the dragon: and the dragon, needing his master's love to survive, begins to die...

That's pretty much everything I could remember about the book. Could anyone help me remember the title of the book? Anything would be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboi7 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the Entertainment reference desk. Please don't post the same query to multiple reference desks - thanks. Karenjc 13:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Zambo

Which Latin American nations, besides Venezuela, has zambo population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.154 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See Zambo#Population_today. However, if the term is taken to mean any mixed African/native American group, I'd expect those to exist in pretty much every county in the Americas. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make clear. I know that Brazil, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Uruguay, Dominican Republic and Cuba and Puerto Rico have significant black population, but do they have Amerindian population in order to produce a Zambo child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.154 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, almost every nation in the Americas still has a significant "Amerindian" population (although many will have blended with Europeans). Haiti might be an exception, where the Spanish seemed to kill them all off before importing blacks as slaves. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the figures I found here and in the CIA Factbook:

Brazil:             Amerindian 0.4%
Colombia:           Amerindian 1.8%
Costa Rica:         Amerindian 1%
Cuba:               mulatto and mestizo 24.8%
Dominican Republic: mixed 73%
Ecuador:            Amerindian 25%
Honduras:           Amerindian 7%
Nicaragua:          Amerindian 5%
Panama:             Amerindian 6%
Puerto Rico:        Amerindian 0.4%
Uruguay:            Amerindian 4.5% here but practically nonexistent in CIA
Venezuela:          Amerindian 5%

Cuba and the Dominican Republic don't report Amerind figures, but do have mixed races, which likely include Amerind/black mixtures. For some reason the CIA Factbook says Amerinds are practically nonexistent in Uruguay. I find the figures we have to be more believable. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bolivia would rate high in the Amerindian stats, at 55% according to our article. Whether there is a significant zambo population is another issue though. Pfly (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gypsy And English Romnichel

Are there any reference anywhere that gypsies, and or Romnichel might be Jewish decent, and or 1 of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Also has any DNA been done to confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlr1957 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DNA testing has been done. They aren't descended from Jews. See History of the Romani people Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As for whether it's been suggested, it's not mentioned in our article on the lost tribes of Israel. There's a small industry of such baseless claims, though, so I wouldn't be surprized if someone had suggested it. Algebraist 18:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But what DNA would one use to make a comparison, in lack of the ancient Jewish DNA? Can one really distinguish between the DNA of modern european Jews and of any other european people? --pma (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The standard methods for tracing long-distance genealogical connections involve Mitochondrial DNA (matrilineal) and Y chromosome DNA (patrilineal), which each give information about only one ancestor in each generation. For potential kinship relationships traced through any of the other ancestors (i.e. not exclusively matrilineal or exclusively patrilineal), the effects of Chromosomal crossover mean that usually only approximate statistical estimates of relatedness can be made.... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Naval Armada in Pirates of the Caribbean?

At the end of Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, there was a extremely large British naval armada, at war with the Black Pearl. Are there any real life examples of a naval force that large being deployed at a single time?

Additionally, can you guide me to relevant pages concerning these ships?

Thanks in advance,

PerfectProposal 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

From largest naval battle in history, the largest fleets deployed in battle seem to have numbered a few hundred ships. For a British force of roughly the right period, the Battle of Cartagena de Indias involved 186 British vessels, of which about 50 were warships (the rest being troop transports). Algebraist 16:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't much in the way of an opposing naval force, but the Invasion of Normandy did involve a fair number of ships (6,939, including 1,213 warships). And none of them were CGI. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The British force that came to try and put down the rebellion in New York in 1776 numbered several dozen ships. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Arab butt dancing videos

Where can I get free videos of this Arab butt dancing videos like this one [2], [3], and this [4]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.154 (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Parliament of Scotland

Where do I find a list of members in 1700? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In "External links" there is The Records of the Scottish Parliament. Once there, Browse by Reign / William II (1694-1702) Translation. Expand tree in left pane, and pick May or October 1700. Click on the "next page" icon in the main pane. Will that do? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

History of waving (the hand gesture)

It suprised me to see that Finger gun had its own article whereas waving only has it's own subsection (and a small one at that). I'd like to know more about the origins of the wave (ie the hand gesture). Somebody once told me it was related to the English monarchy (something to do with monarchs waving to their subjects), though this could have been a joke. I'd appreciate any info particularly and with regard to the English monarchy 'theory'. Thanks, --217.227.86.219 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dollarizing Zimbabwe

What are the advantages and disadvantages in dollarizing? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

An economist would be able to say more than I could, but the big advantage is that you have a relatively stable currency which doesn't keep inflating away almost to nothing. One big disadvantage to the situation right now is that many people in Zimbabwe who don't have access to hard currencies are pretty much screwed. AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The other disadvantage is that the Zimbabwean government/central bank now have next to no control over monetary policy. Interest rates and money supply are determined by the US central bank. (Of course, given their history of controlling monetary policy, you could argue this is actually an advantage!) --Tango (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of monetary policy is a biggie (Tango mentioned that), but, judging how Zimbabwe-an (?) officials have managed their... haha I was just going to cynically say pretty much the exact same thing Tango said about them being better off without their own monetary policy! Haha

Also, having a freely-floating, independent currency acts as an economic stabilizer, of sorts, allowing total economic output to respond less harshly to external shocks. Under an independent free-floating currency regime, when external demand for one of Zimbabwe's export goods (say: platinum) falls, the price - or exchange rate - of the Zimbabwe-an currency will similarly fall. This makes Zimbabwe's other export goods (say: grain) relatively less expensive on world markets. This means more volume of grain will be produced at any given (domestic) price, partially offsetting the GDP effect of the drop in demand for platinum.

Under a fixed exchange rate, currency board or foreign currency system, a drop in the demand for platinum will likely not effect the other (usually much larger, or at least differently structured) country's currency significantly, and the decrease in demand will not be cushioned by a partially offsetting increase in another sector, leading to a much greater GDP loss. NByz (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about the Hall of the Maggior Consiglio in the Ducal Palace in Venice

Can someone tell me what the floor is made of in the above room please?

Ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

notable people with a low agerage IQ

I hope this is the right category for a psychology question. I am wondering if there is a list of famous or notable people who accomplished great things (e.g. artist, poet, scientist, politician, etc.) even though he or she had an IQ that was average to low average. I have a client would just completed a psycho-ed and she falls into the average to low average range in most areas. She now thinks she is "stupid." I am hoping to help by showing her that there are many people who fall into the same range yet are not "stupid" and are able (via hard work, proper supports and sheer determination)to accomplish great things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.213.192 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If I were counseling this person -- not knowing the exact nature of the professional relationship you have with her -- I think I'd try a different approach. Ability to love has no correlation with IQ. Plenty of people have low IQs, but rather than discover scientific laws or design famous buildings, they may have gifts invisible to people with Nobel Prizes. Do you need a high IQ to have courage, integrity, and compassion? And maybe Dostoyevsky was right when he said that "to think too much is a disease." I hear Andy Warhol had a low IQ, but I don't know if it's true or not. Having a low IQ is not an impediment to being a good or even a heroic person. The ability to love is a far greater gift than the ability to visualize a universe in 11 dimensions. Just my two cents. Antandrus (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! I'd be careful with that. Maybe that approach would work on you, but I know plenty of people (myself included) who would find it patronising and, effectively, saying that they are stupid. 79.66.98.145 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the reverse. Christopher Langan (IQ of 195-210) was a bouncer and now owns a horse ranch. Marilyn vos Savant writes a newspaper column; nothing to sneeze at, but not exactly groundbreaking. IQ measures how well you do on IQ tests. It does not measure creativity, drive, etc. Tell her that a number does not dictate her future success or failure. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if he ever had an IQ test, but I always thought of Thomas Edison as someone of limited intelligence who still made major contributions to science and technology. He was a "plugger", who did massive trial and error, as opposed to deeply theoretical work. For example, to find the best filament for a light bulb, he just tried many things and chose the best. A brilliant person, on the other hand, would have identified the characteristics needed and reasoned which material would have those properties. He also never quite seemed to understand A/C electricity.

One other comment, failing an IQ test doesn't necessarily mean you actually have a low IQ. It can just mean you think very differently than the people who designed the test. And, since the ability to think "outside the box" is important, doing poorly on an IQ test may actually mean you are more intelligent than those who give the expected answers. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stu: In many of the R and D efforts of Thomas Edison, there were no reference books to use, such as to look up the correct formula for a light bulb filament. Where formulas and reference material existed, he used them. "Dust-bowl empiricism"and parametric experiments have been productive in science in getting away from the thought experiments and invalid assumptions to be found in reference books. His teachers are said to have considered him "addled" but his deafness or even above average intelligence could have led to lack of classroom success. The controversial Arthur Jenson said that the accomplishments of Thomas Edison would not have been possible "without superior general intelligence."Edison (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult your namesake, but I could reason that a filament must not be flammable and must have a high melting point, and much info on such material properties already existed back then. Yet I believe he tried filaments which failed both of those tests. StuRat (talk)

Dexter Manley of the Washington Redskins couldn't read. Neither could hockey coach Jacques Demers. Tenzing Norgay, one of the first two men to climb Mt. Everest, was illiterate as well. Doesn't mean these people were inherently stupid, but then, few people are. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember that intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests. There are theories that we have many intelligences, and you might like to point your client in the direction of Emotional Intelligence and Multiple Intelligence. Your client might also like to consider people who have learning disabilities, and especially the sentence in our article that says "A learning disability is not indicative of low intelligence. Indeed, research indicates that some people with learning disabilities may have average or above-average intelligence." What about actresses such as Susan Hampshire and Zoe Wanamaker who have dyslexia? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

People Autism and Aspergers often test badly or inconsistently on IQ tests, and achieve surprising feats. This doesn't make them unintelligent, of course. It means the test doesn't cover their intelligence. Some people make a living out of having (or seeming to have) a low IQ, mostly celebrities. Steewi (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

February 1

I'm looking for the artist of an image, of which I have no information whatsoever

I recently came across this image online, but there was no information regarding it whatsoever. I downloaded it, and now I'm wondering if there's anyone who can help me identify the artist, and give me any other information possible. here is the image:

Unkown image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.94.43 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's by Zdzisław Beksiński, but I don't know the painting's name. Cycle~ (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Connecticut (BB-18)

I'm one of several editors working to bring Connecticut up to FA by 22 February (only 22 days...-_-) for the anniversary of the Great White Fleet's return to the U.S. (we plan to get it on the main page on the 22nd). However, I need a/some reliable source(s) that cover the court-martial of William Swift. Can anyone help? (And if you find a good RS that does not pertain to Swift but does pertain to the ship, feel free to list it here too...we'll need all the RS' we can get! :) Thanks everyone, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Poke. Anyone? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Second poke... :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 09:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the convergence theory, and who were some of its advocates?

What is the convergence theory, and who were some of its advocates? I'm referring to the mid-20th century idea that the capitalism of the USA and the West, and socialism of the USSR, were becoming closer and closer and would eventually become identical systems. --Gary123 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A little bit at State_capitalism... AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The theory seems to be in the process of happening. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and China turning towards capitalism, there are very few purely communist nations left, perhaps North Korea, and, to a lesser extent Cuba and some others. On the other side, there are very few purely capitalistic nations left. The US, for example, seems headed towards something more moderate, with socialized medicine perhaps coming sometime soon. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gays in Iran

Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari were two boys who were executed in Iran and some said they were executed because of their homosexuality. Is it REALLY true?, is it PROVEN that gays are executed or senteced to death in Iran?. --Ahmed987147 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about this case except what's in our article. But even in Iran, people are not executed merely for having general feelings of sexual or other attraction to people of their own sex. They get into trouble with the law when they act on their feelings and engage in proscribed sexual activity. What the specific activity was that led to the executions in this case is a matter of considerable debate, to say the least, but supposedly the 2 boys did something they weren't permitted to under Iranian law. (I am truly shocked to read that the victims of sexual assault are deemed as guilty as the perpetrators in Iran. What sort of thinking could lead to that policy?) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the idea is that anyone who was raped must have somehow tempted the rapists. For example, a woman not wearing a burka in public is considered to be inviting men to rape her. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if they don't strongly adhere to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" then the fact that there will probably be significant evidence of the sexual activity but very little evidence that it wasn't consensual (because such things are normally just one person's word against another's) could result in there being no conviction of rape, and that being taken as proof that the activity was consensual. This is particularly aggravated by the fact that a woman's testimony doesn't count for much in Iran, as I understand it. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a TV show on these issues in Iran on this Wednesday: [5]. It's on at 10:01 PM (a 1 minute content warning first ?). It's in Ontario, Canada, Jack, so you'll need some extra long rabbit ears. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... very long indeed. It might qualify for the world's tallest structure. Thanks for the heads up, but I doubt I'll be tuning in, somehow. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack, the idea that the victim of a sexual assault is as guilty - or even more guilty - than the perpetrator is by no means confined to Iran. [6] Karenjc 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How terribly sad. And even sadder that it was done in the name of a religion. That's the sort of thing that gives religions generally a really bad name. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article does not provide evidence that the girl was stoned in accordance with the laws, neither Sharia or secular.

As to laws for punishing the victim as well as the perpetrator, I know of at least two formal grounds for such. Both are horrendous, but also note that both have been considered as valid in "western, Christan lands".

1. The law automatically considers the victim as not quite unwilling, unless otherwise clearly proven. An example of that attitude is the rule, that if a maiden was subjected to sex in the desert, the man would be stoned; but if it was in populated areas, then both should be stoned, since she didn't cry out to get other people stop him. (The possibility of a strong man threatening her or having her hands around her throat is not considered.) In the legislations that incorporated Old Testament laws as valid, like the Swedish in the beginning of the 17'th century, this became valid law - although I think executions in Sweden never were done by means of stoning. (I remember reading of a case of a man having abused his daughter. The case, the name of the man, and the day of execution was reported; and then there is a brief notice that his unnamed daughter was executed the same day.)
2. There was a real scare of the possible outcomes of "unnatural" sex. People of course new very well that there was a close relationship between sex and getting offspring, both for humans and (other) animals; but the true biology was unknown. In Sweden, a man having sex with an animal was promptly sentenced to death; but this was not an early animal protection measure. The animal was also slaughtered. I suppose that the religious abhorrance for this deed was connected to a real fear of there being monsters born as an effect. JoergenB (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this specific case a while back including discussing it with an Iranian living in the US for 20-30 years. The evidence that they were executed for homosexual acts is very slim. Most evidence suggests that they were executed for repeatedly raping a 13 year old boy. As I understand it they repeatedly raped the boy until one day he couldn't stand it any more and told his father. The rapist probably would have gotten off with a lesser sentence were it not for the fact they were also guilty of some other crimes including robbery. As a number of commentators have noted, the executions were still a violation of international law which forbids the execution of people for crimes commited as juvelines so regardless of your views of the death penalty, the executions were still disgusting IMHO (although the US also executes people for crimes commited as juvelines). However as with HRW, I'm also disgusted at the way certain people and groups have tried to make this a gay issue, they do a great disservice to both rape victims worldwide and gay people in Iran (and elsewhere) who suffer real harrasment and do risk being put to death if they are caught by linking rapists to people who engage in consensual sex. In terms of your general question, IIRC when I looked into this sometimes last year according to HRW, the last execution that they know of for consensual homosexual acts was in Iran was in 2005. It's possible there are some they are not aware of but it's worth remembering these executions are not something the Iranian government/media tends to hide. The greater difficulty is determining (when an execution occurs) whether it was for consensual acts or rapes but from what I can tell, it's not necessarily impossible if you actually look into the case. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Christianity white?

To what extent was Christianity, in the form of current major denominations, formed by white people? NeonMerlin 04:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You could try beginning with Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Protestant Reformation, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptist, and Unitarianism. In general terms, all major denominations except those of Oriental Orthodoxy were formed by white people – indeed, it might be better to say by white men - but remember that the more Evangelical churches, such as those of Fundamentalist Christianity, base themselves firmly on the Bible, in which European influences are rather limited. If you've also been set a text to read, it might be worth giving an hour or two to that. Xn4 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it all depends what you mean by "white". Jesus certainly wasn't white: he was a Jew from the eastern Mediterranean, and one wold imagine having a skin tone similar to modern Jews and Arabs from that area. That goes for everything up to the advent of Protestantism, i.e. most of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. From that time, the other denominations mentioned above were founded by Europeans, who may be "white" in the sense of "paler than Arabs"! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are cabbages white? Is rice really yellow or brown? Is corn red? Are yams black? If I knew the answer to these then I think I'd be able to answer if Christianity is white. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'd also need to know what colours figs and chillies are as well Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of being "formed" by whties is also tricky - to what extent do you mean? Martin Luther was white, and mostly Europeans were involved in many denominations, but the influence of other races on some denominations has been great. (Lessee...influence has...yeah, that's right.) They may have their own worship style within these denominations, which further distinguishes them, but instead of asking if a relgion is white, I would instead look at the similarities and differences between the worship styles in the different denominations in white versus non-white churches. And, as noted, if this is homework, that is a good lead without giving you too much

Also, as noted, Jesus and all the early apostles were certainly of Middle Eastern origin, and this is where it truly has its beginnings..Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In ancient and medieval times, when the major Christian denominations formed, there was no concept of race as such. So, in a sense, nobody was "white". They were Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, whatever. Today, definitions of racial boundaries vary from one culture to another. User:TammyMoet above says that "Jesus certainly wasn't white." I'm not sure where TammyMoet lives, but in the United States, I think that most Middle Easterners would be considered white. They might be mistaken for Latinos, and some of the most dark-skinned Middle Easterners (from Egypt or Yemen) might not be considered white, but I think that most would qualify as white. (Note that "qualifying as white" is merely falling within the bounds of a cultural category based on skin tone rather than possessing any meaningful biological distinction.) I'm guessing that in some parts of Europe, Middle Easterners do not qualify as white. Marco polo (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Marcopolo, I'm in the UK and Middle Easterners aren't "white" here! Just to clarify. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things might contribute to the idea that it's Caucasian or Europeanised. One, that Europe spawned the Christian missionary movement that tailgated European expansionism throughout the "new world". And two, portraits of Jesus based on this guy generated the impression (see the section "Evaluation" where Alexandre Dumas, père states that some pictures of Jesus Christ produced around then were based on him, "and that this in turn has influenced images of Jesus produced since that time.") Jesus tends to be imaged according to the dominant culture. My two bits, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Christianity didn't come to be somewhat based in Europe until following the Muslim invasions of the 7th-century A.D., 600 years after the death of Jesus. Of the five Christian patriarchates of ca. 400 A.D., only one (Rome) was unquivocally in Europe, while one was in Africa (Alexandria), two were in Asia (Jerusalem and Antioch), and the fifth was on the Europe-Asia border (Constantinople). It wasn't really until several centuries after the Arab invasions, when Christian communities were starting to become population minorities in many regions of the middle east, the Byzantines lost Anatolia, and major progress startted to be made on the Christianization of northern and eastern Europe, that Christianity could really be called a predominantly European religion... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's also recognize that religion is not a static concept. While many of the Christian faiths may have been formed in Europe and North America by white men, the religions have spread throughout the world and have been reshaped by the different races who came to embrace the theologies. A prime example of that can be seen today in the influence the African leaders of the Anglican faith have on the worldwide Anglican community. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

@Marco polo Looking at their artwork the ancient Egyptians certainly thought that people from Northern Egypt were different from Nubians and Hittites. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Mythology - Yokai for the Dying

I have been wondering about a certain Yokai I've seen in a movie, animes, and mangas for a while.
They are very small green lizard humanoid creatures, that appear when some one is dying. Usually they have chains, but sometimes they do not.
They can usually only be seen by Buddhist Priests, or Shinto Priestesses.
The first time I seen them was in Conan The Barbarian, when they attack his body. The other times I've seen them are from Inu-Yasha, when Kikyo saves the lives of folks close to death.
Can any one name these creatures? They do not appear on the List of legendary creatures from Japan found in Wiki, nor am I having any luck Googleing different references.
Please forgive me if I make Wiki formatting mistakes, I am new at this style. --RLS0812 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen of the references you listed above but perhaps since they are depicted as appearing when someone is dying they may be shinigami which are Japanese psychopomps. You also may want to take a look at the illustrations of Toriyama Sekien which are divided into four sections in Wikimedia commons here. [7] He attempted to illustate all the yokai who participate in a supernatural parade called the Night Parade of One Hundred Demons. Maybe it's illustated in there somewhere.
Your formatting is pretty good for your first(?) wiki post. You don't need to use the line breaks after every sentence although they are appreciated when faced with a wall of text. Kudos to you if you spent the time to look up how to do a line break. Wikipedia:How to edit a page will help you with your basic formatting questions. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Identifying people and the picture

Does anyone know the origin of this picture?[8] Or can anyone provide a list of all the people in the picture? Thanks! 99.226.138.202 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, and no. But here are some that are clearly present: Albert Einstein, Shirley Temple, Charlie Chaplin, Audrey Hepburn, Queen Elizabeth II, Elvis, Shakespeare, Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln, Mao Tse Tung, Gandhi, Adolf Hitler, Bruce Lee, Lenin, Bill Clinton, Napoleon, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Marilyn Monroe, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Prince Charles, Salvador Dali, Toulouse Lautrec, Mother Teresa, Gorbachov, Luciano Pavarotti, Marlon Brando (as the Godfather), Osama bin Ladin, Sigmund Freud, Lewis Carroll, Pele, Beethoven, Vladimir Putin, George Bush, Dante.

And here are some that are likely present: Lao Tzu, Confucius, Tojo, Gengis Khan, Moses, Thomas Paine, Jesus, Mozart, De Gaulle, Ernest Hemingway, Julius Caesar, Georges Braque

- Nunh-huh 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Confucius, Genghis and Mozart are all there. As are Steven Speilberg, Bill Gates, Nietszche, Tamerlane, Stalin, Columbus, Sun Yat-sen, Mark Twain, Ferdinand Marcos, Tolstoy, James Cook, Wilt Chamberlain, Eisenhower and Henry Ford. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

click here for picture key

I've posted a partial key on the image description page; others can add to it. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that 76 is Salvador Dali. The piece around his neck looks like a pocket watch... I've filled in some of the others as best I can. Dismas|^(talk) 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

8 is maybe Pol Pot. I'll second 27 and 29 as Hemmingway and Guthrie. 37 maybe Syngman Rhee? 46 does look like Darwin, but it could also be Socrates or another similar Greek philosopher. 78 maybe Khublai Khan or Ghengis Khan or someone like that. 81 looks like Deng Xiaopeng. 85 maybe Ho Chi Minh (going by the hat here, I've seen Ho in a hat like that). 71 maybe Bruce Lee. 88 looks like Yul Brynner. 100 is NOT Wilt Chamberlain. Its definately Michael Jordan. 103 Maybe Ghengis Khan or someone like that. I hope that helps some. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling a combination of the names, I find this website, which says that the painting is Discussing the Divine Comedy with Dante by “Dai Dudu", painted in 2006, and has a nearly complete list of people depicted (including non-person Dolly the Sheep), though they are uncertain on some of the identifications. Googling again on the name of the painting, yields this page, which says there was once an image-mapped version with links to Wikipedia, but it seems to have disappeared. I haven't compared their list yet with ours, or found the image-mapped version. - Nunh-huh 12:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

An even better answer key is located here. Should we have an article on this painting? - Nunh-huh 13:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

29 is J. Robert Oppenheimer, no question (see image here). 21 is Alexander Pushkin. 60 is Marie Curie. And while we're at it.. image on the TV at far left is Ivy Mike. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your answers. 99.226.138.202 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

52 is Kant. Llamabr (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would Kant be playing violin 41 is Paul Newman rather than Putin and I think their Audrey Hepburn looks a lot more like Shirley MacLaine76.97.245.5 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Disabled monarchs

I came to think of something. I have never heard of any monarchs, kings or queens in history, who were blind, deaf or mute. Have anyone else heard of such examples? It would be interesting! --85.226.41.66 (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

John the Blind of Bohemia is one... - Nunh-huh 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you extend it to mental disabilities, Charles VI of France (aka Charles the Mad) was likely schizophrenic and George III of the United Kingdom also suffered from serious mental illness, necessitating his temporary removal from power during the Regency period. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re George III: That's what they thought at the time, but consensus these days is that he suffered from porphyria, a physical, not mental, condition. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reasons there aren't many are: 1) A fair percentage of blindness/deafness was (and is) caused by problems that cause other symptoms that were lethal then but can be treated now - eg. head trauma - and so there were few people living with blindness particularly in the royal classes who did not engage in particularly dangerous activities; 2) The percentage now is fairly small - probably under 0.1% in people under the average life expectancy then of around 40 to 50 years. Since there may have been a couple of thousand monarch at the very most, there are only likely to have been a very few who had these sort of disabilities; 3) moderate disabilities may not have been noted for fear of making the monarch look inferior. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is worth remembering that disabilities may disqualify a royal person from acceding to the throne. John, the son of George V of the United Kingdom, was never likely to rule, as he had four elder brothers, but even if he had been eldest, his epilepsy would still have meant that he was hidden away in shame; he died young. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PS, I realise this is still not about being blind, deaf or mute, but cf Haemophilia in European royalty for another significant disability. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful citing historical life expectancies - while the average life expectancy may have been 40 to 50, that's because of a high rate of infant mortality. If you made it through infancy, life expectancy wasn't that different to today (living into your 60s or 70s was pretty common, as I understand it, at least for the higher classes). --Tango (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem was a leper and eventually went blind. There was a Holy Roman Emperor Louis the Blind but the article doesn't say if he was literally blind. Enrico Dandolo was probably also blind (though I suppose he is technically not a monarch). Isaac II Angelos had been deposed and blinded, not out of the ordinary for a Byzantine emperor, but he was briefly restored as sort of a puppet emperor while blind. Mughal emperor Shah Alam II was also blinded during his reign. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the expectation now is 70s or 80s, it used to be 60s or 70s. There is a definite difference, but it's nowhere near as big as many people think (once you exclude infant deaths). --Tango (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the original questioner, but can anyone think of a monarch who took office while blind, deaf, or mute rather than simply becoming during his/her reign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.15.23 (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vasily II may marginally qualify, as he both "took the office" and had to flee Moscow multiple times. He ultimately regained the throne already after he was blinded, and reigned until his death. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, though, men with obvious physical defects, and specifically blindness, were considered unfit kings and were skipped over in lines of succession; its for this reason that various Eastern emperors contented themselves with blinding, rather than killing, their rivals. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Until relatively recently deafness, at least profound deadness, meant a life without language--a condition much more debilitating than blindness. I'm not sure what common conditions cause muteness, other than profound deafness in the past, but wouldn't that make it difficult to be the head of state? Of the three presented, only blindness seems viable for rulers in pre-modern times. Others have already given a number of examples. Pfly (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Baldwin IV's leprosy was probably considered far worse than blindness, since it implied some great moral (especially sexual) deviancy being punished by God. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Would Ivar the Boneless qualify as a monarch? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Though it's more of an impairment than disability, there's Kaiser Bill with a withered left arm due to Erb's Palsy. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a Louis the Blind, of Provence & Italy, and a John the Blind of Bohemia & Luxemburg. Also Robert the Bruce King of Scotland had Leprosy. AllanHainey (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Richard III had a clubfoot, and possibly a hunchback - though this may be apocraphyl. There is also a slew of disabilities associated with the Habsburg royal dynasty[[9]] due to their in-breeding, in particular the Habsburg lip which 2was characterized by a protruding lower jaw, which often led to difficulties chewing, speaking and keeping one's mouth closed." You may not class it as a disability but I think the sufferers may have. AllanHainey (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers!--85.226.47.151 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chip Implants

Are we even close to getting forced to have RFID tags implanted in us? What I mean is this probably going to happen like in the book Barcode Tatto or is the majority of the world and the US against it? --Melab±1 ☎ 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the books you are talking about and I don't know what timeframe you mean by close, but I doubt that humans will be mandatorily implanted with anything like an ID chip within your lifetime. RFID tag implants would require surgery which would predispose people against it because it would cost money and could cause complications. That doesn't rule out implants for convenience, but it seems more likely non-invasive solutions like cards of some sort would be preferred instead. Human biometric monitoring in the present and the future will likely advantage of already existing and conveniently accessible physical features like fingerprints, iris patterns, or facial structure (which are used currently). Once the technological hurdles are jumped, DNA is a logical target, but I wouldn't rule out something bizarre like a "smell fingerprint" (I mean something like a profile of the vaporized molecules your body gives off by virtue of your metabolic processes).

Even without biometric data, there is a wealth of information about your activities, personality, and movement contained in your credit card purchases, store club cards, and internet browsing habits for example. Heck, your location could be at least roughly triangulated if you have your phone on in an area with decent phone reception. Apple makes a business out of knowing where you are. iPhones provide all sorts of nifty services in exchange for your privacy like offering you close by restaurant suggestions, or figuring out your general location so you can get un-lost. There is more than enough data right now to do the government-stalking-the-citizens job pretty well. Other than legal hurdles, the biggest problem in human tracking is simply getting all the information out there to analyze in one indexed place and getting the computer resources to actually analyze it. The computer resource problem is rapidly becoming more and more feasible: see FLOPS.152.16.15.23 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it surgery. The tags they put in pets now are basically injected under the skin. However, I still can't see it happening in the US, as people would object, based on the invasion of privacy and perhaps also the discomfort of having a foreign object inserted into your body (and, even worse, in a non-sexual context). :-) StuRat (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The case for doing it to one's own soldiers is pretty good (as a dog tag and a medical ID); this way a badly injured soldier can be wanded when they enter a field hospital and the medics know immediately their blood type, allergies, and any relevant history. From there things in increments. FBI agents get one, and a little computer in their gun prevents a non agent from firing it (limiting the cases where an agent is shot with his own weapon). Then all DHS agents. Then national guardsmen and reserve members of the military. People get them for a swift-traveller program (to speed through airport security). People who drive dangerous loads or fly airliners or navigate large ships get them. From the other end, it's mandated for high-security prisoners, then all prisoners, then everyone on probation, then for everyone on probation or in a diversion programme. Non-landed immigrants (foreigners like skilled-worked and students) get one, then landed immigrants (people with greencards). Then all cops (state, county, local). Then all welfare recipients, and everyone on medicare. Then all truckers. Then all federal employees (and their contractors) get one, and the states are pressured to do the same. Then they mandate it for all driving licences. That's how these things go: mandate it for people that the public have no sympathy for (criminals) and for government employees who have no choice (soldiers), then roll it incrementally forward, where each step itself seems like a reasonable expansion on the previous one. By the time you get to ordinary people who have done nothing wrong at all and have little to do with the government, such a large proportion of the population has one that they can say "only terrorists having something to hide" to objections to further expansion. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As noted earlier, their are other even better ways to absolutely identify people (biometrics). RFID chips could be removed and replaced with somebody else's (maybe someone murdered for it), so they really aren't all that reliable. Also, putting them in prisoners could make the general population even less accepting of them, the argument being that "now the government wants to treat everyone like criminals". StuRat (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

squatters rights

i have a friend she has five children youngest 5 years oldest 18years.

she has been in relationship unmarried for over 20 year. here partner left the couples home to start a new relationship. then approx a year later insisted she leave with her children. we are aware that she has no claim to ownership of property. however she has been homeless since april 08, when her ex insisted that she leave property. my friend believed he had support of police and balifs heance she left scared.

she still has back door key and could enter the property without causing any damage, as it remains empty. what could she leagley do to secure her self and her children back in property that belongs to her ex the childrens father and has remained empty since she was aggressively persuaded to leave?

would appriciate your promt return with any advice you can give?

thanks sue gillett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.249.50 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This almost certainly constitutes legal advice, which this desk cannot give. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice, she'll need to speak to a lawyer. I can give you a link to squatter's rights, though, and tell you that in most jurisdictions that have a concept of "adverse possession" (at least, ones I know of) require a squatter to live there for quite a long time (in the UK, 12 years) and the time spent there with the permission of the owner wouldn't count, so that probably isn't useful in your case (there would also be other hoops to jump through). There may be other methods she can use, though, but she needs to seek professional advice since it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and we don't have the details of the case. She should certainly ask a professional about what child maintenance requirements in her jurisdiction are. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do a search for "Women's Legal Services" in your community. Help should be available. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't enter the property. Follow the above advice, and find some legal help. There are a lot of people who will know exactly how the system works in your area, and they will help.NByz (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the law may be different depending on which country she lives in. Also there are legal, moral and practical answers which may be different. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The OP's IP address is in the UK. From what we're told, it's not at all clear that this friend was well-advised to leave the property. As she still has a key she may still be able to get back in without any suggestion of "breaking and entering", but by now someone has probably changed the locks: it would be a remarkable oversight if they hadn't. However, if she has children and is homeless, the local authority almost certainly has a duty to house her, unless she made herself homeless. This friend badly needs legal advice. If she can't afford it, she should go for free advice to a Citizens Advice Bureau, there's hardly anywhere in the UK which doesn't have one within reach. Xn4 (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Common Professional Examination in/around London

I'm looking for a school in or around London that offers the Common Professional Examination for the lowest price. I'm particularly keen on ones that award the Graduate Diploma in Law. It seems that in searching, there are a hundred from which to choose. Is there an easy way to sort them according to price? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Openly gay

The front page currently says that the new Prime Minister of Ice Land is the first openly gay head of government in MODERN times. Does that mean there were openly gay heads of governments in history, or just that we're not sure about other heads of governments in ancient times? 99.226.138.202 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perceptions of homosexuality were very different in certain past cultures. For example, see Homosexuality in ancient Greece. I don't know of any specifics, but it wouldn't surprise me if some ancient Greek leaders were openly involved in homosexual activity (I'm not sure it would be accurate to call them "homosexual" since they didn't divide people by sexual orientation in such a way - applying current identifiers to historical figures can easily result in nonsense). --Tango (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of historical figures who were a country's leader who we suspect (adn in some cases, know) had same-sex relationships. But as Tango says, it's difficult to talk about homosexuality in ancient cultures. But if you want to read about a few people, try Alexander the Great, Hadrian (and Antinous) and Khnumhotep_and_Niankhkhnum. Steewi (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Many Roman emperors are known to have had same-sex relationships. Hadrian was famously involved with Antinous, whom he deified. But Roman age-structured homosexuality was not the same as modern egalitarian homosexuality. Lantzy ^talk 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

List of the first LGBT holders of political offices might be useful. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Charles I of Württemberg may not have been "openly gay" in the sense we understand that today, but apparently he made little secret of his ... appetites. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the first openly gay head of government in modern times is (arguably) Per-Kristian Foss, who acted very briefly as Norwegian Prime Minister in 2002. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward II of England had a "favourite", Piers Gaveston, whom some people believe was his homosexual boyfriend. As to whether Edward was "openly gay", read the article and make up your own mind. From that article I would say he was. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Henri III of France is another monarch known for his preference for men (the linked article only hints at the amount of debate about this issue). He was childless when an assassin's knife ended his life, prompting a huge succession problem. --Xuxl (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

William II of England and Richard I are both generally thought to have been gay (though the William II article makes no mention of it). AnyPerson (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, James Buchanan, America's first "Bachelor" president (bachelor meaning don't even THINK this guy would get married to a woman) was widely understood by even his contemporaries as gay. He lived with another man, William Rufus King for many years before he became President, and besides refusing to "officially" declare himself gay, there was little secret as to what was going on at the time. Much of their correspondance has been destroyed, so there is no direct evidence of a sexual relationship. However, Buchanan did note in a few extant private letters to "wooing gentlemen" after the death of King, and other such oblique references to his homosexuality. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Even the term "head of government" doesn't travel back in time very well, being an 18th century notion. Before that, rulers (princes, if you prefer) ruled, and the advisors of various kinds who acted as their senior administrators weren't much like heads of government now. Xn4 (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a very pleasing juxtaposition above: King William II of England - who was known as "William Rufus", hence perhaps "King William Rufus" - and William Rufus King. Both involved in government/politics, both gay males. Maybe King was William's reincarnation. Or he may even have been named after him. Curious. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2

How does the US Army go to Afghanistan?

let's say some average soldier or whatever gets orders to go to Afghanistan today? What is the process and the places that he goes before finally reaching whatever part of Afghanistan he's supposed to go to? Like, does he take a plane to europe and then fly into kabul or what? Also, how did the initial troops get into Afghanistan back in 2001? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.234.117 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the initial movement of troops into Afghanistan, they went mainly through Pakistan and Uzbekistan. However, recall that the US only initially provided air support for the Northern Alliance, and let them defeat the Taliban on the ground. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can give you the Canadian perspective. I'll try to point out areas that I know are different from the American process. I'll start from the point of view of a reservist because one of my best friends took this path.

In Canada, no reserve units have ever been deployed explicitly to Afghanistan. In order for a reservist to go to Afghanistan, he has to first volunteer for a reg. force unit that has a rotation coming up. Once accepted, he spends 4-10 months (depending on experience and when the next rotation starts) in work-up training with the unit that he's volunteered into. Work-up training familiarizes the soldier with the tactics and rules of engagement in the theater. Most importantly, maybe, it builds trust and ensures that the soldier is mentally ready for the deployment. After the work-up training, he usually gets one 1-2 week leave.

Logistics in Canada are much simpler than in the US. I think most of the US international infantry deployments go via C-5 Galaxy flights from a base in North Carolina and are airborne-refueled over Europe. In Canada, the soldier takes a "CC-150 Polaris" (a converted Airbus A-310) and takes whatever route will be safe. On his last deployment, my friend went Edmonton-Toronto-[something in Europe]-Abu Dhabi-Kandahar. They arrive at the Kandahar Air Field, which acts as the HQ for much of the NATO force in Afghanistan. I think that many of the American units arrive at Bagram Air Base. Once in-theater, they hook up with their next unit, which may be operating out of the air base or a Forward Operating Base (FOB).

As for material (vehicles, munitions etc.), for both US and NATO forces, most of it arrives through Pakistan and is driven, via convoy, through the mountains. There have been some recent news stories claiming that the DoD has been trying to find another Central Asian country to act as a material entrepot, because of the delicate foreign policy relationship with Pakistan. I can't find a news story to quote, but there have been a number of ambushes of US material in Pakistan, by grassroots (Taliban-esque) forces. One attack on a lightly-defended US depot resulted in the burning and disabling of several dozen Humvees. NByz (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be materiel. There should be an ordnance against military terms that are close to normal English words. :-) StuRat (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there's a military statue regarding it. Edison (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not just one statue, there should be an entire cannon of law. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Air Mobility Command (formerly Military Airlift Command) and Civil Reserve Air Fleet. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

name this song

can someone name this song http://www.hulu.com/superbowl/55737/super-bowl-xliii-ads-coke-heist#s-p3-sr-i0

Nice ad, isn't it? And the music (a theme from Peter and the Wolf) brought back a lot of childhood memories for the older viewers - which I suspect was the expected result! - Nunh-huh 08:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, it's Peter's theme from Peter and the Wolf. --Thomprod (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the part where Peter opens the gate and goes into the meadow after his Grandfather told him not to? {{sevaenetsirk}}

Mary II of England

What was her full formal name? It couldn't have just been Mary Stuart. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that was it - I've looked at a large number of documents relating to her: she certainly doesn't use any other name. (She didn't have a signature at all.) It's pretty academic seeing as she was royalty and held title from birth anyway. I'd be interested if she did have any, though, but I doubt it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking about a middle name, no, she didn't have one. In fact, it was very unusual for royalty to have more than one forename until the Hanoverians came over. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And they've beeen making up for lost time ever since. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"I've never agreed with the Hanoverian succession." (Angus Hudson of Upstairs, Downstairs. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hudson had a first name? Are you sure? DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a long time before we found it out, as in the case of Inspector Morse. (One supposes Hudson had a Jacobite tendency, though it may just be that he shuddered to think of the Duke of Cumberland.) Xn4 (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It may have been even worse than the OP guesses. While she was of the dynastic House of Stuart, the English royalty does not usually have a "last name" in the commonly understood sense. Having a surname is something seen as "common" (in the classically understood sense of the term) and royalty just didn't have one. Some kings had "nicknames" like Edward Longshanks and Robert Curthose and John Lackland, but these were not considered surnames, and neither are the royal houses, like Windsor, Plantagenet, or Tudor, considered surnames. English monarchs are just their names, and that is that. Thus, Queen Mary II's full name was not "Mary Stuart" or "Mary Orange" or anything but "Mary". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 is technically correct, but in practice during the 16th century all the members of the Royal House of Stewart were referred to around Europe as if Stewart or Stuart were their surname. Indeed, the use of the name by the French, Spanish and Italians created the spelling "Stuart", which had not been used in the British Isles until it arose on the continent. This all reminds us that in all of the countries of the British Isles there is really no such thing as what is sometimes called a "legal name". Your name is simply what you call yourself and how you are known.

In her youth, by the way, Mary was known as "the lady Mary". The lawful daughters of kings (even when recognized as such, which Mary wasn't always) weren't in those days given the title of "princess". Xn4 (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hadith about Wolves

What is that Hadith in which talking of wolves is mentioned ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.253 (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking for the conversation between Jacob (Joseph's father) and the wolf, you can read the story here: [[10]]. --Omidinist (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there is more than one hadith with talking wolves, there is the wolf asking the shepherd "Who will guard the sheep on the day of the wild animals?" DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Co regents

I have heard about co-regents; monarchs who sat on the same throne in the same country and ruled together. Such as Mary II of England and her spouse. I suppose this was more common among married couples. How common was it for two men to rule togheter, and two women? When did this happen the last time (regardless of gender), and would it ever be allowed in a modern country? --85.226.41.66 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Andorra has two co-princes. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-regents may only happen with the expulsion of the monarch/lack of children/illegitamacy to the throne: not only are these considerably rarer, but I imagine the monarchy would be worth the effort, and it may be scraped or a simpler solution found. There are always going to be cases though, as it could conceivably happen and would be 'allowed' (if not 'used'); in any case there are a lot of conditions. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Jarry1250 is referring to quite another thing, a hostile competition between rwo (pretended or partly actual) rulers, where both claim themself to be the only legitimate ruler.

I believe that the original question concerned peaceful co-ruling, where the parties recognised each others. I do not think that this was uncommon, historically. In the Roman empire of antiquity, co-emperors seems to have been more the rule than the exception. This praxis may have been influenced by the tradition from the even older, republican Rome, where the state always was lead by two consuls.--JoergenB (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There were always two Kings of Sparta, two different dynasties each produced a king. There are a few medieval cases where the son of a king was named co-king; Henry the Young King with his father in twelfth-century England, and Philip II of France during his father's illness. It also happened a number of times in crusader Jerusalem, in one case a whole family were all legally monarchs (King Fulk, Queen Melisende, and their son Baldwin III, then after Fulk's death, Melisende and Baldwin, mother and son, were co-monarchs), and in another case Baldwin IV and his nephew Baldwin V were co-kings. And that's only the twelfth century! It happened frequently in various combinations in the Middle Ages. I can't think of any examples of two women ruling together but I'm sure it must have happened. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I ment peaceful co-ruling. When did this happen the last time in Europe? Would it be allowed today? --85.226.41.66 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As Duncan said, Andorra has two princes (both holders of non-hereditary offices in other countries) as heads of state. Also, San Marino is ruled by two 'captains'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I was refering to peaceful co-existence: the rule of William and Mary cam about because of the expulsion (or running away) of the monarch, for example, and I'd imagine if we had the same situation again, where we had to 'disown' the monarch's son, it would be used as an excuse to get rid of the monarchy, or come to a completely different solution. Anyway, the answers here give a fair representation of the answer. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your "because of the expulsion (or running away) of the monarch". James II did flee, but he was still king. He was displaced (unlawfully) by a Convention Parliament in 1689, and this was later "confirmed" by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689. During the last hundred years or so, monarchs have usually been unthroned by abolishing the monarchy. All kinds of ways are found to legitimize this, or at least to make it look legitimate. Xn4 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Empire frequently had more than one ruler, but even when they weren't actively competing for dominance (i.e. there was a legitimate dual inheritance of the throne, such as Honorius and Arcadius) the rule was hardly peaceful. Steewi (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Tetrarchy involved four simultaneous rulers, though it worked more or less according to plan only for a relatively brief time. In some monarchies, there was a custom to publicly designate a chosen heir, so as to fix the succession in advance and avoid turbulence after the current monarch died; in the meantime, the designated heir acted as a kind of secondary ruler (or in a few cases where the reigning monarch retired from active governing, as the main effective ruler). Reconstructions of the chronology of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel often posit such "coregencies" (i.e. overlapping between the reign of a king and the reign of his chosen heir). AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Roman diarchy ("two-ruling") lasted considerably longer, and was rather more successful - but not at all always. There were a lot of power struggle and (seemingly) outright assasination going on in old Rome.

Steewi, please recall that in antiquity the Roman empire did not posess a formally hereditary monarch. The empire was formally a republic, and each emperor formally appointed by the senate. IMHO, this was actually an important reason for the co-rulership; if a father wanted to secure succession for his son, pressing the senate to name the son co-emperor (and, more important, getting the blessing of the soldiers) was more secure than hoping for the best after his death.

The article diarchy also provides some slightly more recent examples of co-regents, in e.g. Sweden. JoergenB (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, of course, the two Roman triumvirates (the first being between Ceasar, Pompey and Crassus, the second between Lepidus, Mark Antony and Octavian). Belisarius (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, even, the decemvirate. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Giric and Eochaid, were co-kings of Picts 878-889, possibly. Gwinva (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is of course the co-monarchy of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon which laid the groundwork for unification of Spain under a single monarchy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat related is the concept of a junior co-regent, which dates to ancient Egypt, when, for the sake of stability, a pharaoh might choose a successor, who essentially became pharoah, jr. This could be handy when there were no set rules about a line of succession. —Kevin Myers 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First woman Ballet master

Who was the first female Ballet master in the world? Does anyone know?--85.226.41.66 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The earliest here on wiki is Sophie Daguin (1827). But perhaps there is an earlier example?--85.226.41.66 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution

Should any considerable act of aggression between two other parties happen (I think the most plausible would be a N. Korean attack or invasion on S. Korea), what are the chances that this article of the constitution would be over-ruled, assuming a unanimous vote in parliament? I know the word 'forever' is used, but is it really certain? Secondly, are there any other countries which are lawfully prohibited from declaring war (Italy is mentioned in the above article, but I don't think their constitution covers the actual declaration of war)? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You may find neutral country interesting (for some reason, it doesn't mention Japan...). I don't have a specific answer to your question, though - I don't know if the neutral countries listed just have policies of neutrality or actual laws. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

They do have a military (the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, and they even have (or had) a contingent in Iraq (Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group). Maybe another Korean War is plausible but it is also likely that the US would like Japan to have a large army as a balance against China; because of Article 9 they just don't call it an army. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Although some of what Article 9 can be got round by calling them an extention of the police, the actual declaration of war is something rather specific, and that's why I'm interested. I've no doubt that most countries need a very good reason go to war (in the formal sense) anyway, and they may follow neutrality where possible. For example Switzerland's states that (Article 58): The army serves to prevent war and contributes to maintain peace; it defends the country and its population. It supports the civil authorities to repel serious threats to internal security or to cope with other exceptional circumstances. The law may provide for further tasks. but it certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of war in the same way to Japan. Sweden (another 'neutral country') says (Chapter 10, article 9): No declaration of war may be made without the consent of the Parliament, except in the event of an armed attack against Sweden.which means they can declare war. Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In answer to my second question, the Irish constitution (Article 29) states:

3. 1° War shall not be declared

although it does make self-defence provisions. So there's one. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Austria's (Article 40) clearly allows the declaration of war. Finland's doesn't really mention it, save that 'matters of war and peace shall be decided by the President, with the consent of Parliament'. The Constitution of Turkmenistan says that the government can decide the declaration war or peace condition, so clearly they can declare war. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Declarations of war are far less common these days than in the 19th or early 20th century; for instance the USA hasn't declared war on anyone since 1942 (Declaration of war by the United States). In the event of a UN-authorised peacekeeping action in Korea it's likely that they could send troops without declaring war (Declaration of war#United Nations and war has a little info). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OP, what are the chances that this article of the constitution would be over-ruled, assuming a unanimous vote in parliament? --- off the top of my head, I'd have to say 100%. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

origin of the meme "yo dawg, heard u like ____ so I put some ___ in your ___ so you can ___ while you ____"

what's the origin of the meme "yo dawg, heard u like ____ so I put some ___ in your ___ so you can ___ while you ____"?

thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.157 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Judging from this, it comes from Pimp my Ride, via Something Awful or probably 4chan. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, even better, search for "SUP DAWG" on Encyclopedia Dramatica, which naturally I cannot link to here. (If you ever need to know the origin of anything ridiculously annoying, ED is the place to go.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

if you ever wonder what it's like not being able to talk openly in a fascist dictatorship, just remember that time you couldn't link to ED at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.157 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Or piss in an elevator. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's so unintentionally funny. AnyPerson (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidates of The 2005 Lebanese Elections

Where can I find a website wher it shows the Maronites, Sunni, Shi'a, Druze, Alawite, Greek Catholic and Orthodox, Armenians and other Christians, like for example, who were the party Maronites candidates of Beirut 1, Bekaa+Hermel, Zahlah, and JBeil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.4 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

non-existent people?

who were the most famous non-existent people - for example i heard of "syndicates" (literature) meaning a nom de plume that not one, but several people used (such as for the Hardy Boys series). So, this would have led people to believe that a single, existing person wrote the thing, whereas no such person existed. Maybe monarchs or other famous people were invented to some purpose as well.

basically my question is: of all the people who have never existed, who is the most famous?

I mean not as a fictitious person, but a real one people thought existed.

82.120.227.157 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's lots of examples of syndicates and such in Category:Collective pseudonyms. I won't judge which is the most famous. Algebraist 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of that list, the whole two I recognized were Nicolas Bourbaki (who is pretty well known in science circles) and Isadore Nabi (which is a lot less well-known). I'd suggest Bourbaki is probably the best known.. whenever I hear of other examples of collective anonymous authorship, it is usually referenced as the canonical example. --140.247.240.200 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Other examples in Category:Nonexistent people. Algebraist 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are also people whose reality is up for the debate. Jesus Christ is probably the most notable—there's a serious question about whether there was a single figure who did things as described in the gospels, or whether the character there is a mixture of a number of contemporary religious figures. --140.247.240.200 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus generally is there was a Jesus (Christ), so he did exist - even if everything else is attributed (or didn't happen, it isn't a theological question), therefore he is not covered by the question, which asks for non-existent people. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a considerable set of research that has been done on whether the person existed as well. Granted, the field of religious historians don't lean that way, though there are obvious systemic biases involved there (almost all historians of the New Testament are Christians, at least in the US, as far as I have seen). Anyway, the relevant article is Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth hypothesis. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that the inventions of corporations are probably the best-known—such as, in the United States, Betty Crocker and Aunt Jemima. Deor (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lieutenant Kijé was a fictional character even within a fictional story, but was accepted (in the story) as a real person by the Tsar of Russia. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is thought by many that Homer was not a single person in fact, but the collective work of generations of Greek poets and rhapsodes that slowly became the Homeric epics known today (the Iliad and Odyssey). Those are pretty famous, so Homer has my vote. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some would suggest Shakespeare. Gwinva (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No-one believes Shakespeare didn't exist, to my knowledge. Some people believe he didn't write the works attributed to him, but that's all. Algebraist 03:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bourbaki would certainly be the most important mathematician who never lived, but anyone in the U.S. would recognize "John Q. Public" and "Joe Schmoe"; any English speaker of the WWII generation would know Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose (the latter is not in that category at the moment, but probably should be); Ellery Queen is known to anyone with even a passing interest in detective fiction; and Johnny Rebel (more commonly Johnny Reb, I believe) would be known to anyone with an interest in the American Civil War. - 05:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In US history, a famous non-person is Molly Pitcher. Our article is currently a mess, but sort of gives you the right idea: she was a legend assembled out of historical fragments. —Kevin Myers 05:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Robin Hood? 06:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I nominate some fictional detectives: Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, and Philip Marlowe, for a start. Xn4 (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there actually people who think Poirot or Marlowe were real? —Kevin Myers 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

King Arthur Wrad (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - remarkable coincidence!) Homer is arguably a possibility, except that he may have existed. And that reminds me of other figures who may or may not be historical, with origins "lost in the mists of antiquity", such as King Arthur and Noah. Xn4 (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Along the lines of Joe Schmoe, Tommy Atkins was the fictional soldier of WW1 whose name appeared on official papers to give an example of how things should be filled in. "The man on the Clapham Omnibus" used to be used to refer to the common man in the UK. I'd also suggest that, in the UK at least, soap opera characters are at least as famous as their real life actors, if not more. People of a certain age remember Ena Sharples, but may not recall Violet Carson, who played her in Coronation Street.--TammyMoet (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is about famous people who many folks thought actually existed, but who did not in fact exist. Fans of soap operas are attached to their favorite characters, to be sure, but few fans (I hope) think the characters on soaps are real. —Kevin Myers 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My nominees would be Adam and Eve, who I think can be clearly shown not to have existed in a literal sense. Of course, there are many religious and legendary figures whose historical existence is uncertain, such as Abraham, Moses, Odysseus, and Robin Hood, but their historicity cannot be disproven. John M Baker (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree about Adam and Eve as they appear in the Bible. But someone must have been the very first human being to be clearly distinguished from neanderthals, apes etc, so we may as well call him/her "Adam/Eve". Maybe there was a transition period where beings had some human characteristics and some neandertheal characteristics, but when we got to the point where a person indisputably had only human characteristics, that would have been the first. But we'll never know who that person was, or even when it happened. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, I'm not really sure that's how it works. Speciation of that sort is rather slow and tedious. The grades between Homo sapiens and whatever came before it would have been quite small, to the point that singling any given person or two people as "the first humans" requires postulating a set of genes that count as "human" and somehow differentiating them from the minute changes of whomever their parents were. When talking about species in this context it's not easy to single out "firsts"—it's easier to single out when you have a big enough breeding population for those shared traits to make a difference... think of it this way—imagine you're some sort of beginning of some new subspecies of human—not implausible if much of the world got wiped out tomorrow or something like that. How much "first" credit can you take, given that you're just a product of your mother and father? Not a whole lot, even if you have a rare gene or two. But run out whatever your genes are for a few 10,000 years in our post-apocalyptic fantasy, and suddenly those people start to look more like each other than they did like the 1,000 generations before your parents. The end points may be clear, but there isn't necessarily any sort of firm line in between them. Nowadays we determine evolution of humans by probabilistic frequencies of genes in populations—an approach which can tell you a HUGE amount about groups but almost nothing about individuals. At some point you end up with something sort of like Mitochondrial Eve, but that person was not part of any sort of first couple... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As the prior poster said, this is not how speciation really works. The development of a new species is gradual, with an absence of discontinuities. There is a middle population that is able to interbreed with both species. In addition, there will be individual variation (i.e., some modern humans would consider a particular individual human and a possible mate, and others would not). You could look instead to Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam (not actually the position taken by JackofOz), but they apparently lived 80,000 years apart. In any case, modern science clearly tells us that the Adam and Eve described in the Bible did not exist in a literal sense, and I think it's going to be hard to beat them in terms of definitively nonexistent individuals. John M Baker (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ellery Queen was two people and to further the confusion,wrote books in which the leading character was called Ellery Queen,hotclaws 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Jeordie's

In the Tyneside area of England ,which is the Newcastle area, the miners were referred to as 'Jeordies'. What is the background to this term? Is it still in use? 41.243.222.47 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a diminutive of 'George'. Our article geordie (note spelling) has more information. Algebraist 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly still in use, though its broadened out to refer to anyone from Newcastle & the surrounding area rather than just miners, being precious few of those left there. AllanHainey (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also refers to Newcastle dialect (also with a G, not a J). - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

February 3

What is this melody?

Reposted on entertainment desk.

Aspects of Baroque in today's music?

What are the aspects of Baroque music that exists even today in our colloquial music? In simple words, what influence has the baroque music had on todays music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.240.72 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like you are trying to get someone to do your homework. But I would look to chord progressions and counterpoint, for a start. - Jmabel | Talk 05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I like an assignment that's going for baroque. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also compare Baroque ornamentation to jazz improvisation and r&b vocal improvisation. A professor I know claimed that the basic allemande rhythm was the basis of most modern dance music, but I don't have any back up on that. Steewi (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the Baroque music article, functional tonality. I would hazard modulation as well. Pfly (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Gagaku/Religious Paraphernalia

I have seen a couple of examples of a type of angular Japanese shoulder guard that spans both shoulders. I remember hearing that they were part of the uniform for a certain Shintô or Buddhist festival and I think I have also seen them used in gagaku, but I can't seem to find any examples of them now. If I knew the name of them, I could research their exact significance, but that's why I'm here. What are they called? ~ジリー (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but in western religion there's the Scapular (whose name literally means "shoulder-thing" in Latin, though it's evolved in several different directions over centuries)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it something like this? If so, see here. Oda Mari (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The most important people you've never heard of

Who are some of the most important relatively obscure people in recent history? Two that I can think of are Malcolm McLean, whose innovations in intermodal transport helped lead to today's globalization, and Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution. Who are some others? And don't say Stanislav Petrov, who did not single-handedly save the world in 1983, much as some people would like to believe. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Linus Pauling may have been the one of the most important chemists of the 20th century, and won a Nobel Peace Prize as well. He doesn't get the press of a guy like Einstein, but he had all of Einstein's genius and quirks, along with being rather politically active. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He won two Nobel prizes, one for Chemistry, and another for Peace. One other name that most people wouldn't know these days is Howard Florey. Although he didn't discover penicillin, it was he who virtually single-handedly did the work to have it made available in massive quantities in order to save lives in World War II, when the discoverer, Alexander Fleming, pooh-poohed the idea. Robert Menzies described him as "the most important man ever born in Australia" and he appeared on our $50 note for a number of years, but his name is still a bit of a mystery to most people. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that in his time, though, Pauling got the same sort of press as Einstein did when he was alive (which is to say, a lot, but he wasn't on mugs and posters at the time). No scientist gets as much press as Einstein, generally. Darwin probably comes #2 and Newton #3 in terms of raw verbiage written about them, but none of those top three are very useful in talking about how well known a scientist is, because they're very anomalous. Pauling was quite prominent in his day though, was considered to be a major player in public debates, etc. --140.247.249.208 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You can debate what "relatively obscure" means. Does it mean "the average person" doesn't know? In that case, I'd nominate Alexander Fleming for discovering anti-biotics (you could quibble about whether he was really first, but he generally gets the honor, and in any case you could credit "the people that discovered anti-biotics"). That's probably saved a billion or so lives in the last century, or a few hundred million at least. He's mildly famous for it, but I think to the general public he's much less famous than, say, Jonas Salk. In that same vein, Edward Jenner for creating the smallpox vaccine.

In terms of "who has saved the most lives in the history of humanity", it's got to be those two along with Borlaug, whom you mentioned. It's curious that all of three of them are relatively obscure, it says something about society's appreciation for science.

Who else? Hmm, Thomas Newcomen comes to mind (does the 18th century qualify as "recent history"?). Watt gets all the credit for the steam engine, but Newcomen was in fact first. I'd say it's reasonable to say that no other invention have changed humanity as much, what with the industrial revolution and all.

There's a bunch of fellas that should be given massive credit for the computer and internet revolution, like John von Neumann, Alan Turing (who really left a bigger impact in other fields), Jack Kilby, Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, Tim Berners-Lee and a many others (these are just off the top of my head).

I think that's all I can come up with for now. I keep thinking of people who did relatively small things that had huge impacts (again, Alan Turing for cracking the enigma, the least known of the great heroes of WWII, Nils Bohlin for the three point car seat-belt, Franz Ferdinand just for being shot at the wrong time), but those guys don't really count, do they? I shouldn't think so. Belisarius (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think this must come down to cultural differences. I'd venture that in Britain Alexander Fleming is considerably better known than Jonas Salk, who I'd never heard of until you mentioned him. Given that the OP's title is "The most important people you've never heard of", I can't see how a man who is sufficiently well known to be voted 20th on the BBC's list of 100 Greatest Britons really qualifies. Oh, and who's at number 21? Why, Alan Turing. And that's a list voted for the British public, ie "the average person". Those are not obscure names. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article, I suppose that Gavrilo Princip deserves the spot more than Franz Ferdinand, as he was the one who pulled the trigger. It's certainly not a good thing he did, starting World War I, but you can't say it wasn't important. Belisarius (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Under that same logic, we should also nominate the admissions director at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna; else this guy may have ended up an obscure landscape painter rather than, well, what he DID become... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Gray (scientist) (1666-1736) [11] does not get a fraction of the credit he should for his electrical research. He was the first to do careful investigations and classify materials as insulators (silk, glass) or conductors(hemp or cotton thread, silver, iron, steel, brass wire, copper wire), then to experiment with conduction of electricity to extended locations via insulated wires (1729). He invented the "Electric Boy" electrical demonstration (April 8, 1730) which popularized electrical demonstrations, and he discovered induction. I consider him the father of electrical communication. He died a pauper and is buried in an unmarked pauper grave. He has no monument and little recognition, although he was made a member of the Royal Society. He made the jump from "static electricity" to current electricity" without the advantage of the Leyden jar invented later to store up a quantity of electricity, and without the advantage of the Voltaic cell.Samuel Johnson wrote "On the Death of Stephen Grey, F.R.S. in his honor. Joseph Priestley in 1774 gave him much credit for advancing electrical science. A 100 year history of electricity in 1894 pages26-29gave him high praise. Not sure if any obscure unit or effect was named for him. His article only gets about 40 visits a day. If you try to go to Stephen Gray you get redirected to Steven Gray, a disambiguation page. Edison (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was Oleg Gordievsky who saved the world from nuclear destruction in 1983 during Able Archer 83. Turning to the social side of things, Baden-Powell founded the Scouting movement that has affected millions of people. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Simón Bolívar - huge impact on the independence of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Panama, and Bolivia.

Louis Daguerre - inventor of the first practical method of photograpy. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On that same line, there are literally millions of inventions that have come into general use and are taken completely for granted - such as the safety pin, the zipper, velcro, and so many others - but whose inventors are utterly unknown to all but 0.000000001% of people. And Wikipedia, of course. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew velcro was invented by George de Mestral because when he died, Saturday Night Live showed a fake tombstone (supposedly his) that said "GRIP" instead of "RIP" on it. A silly joke that somehow allows me to recall his name with almost zero effort, more than 18 years after hearing it. Matt Deres (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a suggestion. We don't have an article on this guy specifically because nobody knows his name. It could even be a her. Whichever, the individual responsible for this was almost single-handed responsible for untold millions of dollars of changes to how packaging is designed as well as a large number of new laws around the world. Matt Deres (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost by definition all sorts of people could be a suitable person for this. I think I would go for Thomas Midgley, who invented CFCs & introduced lead into petrol, or William Murdoch, who invented gas lighting, pneumatics and steam locomotion. AllanHainey (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous was a woman. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not according to Willard R. Espy, who wrote The Life and Works of Mr. Anonymous (1977). It has a full biography, and photos of what is obviously a male. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-limitation of the Bible

Are there any passages of the Bible that repeal other passages, or reduce their applicability versus if they were taken in isolation? NeonMerlin 02:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For example, Acts 15:28-29 repeals most of the Jewish dietary laws. Algebraist 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Other places. If we look at chronology, Genesis 2 directly contradicts Genesis 1 (for example, in Genesis 1, God creates all of the animals before creating man (male and female). In Genesis 2, it says he created Male human (Adam) first, THEN the animals, THEN Female human (Eve). Also, much of the theme of the New Testament is the idea that Jesus, in freeing us from our sin, also provided a new understanding of God's covenant (or a whole new covenant) which provided relief from the legalistic Jewish one. One could take, for example, Jesus's teaching in Matthew 22:36-40 (also Mark 12:28-34, though the tone of Mark's account is a bit different). In this passage (especially the Matthew version) one could easily see that Jesus's two "Greatest Commandments", which are "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love God with all of you heart, soul, mind, and strength" as replacing the entire Old Testament, where Jesus says plainly "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." In other words, follow these two, and the rest will fall in line.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Internal consistency of the Bible, which has some examples, and a much longer list here. (Some of the examples given in the latter link are a little dubious and can be explained away, but the majority of them are pretty tough to refute.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually reading more carefully I'm not sure whether internal contradictions were what you were looking for, but if so, there you go. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from reading most of the New Testament that Jesus intended to put a stop to observance of the Old Testament rules. He does say "I do not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it", but it's clear from the other places where he deliberately breaks the old rule, or gives new teachings that override them, that he wasn't expecting his followers to adhere to the detailed regulations. The most common interpretation is that he intended people to follow the principles, rather than the details - especially the principles so ably described by my colleague above: "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love God with all of you heart, soul, mind, and strength".

Further reading on this subject could include "The End of Religion" by Bruxy Cavey, or the works of N.T. Wright. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is human nature to repeal the rules and regulations set forth by earlier generations. It may seem like a contradiction in the pages of the Bible, but it is actually a reflection of human nature. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pastor Theo, your arguments depends on the Bible being something further and beyond what is "a reflection of human nature"; however, I do not think that it is the task of this help desk to answer all questions about a proposed nonhuman source for the content of the Bible. In other words, the question should be about the texts as we have them, not about whether or not there are some divine and secret reasons why apparent contradictions are not real contradictions.

NeonMerlin, while there are (apparent) contradictions in the text, I think there are much fewer, if any, explicit statements of the kind "What I write here contradicts and partially cancels what is written there". Algebraist gave one possible example.

Some of the laws will contain qualifications of the immediately preceeding text. Likewise, sometimes sayings of "unbelievers" or other bad people are quoted for polemic reasons, and thus immediately renounced. E.g., King James bible contains the following text, concerning a certain fruit:

"Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:4-5)

You could say that technically this "Bible quotation" is annealed by other Bible texts: The context makes it unsdisputally clear that this quotation from "the serpent" is not supposed to represent the truth and nothing but the truth, but quite the converse.

However, perhaps this is too much of sophistery. I do not believe that there is any person (at least not any one who is not completely unsane), who would claim that every single paragraph in the Bible be the absolute truth, independent of the context, even if (s)he is strictly adhering to verbal inspiration. Such a person might rather say something like "Well, the Bible is truthfully stating that the serpent said this, but also that the serpent lied; thus the Bible is truthful, but the serpent's statement is false". You probably are looking for cases where one piece of text read in its context still is negated or qualified elsewhere in the Bible.

As I said, I think there are few or no explicit such statements. On the other hand, contrast e.g. chapters 9 and 12 in Ecclesiastes! Now, that Bible book is rather interesting; as noted by many, its teachings (apparently) are rather different from the "mainstream" Bible ones. In this chapter 9, the philosophy (apparently) is remarkably close to the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher and atheist Epikuros. Briefly, it states that as all people, good or evil, will have exactly the same end; they die, and as the death for each person is the total end of that individual's consciousness, all people had better try to enjoy a good life while they still have the chance. (Neither Ecclesiastes nor Epikuros claims that you should do so without other concerns; both encourages wisdom; and Epikuros stresses that you should treat other people as well as you would wish them to treat you.) Of course, the (apparent) doctrine of absolutely no existence of afterlife and thus no personal consequences of your actions after your death is not quite in accordance with either modern Judaeism or Christianity, to put it mildly. However, the book was supposedly written by Solomon, and seemingly couldn't just be excluded or censored outright. Thus the book is there, chapter 9 is there, but there is also a post script, the latter part of chapter 12. This does not openly claim any fayults in the text. Instead, it states that the author was wise, and he wrote true things, but that there are too many book seading; you should not read too much of these books; anyhow the sum of it be

"Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (Eccl 12:13-14)

Now, in my humble POV, this is one of the worst summaries of a text I've ever seen. It (apparently) twists the text to the direct opposite of its (apparent) meaning. However, this is still claimed to be a summary, not an annealment.

I'm sure that many people (probably including Pastor Theo) will disagree with my description. However, I repeat: I am mainly commenting the text as it superficially appears; I'm not discussing allegorical or hidden meaning behind it. (However, I admit that I do speculate just a little about the possible reasons for including this afterword.) JoergenB (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The doctrine of an eye for an eye is an important example. The article I've linked shows that this isn't truly a case of repeal, more clarification and strengthening. The theory goes that the Old Testament rule was meant to limit the amount of retaliation, so Christ simply imposed further restrictions, by banning vengeance altogether. It's repeal of a law if you take it out of context. It's been emotional (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Can anyone help translate this? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nachkommen

Hermann Billung war vermutlich zwei Mal verheiratet; eine Frau hieß Oda († 15. März eines unbekannten Jahres), eine zweite Hildesuit. Er hatte fünf Kinder:

• Bernhard I. († 1011), Herzog von Sachsen
• Liutger († 26. Februar 1011) Graf im Westfalengau, 991 bezeugt, begraben in St. Michaelis in Lüneburg, ∞ Emma († 3. Dezember 1038), begraben im Bremer Dom, Tochter des Immed IV. (Immedinger), Schwester des Bischofs Meinwerk von Paderborn
• Suanhilde (* 945/955, † 28. November 1014, begraben im Kloster Jena, nach 1028 in die Georgskirche von Naumburg (Saale) umgebettet, ∞ I Thietmar I. († nach 979) 970 Markgraf von Meißen, ∞ II vor 1000 Ekkehard I. (ermordet 30. April 1002 in Pöhlde) 992 Markgraf von Meißen, begraben im Kloster Jena, nach 1028 in die Georgskirche von Naumburg (Saale) umgebettet
• Mathilde (* 935/945 † 25. Mai 1008 in Gent St. Peter), ∞ I 961 Balduin III. Graf von Flandern († 1. Januar 962), ∞ II um 963 Gottfried der Gefangene († 3./4. April nach 995) 963/982 Graf von Verdun (Wigeriche), begraben in St. Peter in Gent
• Imma, 995 Äbtissin zu Herford

Do we not already have an article on Hermann Billung?

Descendants

Hermann Billung was probably married twice, first to a woman named Oda (who died on 15 March in an unknown year), and second to Hildesuit.

He had five children:

• Bernhard I (died 1011), Duke of Saxony
• Liutger (died 26 February 1011) Count in Westfalengau, attested in 991, buried in St. Michaels in Lüneburg, married Emma (died 3 December 1038), buried in the Bremen Cathedral, daughter of Immed IV (Immedinger), sister of Bishop Meinwerk of Paderborn.
• Suanhilde (born between 945 and 955, died 28 November 1014, buried in the monastery of Jena, reburied after 1028 in the Georgskirche of Naumburg in Saale, married 1st in 970 Thietmar I (died after 979) Margrave of Meissen, married (2) before 1000 Ekkehard I (murdered 30 April 1002 in Pöhlde); in 992 Margrave of Meissen, buried in the monastery of Jena, reburied after 1028 in the Church of Georg Naumburg (Saale)
• Mathilde (born between 935 and 945, died 25 May 1008 in Ghent St. Peter), married 1st in 961 to Balduin III, Count of Flanders (died 1 January 962), married second Gottfried der Gefangene (died on 3/4 April after 995) in 963/982, Count of Verdun (Wigeriche), buried in St. Peter's in Ghent
• Imma, in 995 Abbess of Herford

I wouldn't take this at face value: though a wife Oda is well-known, Hildegarde of Westerbourg is attested only in one place, and it's not contemporary. It's not possible to identify the mother(s) of Hermann Billung's children. - Nunh-huh 08:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Crap! I was translating it at the same time. Oh well, I will keep my comment that it looks like poorly organized genealogical data (is there any other kind?), with the sort of jargon you find on hundreds of websites. (I hate when it is added to Wikipedia like that!) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. We should have a little {{working}} template. The text seems to be from the German Wikipedia's Hermann Billung article. - Nunh-huh 09:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the place associated with Oda? Oda of somewhere. I working on a list of Saxon consorts so that is why I am asking. And the names are they Emma (Imma), Matilda (Mathilde) and what in the world is Suanhilde and Liutger. Never heard those before. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no place associated with Oda. I don't think there's much of anything known about Oda other than her Christian name and her marriage. - Nunh-huh 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also an another question totally unrelated to translation. Would the chidlren of Electors of Saxony be consider Prince and Princess? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There were no Electors of Saxony before 1356. Since the electors were dukes, their children were known as duke (Herzog) or duchess (Herzogin). For later members of the family entitled to Prince/Princess, see [12]. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Swanahild is a pretty common early medieval Germanic name. It also appears as Svanhildr and Swanachild. We have a Liutger article that explains the etymology - "liut" shows up often in compounds (Liutprand is another). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Parte presa"? (Venetian decree)

(Moved to Language Reference Desk.)

Cameroon Estate

I am wondering who or what is the proprietor a particularly spectacular estate in Cameroon, outside the capitol city of Yaoundé. The house is located at 03°54′43.68″N 11°30′52.61″E. Inasilentway (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Earth (running version 5.0.11337.1968 (beta)), it's the President's palace, Yaoundé. We don't have an article on the palace, as far as I know, but we do have 1984 Cameroonian Palace Guard Revolt.-gadfium 11:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can see a photo of it here. And to answer your actual question, the proprietor is Paul Biya.-gadfium 11:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the proprietor is probably the Republic of Cameroon, but since the occupant, Paul Biya, controls the republic, the distinction is a fine point. Marco polo (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Druze marriage

What if a Lebanese Druze man marries a Syrian Druze woman? Is it against the law of Druze people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.103 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Druze religious law, but I can't imagine why members of a religion that is centuries old should be concerned with boundaries that date back less than 100 years, particularly when members of the same religion live on both sides of such a boundary. So I can't imagine an objection to a marriage solely due to the different citizenship of the two parties based on religious law. Now, possibly religious law might ban such a marriage on some other grounds, but as I said, I am not familiar with Druze religious law. Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out this website; it has FAQs and a Contact Us feature. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think there is any problem. Druze intermarriage is the only common reason for people being allowed by the militaries involved to travel between Syria and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and Israel, think there was a documentary about such a travelling bride. Apropos of nothing, but I think that journalist Helena Cobban's comparison of the Druze mountain heartland to Gormenghast sounds fascinating.John Z (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nudist dating website

Is there any dating website where it is free to sign up look for female nudist as dates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.103 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You could go to OKCupid and say you were only looking for a nudist. - Jmabel | Talk 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You would probably be better off looking for nudist sites with dating sections than dating sites with nudist sections. I'm sure there are lots of sites where nudists can chat to each other, one of those might have something that would help you. --Tango (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Punjabi lyrics with transliteration

Where can I find a website where it has all the Punjabi songs from past to present with lyrics with English transliteration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.103 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dogger Bank.

Hello everyone. I've got a photo that I need a source for (to determine if it is PD or not). Would anyone happen to know who took this photo, and/or when the photographer died? Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find the photo? Algebraist 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find it. It was here. :(

Out of curiosity, would that German Federal Archive donation to the Commons have held a copy, and possible a better caption, for this photo? Ugh, I have no clue for any of this (which might be why I came here ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

610x253, probably came from here: [13]. There is a Bibliograpy and Credits page, but you may have to contact the author of the site.—eric 00:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That is most likely the source (it has the same incorrect caption the image originally had: Von der Tann was certainly not at Dogger Bank, as the ship was in for periodic maintenance at the time). Parsecboy (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Norman Rockwell Prints

Hello... I have a unique set of prints from Norman Rockwell that I found in the attic. It's a set of 6 all of the scenes are Boy Scout scenes. They are come in a vanilla envelope with a history of Norman Rockwell on the front and a pic of him. I was wondering what year they came from and how much they are worth. The only thing I found on the web was another person who has been searching for the same answer for the past ten years. Thank you and all your help is appreciated!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.204.66 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Antiques Road Show! Your query was repeated here. Are there no captions in the margins of your color photolithographs? William Hillcourt, Norman Rockwell's World of Scouting. New York: Harry N. Abrams 1977 ISBN 0810915820 may have some information on these mass-market prints.-Wetman (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And Norman Rockwell's World of Scouting is in my personal library. If you can describe them, I can probably identify them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of Scouting-related works: [14]. I would not bet on any big bucks here— they used to give these away when you bought official shoes and stuff.

February 4

The man who saved pimperdale

Can any body give me a clue on where I can get this story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.98.39 (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No sorry, but I have heard of a different story "The man who saved pumplesdrop". It was story of a small town with no/few economic activities. A poor man walks in and just for fun makes a few inquiries at a car dealer for new car and walks away. The car dealer thinks that he will get lot of money by the deal and spends some money at other shop. The other shop keeper thinks that now business is going well, he spends some money somewhere else. And all of sudden the town comes out of the economic slowdown. I could not find the complete story. It was part of English lesson in school. manya (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'Sri Satya Sai University' lists author of the "The man who saved pumplesdrop" story as W.J.Turner in their Syllabus - manya (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mack Reynolds used a similar plot in one of his novels; perhaps Depression or Bust. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 09:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And our respective governments are currently trying much the same tactic: inspiring us to spend. Gwinva (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Portrait of Samuel Adams

The well-known Copley portrait of Samuel Adams is all over the Internet—it's the one at the top of our article on Adams—but there's another portrait of Adams, painted in 1795 by a John Johnston when Adams was governor of Massachusetts. The only version of this I've found on the net is here, an engraved version with a Corbis watermark. Does the original painting still exist? Do you know of any other versions of it online? Thanks! —Kevin Myers 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your search, I'm afraid, will be in vain. According to William Vincent Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams 1865, vol. III, p. 884, note 2, there were a lifesize portrait of Adams and a matching portrait of his wife by Major John Johnson in the house in Winter Street, Boston, listed in the probate inventory taken 12 December 1803. "The painting of Mrs. Adams still exists. That of Governor Adams, taken in 1795, was destroyed a few years since by fire". The engraving, a folio mezzotint by Graham is mentioned. Another mezzotint of Adams, after a copy by J. Mitchell of the Copley portrait, 1775, is also mentioned.--Wetman (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspected that the portrait is lost, since practically every biography of Adams uses the Copley portrait on the cover. Now, what we need on Wikimedia Commons is a good copy of the engraving of the Johnson portrait without a Corbis watermark. If anyone sees one, don't keep it a secret! —Kevin Myers 14:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Kahn Lectures" at Princeton (on art, architecture)

Writing about a Swedish art historian, Johnny Roosval, who held the "Kahn Lectures" at Princeton in 1929 on the topic of "Swedish art", I tried to find out what these were, but the only other result I get is that of Frank Lloyd Wright's Kahn lectures on "Modern architecture" the following year, 1930.

Is this is a long-running series that is just somehow difficult to find through Google, or were these two years the only times these lectures were ever held? Who was the Kahn who gave his name -- or whose name was given -- to the lectures? --Hegvald (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Louis Kahn was a noted architect, but I can not find any references to these lectures, either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought about Louis Kahn, but he was just a young man at the time. --Hegvald (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not check the dates before my posting. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling is complicated by the existence of the more recently inaugurated Louis I. Kahn Memorial Lecture, also at Princeton.--Wetman (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also the older architect Albert Kahn (1869–1942). But with the way things are named at American universities, one should perhaps be looking for a capitalist donor as the namesake rather than a practising artist, architect or art historian. How about Otto Hermann Kahn (1867-1934), "investment banker, collector, philanthropist, and patron of the arts"? --Hegvald (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, another kind of Google search confirms that it is Otto Kahn who is the donor in this case. But the relevant news hits are all pay-per-view. Still, from the snippet I can see of the Christian Science Monitor article, it says that: "A gift of $1500 a year for five years to the Department of Art and Archaelogy [sic!] at Princeton University has just been made by Otto Kahn of...".

The question remains if these lectures actually continued for five years or if the donation was so badly invested that they couldn't continue after the first two years. --Hegvald (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full NYT article: [15] --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Hegvald (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I finally found a good source, the introduction to the newest edition of Wright's lectures, which I used as the basis for an article: Kahn Lectures. I bypassed most of the detailed discussion of Wright's lectures. --Hegvald (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Speeding safety

Hi, I have a controversial issue... are there situations in which it's actually safer to go over the posted speed limit? Or is that just a myth? I realize that the posted speed limit is designed to keep people from driving too fast to be safe, but what if everyone else on the road is going, say, 10 km/hr above the limit (I live in Canada)? Does that mean if you drive at the speed limit, you would be blocking traffic and might cause accidents? I'd especially be interested to know if there are any actual cases in which someone caused an accident by driving at the speed limit. Thanks Jonathan ^talk 15:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is true that having all vehicles go the same speed is safer, but whether you blame the speeders, the law-abiding, or the absurdly slow limit for speed differences is a matter of opinion. There are other cases where speeding could save lives, like when someone requiring emergency assistance is on the way to the hospital. This is why police vehicles and ambulances are allowed to exceed the limit. Unfortunately, your average car is not allowed to, even when carrying the same patient. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but my intuition tells me that having all vehicles go the same speed is not safer. Left to their own devices, competent drivers will tend to drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions. But, there will be some variance among individuals. Pretty much every time I'm on the freeway, I see cars all clumped together, presumably owing to not wanting a speeding ticket. If we didn't have these ridiculous speed limits, there'd be more small variations in speed and the cars would tend to clump together less. Not having cars all clumped together certainly seems safer to me. That said, going much faster than the traffic around you can certainly be unsafe. Also, when passing, it's safe to spend as little time as possible in the "wrong" lane. So more speed helps there. I suspect if someone caused an accident by going the speed limit, the blame would instead be placed on all the cars around them who exceeded the speed limit. At least where I live, it's blindingly obvious to the casual observer that speed limits are about revenue generations, not safety. If traffic cops cared about safety, they'd be actually watching people drive and giving tickets to people doing dangerous things, rather than sitting there reading a magazine with their radar guns on. The one-size-fits-all speed limits really are preposterous- why should my car (a high-performance model, in good condition) be subject to the same limits as a semi, or some 6000lb monstrosity of an SUV that can't turn or stop in a reasonable distance? Hmm. I suppose this is more of a rant than a ref desk answer, so take it with a grain of salt. Friday (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To the last question: because E=0.5MV^2 applies just as much to you as the next man. Quite why driving at a safe braking distance behind the car in front comes to be "dangerous clumping" is beyond me. Pip pip, Toad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that equation helps make that point. My complaint was that these speed limits are aimed at vehicles with twice the mass and much poorer braking and handling performance, yet they are also blindly applied to smaller, better-performing cars. If higher energies mean more danger, shouldn't speed limits take mass into account? Friday (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd look at the contribution mass make to that equation, in comparison with the contribution made by velocity. Velocity disproportionately contributes. Which somewhat answers your question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but the variation in speed between a "slow" and a "fast" car, on a given road, might be 20mph or so - say around 25% of the speed. Contrast this with variation in mass, which can easily be over 100% when comparing a small car to a big car, or over 1000-2000% when comparing a car to a semi with trailer. I'd like it if speed limits were designed by taking physics into account, but my point is that I don't believe they are. They're a bit like bumper laws- in the US, car bumpers have to perform to a certain level, for safety and to minimize damage in minor collisions. A car with bad bumpers isn't legal to sell. Yet, it's legal to drive around with a big steel spike (i.e. a trailer hitch) sticking out the back of your car. These laws do not appear to be based on anything rational or consistent. Friday (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A "semi with a trailer" in the UK would be constrained to, IIRC, 50mph whilst cars can go to 70mph. If you compare car mass with car mass, you get the same sort of bell curve as you will for speed. Do you think there's a practical way to mandate variable speed limits according to the amount of ceramics in your brake system? Really? Designing rational and consistent and practical law is not so simple, and your argument is of the best driving out the good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I ran numbers for a 50,000lb truck at 50mph vs a 3,000lb car at 70. I get about 5.7e+6 joules for the truck and about 6.7e+5 joules for the car. Now, obviously, real-world safety is more complicated than simply comparing energies. And, sure, you can't easily enforce some law that requires complicated calculations. But, you could easily divide vehicles into say 3 or 4 different classes, with speed limits differing according to class. I know it can be complicated. My complaint is that the lawmakers don't even appear to be trying. They're satisfied with their money-generating speed laws, and don't seem interested in learning what actually makes driving safer. But, heck, this is just my opinion, it doesn't count for much. Look at what the sources say. Friday (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They tend to say things like:

• If someone is hit by a car at 40 mph they are 90% likely to be killed.

  If someone is hit by a car at 30 mph they are 50% likely to be killed.

  If someone is hit by a car at 20 mph they are 10% likely to be killed.

and oddly they do not ruminate on weight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with car vs pedestrian, speed is very significant. Lately people have been paying attention to vehicle shape also- taller cars are more dangerous. Mass matters little- energy transfer is not a big issue there. Friday (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True - in terms of personal vehicles, off-roaders/SUVs etc are far more dangerous to pedestrians (and other cars for that matter) than more traditional vehicles. If you run an off-roader/SUV and have bull bars fitted, you might as well have a bumper sticker saying "I don't mind killing children if I can't stop in time" - they are incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and the bars are typically just about the right height to smash children's heads. A more conventional car hitting a pedestrian will generally cause leg injuries and less serious upper body injuries as the pedestrian "rolls over" the bonnet (hood in USA parlance). Exxolon (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW this is a link that seems relevant. Friday (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the lead of National Motorists Association - "a for-profit corporation ... that advocates a libertarian point of view on issues related to traffic laws" - also seems relevant. You could equally have cited US DOT Report Confirms Speed Not Major Accident Cause which notes that "'traveling too fast for conditions' accounted for only five percent of the critical pre-crash events", but goes on to say "More significant factors included 22 percent driving off the edge of a road, or 11 percent who drifted over the center dividing line", both of which things tend to happen faster, with less scope for decision time and greatly constrained options for avoidance, as speed increases. Of course you have a point: all things being equal, a more performant car (if you'll excuse the neologism) will outperform a less performant car. Making a leap from that to a criticism of blanket speed limits is another thing entirely. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I normally keep to the speed limits but one time I had gone through a puddle and the brakes failed just as I was coming up to a junction, so I pressed on the accelerator instead to get over quickly and not get smashed in on the side. The people coming across must have got a shock. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a coin I bought that I cant find. online

the coin I am trying to find out about is 'GEORGIVS VI REX IMPERATOR "2.5 shillings" SOUTH AFRICA SUID-AFRIKA "1941"spelled exatly like it is on obverse and reverse sides, it is a silver coin from south africa the front simply has the the profile of the afor mentiond person with his name stamped on the outer edge of it and the back has a shild-like symble split verticly by a thin line and horizontily by a waved line that cuts it into four sections with the upper left holding what appers to be a woman leaning on a mountian with an ancor brest hight in front of her,the upper right holds a lion leaping onto a wildabeast,the bottem left holds some sort of fruit-bearing tree in grass,and the bottem right holds an old car with spoks for rims.and i allredy know that 'suid-afrika' is from when the dutch rulled south africa,but my problem seems to be that (1)this coin dose not show up on any search engine that I have used. (2)wikipedia dose not have any south african coins under georgivs VI rex imperator. (3) It does not seem to exist!?!.2/4/09 10:40 cen.time 72.251.10.0 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Georgivs VI is George VI. REX IMPERATOR means King Emperor (he was King of the United Kingdom, South Africa, and several other countries, and Emperor of India). 1941 is the date of the coin. A shilling was 12 old pence (or one-twentieth of a pound). DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a picture of the coin you describe, but the article Coins of the South African pound does have some more information. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

2½ shillings is called a Half Crown, which may help in further googling. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This google image search has some pictures [16]

The image on the reverse is the Coat of arms of South Africa, 1910 version, the article explains the different symbols. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you for going to all the truble on my behalf I greatly appritate it your infomation has ben invalueble and thank you agine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.10.0 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources on women in Islam

(Moved from Language Desk. Oops. Marco polo (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I am looking for Islamic sources on the place of women in that religion. I have already found several Muslim feminist sources that stress the equality of women under Islam. What I am having trouble finding is a more traditional view of the place of women, i.e. that women need to be protected by men, to conceal themselves for their own protection, etc. This is for presentation to schoolchildren aged 11–12 and for scrutiny by parents and teachers. I have found some (translations of) direct quotes from the Quran and the Hadith that would not be suitable for this audience since they suggest violence against women or are otherwise insulting and degrading. What I am looking for is a paternalistic (but not insulting) view of women to counterpose with a feminist view to help students learn about different approaches to this question within the religion and to teach them to critically assess point of view in written sources. Can anyone suggest appropriate sources? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Women in Islam would be the logical starting point. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I took a look there before posting my query and found nothing useful. Can anyone suggest non-Wikipedia sources? Marco polo (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you check the "See Also" and "Further Reading" sections for more useful info? Exxolon (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Nothing useful there. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the website of Yusuf al-Qaradawi or the websites of the Shi'a Grand Ayatollahs? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What about phoning your local mosque? (Sorry to be obvious, but...) I've also found this site, with this tone:

"It would appear therefore that the Islamic system has achieved the right mixture of freedom and security that women seek and that is in the interest of the society as a whole."

BrainyBabe (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Is tea ever smoked?

I mean, is tea ever smoked, as in smoking? Because I was talking with some people the other day and we got onto the topic of smoking tea. Who does this? And how is it smoked? (as in, using Rizla skins, or using a pipe, or whatever).--ParrRae (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tea can be smoked as in smoking salmon, not as in smoking tobacco. See Lapsang souchong for a delicious smoke-dried tea. I've never heard of anyone smoking tea as a substitute for tobacco, or for whatever other reason. Burnt tea leaves smell pretty bad. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can say from personal experience that tea is highly unsatisfactory as a tobacco substitute. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That is expected, as there is no nicotine in tea plant (Camellia sinensis). Nicotine is only found in Solanaceae as far as I know. As for caffeine (theine) in tea leaves, it is likely destroyed by heating. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean caffeine is destroyed when smoking or, to some extent, when boiling tea (see chifir', preferrably the Russian Wiki article). It is not destroyed when brewing tea properly, of course. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not simply the lack of nicotine - it also does not burn in an acceptable fashion, and lacks the great taste of real tobacco. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a friend who as a virtually penniless student used to keep the tab-ends of cigarettes and when he ran out he would recycle this tar-ridden tobacco by making a roll up and "diluting" it with tea. They were disgusting - I tried the same thing once. They had a dry acrid taste and because we obviously used cheap tea which was powdery you would get flakes of dry tea in your mouth. My friend found it a price worth paying for the nicotine hit though. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

At one time, "tea" was a term for marijuana, or as amusingly stated on the Tea (disambiguation) page, "beatnik slang for herbal cannabis". --LarryMac | Talk 21:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the line from the Aerosmith classic song Mama Kin "Sleeping late and smoking Tea". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried Lapsang souchong... many times actually. Smoking tea may seem just like a juvenile experimentation with what could lead to tobacco smoking, but is there any history of tea being smoked (as in orally smoked, not like like smoked salmon) in culture?--ParrRae (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean I don't smoke myself because of the health reasons primarily.--ParrRae (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I found garlic stems a very delicate smoking (really). On the opposite side, I heard of one fellow trying tobacco infusion, with unsatisfaction and regret pma (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicotine is highly poisonous. You friend would have been better advised to use his brew as a drench of the Schefflera.--Wetman (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There's always smoking banana peels. AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The rumor was spread in Adams House dining room, ca 1966, expressly to embarrass the United Fruit Company.--Wetman (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What parts of the constitution overrules the Ten Commandments?

This question has been removed. Please do not use the Reference Desk as a soapbox. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about whether or not this was soapboxing is here: [17]. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

World illiteracy before 1970

The literacy page cites Unesco data of world illiteracy since 1970. Does anyone know of any older data than this? I didn't find any earlier illiteracy data at the World Bank either. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Paul Chitwood

I would like for Wikipedia to post a biographical sketch/history of Dr. Paul Chitwood, who was recently elected chairman of the board of trustees of the International Mission Board. Chitwood currently serves as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Mt. Washington, KY, and has served as the president of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, first vice-president of the KBC, and as the president of the KBC's pastor conference. Chitwood currently resides in Mt. Washington with his wife, Michelle, and his three children (one of whom was adopted from China). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.152.239.6 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources to show that Dr Chitwood is notable? If he meets WP's policies in those regards, then feel free to write the article yourself. If he does not meet those policies, then WP will not post a biography. Gwinva (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 5

Bal Thackeray's cartoon oeuvre

Bal Thackeray was a cartoonist in a previous life (so to speak), but I can't find any examples of his work. Does anyone know where I might be able to find it? Lantzy ^talk 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lantzy, I found this self-portrait[18] but the site itself doesn't come up; [19]; "bashing" Gandhi [20] and another [21]. google images is your friend, too -- Julia Rossi (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The first and last links are to satirical cartoons about Bal Thackeray, but I was interested in cartoons he himself had created. I had checked Google Images and there don't seem to be any examples of his work there. Lantzy ^talk 15:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No luck then, my apols. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Justification of text in typesetting

Have any studies been done comparing the readability of justified text and text with a ragged right margin? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Typographic alignment doesn't explain the benefits, then there's Justification (typesetting); but this[22], [23] and this[24] considers the readability. This[25] suggests slow readers do better with the ragged edge. More on cognitive disability re your question topic[26] Somewhere in there are stats, but tl:dr, sorry... Julia Rossi (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There's one problem I sometimes have when reading small left-justified text where each line is quite long: When I start at the beginning of the next line I often either miss a line or repeat a line. Either centered text or right-justified text can help here, as the jagged left edge provides more of a "landmark" to help me find my way back. Of course, there are other ways this could be done, like making each line of text a different color. Or, more simply, making each paragraph only contain a sentence or two would help so I could use the blank lines between paragraphs as a landmark. Double- and triple-spacing also helps. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Grapheme-color synesthesia and the four colour theorem

When it says there are a number of colours attached to objects, does it mean that there is only a small number of such colours that can be remembered by human brain, and hence the confusion of four similar names of persons at the end of article ?? --Highishuwakabirskoletti (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What, if anything, does this have to do with the four colour theorem? Algebraist 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer that, the two things are completely unrelated. The fact that there are 4 names mentioned in the synethesia article has no more connection to the 4-colour theorem than Three Coins in the Fountain has anything to do with the three sons of Noah. The four colour theorem is about a mathematical property of maps, where you never need more than than 4 colours in a coloured map to have contiguous areas in different colours. The synesthesia is about certain people who happen to perceive numbers and words and musical keys as possessing particular colours; such as Daniel Tammet, who was born on a Wednesday, and to him, Wednesdays are always blue, where other days of the week are other colours. He called his autobiography Born on a Blue Day. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The theorem actually states that no map requires more than four colours. Algebraist 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said. I've corrected my post. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do "I" go when I'm asleep?

My mind that is. I'm here, right here,-for now anyways. I shut my eyes, and I disappear. How?

I dream occasionally (with a whole new identity, sometimes). In between gazing at surreal scenes, I seem to regress into a hazy realm of non imprintable to memory experience. When I wake up, I feel myself being recreated, or "booted up", if you will. Then, off to wander around in a pointless, physical law prison.--Dr. Carefree (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You might take a look at our article Dream for a scientific answer to your question. However, you seem to be looking for a more ontological or even spiritual response, which may be outside the scope of the Reference Desk. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside the scope of RD? Pah. The phrasing of the question reminds me of G. I. Gurdjieff's maxim "Life is only real when 'I' am", which had to do with his conception that much/most of our waking life is spent as, in effect, an automaton. Or of Robert E. Ornstein's multimind conjectures. I'd recommend either of these as people whose work deserves a read, though Gurdjieff is fairly impenetrable. But in short, both contest, for different reasons, the supposition that you "I" does exist as much as you think it does during waking hours. In sleep; I can't really answer, but presume there are periods during whichever areas of the brain normally manifest the "I" disengage or are disengaged. Very interesting area of study, the human consciousness.

Also take a look at subconscious and unconscious mind. In the waking state, it's the conscious mind that seems to be doing all the work, and the others seem "asleep" - although they're really not. In sleep, the other 2 take over, and give the conscious a bit of a rest. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Modest Mouse at 9:30 club in DC -- how much?

Tickets for Modest Mouse at the 9:30 club in Washington, DC, sold out instantly. Now they're going on eBay for $80 each. How much were they from the source? --zenohockey (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ticket prices for Modest Mouse shows in Philadelphia are $32.00 and at the Rams Head Live! in Baltimore they are $38.50. The Baltimore location is not a bad place to see a concert (I was there last week) and it may be an option for you if you don't mind a little more (or less) of a drive to get there. Here is a link to the shows: [27] cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(I know that didn't directly answer your question, but it is probably safe to estimate the Washington DC prices were somewhere in the same price range as the shows I listed.) 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can believe Craigslist, $43. I saw prices up to $150 when I just googled. - BanyanTree 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct. I ended up buying a pair on eBay, and the seller thoughtfully forwarded me his confirmation email from Tickets.com. (I appreciate the Baltimore tip, but I won't have access to a car.) Thanks all. --zenohockey (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlisted savings banks

Could you please explain to me the difference between an "unlisted savings bank" and a "regular" bank. In Spain we have a huge percentage of the "unlisted" kind or "Cajas" as they are called here. In terms or financial safety, which is the best to bank with, are unlisted savings banks regulated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by COBrien2002 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a poor place to seek financial advice. - Jmabel | Talk 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a pretty factual question to me (except for the "best to bank with" bit). I have no idea what the answer is, though... --Tango (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A google search seems to only yield Spanish (nationality, not language) results for the term "unlisted savings bank", so I imagine it is only a Spanish distinction. It likely has to do with Spanish bank regulation (the rules that the banks have to follow). There may be better results from a Spanish language search. NByz (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually 'listed' means listed on the stock-exchange, so un-listed would be privately-owned or mutually-owned (or a co-operative or whatever). Or am I missing something here? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, es:Banco#Clases de banco does not mention any types of banks that look as though they could translate to "unlisted savings bank". --Anonymous, 04:01 UTC, February 7, 2009.

consulting a different-language Wikipedia is cheating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Toronto District School Board teacher semester

Is this that a teacher at a semestered school will get one semester free after teaching his/her first five semesters and will he/she come back to school to teach his/her sixth semester? If it is, then, what about a teacher teaching t at a non-semestered school? How many years does he/she have to teach in order to get one year free and will he/she come back to teach his/her sixth semester? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.35 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the question is. However I'll try to say something relevant.

As a rule teachers in Ontario school boards don't get every sixth semester off, and I've never heard of that being true. I know several teachers in Ontario. However what can happen in some school boards is that a teacher can take an option to take a reduced pay rate for some period, and then take the equivalent time off at the end. So you could opt to take 3/4 pay for three years and then take a fourth year off, still at 3/4 pay (the board pays for the three years you have worked, but spread out over four years). But it's an option, not the norm, relatively rare, and I would imagine there are restrictions on who can do it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You can find a copy of the just expired Collective Agreement between OSSTF and the TDSB which deals with such matters at [28]. The new agreement is currently under discussion. I don't recall hearing anything in the news that suggests changes proposed to what is called "Leave with Pay: Four for Five". A discussion of this option begins at section 4.4.4 on page 72 of the document (or otherwise counted as its 80th page). There is nothing said there about paid leave for anything less than an academic year. The teacher must request such leave by May 1st of the year before the year of the proposed leave, and then must agree to return to the TDSB for a further 4 years after the year of the leave, during which 5-year period the teacher receives only 80% of his grid salary. While the Board has an obligation to try and fill all requests for such paid leave, it is not obliged to do so, and may refuse a request on the basis of a threat to program stability or other program requirement. I couldn't find anything that said how long a teacher had to have been with the school board before such application could be made. (I am surprised that the 80% salary is not "in arrears", as it were. I would have expected a teacher to have had to have taught for 4 years at 80%, at which time the 5th year of paid leave could begin. That is not, however, what the document appears to say.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I defer to my learned colleague, who clearly has a better knowledge of the details of this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The term you want is sabbatical. I believe that they are relatively common for university staff, but probably rare for secondary schools. I can't answer your question in relation to Toronto.-gadfium 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

need help finding a yurei/yokai

I remember reading on the Wiki about a particular type of Japanese ghost which was connected with a recent urban legend. The spirit was supposedly the ghost of a beautiful woman whose husband had discovered she was cheating on him and as punishment had slit her mouth so it extended across her face. Apparently this ghost walks around in the evenings (This is the urban legend bit) with a surgical mask over her face, walks up to people, asks them if they think she's beautiful, and takes of the mask revealing her mouth. I can't for the life of me remember what this ghost is called. Anyone out there know? Library Seraph (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is Kuchisake-Onna. Laenir (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Provincial Elections, 2005 political parties based on ethnicity and religious sect

Which political parties consist of Sunni Arabs? Which political parties consist of Shi'a Arabs? Which political parties consist of Kurds? Which political parties consist of Arab Christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.87 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Through this BBC article ([29]) you can find an informing overview of Iraqi parties, factions, and minorities. Click on hotlinks. Good luck. --Omidinist (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

February 6

The fact that English is an international language is like rape of people whose only language is English

They're not taught another language in schools and have no reason to use another language, yet the same is not true of other peoples. Hence others can talk in a code, but not them. Their communications are comprehensible to all others. Is this true?--Picturesonthewall (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not true, and your comparison with rape is stupid and offensive. Communication in English is comprehensible by those who have English as a second language and are in earshot. Lack of a second language for a native English speaker is ... a shame and probably a wasted opportunity. I suggest you try to think through the wilder elements of your assertion yourself. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the box at the top of the page: "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." However, if you wish to learn more about the issues raised in your (badly worded, IMO) statement/question, see English, international language, monolingualism, multilingualism, English as a Foreign or Second Language, language education, second language acquisition, International English. Oh, and also (to avoid making really offensive comparisons in the future) you might want to look at History of rape. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of native English speakers learn foreign languages. Perhaps not to the extent that other people learn English, but it's really up to the individual. Also, a native English speaker speaking very quickly with a strong accent using lots of idioms and local dialect terms will be pretty incomprehensible to the average person that knows English as a second language. --Tango (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, this is true for most languages. Heck, english is my first language and I have difficulty understanding people with a thick Cajun or Cockney accent.Livewireo (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I'd say it's true for pretty much all languages, but that doesn't really make any difference. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that English native speakers are free to learn any further language if they want to. Of course, many English, French or Spanish speaker (as the legend go) see no advantage to learn foreign languages since many foreigners know their language. --Mr.K. (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to print the OP and hang on the wall, because it is so original! So everybody can read and laugh (no offense)... And since it is in English, no need of translation! --pma (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The question brings to mind a piece of colloquial English possibly not understandable to those for whom English as a second language, or even those speaking a non-UK variety of English. The word is bollocks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A perfectly understandable term to us Americans who are fans of One Foot in the Grave. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about Zoroastrianism?

Nietzsche's philosophical writing was titled "Thus Spake Zarathustra". I am curious to what is the relationship between that book and Zoroastrianism (If there is any at all).  Marlith (Talk)  00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole paragraph on that in the Zoroaster article. Search in it for Nietzsch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

a method of drawing

you draw something on paper which looks meaningless. but when its reflection is viewed on a curved surface a meaningful image appears. what is it called? where can one get more information on it? 59.92.82.172 (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See "Anamorphosis". --Milkbreath (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Creationists' beliefs

Do creationists believe in Pangaea? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly compatible with the whole 4000 year old world beliefs... — CHANDLER^#10 — 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Facts shmacts. Conservapedia's fascinating page on pangea puts its breakup at the time of the Great Flood, which in turn it puts at 5000 years ago. Unfortunately the normally super-duper-reliable Conservapedia has wickedly censored the real story of how Kangaroos got to Australia (or "America 2" as it's now called) - they used to have the truth about Kangaroos, where they get to australia on mats of vegetation rather than this stuff about them walking there before Pangea broke up (a week past Tuesday, I believe). What nonsense - animals walking?! Pah! Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sort of.--droptone (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are a lot of very different forms of Creationism which have a real spectrum of how old they think the Earth is, etc. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, although I expect the OP is talking about Young-Earth Creationism, otherwise it's a rather trivial question. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this article in conservapedia out. I thought the talk page was even more fascinating. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it more than a little ironic that they link to Wikipedia for their image. AnyPerson (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh Upazila elections

Where can I find the results of Bangladesh's 3rd Upazila elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.100 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese Election 2005

Is there a website where it shows the candidates for each party representing each seat of the Lebanese National Assembly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.100 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the links in this article of ours might help: Lebanese general election, 2005. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Find yourself literature

I would like to find some 'find yourself' novel in the style of Fightclub or Into the wild but with a higher literary level, possibly classical works.--Mr.K. (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The genre of Bildungsroman is something along the lines of what you're looking for. And many venerable novels have subplots about 'finding oneself', for instance the arc of Levin in Anna Karenina. Lantzy ^talk 18:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Walden by Henry David Thoreau might be something to look at. Livewireo (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How to tell when censorship is fascist

hi i wud like 2 no how to tell when cencorship is fashist pleas lookin for an objective criteria not "use ur judgement thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what fascism is? We have an article on it. Often people use it generically to mean "anything I disagree with", but it's meant to have a more specific meaning than that. Friday (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

some1 removed this question what criteria cud I use 2 decide if doing this to my question was fascism? i looked at the article u linked and searched for crit and got the criterion of German national socialism was biological determination. The basis of Nazism was a racism in its most extreme sense but i am not asking about nazi ism but about fascism. there is no section in that article on criteria or ways 2 decide if something is fascism thanx

If you have something to say about the ref desk, use Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. You give the appearance of someone here to act silly, rather than someone seeking real answers to real questions, so this may explain the removal. If you read the article, you'll see that someone editing content on some website doesn't have much to do with fascism. Now do you have any questions actually suited to a reference desk? Friday (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry about my vocab what word shud i use instead of fascism pleas thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ps it is a real question and i am looking for a guideline or criteria i can use - it is not about wikipedia in specific —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As there is little agreement as to what actually constitutes fascism, you are unlikely to get a defintive answer. There is no agreed upon checklist. To start, fascism is a form of authoritarian government. The removal of your question was not as a consequence of a goverment requirement, even if only in the sense of the government of Wikipedia, such as it exists. Thus, the removal was not, in my opinion, "fascist". You will have to spend some time learning about fascism in its many forms and then, in the final analysis, use your own judgement. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

thanx but i alrady said the word fascism is not the word im looking 4. do u know the right word? i will change the title with the right word when somebody tells me pleas thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick bit of advice - people will be more willing to help you if you make an effort to write correctly. This isn't a text message, there is plenty of room to write complete words in well-formed sentences. Writing like you do comes across as disrespectful. --Tango (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

please forgive me owing to that I did not mean no disrespect

We can't help you find a word to describe a concept when you haven't told us what the concept is. What is it, exactly, that you want to know about censorship? Is your question about who enacts the censorship? Governments, religions, societies, individuals and whole industries are groups that permit, require or encourage various kinds of censorship. Is your question about the obligations or rights to enforce censorship? These may be matters of law, or of continuing membership in a formal or informal community (like a family or club or church) for example. Perhaps you are just looking to know when censorship is appropriate to its context. For example, it may be perfectly appropriate to keep specific types of images out of the areas where children might view them, and be perfectly inappropriate to keep adults from seeing them. If you are specific as to what you want to know, we might be able to help you, but not otherwise. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

what I mean is very simple: when some one on a forum says removing their post is "fascism" what should they say instead of fascism, since its not the right word? I mean from their point of view. How should they express themselves...you know what they MEAN, but the word fascism isn't the right one to use. How would a more eloquent person who knows the right word express that factual opinion? Thanks. (I spell-checked this reply in Word). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best to avoid any such hyperbole, just say it's "unfair" or "unjustified" or whatever is appropriate. There is no need to have technical terms for everything, just describe it using everyday language. --Tango (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ok how do I tell if censorship is unjustified and unfair? For example this question was removed two times by someone, so if I don't put it back you don't even see it. What criteria could I use to see if this is justified? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's very subjective - it's a matter of opinion. Do you think the reason given was a good one? Was any reason given? However, be careful calling it "censorship" - censorship is stopping some form of expression is order to stop people knowing the information contained. Removing a question is not necessarily censorship, the question may just have been inappropriate for that forum. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In order to determine whether something is "fair" or not, you need to have an idea of what the rules are. If your posts have been removed because they breach Wikipedia's rules in some way, then this is not "fascism", nor is it "unfair": you need to play by the rules. If you don't like the rules, then agitate to change them - but the RefDesk is not the place for that. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason given for removing this question (the thread you are reading now!) twice was that it is "silly". Do you think this thread breaches Wikipedia's rules in any way? Do you think that it is fair? Read the edit history: it says it is removing my question because it is "silly". Is this justified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When censorship becomes unfair is when the use of the information, in providing another view or representing a certain section of a population (or website readership, for example) or in the public interest (eg. allegations of corruption) are not outweighed by legitimate reasons for censorship- national security (or website integrity), the avoidance of legislation or where mater published breaks the rules. In countries, it would have to break the law; but by agreement some censorship laws are not accepted by the international community - any actions taken using them are deemed inappropriate. In most cases, possible censorship is not enforced, so a precedent is very rarely an excuse to publish libellous or otherwise inappropriate material. So, in order to judge whether removal is unfair, simply balance the use of the material against its possible damage. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As this appears to have turned into (or may have been geared to change to this all along) a question about censorship on the Ref desk, the OP's disclaimer notwithstanding, I think that, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the Ref Desk's Talk Page. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't expect anyone to remove this question, so it wasn't geared to address this aspect at all. the question is not about the reference desk.

Besides, on a forum, there's no such thing as unfair removal. The moderators and administrators are in charge; when you registered with the forum you agreed to be under that rule. If you don't like it, leave. Forums are not a democracy. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's just a think as unfair removal. Just because it isn't a democracy doesn't mean there isn't a concept of fairness. If people are treated differently for no good reason, that's unfair, regardless of who is in charge. Unfairness may be acceptable in certain circumstances, but it's still unfair. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another try at the question

Let me take a shot at asking what I think you meant to ask: "How can one tell when censorship is used to oppress people and hide information from them, rather than protect them ?". Is this what you wanted to ask ? StuRat (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say if the rules are the poster should be notified but the question is just removed (censored) without notifying the poster with reasons, that's unfair/high-handed and that's like "facism" or abuse of authority. If the rules say they can take an inappropriate question away anytime for set reasons, that's not censorship, that's the rules. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, good for you to use the spell checker – a good move. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Fascism" (couldn't resist). --Milkbreath (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "facism" is an even better term, as fascist leaders always have their faces plastered all over the place. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha – well-spotted. Do not only torture the little typo, my grammar's crook too. :)) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not torture only the little typo... BrainyBabe (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Defining "Universal Health Care" for the U.S.

Hi all,

I'm planning on making a bet on whether or not the US government will be able to implement some kind of "universal health care" within the next X years. However, I'm getting hung up of the wording of the definiton of "universal health care." There seem to be so many different way it can be implemented -- single-payer health insurance, tax-cuts for health insurance, mandates, no health insurance but just free health care (like England), etc. etc. etc...

How would you define a metric by which you could say confidently "yes" or "no" as to whether universal health care has been implemented in the US? Total number of uninsured? That wouldn't work because we could eliminate the need for insurance. Total access to health care? How would that be measured?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks,

Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article at Universal health care, especially the section on the United States and its links? AnyPerson (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it didn't provide any way to come up with an easily judgable definition. — Sam 146.115.120.108 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You might try choosing 5 example situations. If all of the people in the 5 cases obtain complete health care for a total out-of-pocket charge to them of under $50 each (that is, the charge is a result of their health care; taxes are not factored into the evaluation) then the nation is considered to have universal health care. The five cases might be something like (a) a poor illegal immigrant who suffers a heart attack and needs a quadruple bypass; (b) a poor illegal immigrant who has a bad cold; (c) a wealthy railroad baron who needs a heart-lung transplant; (d) a wealthy railroad baron who has a bad cold; (e) a tourist temporarily visiting the country who gets into a car accident and needs their hand re-attached. You could add (or explicitly exclude) controversial stuff like gender reassignment surgery and snake-oil supplements if you want. Tempshill (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

drew memorial church,grosvenor road,belfast

this church formerly stood stood at middle of grosvenor rd,belfast.ibelieve the church was physically relocated at the end of the nineteen eighties-early nineties.i beleive the church was removed brick by brick and relocated somewhere in the united states.can anyone tell me if this is so,and the present whereabouts of the church —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.185 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about it being relocated, but this page has a section on the church's history that includes the names of some people you could probably look up and contact for more information. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What's this short story? (or) Who wrote this short story?

I thought the title was:

 The Town That Got Stuck On Sunday

I'm trying to track down a short story a read a long time ago about a town that got stuck on a particular day of the week. It's not a "Groundhog Day" kind of story, because the days do keep changing. It's just that the townsfolk believe that the "day of the week" isn't changing. Consequently, their businesses stay closed, and their farms don't get tended. I think neighboring towns help out, since their days of the week are changing.

Since you can't answer, "When did I read this?", I'm hoping someone will be able to tell me "Where."

Victorcamp (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.193.220 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been set in Greece by any chance, would it? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember; it was too long ago.Victorcamp (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Twilight Zone?--Wetman (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I picture it as a story in a book, with a drawing of a small town with steeples. ).Victorcamp (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more it seems like something I might have read in a grade school or freshman Social Studies textbook. I'm sure I wouldn't have thought of it at the time, but it sounds like a lesson in critical thinking, that is, "think for yourself." Now, it's even ringing bells about the current economic situation; to wit, if everyone believes it, it's "true" (vis-à-vis confidence).Victorcamp (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) For whatever reason, it's in my mind today, and I'd like to read it again.Victorcamp (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember this short story from an English textbook in ninth grade in the US, in about 1965. Set in England, a blue-collar worker wakes up and "realizes" the day after Sunday that it is Sunday: it just feels like Sunday. He convinces the town and this idea spreads throughout the country. The whole country stays on holiday until the Prime Minister states (seven days later) that it is finally Monday, and everybody agrees. It turns out that the government had not intervened during the week because there was a diplomatic crisis and they needed a week of holidays to allow two fast naval cruisers to reach the crisis spot -- this would put the time of the story in the early twentieth century. -Arch dude (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility; certainly the ninth grade textbook sounds about right, and 1965 does put me in high school. However, my recollection is of a boy whose job it was to ring the town bells on Sunday. When he woke up the day after, he realized it was still Sunday, so he rang the bells again. When others asked, he explained, and they too said, yes, you're right, it's still Sunday. I think this went on for much more than a week. I don't remember anything about a prime minister or a crisis. The concept, however, seems too similar to be coincidence. Perhaps a standard textbook story, updated periodically?--Victorcamp (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

February 7

Youth and Young Manhood

Hello. I need a few thousand words on the nature of youth, boyhood, casual rebellion, indolent pleasures, and the like. It will be an element in a picture. I'm thinking of classic works of literature, but it's late and I can't think of anything relevant. Does anyone have any suggestions? When I say youth I mean early twenties, and from any type of literature you like. It will need to be on the net somewhere so I can copy and paste it. Any quotation will do, step right up.

Thanks 80.229.160.127 (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Early twenties"? a protracted adolescence down at your end, indeed. You need to look into the index to Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, espcially under "callow" and "indolent". --Wetman (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not knowing the culture and historical period to which your text refers, let me point out that "youth" is rather a stretch to refer to:

• "boyhood" (= childhood, ends at about 12 but may include teenage - the age in which you'd say this is a "boy"),
• adolescence ("teenage," till the age of majority, ca. 18-20) AND
• "early twenties."

For example, the quality or practice of indolence rather than industry in a schoolage boy is quite another thing than someone whose age peers are already expected to be out and earning their living. I agree with Wetman in the prolonged adolescence of a society in which post-high school studies are common and extend into one's early or mid-20s might be to the point. Also your request is unclear: you seek "a few thousand words" in one quotation, or several together? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking probably of bildungsroman literature, and seeking specifically prose where the author meditates of the nature of youth itself. Several quotations to make up the length will be fine. Let's say something pertinent to ages 15-25, male for preference. 80.229.160.127 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You may want to poke your nose into The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann, which is both a Bildungsroman and a satire of this genre. On a completely different level you could read the great "Schelmenroman", The Tin Drum. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if The Beautiful Boy might be of any interest. Some of the links or articles may lead somewhere.91.111.67.60 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are shedloads of examples in The Picture of Dorian Gray. Eg: "But we never get back our youth. The pulse of joy that beats in us at twenty becomes sluggish. Our limbs fail, our senses rot. We degenerate into hideous puppets, haunted by the memory of the passions of which we were too much afraid, and the exquisite temptations that we had not the courage to yield to. Youth! Youth! There is absolutely nothing in the world but youth!" The whole thing is online at [30]. Karenjc 00:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Law : Appellant's Costs

A Judgment delivered by the Law Lords of the Privy Council in London ends as follows :- " In all the circumstances, their Lordships consider that this appeal should be allowed, and the respondent should pay the appellant's costs".

This was the operative part of a verdict in an appeal for severance allowance at punitive rate from appellant living in a British Commonwealth country. No figure was quoted at all in Judgment.

In the beginning of the Judgment the Law Lords quoted the principal sum mentioned in the initial plaint that was lodged in court immediately after the dismissal. The initial appeal document contained all relevant detailed figures.

I shall like to have expert explanations regarding the verdict and the difference between " appellant's costs" and "costs".

Pravesham (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is about the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The appellant's costs are simply the costs of the appellant. The costs would need to be assessed - see Costs (English law). Xn4 (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem a little unfair for the respondent to pay the appellant's costs? There wouldn't be any costs if the judge/jury hadn't got it wrong in the first place - they should pay the costs... --Tango (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a piece in the Wall Street Journal's opinion pages about this in the last few months. In America each side is responsible for its own legal costs. In Britain, IIRC, the loser pays the winner's costs. The WSJ of course endorsed this scheme in the interest of stopping frivolous lawsuits against corporations. (It would also stop nearly all lawsuits against corporations, frivolous or not, but that's not their concern.) Tempshill (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Case on Partition

May I launch a case agniast partition of any nation?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.154.33 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What do mean by "partition"? --Tango (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Partition was the name of the process of creating Pakistan and India out of British colonial India, and UNGA 181 is known as the partition plan resolution... AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the only type of partition I could think of, as well, but the question doesn't seem make sense. Why would you want to make a case against the partition of nations where nobody has proposed partition? Unless the OP means a general case, which I guess makes most sense. Either way, this doesn't seem to be appropriate for the ref desk - we're not a debating society. --Tango (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A working UNGA 181 link is here. --Dr Dima (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Islamic Magazines

Is there any magazines in Bangladesh that talks about Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.36 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh Islamic Centre ([31]) has a bunch of links and sources. --Omidinist (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Place de la Concorde obelisk

I'm interested in the obelisk of the Place de la Concorde in Paris. It originally stood in front of the Luxor temple in Egypt and I would like to know when it was erected. Now, I know what you're going to tell me, that it was built by Ramses II. Okay, but the guy reigned between 1279 and 1213 BC-- one of the longest reigns in history. Does someone know a more precise date ? I've skimmed through the books at my library and didn't find an answer, so I thought several heads are better than one. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WWII Aerial photos

Are aerial recconaissance photographs taken of Britain by the Luftwaffe during World War II, published and unpublished, still subject to copyright? If so who would be likely to own such copyright?

Thanks in advance. 62.6.252.139 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The copyright situation of Nazi state generated stuff is complicated, if I recall... they are inherited by the successor states, but are rarely claimed... this discussion pertains to exactly this sort of thing. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Poland have an 'official' national bird?

Does Poland have an 'official' national bird? If so, is it the White Eagle like the one on the Coat of arms of Poland or is it the White Stork? Does anyone have a reliable source for this? OlEnglish (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

arab city neighbourhood

I notice that Beirut and Baghdad have nieghbourhoods that consist either one or two religious groups, such as one nieghbourhood in Beirut or Baghdad consist of Sunni Muslims only, one nieghbourhood in Beirut or Baghdad consist of Shi'a Muslims only, one nieghbourhood in Beirut or Baghdad consist of Christians, one nieghbourhood in Beirut or Baghdad consist of Sunni Muslims and Christians together and such. Are Beirut and Baghdad the only Arab cities that have such neighbourhoods consisting of only one or more religious groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.167 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The old city of Jerusalem is traditionally divided into the Jewish quarter, the Christian quarter, the Muslim quarter, and the Armenian quarter. Having different districts for different non-Muslim groups was traditionally quite common, but I'm not sure how common residential segregation for different groups within Islam was until the 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Diocesan structure of Roman Britain

I have seen two different versions of the borders and these images correspond to only one:

The other one has:

• Londinium as capital of Maxima Caesariensis (Solent to Wash); 2 colonies
• Lindum as capital of Flavia Caesariensis (Wash to Humber); 1 colony
• Corinium as capital of Britannia Prima (Solent to Dee); 2 colonies
• Eburacum as capital of Britannia Secunda (Humber to Dee); 1 colony

My source is Penguin and it's very comprehensive in details. I think Wikipedia's maps are wrong, except that they are probably accurate about the meaning of the name "Valentia", as that for Roman Caledonia. What do you Wikipedians have as an answer for that? I'm dead serious. 68.231.164.27 (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with this map but if you think there are errors then please, fix the errors in the map. Everything on here has been created by volunteers and there are many, many errors. I agree that on a map it's much harder to tell what sources there might have been. Tempshill (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't go jumping in and changing the map just yet. The OP has not indicated the date of his source in Penguin. Roman Britain existed for some 4 centuries, and the administrative organization was probably reordered several times during that time period. It was not uncommon for one emperor or another to redraw the borders of the various divisions of the Empire. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the University of Texas source is probably that used for the Wikipedia version, as they are virtually identical in their features above. The Penguin Illustrated History of Britain and Ireland edition I have was last published in 2004. I also have the Atlas of Classical History by Richard J.A.Talbert, last published in 2003 and it has the same layout for the dioceses as Penguin. Neither one mentions Valentia as a late diocese, but I'm not challenging that assertion by the Texas source (but supporting it, even though not shown in my sources), as a fifth diocese can be reasonably surmised in what are denoted the "client British tribes" north of Hadrian's Wall, in addition to the etymology of the name, as being toponymy and/or referencing a conflation with the imperial brothers Valentinian and Valens.

I appreciate the sentiment that the borders likely shifted (obviously, in the emergence of more than the original Britannia Superior/Inferior division); the Atlas of Classical History states that the dioceses are uncertain, with speculation and a paucity of details. My concern, is whether the Wikipedia information (which doesn't fit the images used on Wikipedia) and that in my sources as well, is right or not. The thing is, the images above are messy in comparison to my sources and that bothers me. My sources are exacting and each diocese has not only capitals, but coloniae, legionary fortresses, villas, roads, walls, mines, early churches etc. I'm thinking that the old source used on Wikipedia is inaccurate, because it is not only unclear, but incongruous to usual convention about differences (with the details being a marker) between regions of England and Wales.

The particular issue, is whether or not York was subordinate to Cirencester and Lincoln to London, or as the images above show (being an old source and not explaining details), if York was subordinate to Lincoln and Cirencester to London. I want to know if indeed, the North of England (e.g. Cumbria, like Cymru/Wales) was either Caesariensis or Britannia. It is interesting to see the North as some kind of junior polity to Wales and Cornwall (both being highlands), while the Midlands and Southeast (both lowlands) seem to go along well together, but not really the Southeast with Wales--it seems suspect that Cornwall would be part of the Southeast and not part of Wales in this context (cf. Wales and West Wales), lumping the Midlands and North together (although the Midlands have little, if any Brythonic identity). It seems a modern position that East Anglia and the Midlands should be together, but the Saxon Shore, in the Penguin version, is entirely contained within Maxima Caesariensis, from the Solent to the Wash. The future ethnic toponymy of the Danelaw in what was once Flavia Caesariensis (in the Lincoln parameters set by Penguin), would seem to tie in this bloc of Caesariensis dioceses into the bedrock of both Saxon and Dane (e.g. Germania) migrations. Plus, the Parisi of the North and Belgae of the Southwest, would further give the idea that both of the Britannias (also in the Penguin version) were more tied to Gaul.

Tacitus (commenting on the Roman conquest, preceding German invasions) describes the west of Britain to be closer to Spaniards and the east of Britain to Gauls, which to me, is like the difference between the Britannia (Severn heavy) dioceses of the highland North and West, with the Caesariensis (Thames heavy) dioceses of the lowland South and East. Geoffrey of Monmouth, clearly reflecting popular tradition, stated that the westerners were descended from Corineus and the easterners from Brutus. You can see how the locations of the peoples shifted westwards. It would mean the Britons, with Gallic connections (see Brittany, ex-Armorica) were first in London, then became the object of the Welsh identity, whereas Welsh territory was originally Cornish, explained away by Geoffrey as a dynastic issue. The Saxons and Danes would move into Caesariensis, Roman heartland of the island, nevertheless, still called Britannia, even though the Britons and imported Gallic tribes apparently became obscure as a result of the combined Roman and German (premonition of Holy Roman Empire) establishment. Connections to the German world probably were reinforced by the Moorish takeover of Hispania, pushing the focus of the people in the other direction, as the Germans took over Rome; you can even see the Anglo-French relationship having a seed in the Parisi/Belgae connections. The North and West would hold onto Romanisms much longer in isolation, whereas the South and East would be more vulnerable to Dark Ages invasions, due to the Strait of Dover. Consider the initial Roman advance from the South and East, working their way inland to the North and West, ascending the elevation of the British landscape in the process and being met with more resistance likewise, from the people. online map illustrating this

Sorry, but the whole view of British history hinges on these kinds of details. For instance, the Joseph of Arimathea legend, with the Holy Grail and/or Jesus in Glastonbury, relies upon the accepted Spanish-Cornish tin trade (supported by statements by Tacitus in Agricola and British Isles oral tradition/pre-Christian mythology). The legend serves to explain, for me, the evidence for Christian activity in Cirencester, which, unlike London, Lincoln and York, is "missing a bishop" (never seen one listed) for its diocesan organisation. So, the legend has a kind of truth behind it. A diocese should have a bishop and Glastonbury was probably not it, but Cirencester had neighbouring coloniae in Lydney and Glevum, in addition to being the capital of Wales and Cornwall. The other diocesan capitals have not only the bishop, but the coloniae. You know, these reasoned positions are apologetics for things already promoted on Wikipedia by their mere mention, but if I showed these conclusive, cookie-cutter presentations of the issue, I'd be pressed for "sources", that are already mentioned at Wikipedia. I'm afraid I can't edit Wikipedia in conditions like this, where hostility undermines just about everything I might do, even though it isn't out of step with the existing material and any legitimate source used (we're supposed to spell in our own words to avoid plagiarism!). It really bothers me that my attempt to flesh out the details in a more revealing manner, would be rejected as "original research". I'm not out to make a book (I believe in the Wikipedia cause of free information, having done a high school report on the FOIA), because the information is already there; who would be so brazen as to hate on the messenger of clarity? 68.231.164.27 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

is it true that all the big hollywood name stars (A-list) have fake teeth?

Is it true that all of the women in hollywood who are on the A-list have fake teeth implanted, even in the front?? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. They may well have had some form of cosmetic dentistry, but them all having completely fake teeth sounds very unlikely. --Tango (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"... even in the front" strikes me as an odd emphasis. I would think it likely that, if there were any implants at all, the front teeth would be the most likely candidates. They are the most visible and implants are mostly (but not solely) about appearances. ¤ ₳ ₳ BL ₵ ₳ ¤ (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean "all their teeth" I mean "all of these people" (on at least 1 teeth) -- for their front teeth, even!!

Depends on what you mean by "fake." Does a filling count? Braces as a teenager?

The United States enjoys modern dentistry, and most people avail themselves of such services. So we're not merely speaking of "big Hollywood name stars," but the average American.

Sorry if you come from some country without reputable dentists. B00P (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As noted cosmetic dentistry is common and relatively cheap in the USA. Dental veneers, for example, run only about $500 a tooth, and you usually only need the front six or so teeth for the effect to be mostly total. ($3000 is not exactly the cheapest thing in the world but it's not far out of line with what one can do; and in some situations dental insurance will pay for it.) I would expect that anyone with money who was making money off of their face would probably end up getting them if their teeth were not already flawless. They are not noticeable compared to normal teeth unless you really know what to look for or they are really poorly done (sometimes you can tell when someone has all of their teeth capped because they are too perfect, fit too tightly, are too white, etc.). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian-dominant nations as members of Organization of the Islamic Conference?

Why the organization decided to include the Christian-dominant African nations of Benin, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Russia, Sierra Leone, Togo and Uganda as member, even though thier state religion is Christianity? What is their history of Muslim population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.220 (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The short answer appears to be that the status of the state religion has no bearing on a county's eligibility for membership or other affiliation in the OIC. In fact, I could find no statement on the English OIC web site about what tests a country has to pass in order to become a full member or an observer. As for the history of Muslim participation in each of the named countries, you can go to the article on each of them and look at the Religion section. I have turned the country names in your question into WP internal links for this purpose. Please note that Russia (see below) and Central African Republic are observers only. ¤ ₳ ₳ BL ₵ ₳ ¤ (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Russia and Thailand

Since when did Russia and Thailand have Muslim population in order to be part of Organization of the Islamic Conference or you guys made a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.220 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in Russia, and may have even become the predominant religion there. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thailand certainly has a Muslim population. According to WP's article, Islam is the second largest religion in the country, but when 95% are Buddhist, that doesn't leave much that is Muslim and almost all of them are in three southern provinces. Thailand is not a full member of OIC, but simply has observer status, as does Russia. The article says:

Russia is home to some 15–20 million Muslims. However, surveys say that there are only 7 to 9 million people who adhere to the Islamic faith in Russia. Russia also has an estimated 3 million to 4 million Muslim migrants from the ex-Soviet states. Most Muslims live in the Volga-Ural region, as well as in the North Caucasus, Moscow.

You can take a look at the OIC's web site for more information. ¤ ₳ ₳ BL ₵ ₳ ¤ (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Bielle. I was doubtless going on the case for the old Soviet Union, but many of the Soviet Muslims now belong to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other former Soviet republics. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a correction, Jack. It may be the fastest growing. First, my input was after an ec, and I can never be bothered rewriting. I either delete or just add another level of indentation :-). Second, I would look at what I added as merely an amplification. I do good "cut-and-paste". ¤₳₳ BL ₵₳¤ (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Suriname

Why Suriname is a member of OIC, even though the state religion is Hinduism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.220 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the response above to the first section of this multi-part question. ¤ ₳ ₳ BL ₵ ₳ ¤ (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mozambique as Commonwealth Nation member

Since when did the British rule Mozambique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.220 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

They never did; see Mozambique. Regarding Mozambique's status as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, our entry on the Commonwealth states "There is only one member of the present Commonwealth that has never had any constitutional link to the British Empire or a Commonwealth member; Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, was admitted in 1995 on the back of the triumphal re-admission of South Africa and Mozambique's first democratic elections, held in 1994. Mozambique's entry was controversial, leading to the Edinburgh Declaration and the current membership guidelines." - Eron^Talk 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Black History Month vs. Arab Nations

Which Arab nations has black population due to its history of slavery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.220 (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In the middle ages, Iraq had a large African slave population at times (leading to the late 9th century Zanj revolt), and most Arab-ruled areas had some black slaves -- but very little of that presence now survives in the "northern tier" of Arab states (e.g. on the Mediterranean coast and north of the Arabian peninsula). Some countries in the Arabian peninsula have some black populations (slavery was only abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962), and of course Mauritania and Sudan have recent histories of Black-Arab conflicts... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How does a safe bill feeder know the money is fake?

What is it focusing on? Why does it occasionally spit out flawless bills, and accept taped misalligned ones? Is there any website about money security features you can recommend that's not top secret?--TinyTonyyy (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant article is Currency detector, though it lacks details on bills. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions by James Madison?

I've been actually wondering about this for a long time. James Madison, the man who contributed the most to the constitution of the United States, helped write the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions (Doctrines which argued for nullification, state supremacy etc). That makes absolutely no sense to me. I was wondering if anyone could provide a simple answer to why he did this. I'm seriously perplexed over this. How could he be a proponent of States' Rights, while being the principle author of the Constitution?66.229.148.27 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First, Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution only, not the Kentucky Resolutions.

Second, what Madison was attempting to do was to use the states to protect civil liberties aginst the federal Alien and Sedition Acts. The Constitution was designed to strike a balance between federal and state powers. Powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. Madison (and Jefferson) saw these Acts as a usurpation of powers not granted to the central government. Madison felt that things had gotten out of balance, and was attempting to restore it.

B00P (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The US Constitution (as originally intended) was supposed to create a system of government where certain powers are delegated to the federal governent and all remaining powers delegated to the states or to the people. So when Madison (and others) wrote the US constituion, they specifically stated what the federal government could do. (These are called "enumerated powers".) For example, they have power to coin money, to declare war, to have a federal postal system, etc. Anything and everything not specifically delegated to the federal government was supposed to be reserved to be the rights of the state or of the people. For example, if the US Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government the power to legislate the sale, use, or production of a drug, such as alcohol or marijuana, then the federal government does not have this power. Only a Constitutional Amendment could grant the federal government such a power. As originally intended, the powers of the federal government are few. The powers of the states and of the people are many, if not infinite.

Many people have the false idea impression the federal government is 'higher up in the chain of command' and therefore can do whatever it wants. In reality, the federal government has very little power as far as the original constitution goes. It would be unconstitutional, for example, for the federal government to impose national heath care on everyone. Since control over healthcare is not specified as an enumerated power, the US Constituion does not permit it. Only a Constitutional Amendment would allow this.

The question of whether the United States government actually follows the Constituion is entirely another topic. But the answer is no (at least in terms of its powers). Much of what the federal government does is unconstituional. There is no constitutional basis wiretaps without a search warrant. (In reality, the US Constitution says the exact opposite.) There is no consitutional basis for Social Security or welfare because these are not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.

But the law is only as good as it is enforced. Per tradition, only the federal government gets to decide what the federal government can do. So, if the federal government decided that they can arrest Americans without charge and without trial, this is OK according to the federal government, because the federal goverment gets to make this decision by tradition.

67.184.14.87 (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, much obliged =]66.229.148.27 (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that for Madison, the idea of state rights was a complete reversal of his earliest thinking about the Constitution. He went to the Philadelphia Convention thinking that the national government should have the power to negate state laws, which of course was the opposite of the position he would take as a Jeffersonian. —Kevin Myers 08:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Is the act of waterboarding specifically condemned in the Geneva Convention? 76.114.131.116 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not "specifically" in that it doesn't mention that it shouldn't happen under the Presidency of someone named "Bush". However if you don't require such specificity, it does condemn torture and waterboarding is torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, but no specific activities are specifically condemned in the Geneva Conventions. They speak of torture and abuse and even once of "biological experiments" but they don't talk about any particular practices (for good reason—you name 10 specific practices, and any creative S.O.B. will come up with an 11th one not named and then use the fact that it is not named as a reason to claim it has been allowed). The question is,is waterboarding physical or mental torture? is it a form of coercion used to secure information from POWs? It is unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment? All of these things are banned by the Geneva Conventions when used against POWs. (And of course the real legal question is, are they POWs? If not, then Geneva Conventions don't apply. Which is why the Bush administration spent a lot of time re-labeling them as "enemy combatants" and specifically not as POWs.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahem Prisoner of war: A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, PW, P/W, WP, or PsW) is a combatant who is held in continuing custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. Double talk! ¤₳₳ BL ₵₳¤ (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How did street vendors sell apples during the Great Depression without getting fined or arrested?

Did they have licenses? If they did not have licenses, why weren't they fined and/or arrested? It does not seem possible to do the same today without a lot of money to start with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.165.180 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fined or arrested by whom? Usually, in most places, the cops have better things to do than to check up on liscences of street vendors. Lots of unregulated commerce goes on in broad daylight. Pick up your telephone book, and look up "escort services". I mean, if the authorities let that go on, a poor dude selling apples on a street corner is probably not going to get harrassed very much. They weren't stopped because no one cared much to stop them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)