Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

September 16

lens-less glasses worn for fashion

Here in China young ladies (& very occasionally young men) are now wearing "frames" as a fashion accessory. Is this currently happening in any other countries? Can anyone help establish the origin of this fad? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT TO ADD - in case it wasn't clear in my initial post, we're talking about glasses that lack any lens at all. Neither real nor fake - they are literally empty frames! Is this being seen anywhere else in the world? Or can I deem it a uniquely Chinese "achievement"? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the mid-1980s there was a brief and equally clueless California fad of "attitude glasses" with non-prescription plastic lenses in them. Stictly suburban. The empty format, freed of any intellectual or cultural residue, is a familiar characteristic of post-modern Eastern wannabe gimmicks: glassless frames capture the essence of this reverse-Chinoiserie.--Wetman (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Barry Goldwater wore enormous thick-framed glasses for most of his career. Then his vision got worse to the point where he had to switch to contact lenses, which he did. But he kept wearing empty frames with plain glass in them over the contacts, since people were used to seeing him with those frames. 67.122.211.205 (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the previous replies have suggested, it's glasses with plain lenses which have previously been a minor fashion trend in the U.S. Empty frames without any lenses were pretty much novelty-store gag gifts and comedian's accessories, as far as I'm aware (Jerry Lewis sometimes wore them, and some comedians slipped them on as part of their act, and then said "Would you hit a man wearing glasses?" etc.). Groucho glasses have no lenses... AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't noticed any trend towards this in the UK, the comic actor Eric Sykes ~~used to~~ wears thick black glasses which acted as hearing aids and had no lenses. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually saw this for the very first time just the other day! On my way home from work on a tram in Melbourne, Australia. It was a young asian guy, apart from the glasses he was dressed quite hip. There's lot's of Asian students in Melbourne, so I suppose there's half a chance it will take off here. Vespine (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a cat eye glasses fad in the late 50's in the United States. It was not very wide spread and didn't last long - transitioning into similarly shaped sunglasses, which then transitioned to the grossly oversized sunglasses of the 60's. However, when modern people dress in what they believe to be 50's style, it is very common for the women to wear cat eye glasses.

Finance

Hello, I have some questions regarding Template:Infobox company.

What is Production output and how it is measured?
Revenue means the total amount of money a company earned through selling its products. Fine. Operating income means earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), fine. As per the article Earnings before interest and taxes, Operating Income = Operating Revenue – Operating Expenses. Is operating revenue and revenue same?
If EBIT = Operating revenue – Operating expenses, then I have to assume operating expense excludes taxes. But according to the article Operating expense, Operating expenses include license fees, property taxes etc. Then how operating expense excludes tax?
Does Net income = Revenue - (EBIT + Tax)? Is this formula right?
Some countries have high corporation tax rates, while some countries have very low corporation tax rate. For example in Republic of Macedonia, corporation tax and income tax is very low, 10%. If so, then why large multinational companies do not move their global headquarters to such tax heavens?
I have a bit confusion over corporate tax and income tax. Bill Gates is the owner of Microsoft. Thus the total income of Microsoft before paying taxes is the total income of Bill Gates, since he himself is the owner of the business. Now if corporation tax is taken from Microsoft, this means tax on the income of Gates, am I right? Ok, if Microsoft is a publicly traded company, then corporation tax means tax on the income of its shareholders, right? And if so, then what is the difference between corporation tax and income tax here? AquaticMonkey (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the last point - according to our article, Bill Gates only owns 8% of Microsoft. In any case a company is generally considered as a separate legal entity, so its income is not considered part of its owners' income, even if it's owned by a single person. The owner would receive income from the company as some combination of salary and dividends. AndrewWTaylor (talk)

1. Not sure - probably refers to amount of goods sold during the period. Have you tried google? Revenue would be a much better measure of output anyway.

2. Operating revenue would be revenue from operations. This would be less than Revenue if the company classifies income from peripheral activities as "Revenue" and it would depend on reporting standards.

3. Property tax is is not the same as a company tax, which a company pays based on its profits for the period. See property tax for details.

4. No. Net Income = EBIT - Interest - Taxes

5. Have a look at Tax haven#Anti-avoidance. See this for another take on the matter. Moving a part of a company to another country results in various administrative inefficiencies due to, for example, a lack of skills and other resources in that country. Basically, if an entity wants to sell its goods in the US and earn its profits in the US, it would have to pay US tax rates.

6. Even if Bill Gates was the only owner of Microsoft (he isn't), the company and the man are separate taxable entities. The company declares an income and is subject to pay taxes on that income at the corporate tax rate. Being a shareholder, Gates would receive income in the form of dividends and he would have to pay taxes on that income at his income tax rate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question on postmodern depiction in literature....

Can salman rushdie's short story, At the auction of the ruby slippers, be considered a post modern depiction of western culture? why?

And if u are unable to answer that question because you haven't read At the auction of the ruby slippers, could u please explain what would be/consist a postmodern depiction in literature?

thank you. kindly help me ans this qn asap as it is urgent. Paul 220.255.220.197 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you had better drop that class. Шизомби (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reading our articles on postmodernism and postmodern literature? While postmodernism is hard to define, the thread running through it is the sort of "self-awareness" or metanarrative the story seems to display. Consider something like the film Scream. It is clearly postmodern because, besides being a horror film, it is itself a self-referential critique of the horror genre. Very postmodern sort of thing. Also see the film Unforgiven, same deal but with westerns. It is at once a western, but also obviously it plays around with the conventions of Westerns in such a way that you know that the filmmakers are saying "We know this is how a Western formula should work, but we are intentionally screwing with the formula in a way that makes it obvious we are doing so". All postmodernist works contain a similar sort of internal irony in that way. Robot Chicken is MEGA postmodern, like postmodern-with-a-sledgehammer sort of postmodern. Much of postmodernism is a big "in-joke" and you need to know the background to get the joke. If the first western you ever saw was Unforgiven, you would completely miss the postmodern aspects of it. If you want to "get" postmodernism, you need to be familiar enough with the material the story is commenting on. So, if Rushdie's story is a post-modern depiction on western culture, you need to ask, what is Rushdie saying about western culture in his story. Not overtly in the text, but in the sorts of ways that it exagerates or uses aspects of western culture in ironic ways. Exageration and irony are very postmodern tools... --Jayron32 05:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a language arts class which is a compulsory subject in my school lol... yeah, at the auction of the ruby slippers satirizes capitalism extensively such as where even like the taj mahal, the sphinx and so on are sold at the grand auction. Through doing so it depicts western culture of being overtly capitalistic and shows rushdies negative attitude towards it. He depicts the setting of the story to be a choatic anarchy-filled world were people live in fear in "bunkers". The society depicted to be highly relativistic and emotionless in some parts. But at the same time it also shows a lack of identity and a search for identity in the text as everyone is there to try and get the ruby slippers of Dorothy from the wizard of oz for themselves to return to a "state of normalcy" or home, which i believe is postmodern idea as well as a postcolonial mentality right? So should we say that it is a postmodern depiction of western culture to show salman rushdie's attitude towards western culture? or should we present the idea in another way like saying that it shows the writer's postcolonial sentiments towards the western culture by his critical depiction of it in the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.220.197 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Paul 220.255.220.197 (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in that specific case, the postmodernism aspect is the use of the Wizard of Oz as a means of providing the criticism. Remember the importance of the "in-joke" to postmodernism... If one had never seen the Wizard of Oz, then the ruby slippers reference would mean nothing. It is specifically the use of the commonly recognized motif in such a way that it assumes the audience automatically understands it that is the postmodern angle here, not JUST the use of satire... --Jayron32 12:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

leftovers worth today

When Barbara Hutton died in 1979, she had about $3,500 on deposit in her bank accounts. Who inherited the money since she had no other living heirs after her son, Lance Reventlow, was killed in a private airplane crash in 1972? What would $3,500 in 1979 be in today's money?69.203.157.50 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the first link in the Barbara Hutton#External links, it says her last will made bequests to friends (so those friends were her heirs). But it doesn't say who they were or what specifically happened to the money. According to the "inflation calculator" page on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics web site, $3,500 US in 1979 equals about $10,380 today. --Anonymous, 08:24 UTC, which equals about 08:24 UTC today, September 16, 2009.

Of course, if left in a simple savings account, you would also have to factor in, on top of inflation, compound interest, which could make $3,500 worth considerably more than even THAT. --Jayron32 12:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. $10,380 today has the buying power of $3,500 then, but in lieu of Jayron's comment about interest, $3,500 (in actual money) then is still just $3,500 today. The money itself does not magically multiply along with inflation. Even with compounding interest, the buying power has likely decreased -- banks are not in the habit of risklessly outpacing inflation in their savings accounts. — Lomn 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. In a savings account, paying 2% interest (a generous amount, based on my very unscientific random poll of published rates), and compounded monthly $3,500 would grow to $6,374.23 in 30 years. Since you would need $10,380 in current cash to equal the purchasing power of $3,500 in 1979 cash, that would mean that you actually lost roughly $4,000/10,380 or 39% of its value. To break even with the 30 year inflation rate, you would need a savings account that paid roughly 3.63% interest. These calculations can be checked using this compound interest calculator. The highest published rate I can find for a "normal" savings account is 2.27%; however that rate requires a minimum balance of $100,000. Most savings accounts with a minimum balance requirement below $3,500 seem to be paying out in the 2% range. So there ya go. If you leave your money in a straight savings account, long term, you are losing purchasing power. --Jayron32 03:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what if $3,500 were in checking accounts in 1979? What would that be worth today?69.203.157.50 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, like a standard no-interest-at-all checking account? It would be worth $3,500 exactly. In that case, its worth exactly what it would be worth in bills. If you took $3,500 in hundred dollar bills and stuffed it into coffee cans, in 30 years it is worth the same amount. The numbers on the front of the bills don't change. What changes is the amount of stuff you can buy with those bills which is what inflation means. The value of cash goes down over time; so that $3,500 isn't WORTH $10,380, but that it TAKES $10,380 to buy the same amount of stuff that $3,500 bought 30 years ago. If you want to look at how much $3,500 in TODAYS money would have been worth in 1979, you would need to take the inverse of the relationship. Since inflation is roughly 10,380/3,500 = 296%, then today $3,500 buys only about 1/3rd as much stuff today as it did in 1979. So, in a real sense, $3,500 left in a no-interest checking account for 30 years would be worth only about 33% of its original value. --Jayron32 12:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that interest rates today are much lower then they would have been in the 1970s and 1980s, back when a mortgage of 15% was the norm as opposed to 5-6%. I would presume that savings account interest would also be higher, though I do not know how much higher. Googlemeister (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of Poor Little Rich Girl: The Barbara Hutton Story, when the announcer said she had almost $3,500 on deposit in her bank accounts at the time of her death, he didn't say whether they were checking or savings accounts. Let's say if $3,500 were on deposit in both checking and savings accounts in 1979, would value have increased or decreased in today's money?69.203.157.50 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've noted each case above: both would have decreased in buying power (I dislike the vagueness of "value" in this case), with the checking account decreasing more. — Lomn 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this. In 1999, a single strand of 41 natural and graduated pearls once belonging to Barbara Hutton was auctioned and sold by Christie's Geneva for $1,476,000. In 2006 a single Imperial Qing Dynasty porcelain bowl, also once owned by Barbara Hutton, was auctioned and sold by Christie's Hong Kong for a record-breaking price of $22,240,000. Where did the money from those sales go to? What would $1,476,000 in 1999 be in today's money? What would $22,240,000 in 2006 be in today's money?69.203.157.50 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The money presumably went to her estate (or to whomever presently owned the items, your use of "once belonging to" doesn't make it clear that stuff was still belonging to Hutton at the time of auction). As for the rest, you can use the inflation calculator linked above to note the change in buying power. The actual money collected from the sales does not rise with inflation, naturally. — Lomn 16:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the calculator. $3,500 in 1979 would be $10,405.22 in today's money. $1,476,000 in 1999 would be $1,912,190.78 in today's money. As for $22,240,000 in 2006, I tried to calculate that, but they said an error occured. The original sum has to be $10,000,000 or less. So what would the last sum be in today's money? As I remember, I read Barbara Hutton had made bequests to friends in her last will and her remaining jewelry, furniture and other valuable items were privately sold or auctioned.69.203.157.50 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher H. Clark

Dear Sirs:

I am a descendant of Christopher H. Clark.

He was a Congressman from Virginia from 1804 to 1806 and died November 21, 1828.

The Wikipedia article states he was "interred in a private cemetery at Old Lawyers Station near Lynchburg, Virginia".

The family believes this referrence to be the Clark family cemetery.

Can you supply the supporting citation for the referrence in the Wikipedia article for the burial location ?

Thank you for any assistance.

Robert C. Light,Jr. [email deleted to deter spambots] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.5 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source, according to the article Christopher H. Clark, is the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. The specific entry is found here. // BL \\ (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star ratings for novels, like those for movies

Is there any website that gives star ratings for novels and other narratives, in the same way that movies are rated? Whoa! - I do already know that Amazon does them, but that website(s) is not really suited to browsing by genre etc. Thanks. 89.243.195.226 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's Goodreads.com (example ratings) which is browsable by genre. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Goodreads, like Wikipedia, relies on its content from the readers of the site. The ratings don't come from critics, but from the general site user. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other user-rated websites that have star-ratings. LibraryThing [[1]] is my favourite, but there's also Shelfari, which is equally popular. Both have tags (e.g. sci-fi, romance, American, cooking, steampunk, etc.) on individual books that can help you find other books with similar themes. Steewi (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 worst dictators in Africa

Is Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo a dictator and 3 worstin Africa. Somebody worte Paul Biya is example of worst dictator in Africa. how is Paul Biya a dictator? He is not bad at all? Who came up with the slogan 3 worst dictators in Africa?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the linked article Paul Biya:

The historian David Wallechinsky, in his book Tyrants, the World's 20 Worst Living Dictators, ranked Biya with three others in sub-Saharan Africa: Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea and King Mswati of Swaziland.

Check the last paragraph of the article for more information. // BL \\ (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does "Idi 'V.D.' Amin" rank on that list? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since he doesn't qualify for the "living" part, I'll take a wild guess and say he didn't make the list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad the section heading didn't specify that. Regardless, becoming dead was probably Amin's most statesmanlike act. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking the worst dictators in Africa in history, I would have thought King Leopold of the Belgians would come pretty close to the top. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is steep competition to be on that list if you include the non-living. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with dictators around the world, the more of them on the non-living list, the better. Unfortunately, history shows that when a dictator dies, there's at least one evil child born in this world to carry on, to carry on. In short, such a list changes constantly and it never gets any better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this before, but David Wallechinsky is not an historian, he's just a guy who makes lists. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the article accordingly, Adam, as there was nothing in Wallechinsky's article to support the "historian" description. I wonder, as I re-read the final paragraph of Paul Biya, if the great weight given to Wallechinsky's opinion is appropriate. I don't know enough about the local history and/or politics to take the matter further. // BL \\ (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby pretend to be grossly offended by the word "just", Adam. Not really; but maybe, given that WP is full of lists, we can accord list makers a degree of respect that "just a listmaker" seems to deny them. Historians would be lost without lists; and listmakers would be lost without the work that historians do, so each serves a good purpose. Live and let live, I say. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading The Book of Lists and its sequels, which, admittedly, are not entirely David W.'s doing, I think we can safely say they are the kind of unreferenced cruft, full of urban legends and lazy research that would be easily deleted on Wikipedia. We are a superior class of listmakers than the Wallace/Wallechinsky family! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shape of writing tablets

Hello,

Could you help me find out what the notches on the top corners of the tablet on Image:Statue liberty22.jpg are for ? What sort of tablet is the sculptor trying to depict ? Is it a wax tablet ? A stone tablet ? Do you know where I could find information on tablet shapes ? (see also File:EIS_PHAOS.JPG with a somewhat similar shape) Teofilo talk 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Statue of Liberty: "The Keystone in her hand represents knowledge and shows the date of the United States Declaration of Independence, in roman numerals, July IV, MDCCLXXVI." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the shape represents a keystone. --Anonymous, 02:57 UTC, September 17, 2009.

The inscription JULY IV is kind of a mixed metaphor. To go fully Latin, presumably they should have said JULIUS instead of JULY. But then someone might think Lady Liberty's name was Julius. The analogy to EIS PHAOS is an interesting coincidence, as it's Greek for "toward light", and the poem connected with Lady Liberty says, "I lift my lamp beside the golden door." She welcomes new arrivals to New York City, and turns her back on the neighboring state. No respect for Joizy. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Romans use V for the letter U? In that case it would be JVLIVS. Googlemeister (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They not only didn't have U, they didn't have J. The real classical spelling of Julius (both the person and the month he named after himself) is IVLIVS. Of course, in the classical era they didn't have the idea of numbering the days of the month forward from 1 anyway. July 4 would indeed have had a 4 in it, but only by chance -- it would have been called A.D. IIII NON. IVL., the 4th day before (and including) the Nones of July. The "A.D." there means "days before", not "year of the lord", and the form "IV" did not generally replace "IIII" until later times. See Roman calendar#Months and Roman numerals#IIII vs IV. --Anonymous, 04:34 UTC, A.D. XIIII KAL. OCT., A.V.C. MMDCCLXII.

Of Course! How could I have forgotten my Indiana Jones? Googlemeister (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the shape for File:EIS PHAOS.JPG a keystone too ? I would have thought this would be the standard shape for some kind of tablets (wax or stone)... Teofilo talk 08:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At long last, I have found the answer : see the German language Wikipedia : de:Tabula ansata. Thanks everybody for your help. Teofilo talk 09:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Statue of Liberty's tablet is a keystone, whereas the other image is a tabula ansata. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

match.com

why are their servers always down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.18.82 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they aren't working right. --Jayron32 21:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DownForEveryoneorJustMe.com/match.com--droptone (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The physics of money

By analogy with energy, is it truely possible to waste (ie destroy) money? Energy cannot be destroyed, but only converted into different forms (including matter). For example you could try wasting/destroying money by using it to gamble at a casino, but in actuality it would simply flow to the shareholders, employees, suppliers etc. and their employees, suppliers, families etc. Burning paper notes would eventually result in more money being printed than otherwise.

While it is easy to get money flowing out in a top-down direction - consider the casino example - is it very difficult to reverse the direction of flow and get money flowing in in a bottom-up manner. Is this because of similar reasons that it is difficult to reverse physical processors due to entropy? And are there things equivalent to Stirling engines in the money world? 89.241.44.74 (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Friedrich Hayek said that money is a mechanism for the flow of information about the efficient use of resources (or who deserves what); and if the money is, say, stolen, this information will be destroyed, and with it some wealth. (Money of course is not the same thing as wealth.) Yes, this does resemble entropy, which is also the destruction of information.

Not sure where you're going with the Stirling engine thing. A Stirling engine works on an unusually small amount of heat compared to other engines, and therefore ... er? 213.122.44.196 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like a refridgerator mechanism - which concentrates heat/money? 78.149.136.139 (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith showed, more than 200 year ago, that wealth could be created (by labour) and destroyed (by, um, destruction); wealth isn't conserved. Now you're talking about money (or are you talking about wealth and calling it money?). Money isn't wealth; it generally (but sometimes only vaguely) represents wealth, and it's even less prone to conservation than wealth. Money can be made and destroyed, even if the amount of wealth stays the same. It's really difficult to imagine a worthwhile physical analog (be it electricity, heat, fluids, or whatever) that models either of these concepts (never mind their interaction). Still, MONIAC Computer is a fun read. If that makes sense to you, reward yourself some red-coloured fluid. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the money-as-entropy analogy before, and while it does lead to some nice aphorisms (there are a million ways to spend your money, but little you can do to earn it), it isn't physically rigorous. As for ways to concentrate money, that's what tax breaks for the super wealthy are about—Maxwell's daemon, embodied. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spending money does not destroy it, but money can be destroyed in other ways. For example, suppose that a bank holds $100 million in customer deposits. The bank takes, say, $92 million of that and loans it out. Now, where there had been $100 million, there now exists $192 million, because the depositors still own the money they put on deposit, but the borrowers also have funds they can use and spend. Then a recession occurs and borrowers owing $5 million go broke. The bank gets nervous and recalls another $7 million in loans. So the bank now has only $80 million in loans outstanding, and the money supply has been reduced by $12 million. This is a simplified example, but it shows one way that money can be destroyed. John M Baker (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the case. If you did an audit on each person involved in those transactions, you would still find they added up to the same amount. The borrowers "have" $92m, but they also owe $92m; their total assets haven't changed. The same with the banks and the depositors. If you like you can say that the depositors "own but don't have" the money, and the borrowers "have but don't own" it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the basic "shell game" that banks play, because it involves treating money like a number rather than a physical object. If everything were cash-based, this approach wouldn't work. Which is why everything isn't cash-based. The expansion and contraction of the money supply coincides with prosperity and recession. If everything were cash-based, basically there would be no expansion of the economy. Basic Econ 101. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spending energy does not destroy it either; it gets converted into different, less-usable forms. That's what the analogy was supposed to say—it isn't supposed to say that money is different than heat, but that it was similar. You can convert wealth into lots of other things quite easily (like tasty food), things that cannot be converted back into usable wealth (the food gets eaten, or spoils). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an obvious way in which money is not constant. Every year central banks destroy a certain amount of money (i.e. actual coins and notes) and print or mint more. If the amount printed exceeds the amount destroyed then there is more money. It may not be worth as much in the long run, but there is certainly more of it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there's always far more "money" held in bank accounts etc than there are physical notes and coins to cover them. Far, far more. Every time I'm given some interest on my massive savings, they don't suddenly produce new coins to the value of $1.27 to cover it. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJClayworth - No, money really is created by a bank loan, even though there is an accompanying obligation to repay the loan. That is, when a loan is made, the borrower initially takes the borrowed money and puts it in its bank account, so the total money on deposit in my example goes from $100 million to $192 million (pre-recession) or $180 million (during the recession). (The bank can then take the redeposited money and lend it out too, but we'll ignore that for purposes of the example.) The funds deposited by the borrower are not any less real than the funds initially deposited. Actually, they're probably realer, in that the original deposits may have been time deposits, considered part of the broader M2 money supply, while the borrower's funds are probably in a demand deposit account and thus included in the narrower M1 measure. Also note that when borrowers went broke and were unable to repay $5 million, that money really was gone. (In actuality, the bank might have been able to make a partial recovery, but for purposes of the example I'm assuming that they were flat broke.) John M Baker (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on healthcare reform

Hi Guys,

As someone who comes from the UK, the land of the death panel, i'm really interested in the debate on US healthcare reform - I was watching some protest on the news and basically, a lot of the protesters seemed to be working class. I guess i'm asking what these people think they're going to lose if the healthcare system was reformed - i mean, surely in terms of coverage, the system couldn't actually be much worse? Obviously i'm just a pinko European liberal, so i'd be interested in hearing what actually the opposing arguments are, from their point of view. Surely they're less concerned about tax rates than say, the people on fox news... Cheers, 82.132.139.110 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US healthcare reform article, and its section US healthcare reform#Common arguments for and against nationalized health care, might begin to answer your question. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's a death panel? Vimescarrot (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just like to point out to our American chums that the OP is being ironic concerning "death panels" - they do not exist in the UK, although the NHS is reluctant to pay for very expensive drugs which are believed to be ineffective. I've also never heard of anyone, as asserted below, having problems getting a doctor, or waiting in pain - this would be a national scandal if it ever happened. Re Sarah Palin's writings - care for people with disabilities such as Downs Syndrome is very good - we do take a pride in caring for the less fortunate. You get cradle to grave care in the UK - even if you became completely impoversihed, you'd still get free healthcare, which I think takes a lot of worry out of people's lives. May I point out that the life expectancy in the UK is greater than that in the US. People can have American-style private health insurance if they wish, but not many choose to have it. 78.149.116.143 (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An episode of The West Wing (I forget which one; I think it's the one about the veil of ignorance) gave a plausible answer for what seems to be your underlying question : why do poor Americans vote for parties that seek to continue the economic system that's likely to keep those same poor Americans poor (isn't this turkeys voting for Christmas), rather than a genuinely socialist, redistributivist party? Their answer was that even the poorest, most disadvantaged Americans genuinely believed in the American Dream, that they personally (through dint of hard work and divine grace) could themselves make it big. And they wouldn't want that bugbear "big government" taking away all that newfound wealth.-- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course they might believe in the benefit of a thriving economy as a whole to even the poorest (more cheap products available); and they might even be selflessly principled, believing that lower tax and/or less governmental coercion is good for humanity; but I guess that's unlikely. 213.122.44.196 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember -- 85% of Americans have health insurance. And those Americans who have good insurance get arguably better healthcare than people in the UK or Canada. They don't have to struggle to find a family doctor or wait years for surgery. Many Americans have heard horror stories of people in other countries suffering in pain while they wait for their turn to get taken care of. The trick for supporters of healthcare reform is how do you convince the vast majority of people who already have health insurance that they stand to benefit from changes to the status quo. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MOST of those 85% have the potential for serious problems. Most Americans are on some form of HMO or Managed care which greatly restricts their access to health care, often with layers of bureaucracy that makes it almost impossible to get speedy care. These organizations are widely reported to cut off coverage arbitrarily, either by refusing to pay for necessary but expensive treatments, or by dropping coverage altogether once the patient receives some sort of arbitrary coverage limit. Most Americans are also saddled with high co-pays and high deductibles that still leaves the very sick with high out-of-pocket expenses. Healthy Americans, who never access their health plans, tend to be happy with them. The sick are somewhat more disappointed... --Jayron32 02:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section title says it all: Debate on healthcare reform. Unless the OP has another specific question, I believe we are treading far from information and well into debate. // BL \\ (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Please do not debate the topic here. The only thing I can imagine that provides more of an answer to the OP is that just about any large group of Americans that you will see on television will be working class because most Americans are working class. Seeing a thousand working class Americans on TV in support or opposition of something does not in any way represent the working class as a whole. In my opinion, most Americans are too busy working to go out and march around in support or opposition of anything. I personally work two full time jobs while completing my PhD and raising two babies. No matter how much I support or oppose anything, I'm not wasting my time trying to get on TV with some dumb slogan on a cardboard sign. -- kainaw ™ 03:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot your third job, that of Reference Desk question answerer. Tempshill (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may look like debating, but it is at least informing the OP what some opponents of the reform think they're going to lose - access to healthcare without long waits, and access to treatments which would be judged cost-ineffective by an American NICE. The latter is closely related to the "death panel" fear. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "working class" doesn't mean "all people who work" (which would include Steve Jobs, say), but "poor people who work" or something like "blue collar". It's poorly named, offensive to non-poor workers, and an obvious grab at defining language, but there you have it. --Sean 17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is just out of date. Before the rise of the middle class, there were people who worked for their money and people who inherited their money (or inherited assets which earn money). Then "working class" made perfect sense. --Tango (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A major reason is that in the last couple of decades, most of the working class and most of the rural population has been drawn to the social values (not economic values) claimed by the Republican Party: Homosexuality is bad and should be discouraged where possible; abortion should be illegal; there should be more religion in public places and public life; and the US enjoys American exceptionalism and does no wrong internationally; criticizing the country's actions is unpatriotic. This identification with these social values trumps the fact that the Republican Party stabs the working class in the back ~~whenever possible~~, so since the Republican party condemns nationalized health care, and even the timid step of a "public option", which means "the government will start an insurance company", these social conservatives rally to the Republican point of view, despite the benefit they would end up with. Tempshill (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I retract and strike "whenever possible", which was nonsense. Tempshill (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, ain't it? That last point, I mean. To me, "conservative" means cautious and thrifty. The neo-cons are neither. They love government spending as much as liberals do. The only point of disagreement is what to spend it on: guns or butter, as the saying goes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys -so just to clear a few things up if you don't mind. Firstly, i'm not sure the phrase 'working class' is particularly out-of-date or offensive, but yes, in British English, its generally means those (who were raised) on a low income. i'll now go and read the wikipedia article like a good boy (but not before i answer almostreadytofly's point: if british people are unhappy with the NHS (and the policies of NICE) they can just choose private health insurance, and get american-style cover. it seems to me that americans just don't have that choice)) 82.132.139.178 (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What point? I'm offended you say I'm making a point! :P (I actually have BUPA coverage through work) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the news over there explain that many Americans have extremely low cost (even no cost) insurance through many programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and Federally-funded free clinics? I'm purposely leaving out the free health care for the military and prisoners. -- kainaw ™ 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look for details, yes. At first glance, I'm not sure; I mostly get my American politics news from American sources on the web. I'm well aware of the campaign to "keep government out of Medicare" though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Converts to Judaism in Nazi era

Were people who converted to the Jewish faith during the Nazi era in Europe treated the same as racial Jews. I.e. would a non racial Jewish convert be sent to an extermination facility, or just a concentration camp as a jewish sympathiser. Thanks very much

The article on Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany implies that Germans who converted were counted amongst the Jewish (which makes sense, given how much the Nazis would have considered that sort of thing to be "race treachery"), though I haven't seen anything about this particular question myself. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Urquhart bio?

At this time I am to new to site and code writing so I am find it very hard create a new page however is enough info on public domain site for her bio page to be completed for example. http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchresult.cfm?parent_id=560813&word= http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A01E4D6153EE033A2575BC0A9649C946697D6CF http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=62940

So,who are the experts at wikipedia who can help me? -- 01:22, 17 September 2009 User:Jhasara

There is a place you can ask other editors to start an article for you; begin at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Not knowing anything about the time, though, you will have to state why she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people. Tempshill (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable enough. Have a look at what I hath wrought and tell me what you think. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorruptible FBI

I have reard that the FBI had a reputation for being incorruptible for, I believe, decades. If I recall correctly, this was taken for granted in The Godfather (the novel), for example. Am I correct about this reputation? (Obviously corner cases must have existed, but I'm asking about the general reputation of the organization.) If so, why the incorruptibility? It wasn't religious fanaticism or incredibly high pay. Tempshill (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody’s perfect. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure this chap just found it difficult to find evidence on the mafia as opposed to civil righters. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A basic truth about federal law is that it at least tries to appear to be moral and fair, which makes people who uphold and enforce it appear to be moral and fair and its violators immoral and unfair. -- Taxa (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton Everyone is corruptible. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Edgar Hoover's carefully groomed self-presentation was taken at face value until after the threat that he represented was removed by his death. Compare the public reputation of that other head of a secret police, Lavrentiy Beria.--Wetman (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually a contrast between local and federal enforcement. Local enforcement can be bribed—there are a limited number of people and they have strong local political interests (the sheriff needs to be reelected, as does the judge, etc.). Federal enforcement is more tricky—there are more people, and their political interests are in "big" politics, not "small" politics. So J. Edgar Hoover doesn't need somebody in Chicago to keep his job—he needs to please Congress, and the President, to do so. There's not necessarily a whole lot that someone in Chicago can do to make Hoover happy. You can bribe one Congressman—can you bribe 50 of them? Additionally, by being "outsiders", the FBI generally don't have stakes in local disputes. Local cops are going to be there every day for years—they can build up debts, illicit arrangements, etc. G-men come in only when there is a problem—they don't know you, they don't want to know you, they don't owe you anything.

This is, of course, quite different than saying someone is honest and truly incorruptible. It just means that local hoods can't bribe federal enforcement, usually, because there is a little more oversight and they don't have local investments. Hoover and the FBI were certainly anything but pure in intent and spirit. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HEALTH CARE REFORM

In 2008 Frontline surveyed health care plans around the world and found the following reforms:

INSURANCE:

funding
1. all must buy
2. poor subsidized
profit
1. break even, not for profit

MEDICAL SERVICES

delivery
1. everyone is covered
2. basics services guaranteed
cost
1. electives minimized
2. administration computerized

It seems the real problem with passing health care reform is the number of people whose job will be lost. Reform requires insurance and health provider administration cost reduction from the current 23% or more to 2% or less. The cost of health services needs to be reduced as well similar to MRI scan cost reduction in Japan's reformed system. Can this be done by replacing insurance and health care personnel (including diagnosticians) with computers and by installing other operational and delivery efficiencies? -- Taxa (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people are trying to reduce healthcare costs in both public and private sectors in many parts of the world. Computers often form an important part of this. However it's not always easy, and you have to be cautions since the side-effects of getting it wrong (such as losing medical records at a critical time) are very serious. However even with both trying to cut costs like this, US healthcare remains much more expensive than healthcare in other countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's expensive. It's privatized, for-profit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The real problem with passing health care reform" in the US isn't the (unknown) number of middle-class bureaucrat jobs that will be lost, but the number of rich incomes that will be lost because for-profit insurance companies will end up left out in the cold. The people with those incomes are funding all of the opposition (by contributing to politicians, mostly). Tempshill (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And convincing a lot of suckers to do their marching for them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While jobs are a defendable issue I don't think corporate or individual profit has anywhere near the same defendable status as jobs. Risk in business is a given. -- Taxa (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time that a healthcare-reform question has turned into a debate. Could we please restrict our answers to the facts of the question, and not to opinions? // BL \\ (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the answers were clear, there would be no debate, now would there? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research has been conducted into "Computer-assisted medical diagnosis", but this is to aid doctors; I'm not aware that it can be used to replace doctors. The NHS runs "Drop-in centres" where initial consultation is with a nurse, who may refer the case to a doctor if necessary. Thus nurses are used to reduce the number of doctors needed. In addition, there was some talk of outsourcing the examination of some x-ray scans to Spain [2]. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Congress eligibility

Hello,

I have a question about Mark Kirk's future status in the House of Representatives now that he has declared a run for the Senate. The Senate primary is set for February 2nd. Let's say he runs and loses. Could he then go up for re-election to the House in 2010? Is that legal? And is it possible, given the various deadlines?

I hit up some layman congressional law books at my library and also tried flipping through here: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/senateelectionlawguidebook.pdf But no dice. Maybe it's something so obvious that it's not mentioned anywhere.

And thus I come to Wikipedia. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks!

You can run for one office while you're sitting in another, it happens all the time. For example, the 4 Pres/VP candidates, 3 of whom were sitting Senators and 1 was a sitting Governor. You just can't hold more than one office. So if he loses the Senate primary, he can stay in the House, and can win the House election again, assuming he chooses to run. If he wins the Senate primary, then he finds himself in a P.R. bind if he were to simultaneously run for the House and Senate. I think his party would step in and make him choose, if he didn't choose voluntarily. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can sometimes run for two offices at once. Lloyd Bentsen famously kept himself as the Democratic Party candidate for the Senate seat from Texas, while being Michael Dukakis' running-mate in the 1988 Presidential Election. Had he won both jobs, he would simply have resigned his senate seat in favor of the higher office. In the case of Kirk, the only issue is whether he still has time to enter the race for a seat as a representative if he fails in the Senate primary; often, the primaries for both houses of Congress are run simultaneously, so you have to pick one race only. --Xuxl (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the both of you for responding. I ended up just calling Kirk's office and they very quickly and definitively stated that his running for Senate precluded the possibility of holding the House seat next term.

I looked it up and the filing deadline for IL-10 is Nov. 1, three months before the Senate primary, so that must be part of it.

That's enough info for my purposes, and I consider the question resolved, but as a matter of curiosity I wonder whether there's a legal restriction on running for two positions, or if it's a matter of PR and party politics.

Thanks again.

I think it's probably PR and party politics in most cases. For example Bob Dole resigned from the Senate (of which he was the majority leader at the time) when he ran against Clinton in 1996 in order to show that he was committed to his pursuit of the presidency, even though it wasn't required of him. Xuxl mentioned that Floyd Bentsen ran for senate and VP at once, as did Joe Biden (who did win both and then resigned from the senate). Biden had the assurance that a Democratic governor would appoint his replacement in the senate, although Bentsen didn't. I can imagine it might be possible for there to be state or local laws that would forbid running for two offices at once but I don't know any. Rckrone (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are NJ municipalities statutorily required to provide fire protection

Hello. Are NJ municipalities statutorily required to provide fire protection for their jurisdiction? I have searched the NJ code and NJ cases, but have been unable to find any such discussion. Thanks in advance. Brianga (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess NJ is New Jersey? Unfortunately I live in London. I have no idea. So I'm mainly posting to get some discussion going that has been lacking thus far. It would strike me as odd that a local government would not be required to have some kind of fire protection. But I'm not American. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NJ is New Jersey. Sorry for not being clearer. Brianga (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised. In the U.S., many fire districts (no article?!) are separate from the municipalities they serve. Once, I saw on the news that in the next town over (in New York State), the fire department refused to put out a fire on a commercial property on which the owners had failed to pay their fire tax. The fire fighters did hose down the neighboring properties to prevent spread. Seems ridiculous, even negligent and immoral, to me. --Nricardo (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the reference desk is not for opinions , as this example shows [3] it can lead to arguments Please attempt to confine your answer to the facts, thank you.

I spent quite a bit of time searching the New Jersey statutes for such a requirement and failed to find an explicit requirement, though I am not expert at legal searches. I would infer, though, that this has been left to individual counties or municipalities under them to arrange as they see fit. I think that over the years, a public expectation developed that counties or municipalities would provide such services, so I would expect that arrangements (including municipal fire departments, separate fire districts, and volunteer fire departments) have been made by counties and municipalities (perhaps less than adequately) to cover all parts of the state. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminations of two term limits

Since country like Cameroon and Uganda eliminate two term limits so Paul Biya and yoweri Museveni can run again. Can all country do that. If I was in Ghana could I just sign a petition to eliminate the two term limit to allow John Kufuor to run again. Is that legal? If two term limit is gone, does this mean Paul Biya can stay in until he dies or he can only run one mor term? Is this possilbe to some country protest to kick out the two term limits is illegal. i wish I've sign a petition to Ghana to kick off the two term limit to let John Kufuor stay!--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any country where a petition can directly cause a change in law. A petition might be able to force a referendum, though. Laws can always be changed. The law could be changed to extend the term limit or to eliminate it entirely. Term limits are often parts of constitutions, which are usually more difficult to change that regular laws, but they can be changed. --Tango (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Constitution of Ghana — which appears to be a simple copy of the entire constitution with indexing, and hence needs a lot of work — appears to say in part 66 that the President of Ghana can be elected to up to 2 four-year terms; and later in the article, the space for "Amendment of the Constitution" is blank, so I checked this link, which seems to say that part 66 is not an "entrenched provision" and can therefore be amended with a 2/3 majority of Parliament. So, as far as signing petitions goes, this would presumably only be a petition to try to convince your local member of Parliament to introduce or support such an amendment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about Ghana is 2 term limit stands out, but i'm wondering if Cameroon and Uganda will completely eliminate two term limit or just give one extra term. I don't know if Kenya and Namibia can eliminate the two term limit, so it will stay stand. Is this possble Uganda will bring two term limit back?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be up to voters to think if Hifikepunye Pohamba should stay for 2014 election. Article 29 said two term max only. If voters in nambia wants Pohamba to stay could they ask the constitution to stop the two term? Citizens in Namibia can sign a petition.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Comet said above, a petition is not likely to change a law; only a legisltative body (or its leadership) can do that. So, if the "will of the people" is for "x" to happen, then the people must convince legislators to make the change. As for your questions about what the various peoples and governments may do, that is speculation and our crystal ball has been broken for years. // BL \\ (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is it possible for Israel to commit terrorism?

Some noted scholars accuse Israel of terrorism but this doesn't make sense for me, as Israel is a country, with a formal military. I don't understand how, even in theory, a country such as Israel could commit terrorism, any more thanthe US, France, England, or any other country could. My question is whether this impression of mine is correct, or, on the contrary, that it would be theoretically possible for Israel (despite it being a country and despite it having a military) to commit terrorism? If it would be THEORETICALLY possible (which I am having trouble believing) then what would be a (theortical) example? --85.181.146.169 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term isn't well defined. It is often used to mean acts intended to cause terror committed by non-state groups, but then you hear about "state sponsored terrorism". What is the difference between an act of state sponsored terrorism and an act of war? There isn't any clear distinction that I know of. And then you get "shock and awe" tactics directly committed by states - what is the difference between that and terrorism? I don't know of any real distinction there, either. It is all political really - the words used say more about the opinions of the person using them than they do about the acts being committed. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See State terrorism#Arguments that states are incapable of terrorism. Some have argued like you that the term doesn't apply to states, they should be judged for war crimes instead. Personally I think the attempt to say that just because it is a state it isn't terrorism is deeply flawed. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many define terrorism as the use of violence against civilians. If you take that as your definition a country could be seen as guilty of terrorism Pollinosisss (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually not called terrorism if the state leadership perpetrates the violence. However there is the concept of state sponsored terrorism where the leadership of one nation provides arms and funding to a (probably small) group to kill members of the population in another nation. So were Israel to commit acts of violence on its own population it might be called "policing". But were Israel to fund some Jewish extremists that went out to set a bomb off in the Gaza strip (and then, in likelihood, denied doing it) that would be terrorism. As far as I know, Israel has not terrorised according to current definitions. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even Kofi Annan (not a conspicuous sympathizer with Israel) got fed up with some of the perpetual word games and stalemated diplomatic logjams at the United Nations which prevented the General Assembly from taking almost any truly meaningful and substantive stand whatsoever against terrorism, and included the following language in one of his official documents: AnonMoos (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

United Nations General Assembly A/59/2005

21 March 2005

Report of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan

In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All

[...] 91. It is time to set aside debates on so-called "State terrorism". The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. I believe this proposal has clear moral force, and I strongly urge world leaders to unite behind it and to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.

[...] 182. The Commission on Human Rights' capacity to perform its tasks has been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism. In particular, States have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others. As a result, a credibility deficit has developed, which casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.

”

What should we call it when Israel, the US, France, etc., undertake campaigns of terror? Historically, France and the United States have both done things that, if done by a stateless entity, would certainly be called "terrorism" (car bombs in civilian areas, for example). What do we call those, if not terrorism? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegal covert actions" is popular for that kind of thing. It may be fun to tweak the US's nose by pointing out that carpet bombing civilians inspires quite a lively terror, but it doesn't necessarily advance the debate. The word is a club to beat those you don't like; serious people should use more precise and less inflammatory language. --Sean 15:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, however, is an argument for never using the term "terrorism", not for refraining only when states are the perpetrators. Algebraist 20:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the writings of Noam Chomsky for a lot of discussion about state terrorism, mostly about state terrorism by US-backed regimes elsewhere in the world. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Noam Chomsky might well have a case, if it is the case that it is logically/linguistically/philosophically/etc possible for states like America to commit terrorism. Which gets us back to the initial question: is it?

September 18

ironic beauty

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This has gone on for long enough. Original question was answered sufficiently and there's no need to drag ourselves through the mud. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it ironic that municipalities forbid uncut grass for the sake of protecting beauty but fail to protect people from beautiful plants that are hazardous or poisonous by requiring they be identified by placard or tag onsite? -- Taxa (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. See irony.--Wetman (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not ironic then perhaps contradictory or inconsistent? -- Taxa (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite an example or two? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try... in principle municipalities and government are against death, accidental or intentional yet will build a bicycle lane next to parked cars such that a bicyclist can slam into a open car door or be hit by a car upon swerving to avoid hitting an open car door. Converting one lane of on-street parking to a bicycle lane might help fullfill the principle to which government subscribes. Otherwise it may appear the government is contradictory or inconsistent between its own actions and the principles to which it subscribes. -- Taxa (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was hoping for an example involving "beautiful plants that are hazardous or poisonous". Regarding the bike lane, remember that governments operate from compromise, and maybe taking away valuable parking spaces is not considered to be a reasonable option. Admittedly, the scenario you describe (which I suspect you've experienced) has a Laurel-and-Hardy aspect to it which was presumably not intended. Have you tried lobbying for that change you advocate? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azella and Oleander are two. While Castor and Rosary Pea are not ornamental they have no antidotes. -- Taxa (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to complain that government bodies can be "contradictory or inconsistent" well then, yeah. Can't please everybody all the time, but they've got to try. For the greater good! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk is not a discussion forum. It is for answering factual questions with references. Please do not use it as your soapbox. There are plenty of internet forums that would be better suited to your post. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify as a soapbox diatribe one must be advocating something, which I am not. -- Taxa (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although more noble than diatribes, rhetorical speeches as above, are still soapboxing. (Unless it wasn't rhetorical in which case you might have been seeking opinions, another no.no)83.100.251.196 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything I'm seeking reasons why persons would want to attack a municipality or why people would turn a blind eye to the extent of allowing 9/11. Palestine has been given as the most viable reason along with the creation and marketing of genetically enginered food crops to produce spermacide, herbicide, persticide and plastics all over the world and not just in Afganistan. To determine whether the acts of municiple government might also serve as a cause in selecting a target the next time in absence of reference to such information being contained within an article requires the asking of such questions here. -- Taxa (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at the bakery. What has this got to do with homeowners being required to mow their lawns? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend upon the reason. Requiring someone to mow a lawn to prevent it from being a fire hazard is quite different from requiring someone to mow their lawn for the purpose of beautification. While the first reason might gain compliance without resistance the other may not. A property owner who thinks municiple government is being oppressive might then fail to report that he overheard the renters down the block talking to each other in Arabic and saying how oppressive the municipality was. On the other hand the next attack may take place where no one's complaints about oppression or inconsistency are overheard but it's still good to know where and why they are. -- Taxa (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people are compelled to keep their yards in decent condition, including reasonable lawn-mowing, is to keep the neighborhood from looking run-down. That has to do with property values and such stuff as that. Anyone who buys a house knows that. Anyone who thinks being compelled to mow the lawn is "oppressive" is unlikely to have a job, so their buying a house is also unlikely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forget about the effect of watering restrictions on the beauty of a lawn and the restiction on replacing it with a Zen or biotanical garden. If a municipality handles such restrictions in an unfair or arbitrary way that favors one property owner over another rather than treating everyone on an equal basis then you have a point of rub perhaps sufficient in the minds of some to bring that municipality down. Its one of hundreds of possibe motives why someone or a group of individuals might do something like 9/11. If you are like me you want to know what each one of them might be. -- Taxa (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much that the 9/11 perps were concerned about lawns. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guarantee that it will not be included in the reason behind the next 9/11? -- Taxa (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would I or any of us here know that? You think we're sitting in on al-Qaeda's monthly meetings? The reason for 9/11 was the same reason as Pearl Harbor - a foreign nation (of sorts) trying to convince us to back off from some part of the world. And as with Pearl Harbor, it didn't work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk is not a discussion forum. Do not feed the trolls. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom go away you are the troll. -- Taxa (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You (basebal Bugs) are not facing reality. Next time nuclear weapons will be available for use. Unlike Pearl Harbor or 9/11 when we were too self-righteous to phantom that anything we might have done could have been the cause next time the damage for not being self-correcting will most likely teach us the lesson we have been unwilling and unable to learn. If your failure to look for and find a remedy for any possible cause results in a loved one being vaporized the next time how do you think that is going to make me feel? Its going to make me feel like the reference desk deals in fantasy that is going to get us all killed. -- Taxa (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unintelligent design

While life is claimed to have no intelligent cause do the proponents of this claim, also claim there is no intelligent effect? -- Taxa (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends.218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What 218.25.32.210 is probably trying to say is, what do you mean by "intelligent"? Indeed, how does one define "intelligence"? All of our knowledge of the world comes but of our staring at shadows on the cave wall. Intelligentsium 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the ability to deduce? -- Taxa (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of animals can solve problems, a trait achieved through the trial-and-error of natural selection. For example, the octopus is an exceptionally intelligent creature, especially for something so short-lived. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't think unintelligent design is a particularly useful term - opponents of ID generally believe that there was no rational thinking designer (intelligent or otherwise). To answer your question, you'll need to tell us what you mean by "intelligent effect" but have a look at evolution. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent effect is something like a tree falling across a stream to produce a bridge from one side to the other. -- Taxa (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the ability of the intellect, or the mind, to affect physical processes, the jury is very much out on that one. Actually, I think the jury may have sneaked out of its sequestration a long time ago without anyone noticing. The problem of mental causation is a vexing one and continues to occupy philosophers and cognitive scientists. All 3+ positions have their adherents: There is no mental causation of physical events; there is mental causation of physical events; we're asking the wrong question, things are neither "mental" nor "physical", we need to redefine the terms, etc. etc. As to your original question, if I understood it correctly, there are certainly many people who both deny intelligent design and the possibility of mental causation, and I suppose in many cases these things are connected in their minds. --Rallette (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@OP: To avoid any misunderstanding of your question: Can cou give an example of the "intelligent effect" life has had on the universe ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with an atom of hydrogen and oxygen one might say that intelligent effect is the fact that they can come together to form water. -- Taxa (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a space probe a proof of it? Quest09 (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent effect is more the result of unintelligent causes. However, just becasue man is an intelligent cause of a space probe does not mean that a space probe is not an intelligent effect. -- Taxa (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is groping with the idea that the universe is becoming intelligent, as Teilhard de Chardin postulated with his idea of the noosphere. This is also a staple of science fiction: see "Star Maker" by Olaf Stapledon or "Hyperion" by Dan Simmonsfor examples. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, although as time passes the complexity of it all increases to the point where the idea of intelligent effect becomes more recognizable. -- Taxa (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is a little too vague to answer concretely, but if you mean "do people who subscribe to the theory of naturalistic evolution believe that intelligent agency can arise from unintelligent causes," the answer is "yes", that's basically what evolution means to describe (how "dumb" laws of nature can produce apparently well-designed and quite clever creatures). A lot of this is how we define "intelligence", obviously—from a physical standpoint, humans are not much different than rocks. From a philosophical standpoint, they definitely have agency where rocks do not. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your response is more inline with my question. I'm wondering if there is an inconsistency in the minds of the proponents of natural evolution that where there is intelligent effect there can still be unintelligent casue. -- Taxa (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think proponents of natural evolution feel there's any inconsistency there. Explaining how less complicated systems can naturally lead to more complicated systems is central to the theory. Rckrone (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it is reasonable to assume that computers will gain in intelligence and capability to the point of outshining us. -- Taxa (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a well-established hypothesis that often goes under the name of "singularity".Rhinoracer (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we build them with that capability. In this instance, human activity is what is driving the complexity of computer systems, not natural selection. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computers are not intelligent. They are simply machines with no awareness of their own existence. Those machines are certainly more complex tools than they were in 1950. But they are no more "intelligent" than a rock is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophically it's not really determined what "intelligence" means in this context, and to what degree "artificial intelligence" needs to develop to until we decide that it is, well, "intelligent". Computers are certainly not there yet, but someday they probably will be. If we a priori define them as unintelligent because of their materialism or determinism (e.g. they are machines and just run algorithms), there's a level at which we end up describing humans as being "unintelligent" as well, unless we start ascribing to unscientific concepts to differentiate ourselves (e.g. a soul). This is, incidentally, a rich area of philosophical inquiry and by no means settled.

If the computers became autonomous and could reproduce, and the various types of computers competed for resources from which to build more computers, which led to the smartest computers out-pacing the dumb ones, which pushed the computers to become smarter, that would be evolution. That scenarios sounds like it's contingent on a robot apocalypse, so I think humans will try to avoid it if possible. Rckrone (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we'd still have to get them to that stage to begin with. They aren't just going to become autonomous without intensive human intervention. If we get them to a stage where they can "evolve" on their own accord, then they can push beyond whatever capability we give them, and hence the technological singularity. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that scientists who deny the existence of, or the need for, a "creator" behind real-world life, posit us as creators. The IP hits it right on the head - that such machines would have to somehow evolve on their own - like DNA strands, viruses, and the like. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

musical doctrine of affections

I am interested in the specifics of the doctrine of affections. An excellent Teaching Company class by Robert Greenberg listed many of the keys and a few words describing the affection being portrayed by the piece for each key in the Baroque period. Since I play a lot of Baroque music, I want to know more specifics so I can interpret the composer's intent more knowledgeably. I haven't been able to find anything more specific than those few words from the CD class. I want a bigger picture with more detail. 00:35, 18 September 2009 Ahatch (talk | contribs) (Attribution added by // BL \\ (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Doctrine of the affections is not of much help, as you probably know :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that term. Some years ago I went to a lecture-recital of some Haydn sonatas, presented by Geoffrey Lancaster. He went into considerable detail about how particular keys and certain phrasings and effects were used by Haydn to denote certain moods or states. Not only that, but the audiences of his day would know exactly what he was referring to by his use of those devices; whereas modern audiences no longer have this knowledge but just sit there and think "that's nice". It was an absolute eye-opener, or ear-opener, more appropriately. Unfortunately, I've forgotten virtually everything I heard that night, and I really wish I had a recording or transcript of the lecture, because it was one of the most fascinating evenings I've spent in a long time. It's possible that an approach to Lancaster, an acknowledged expert on Haydn, might produce some results of interest to you. He's contactable through the ANU School of Music (when he's not performing or recording overseas). I've met him through a mutual friend, and he's very approachable and I'm sure he'd be willing to point you in the right direction. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Jack. Geoffrey Lancaster is very approachable on this topic. He loves to help people become more informed about historically informed performance. I audited a class of his last year (one I found out about through a different mutual friend), and it helped me understand not just the music, but the dance (which is more important to me). He's also a very clever man. Steewi (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...towards the treatise of Jean-Philippe Rameau, perhaps? Remember that the circle of twenty-four keys were fully accessible only to strings: the valved trumpet made its heroic debut in E flat. The concert repertory itself helps cement associations, even to create them: if E flat is "heroic", part of the nexus of associations the key carries is Beethoven's "Eroica".

objective measure of whether a company, country, etc. is evil?

Is there an objective way to learn whether a company, like Shell Oil, or a country, like Israel, is "really" (objectively) evil or good?

You'll have to be much more precise about "company", "country", "evil" and "good". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are you serious? How do you suggest I phrase what I obviously have in mind? --92.230.69.119 (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer you need is, No, there is no objective measure of whether one corporation in an extractive industry or one local nation is "evil", for it is difficult enough to ascertain the social effects even of a single public policy, and "evil" applies only to human beings. --Wetman (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evil applies to human beings? That's one view. (Which of course illustrates the problem with the question - try to answer it, and you'll get a religious war instead. This is one good reason not to ask too many abstract moral questions. There's probably someone hungry or sick or homeless of hopeless who could use your help while you're philosophizing...) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind. When you talk about a "company", are you talking about its directors, its employees, its management, its shareholders, its products, its clients or all of the above? Does "evil" refer to something that's bad for the environment, bad for humanity, illegal, immoral or something else entirely.

So if you're asking whether there is an objective way to learn whether any of the employees of a company have done anything illegal, the answer is probably "yes" but I don't think that's what you want. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really do need an objective measure of evil or good first. The you could apply it to the company (group of individuals) and the consequences of their actions.

However before you can do that you need to decide whether or not moral objectivism ie that it is possible to be truly objective about moral concepts is a valid concept (in any or one of its forms); a problem occurs here unless you can show your opinion on that to be objective and not subjective.

To be honest it's impossible to do at 100% certainty, all that can be obtained it seems is a personal certainty of any subjective views held. 83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, it all depends on your benchmark. Transparency International monitors commercial and political corruption and publishes a Corruption Perceptions Index and a Bribe Payers Index. Global Integrity does a similar job and publishes an annual Global Integrity Report. Amnesty International monitors human rights and publihses an annual report, as does Human Rights Watch. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your answers I feel pretty confident that Israel could do anything it wanted and I would not consider it evil as a consequence. All of these reports out in the news recently bashing Israel are from people who have different sympathies from mine, that's all. 85.181.146.254 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forget which one, but a prominent Russian author posited that stupidity equals evil. So, what's the stupidest country or company you can think of? One that's stayed in business for a while, or you wouldn't know that it exists. Hence evil does not exist. Vranak (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evil" is a moral term, thus not quantifiable by objective scientific measurement. So the answers that you are likely to receive will be based on the respondant's personal judgment.

While numerous related items (Life Expectancy, Percentage of Population as Political Prisoners, Average Personal Income, Availability of Affordable Education, Housing, and Medical Care, Whether US 1st Amendment Rights are In Place and Honored, &c) may be statistically measured, determining what constitutes evil still remains a personal judgment call.

Keeping this short to avoid being accused of soapboxing, I would suggest that the first test is whether the government deliberately kills (or does nothing to prevent the killing of) its own citizens. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge is one example. Reducing citizenship levels to allow the slaughter of law-abiding populations (as in Nazi Germany) is only different from the former as a public-relations ploy for the international community of nations that are willing to keep quiet and make no objection. Again, this last paragraph is merely my opinion and not objective proof. B00P (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selmer Bringsjord has been working on defining and computerizing evil.[4] 70.90.174.101 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define evil. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, be aware that the provocative stuff in this thread was largely raised by now-indef'd users who were, well, trying to provoke. "Evil" is subjective. But you can have individual and corporate "ethics", which are based on a sense of what good vs. evil are, within the framework of laws defining what "good" and let's say "not good" behaviors are. Ethical companies have codes of conduct, which define for all employees, what ethical behavior is expected from them vs. what is not considered ethical. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying terms

What is the term that describes someone who insults/ridicules another person? The insulter does so because s/he secretly has the same issues that s/he is insulting with. Also, what are some arguments that I can use in which someone who had a troubled life but they are still on the right path? For instance, Abraham Lincoln had a lot of failures before be became President of the US. I want to explain to someone that although things in my life are great at the moment, it doesn't mean that I am on the wrong path to success/happiness/whatever. thanks --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology in that department may have to be imagistic, because it crosses more than one line. I wouldn't be afraid of mixed metaphors if I were you. You might want to say something like, "My kite is flying at half mast but it doesn't mean my ship hasn't come in." Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Psychological projection Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the first person a hypocrite. "Do as I say, not as I do" type of thing. Or at the very least, inconsistent.Livewireo (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seraching for the reference of a Buddha quote

Does anyone knows where the famous Buddha quote "It's your mind that creates this world" is from? What is the source? A sutra? A teaching? Which? THANKS! 190.192.176.6 (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The world is led by mind
And drawn by mind.
All phenomena are controlled
By one phenomenon, mind.

SN 1.39.10-11.—eric 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like anti-knowledge to me. Vranak (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Matrix saying: "There is no spoon." If you want to bend a spoon, you only have to bend your mind.--Quest09 (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concurred. It is empty sophistry. Vranak (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like block transfer computation to me. Dmcq (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question asked, answer given; why the additional critical commentary? Pfly (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the mind. Anyway disillusionment will set you free. Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in multiple places because it's central to Buddhism. Probably the most famous is the very beginning of the Dhammapada, which goes, in the translation by Thomas Byrom:

We are what we think.

All that we are arises with our thoughts.

With our thoughts we make the world.

It has nothing to do with "bending spoons with your mind" -- it's about perception. You suffer, in life, because of the way that you perceive things. See also the Four Noble Truths. Antandrus (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that notion before, but it implies that if someone is suffering, somehow it's their own fault rather than someone else's. So the Jews who were led to the gas chambers were only suffering because of their "perception"??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, and I wouldn't mind if an expert on Buddhism responded. As I understand it, if you do your meditative work, internalize the ephemeral nature of life, and cease from all craving (as indicated by the second of the Four Noble Truths) -- such as the craving to go on living and experiencing the suffering which the First of the Four Truths tells us all of life is -- even in extreme circumstances you would cease to suffer (although of course you still experience bodily pain). Never having been led to a gas chamber, I cannot speak from direct experience, but I suspect Thich Nhat Hanh or one of the living Buddhist writers would say something similar. It's probably much easier to practice in daily life, for example in training yourself not to get angry when someone undoes your edits on Wikipedia. Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, it only implies that suffering is the sufferer's "fault" if one accepts notions of "fault" and "blame". Many would not. I wouldn't assume them in such a discussion anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can take stuff like that too literally. I also would like to hear a Buddhist's take on this, but my very shallow understanding of it is close to: "yes". Gandhi was a Hindu, of course, not a Buddhist, but his recommendation to the British during WWII was, "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them..." (from wikiquote). That strikes me as being a very Buddhist kind of thing to say. Remember, these are folks that believe in reincarnation: you're going to die not once once but possibly hundreds of times times over until you learn to live properly so it's not worth too much to worry about your physical body one way or another. You're going to get another, remember? Your suffering is not important because existence is suffering; it's how you deal with it that determines your eventual fate. From an outsider's perspective (atheist), the real difference between that kind of tack and that of most Christians is that the Eastern religions have simply taken things to the logical conclusion. If a Christian really believed in heaven, shouldn't they welcome an honest death in the same way? Matt Deres (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another key Buddhist notion--more key than "mind makes the world"--is "no self", see Anatta. It's not "your" mind that creates the world. It's not "someone else's" suffering. Pfly (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosh Hashana Shofar

Is the shofar being played tonight on Rosh Hashana services, even though it falls on Shabbat? Will it be played tomorrow? Thanks, 166.137.133.40 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/Yes. B00P (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a funny yes/yes, they seem contradictory. I thought it should be played on the second day of Rosh Hashana in that circumstance? Dmcq (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why it should seem contradictory. It's a two-day holiday; whatever's done the first day is also done on the second, and vice-versa. B00P (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I see what you mean. Well there's an article shofar and it says it shouldn't be played on the Shabbat. They might forget themselves and take it outside and you can't risk doing that on the Shabbat. That doesn't stop playing it the next day though. Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are crazies in every belief-system. Does anyone worry that the guy blowing the shofar will forget himself, strip off all his clothes, and perform in the nude? B00P (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Orthodox congregations, the shofar is not played on Shabbat. Some Reform synagogues do play the shofar on Shabbat. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Sabbath it is forbidden to carry any object in an "unenclosed area". However, on a Festival, such as Rosh Hashanah, when it occurs on a weekday, this is permitted. The Rabbis were concerned that since a Shofar blower might not be proficient, he would take the Shofar and carry it on the Sabbath via an "unenclosed area" to a person who was proficient in Shofar blowing, in order to consult with him. For this reason, due to the great sanctity of the Sabbath, the Rabbis made a decree that when Rosh Hashanah occurs on the Sabbath, the Shofar would not be blown.(Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 29b). Simonschaim (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A guiding principles of Reform Judaism is the autonomy of the individual. A Reform Jew maintains his or her right to decide whether to subscribe to any particular belief or to any particular practice -- they therefor do not consider themselves subject to any rabbinical precept. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said "tonight". The shofar is not blown at night on Rosh Hashanah in orthodox congregations, and I don't believe it's blown at night in most non orthodox ones either, but, as said above, there's bound to be exceptions. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Participation of wealthy people in WWI - conscription

Did people of a high status or the wealthy have to fight or participate in World War I? Or did only people of lower classes participate in the fighting? Thanks in advance.

HihoJohn (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to World War I by Priscilla Mary Roberts, "young [British] public school men from the professional classes and the aristocracy joined the forces in disproportionate numbers during the war's early years, and the casualties these social classes suffered were also considerably in excess of the general population." Lost Generation states that, in Britain, the term implicitly refers to the perceived inordinate casualties borne by the upper class. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this due to the 'upper class' being the officers who led from the front and were early casualties I wonder--88.109.168.43 (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people who were at the front in WW1 were the working class. The officers were the ones behind the front line, making the decisions, and based miles away from the action. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie. Many male members of the lesser aristocracy had been supplanted by successful businessmen who had became increasingly wealthier and influential. Young aristocrats with little else to do joined the officers corps under the reasoning that they had to lead and show their worth. Those with 'the right amount of proper connections' were certainly put in safer positions. Those without them (the vast majority) would lead (certainly as officers) the charges and, as their men, die by their hundreds and thousands. The assumption that all aristocrats were wealthy and cowards is a bitter insult by those who should know better. Flamarande (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt it was a lie. It was most likely a mistake. Please assume good faith and be civil. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of the wealthy and educated power class of Britain led the charges from the trenches in WW1. If all the officers (who were heavily from the more educated and professional class, as well as nobility, had stayed miles behind the front, no one would have left the trenches. Edison (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that there were some officers in the trenches. But from my own OR into my family history, the proportion of privates (who were almost universally working class) to officers (who may have been middle class but generally not upper class) in the trenches was at least 20:1. This website claims that, at the start of WW1 the British Army "... comprised just 450,000 men - including only around 900 trained staff officers" http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/pals_01.shtml If you read further into that article, you will see that Liverpool - not noted for being a middle or upper class city - raised 4 battalions of volunteers in 1914. The initiative that followed raised a million volunteers by the end of 1914. I do accept that some of these volunteers would have been middle or upper class: however, because the policy was to recruit people who knew each other, or "pals", and the classes just did not mix at this time, it is more likely that the vast majority of these volunteers would have been working class - just as the population of England was at this time. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed your prior claim of "working class at the front and officers miles away from the action" to a "some officers in the trenches". The 900 trained staff officers at the start of the war were the professionals, during the war the was a need for many more (as the army was bigger too). During a full-scale war starts the officer corps (as do all the ranks) is heavily increased and the logical criteria for officer training is higher education, certainly twisted with a "right family connections" flavour. It's painfully obvious that on average the sons of the wealthy and powerful are better educated (their parents can afford it and are expected to do so by their peers). Therefore the bulk of a very large officer corps are the sons of the so-called "higher class". What you fail to realize that the vast majority of the officers are not in the rear eating fine meals and drinking wine. Most of them are leading the fighting units into danger. I suggest that you read this [5] and [6]. The second one claims that "About 11 per cent of the privates who were mobilised never returned; among the officers the proportion was about 22 per cent". Flamarande (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there were more men than officers in the trenches, that's because there were more men than officers in the army. There were also more working class than upper class people in the country, so the proportion of each class signing up wasn't necessarily any different. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tango is absolutely right here. A typical ratio of officers to men is maybe 1:20 or 1:30, so the proportion of officers in the trenches is on the high side. Remember that you need privates behind the lines too - some of them are putting up signal wires, manning supply depots etc.

As for the BBC quote, "900 staff officers" does not mean "900 officers". A staff officer is a particular kind of high-level specialist. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The staff officers would probably be the guys behind the lines drinking the wine and pushing markers around on a map. the other 90% of the officers would be with the men at the front. Googlemeister (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish vs Germans in America

Why is it considered mainstream American to be German, but not Irish? Aren't the Irish from the British Isles, like the Colonists and Founding Fathers, whereas the Germans are Continental Europeans like the French, Swiss and Austrians? After all, there was no German country which colonized any of the present US apart from the Northern Mariana Islands. The closest to German in the historical records, to have any colonies in the US as it existed in 1776, were the population descended from New Netherland and New Sweden. Their settlements were pretty much hemmed in by English conquest, in which the proprietors were Catholics, such as Lord Baltimore and the Duke of York, who were friendly to Irish indentured servants, even though other colonies refused them. I guess one could say that if there was a German land to provide colonial background to America, it would have been the Duchy of Brunswick, Luneburg and Westphalia, in connection to the British House of Hanover. There was a Hessian dynasty in Sweden after New Sweden was conquered by the Dutch, whose Stadhouder Willem III later kicked out the Duke of York aka James II of England, for what seemed like revenge in the Anglo-Dutch Wars. As to the Germans being a backbone of Americana...I just don't see it. They refused to conform to English culture into the 19th century, with German societies and newspapers. The Amish are the original example of multiculturalism in America, calling everybody else: "English", whilst they never want to give up their German identity. So then we come to the Irish issue; apart from religious or political estrangement from their insular relatives, there is nothing dissimilar in their cultural constitution from Americana. For instance, when I hear or see performances of Irish Catholic pub music, compared to Appalachian Baptist country music, there is little to commend in trying to find a difference, except the Irish are more instrumental. Enlighten me. How have the Germans managed to co-opt Americana to the point where people believe they are representative of Americans, or the idea that they are the "normal White American"? I don't understand it. I'm American as we come and have a hard time finding any Germans in my family or family tree for several generations, if at all. Plus, I'm puzzled by the attempt by Germans to make it seem like I could be a traitor to my country or people, if I am not entranced by Central European issues, especially WWII. What are these people getting at? -- 07:19, 19 September 2009 70.171.239.21

I don't know where you got that idea. Most American-Germans I know are treated like second class citizens although in both direct and indirect ways. Same with Italians even though America is named after one. Main strean is considered those of British and Irish descent. French, odly enough are not while Hispanics are an up and coming class even though a lot of ranching can be traced back to the Spanish. Because America is a melting pot though Americans of mixed ancestry (White races only) are considered main-main stream America. In fact if you are Black, even if you are President of the US you are still not considered main stream America. Why? Who the heck knows? -- Taxa (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did we just go through a time-warp and it's 1942 now? Americans of German ancestry are not victims of any discrimination I've seen in my lifetime. They're white, northern Europeans, just like Americans of English or Irish ancestry. While the Irish and the Germans both experienced discrimination long ago in the USA, they don't any more, that I'm aware of. Do you have any recent examples? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that German's participated on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War and were not on the American side during WWI & WWII. Germans in Germany have always been, how should I put it, absolute? The British at least have to keep a stiff upper lip while the Germans got theirs in the womb. You must be talking about the Germans who were lucky enough to escape Germany while the absolute ones were passed out from drinking too much beer and were allowed to settle here on condition. -- Taxa (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back to the original question, "Why is it considered mainstream American to be German, but not Irish?" My question is: WHO SAYS SO? What's the basis for that? There's no discrimination against either Irish-Americans or German-Americans that I'm aware of. If there is, I'd like to see some examples. And I don't mean World Wars I or II, or the Molly Maguires, I mean nowadays. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a time warp...these Germans conceive of themselves as America's lone "old guard" against the masses of other peoples, many of whom have more right to voice their opinions on how things are to be done. I witness loads of hybrids of neo-nazi/neo-hippie individuals who congregate or bestow upon themselves these strange ideals that, because nobody else follows or cares for, it means those disinterested are the doom of the White race and anti-Israeli, antisemitic religious conspiracy theories are entangled with neopaganism or anti-Christian atheism. It seems as though the Germans forget they were invited as immigrants to propagate English-style establishment in the nation and build the frontier, build in the factories, to industrialize and apply their Protestant work ethic, but only in the sense of mercenaries. It is an English tradition to hire German mercenaries from Vortigern against the Picts, to Richard II in his imperial marriage with the Bohemian House of Luxembourg, to the House of York's Burgundian ties in the Hundred Years' War and Wars of the Roses, to Henry VIII and the Lutheran princes, to the Stuart ties with the Wittelsbachs in Bohemia and onward. There is an obvious precedent to see the future Hessian relationship develop, as much as there was to invite the Georgians into Britain to keep the Jacobites out, but what essentially greater purpose does this massive German population in America have for Americans, other than this old tradition? Being simply American in the strictest sense, I have been expected to toe their lines of bigotry or be considered something of a race-traitor. These people don't know that despite some Puritanical elements, the English do have that Anglican ambivalence towards European affairs. For instance, England has never reneged on the Treaty with Catholic Portugal, established in the 1300s, whereas the Scots did away with their French alliance on account of religion. So, both the Scotch-Irish usually and the Germans have persistent vendettas against the English mainstream in which they are supposed to play a big part, although it seems not central. Braveheart fanaticism is all that is, it seems. It's like this: because I'm "American", I'm not "American" enough for those who'd rather have "America" be in their own image. Radicals call themselves conservative, even though they curse and spit on conservative values. I don't get it really, how they go on like this and make everybody their enemies.

I should mention that User:Malcolm XIV is continually disrupting this section because he doesn't like User:Taxa. I, originator of this topic, welcome Taxa's input to broaden my perspective on issues which are a bit hard for me to understand. Malcolm XIV is proving supremely offensive, calling my reversal of his vandalism to be vandalism itself. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm beginning to think that most any question that Taxa posts should be deleted on-sight, since it's not about information, it's about debating. And that also goes for whoever's posting the lengthy, unsigned rants in this section. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What question did Taxa ask here? He wrote some rhetorical retorts to my questions as to hubris on German American identity, vis a vis the Irish being seen as "the other", "the ethnics". This is even so current as the death of Ted Kennedy, where these Germans consider themselves and their ideas mainstream, but Ted Kennedy must be really out there or something? I am unsigned, but these are only rants in the sense that I don't know what to truly think about the issues, unless some people give me a greater perspective. I'm a bit naive, although I have some intuition. I'd just like some hard facts, for some conclusion.

You are User:Taxa, and I claim my five pounds. See Admin about it. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really raised anything resembling a valid question yet. Try stating in one sentence of 25 words or less an example or two of where there is any discrimination against either German-Americans or Irish-Americans in America? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my query actually stems from perusing some "Germanic heritage" forums, where the "people" seem locked in a "life or death" struggle about their pride in white "Indo-Germanic" culture and everybody else is a traitor to their cause, especially non-Nordics, whilst marginal Nordics are considered wannabes or not good enough, much like how the rest of Southern European peoples are considered worthless. This happens to be a strain of thought popular in the American Midwest and Mountain states. Many people in the media like to stereotype Southerners as being prejudiced, but what I am describing here takes the cake. For instance, Black Americans mostly have British surnames, the same with colonial Americans, immigrant English and Irish Americans. If they pooled their sense of common cultures together, they would outnumber the Germans and put them to shame for posturing with neo-nazi and neo-hippie, conan the barbarian attitudes. I live in a state that has a majority of Mexicans and Germans. I used to find the German rhetoric appealing, but then they went off on Winston Churchill and against the Allies of both World Wars. I'm now more friendly with the Mexicans and Hispanics and don't give a damn for the German arrogance. That's the crux of the matter. So, other than losing in a couple of wars, whereas they always felt "badass" to beat up the French, I don't understand what else they have to feel proud or defensive about. I'd like some German or other person to explain this to me.

Is it within the realm of possibility that you could ask an actual question instead of going on with these meaningless essays? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the content of my query, don't reply. I'm sure there are many more well informed individuals who would love to explain to me "where I'm wrong" on the issue and why. Although I've read a lot of ranting by German Americans as to why they and their ways are so special, I have yet to find some substance, that exceeds mere posturing...e.g. calling the English traitors to some mythical Aryan Teutonic race, all the while saying it is they, the Germans, who are more American or European than everybody else. Now, they seem to have adjusted this to include the Finns as the "supreme beings" on earth. Why do they do this? How are the Irish not good enough people, or the Italians for that matter? It may be an uncomfortable and personal issue for you, but if you find somebody else's questions more pleasant, feel free to bypass mine. You are not Anubis, so don't judge my soul.

Note that the above IP OP is now on a one-month block for trolling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan race has some material on Nazi ideas of "racial purity". FWIW, being Irish is more "American" than being German. Tempshill (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of any recent discrimination against either Irish-Americans or German-Americans, but if you have any examples, I'd like to see them. That's what I asked the OP, but since he was trolling, he didn't deign to answer. And since he's now blocked, he can't answer. But he wasn't going to anyway, so no big deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that Germans are considered to be mainstream and that the Irish are not? I guess I can only speak for myself. I consider anyone raised and born in America to be American. I think that one of the things that distinguishes America is diversity. In fact, we try to be as unique as possible from one another.

As for the British Isles, my ancestors came from Scotland. The Scottish have traditionally been Presbyterian and the English have been Anglican. The Irish have been Catholic. So, I don't think you can group them together. My ancestors moved here in the 1600s, so even though my ancestors stayed together without intermarrying with other ethnicities in America, I consider myself to be an American more than Scottish. I don't talk about it very much, but it seems a lot of Irish people approach me and ask "Are you Irish?" I just roll my eyes.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though the Germans forget they were invited as immigrants to propagate English-style establishment in the nation and build the frontier, build in the factories, to industrialize and apply their Protestant work ethic, but only in the sense of mercenaries. The early massive German migration to America, in the early-mid 1700s, was not on invitation and not particularly wanted by the existing colonists. The immigrants were largely forced out of settled areas and had to make due in places like the now-quintessentially American Shenandoah Valley. Consider that German's participated on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War The Hessian mercenary thing came later and in much smaller numbers. Many Germans of Appalachia fought on the American side. Pfly (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not now the case that there is any kind of consensus among inhabitants of the U.S.A. that Irish-Americans are somehow not "mainstream Americans", nor has any real consensus to this effect existed for at least the last 70 years or so. However, one significant historical difference between German immigrants to the U.S. and Irish-Catholic immigrants to the U.S. (leaving aside the Scots-Irish, who are a separate category) is that German immigrants tended to settle in rural areas as independent small farmers (which until the 1870's was the main path for families without money to get a start in the U.S.), and those who weren't small farmers tended to be diffused across a range of professions and occupations. By contrast, when Irish Catholic immigration greatly increased in the 1840's, they congregated in the big eastern seabord cities, where they tended to work for other people as laborers, domestic servants, etc., or in relatively low-level government jobs (stereotypically as policemen). They were a very visible presence in the cities, heavily involved in city "machine" politics (Tammany Hall etc.), and were considered menacingly culturally alien by some. The majority of Irish-Catholics supported the Democratic party during the second half of the 19th-century, while probably the majority of German-Americans supported the Republican party... AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic derivative of Celtic, Celtic derivative of Italic, Italic derivative of Greek, etc.

In past times, it was accepted academic opinion, that this was the format of lingual and cultural diffusion in ancient Europe. Why is this no longer so? -- 07:42, 19 September 2009 70.171.239.21

Was it ever so? I have no idea where you got this concept from. What makes you think this was so in the past?83.100.251.196 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical theories postulated that, as everybody knew from national mythology, that the Roman world descended from Magna Graecia, according to the Aeneid. The Celts became a significant chunk of the Western Empire, through the Roman conquest of Gaul, Spain and Britain. The Germans developed their civilization via the Celts, whose culture, although unique, owed lots to the Romans in such a way that they could not divorce themselves from Romance heritage, whereas the Germanic type was much more removed. Remember the term: "Italo-Celtic"? Anyways, whilst the Celts are popularly thought of as being redheaded today, yesterday, that was the Germanic tribes, according to Tacitus. Germania itself was governed from Gaul, centrally placed as it was. Gaul's central partition was called Celtica. Although the Gauls dominated Germania because of Roman administration, the Franks turned this on their heads, thus entwining their cultures. You know how the eastward migrations of Christian Germans was meant to bring civilization to Eastern Europe, through the Teutohic Knights? This was because of the Gallic inheritance which sought to extend Roman civilization beyond the Rhine and then, the Elbe. Most archaeological books about the Roman Iron Age, depict the Germans as having advanced technologically by contacts with the Celts. These are all factors which were once considered marks of progress in the West, as a common history. Now, it seems, there are those who prefer this term: "Celto-Germanic, Kelto-Germanic, Germano-Keltic, Germano-Celtic, etc" and try to divide these parts of European culture from the Greco-Roman. It did not affect the early linguists of the Neoclassical era, who were purely interested in facts. Romantic nationalism certainly seems to have been an impetus to drop neutrality in favor of supremacism and separatism. I was wondering if there is indeed, any objective truth which suggests there are no links other than a general "Indo-European" framework which ties them together, in some vague and amorphous web of relations.

(Just to make it clear - are you comparing classical histories with modern? I instinctively thought you were comparing a modern view of history with a 1900's ie Victorian era view of history?)

Sorry I thought your original question appeared to say that the language and cultures mentioned derived (ie parent/child relationship) in historical succession, not that the celts became part of the roman empire - ie adopted or assimilated 'latin' cultural aspects. There's a difference there.

You ask about links - there are always links between neighboring cultures, the extent of the influence depends on various factors, one notable one being whether or not there is a dominant culture (such as the romans in parts of western europe - which affects language, architecure etc)

"The germans developed their civilisation via the celts"? I'm not sure what you mean here - you seem to be suggesting that the celts 'taught' the germans - obviously there are links between the two, but the way you write it suggests a one way relationship? Is this what you meant?

As for the effect of romantic nationalism on rewriting history - this is always an effect - there are always people who will view history through a lens to present a particular point of view that suits themselves. There is evidence of links between roman and non-roman europe - including peaceful trade as well as wars and battles.83.100.251.196 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As an aside I'm not sure how useful the views of linguists in the near modern ie neoclassical age will be since they only have modern languages to compare, and not the languages as they were in the time of the romans or greeks or celts... In the intervening years the languages are expected to have changed quite a bit - this means that current liguistic relationships only reflect history up to the present day, but do not give a time capsule view from a thousand years ago83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm purely interested in ontological progression. There was a linear concept that appears to have been abandoned, at the lobbying interest of emotionalism rather than neutral scholastics on the matter. It appears that the further away from Rome, the less happy the people are about acknowledging any derivation whatsoever from the Eternal City. There are exceptions to the popular mindset which identify with traditional aggregate understanding of material facts, rather than be swept up in such bigotry as I described. For instance, the entire West owes its alphabet to Rome, the same as how Cyrillic is an obvious vulgarization of Greek. To admit this is a "no-no", because people can't accept the truth that they have a heritage which...is child to a parent, or something.

There is no worldwide denial of the importance of the latin (or greek) scripts to writing, or of the large influence of latin (and to a lesser extent greek) on european languages. What you are experiencing must be a purely local phenomena.

It's worth noting that though time is linear, the word is not a tunnel, influences come from directions, not just rome and greece, but also from other parts of the 'old world' - the middle east, north africa etc, as well as from the east.

The further away from rome a culture is the less influence rome has - this is the same for all cultures - outside the former boundaries of the roman empire the main (and possibly only) influence on the culture will be the adoption of the the latin script, and maybe christianity. Also note that some cultures claim descendence from the ruins of troy, and have no historical line back to rome.

Your observation about people further away from rome being less interested in it's glories and legacy is undoubtably true, but what is the issue with that? I don't expect people to hold egypt constantly in high regard because they invented paper...83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the unsigned IP OP is now on ice for a month. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that despite the useful things that europe (and by extension north america) as a whole inherits from rome, there are also downsides - such as the actually history of being unwelcome by the original rulers in some of the countries they conquered, the introduction (or continuation) of slavery, impossing taxes and tithes on the subjects of their subject states, and other factors general to local resentment of a conquering or ruling class. These amongst other reasons is probably why you detect an unwillingness to 'revel in the glory that was rome' amongst some parts of the european population. This is an effect common to human nature.

Consider the similar case of english imperialism in India - which has adopted english language, and some other customs including cricket, but I don't doubt that they are proud of their independence, and at a basic national level glad to see the english go.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

linguistics vs. cultural diffusion

From a strictly linguistic point of view, none of the major branches of Indo European (Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Indian, Hittite, Tocharian, etc.) are "derived" from any of the other branches. They are all derived equally from postulated Proto-Indo-European. So it's doubtful whether any of the major branches can be meaningfully said to be significantly "older" or "younger" than any of the other branches (though some specific languages in some branches are attested by means of surviving inscriptions, sacred scriptures etc. at a much earlier date than any languages in some of the other branches etc.).

Cultural diffusion is quite a different matter, and it's well-attested that agricultural, metalworking, and a number of other marks of "civilization" diffused from the middle east to the Greece/Balkans area to the rest of western/central Europe. AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, there was cultural diffusion from Celtic to Germanic culture, in particular on the continent. But the Germanic languages did not originate from the Celtic ones. Was that ever believed? Also, not all of Germanic culture was equally influenced; the Scandinavian peninsula is one of the few geographic areas of Europe that has no evidence of Celtic settlement (e.g. place-names). The Celtic influence on them was relatively small. --Pykk (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quran tafsir comparison

Is there website where I can see the comparison of the quran tafsir like ibn kathir, syed qutb and maudidi?

It might be worth checking the links and references in the articles Ibn Kathir , Syed Qutb and Abul Ala Maududi (bottom of pages - there are many links to their works) - I haven't been able to find a site that allows a side by side comparison (it may still exist) - though you could easily open separate sites in side by side windows?83.100.251.196 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

Wives of Margraves of Tuscany

Who are the wives of Boniface, Count of Bologna and Rainier, Margrave of Tuscany?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Italian Wikipedia, according to the Archivio Diplomatico Fiorentino (florentine diplomatic archive), Rainier married a countess named Waldrada, doughter of a certain Guglielmo (William). They had a son, also called Ranieri (Rainier)--151.51.24.225 (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

translation new constitution of ecuador

Hey,

I'm doing research on the struggle between indigenous peoples and oil companies in Ecuador, and for this I need a translation of the new constitution of Ecuador, as I do not speak spanish. However, I can not find it anywhere online. I looked in wikisources http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Constitutional_documents, but strangely, Ecuador is absent. Also, I could not find this text on the official Ecuador websites, only the spanish version. Does anybody have an idea?

Thanks, 131.211.211.4 (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it seems to be included in our article Constitution of Ecuador. Aside from that:

(1) do you have a research budget? You could hire a translator.
(2) Or, if there's one crucial bit, you could use a terrible online translator (such as [7] or [8]) and try to identify the bit you need. Then post that paragraph on the Language Reference Desk here and a friendly volunteer is sure to translate it for you.
(3) Another place to look for help: Spanish-language Wikipedia, either on the talk page for Constitución de Ecuador de 2008 or on their Reference Desk.

Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: contact the Ecuadorian embassy or consulate in your (English-speaking?) country. I recommend against relying on online (machine) translations: these are notoriously inaccurate so you're unlikely to get anything useful that way. Approaching a professional translator with the request that you only need the section relevant to your research topic will keep the outlay manageable and provide a reputable basis for your study. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I don't have a research budget, since this research is within the (rather limited) scope of a master's thesis. The online translators sadly are not accurate enough for my purposes. I am definitely going to contact the embassy tomorrow, that's a great idea. If that does not work out, I'll contact the language desk. Thanks for the ideas! Still, if anybody happens to find a translation somewhere online, I would be greatly helped. [[85.147.237.96 (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Australian Immigration law

I have a New Zealand passport and lived in Australia from Jan 2000 - Oct 2004 before returning to the UK. I did not take out Australian citizenship at that time, but would like to know if I would need to apply for a 'permanent residency permit' if I were to return to Australia. I am aware the law changed in 2001 regarding New Zealand passport holders, but am unsure if it would apply as my original stay began prior to 2001. Unsigned question added by User:MrHull

You should probably contact the Australian High Comission in the UK for advice - [9]. Exxolon (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give legal advice. --Quest09 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To comment on the law would be inappropriate, as noted above. The following text is for you to review or have an official review on your behalf. If you google “New Zealanders living in Australia”, the first entry is for “Fact Sheet 17” Issued by the Australian government and found here:

In conjunction with the introduction of the new bilateral social security arrangement between Australia and New Zealand on 26 February 2001, the Australian Government also announced that New Zealand citizens who arrive in Australia on or after 27 February 2001 must apply for, and be granted, Australian permanent residence if they wish to access certain social security payments not covered by the bilateral agreement, obtain Australian citizenship or sponsor their family members for permanent residence. Under transitional provisions, these changes do not affect New Zealand citizens who:

♦ were in Australia on 26 February 2001 as SCV holders

♦ were outside Australia on 26 February 2001, but were in Australia as an SCV :holder for a total of 12 months in the 2 years prior to that date, and subsequently returned to Australia, or

♦ have a certificate, issued under the Social Security Act 1991, stating that they were residing in Australia on a particular date. These certificates are no longer issued.

// BL \\ (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give legal advice. Ignore other answers, they are just trolls!!--Quest09 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Quest09, for your concern. I am not a troll. I am providing information, not interpretation. // BL \\ (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Quest09 we are NOT "just troll"s. If you can't contribute civilly here, please don't bother contributing at all. Exxolon (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is giving advice trolling? It may be inappropriate, but it isn't trolling. --Tango (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. She may hail from northern climes, but Bielle is the least troll-like user on Wikipedia. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DFTT guys... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? The OP is not a troll, and neither are any of the respondents, so there's no feeding going on here. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was referring to the responses to the claims of BL as a troll. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Quest09 was way out of line. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking about you all being "just trolls" (where is your sense of humour?) and serious about it being legal advice. Quest09 (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people trolls is the Wikipedia equivalent of joking about terrorism at an airport. Just don't do it; or, if you really have to make a joke about it, make it very clear that it's a joke. It certainly wasn't clear from your bald accusation above. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'stuff' happens, Jack. Just imagine that someone meets you in a plane and says "Hi, Jack!" Quest09 (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gods etc

Is the concept of a deity (or indeed any being without a material body) considered consistent with modern philosophy and/or science? --rossb (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a single "modern philosophy". Some philosophies include deities, some don't. The existence of a deity is usually unfalsifiable, so isn't scientific. It isn't necessarily inconsistent with science, just outside it. (The specific claims of most actual religions are often falsifiable and are inconsistent with science, but the concept of religion in general isn't.) --Tango (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it be?..hotclaws 20:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't what be? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT science: "Beings without material body" is vague. I'd personally argue (and I'm a Christian!) that God is a physical concept, in that he interacts with the observable world, albeit subtley. In which case, perhaps not, but there are many different conceptions of God. Something that doesn't interact with the observable world is OUTSIDE of science's domain of applicability, IMHO.

WRT philosophy: depends whose philosophy. I know of no concensus in philosophy.--Leon (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the sense that God's interaction with the world is primarily miraculous, that is his involvement is usually credited to one-off, unrepeatable miracles, that would also be outside of the realm of scienctific study, which requires repeatability. One of the basic principles of a scientific conclusion is that it is independent of person, of time, and of space; that is it should be repeatable by anyone at any time. A single, unrepeatable miracle does not really work that way. So we have two sorts of concepts of God's work. God the creator who set the universe in motion and established the way it works. This view is perfectly consistant with science, which could be viewed as a means of discovering the details of God's creation; however God is unecessary for such laws, so science tends to ignore God, but that does not mean it disproves him or proves He doesn't exist; it just doesn't deal with Him at all. The other view is of God the intervener, who interacts with the world in the form of miracles, which as noted, are also not really the purview of science, since they cannot be made on demand, and cannot therefore be studied as such. --Jayron32 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think hotclaws is referring to the "isn't necessarily inconsistent" part of Tango's response - is that right? In that case, it's easy enough to imagine/reconcile/whatever, for example, a deity starting the universe over a dozen billion years ago, and then just letting it roll out. No contradiction per se, but as Tango points out it is unfalsifiable, hence unscientific. Whether that's a yes or a no to your question is up to you. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Laplace said, I have no need of that hypothesis. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others do have such a need. And no one has a monopoly on the truth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others feel that they have such a need. Whether they actually do or not is up for debate (but not here!). --Tango (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was in part about the compatibility of religion and science. I know people who are scientists, who believe in evolution, and are religious. So there need not be any incompatibility. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately they consider it consistent which is what the questioner asked about. Dmcq (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In his 1999 work Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, Stephen Jay Gould promoted the widely respected (though not uncontested) concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria or NOMA, which accepts that the proper concerns of Religion and of Science (in their modern definitions) do not overlap (although they extensively border each other), that therefore neither can either validate or invalidate the other, and that those who think otherwise are mistaken. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian view on WW2 today?

What are the Italians' views and attitudes on World War 2 today? You hear about the German and Japanese views, but I haven't really heard the Italians come up as often. 24.6.46.106 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very difficult question! Being Italian myself, I think I can say that, generally, Italians feel much less guilty than Germans. In Italy there a are currently strong political parties ispired to the basical ideals of Fascism (but the ones really fascist are few and very little!). It's a common thinking to absolve Italian actions during WWII blaming Nazism instead (believing that was Hitler to trick Italy into entering WWII and to deport jews to Germany, and that Italy was just an unaware puppet of Nazism). Surely a lot of people have a strong hatred against our fascist past (it's common for leftist people to accuse their rivals to be fascist), but there are also people openly praising Mussolini's policies and that's something I would't expect from Germans. For exaple, it's a common saying that during Fascism the trains were always on time! Even Berlusconi claimed that Mussolini "had been a benign dictator who did not murder opponents but sent them "on holiday". But at same time Fini, a member of centre-right party People of Freedom, said that fascism was an absolute evil. Generally right-wing politicians tend to blame Nazi-Fascism for their crimes during WWII and for the killing of jews but at the same time absolving Mussolini as a good statist who made a lot of improvements like draining swamps and creating roads. At the same time, they are gratefull that U.S.A. invaded Italy, but this is mostly because at the time Italy was already invaded by Germany. --151.51.24.225 (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some interesting details here; 1) In Italy, there is a continuity in Fascist political organizing after WWII. Whilst Nazism was clamped down on quite harshly in West & East Germany, the neo-Fascist movements had a (albeit marginal) presence in Italian post-war politics. 2) There has definately been a shift in government views on the fascist past since the mid-1990s. The entry of Alleanza Nazionale in the first coalition government marked a historic shift. The fact that AN is now merged into Berlusconi's party means that there are ppl that represent a continuity from the fascist movement inside the government. 3) An important element in Italian histiography on the war is the Italian resistance. Italians could, unlike Germans, boast of having had 10,000s of antifascist resistance fighters during the war. Songs and imagery of the partisan struggle are important historical motifs, at least for a section of the Italian population. 4) Highlighting the role of the resistance was important in shaping an Italian identity that would be conciliatory with the Allied victors. The movie Rome, Open City was notable that it enabled an alternative viewpoint to an international audience, and I recall that it was released just before an important international conference (can't remember which though). In contrast, in Germany a notion collective guilt was institutionalized through the building of memorials, etc.. --Soman (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

French language requirements in Canada

Given that both English and French are official languages in Canada, I've been wondering:

What kinds of jobs in Canada require the knowledge of French in addition to English?
Are there any geographic areas (other than Québec) where it is nearly impossible to get a respectable job if one does not speak French?

128.2.247.20 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. jobs with the federal government. jobs in Quebec. 2. yes, all areas of the country.69.156.126.17 (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

For your second question, 69.159 must be joking, because you can be Prime Minister even if you don't speak French...I suppose it depends on your idea of "respectable job", but the vast majority of Canadians couldn't put more than two sentences together in French, so it's almost completely irrelevant that French is an official language. And for your first question, 69.159 is not quite correct either. Federal jobs ideally require both French and English, but in practise that is often not the case. If you took the required amount of French classes in high school they'll probably consider that fluent enough, even if you can't speak French at all. If you are working a federal job in Ottawa, especially one that would deal with Quebec frequently, then yes of course a fluent knowledge of French would be required; but if you are working a federal job in, say, Calgary, there is a 0% chance you will need French. New Brunswick, and parts of Ontario and Manitoba, do have French-speaking communities, and French is also an official language of New Brunswick. But still, federal jobs that deal with Quebec are pretty much the only ones where you would need French. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of Canada, I think Adam is basically right, though my sense is that proficiency in both French and English greatly increases a person's chances of promotion in a federal job simply because proficiency in both languages increases a person's capacity to deal with all provinces in the country. The same is true to a lesser extent of private-sector jobs, or at least client-facing jobs, in companies with a nationwide presence. But a lack of French does not make it "nearly impossible to get a respectable job" in most parts of Canada. Even in Quebec, at least in the city of Montreal, it is possible to have a "respectable job" without much French because of the still sizeable Anglophone community there and the widespread knowledge of English among Francophones. For example, a psychologist with an English-speaking clientele could get by without French in Montreal. He could employ a bilingual administrative assistant to handle government permits, contractors, and such. The same is true of professors at McGill University. Marco polo (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops sorry, wrote yes when meant no. you can get a good job anywhere with only english. only in quebec with only french69.156.126.17 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

Haha, I thought it might have been a typo. I agree with all of the above, I'm in Calgary and very few of the people I know speak passable French and most are employed (although not by the federal government). One place it might come up, however, is immigration. It used to be the case that if you spoke French (and/or English) you got "points" or whatever on your application, along with other desirable attributes (family in Canada, job lined up etc). That is why my English parents claimed to speak conversational French on their application and then waited with bated breath to see if they (and their O-Level French unused since the mid 1970s) would get called on it when they got here (it wasn't).

As far as I know that's still the case, but it may have been changed. TastyCakes (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingualism is also an asset if you're looking to work for the province of Ontario, which offers some services in French. Lots of jobs that require you to deal with people from across Canada, such as public relations jobs for a national company, often require French proficiency even if the position is located in an area of the country without a large French-speaking population, such as Toronto. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefields Used More Than Once

Are there any battlefields in history on which a major battle has been fought at some point, thereby making that place world famous primarily for that reason (e.g. Waterloo, Verdun, Ypres, Hastings, etc.), but then have had another battle fought on the same site in some later (different) war, giving rise to such naming method as 'The 2nd Battle Of [such and such] ([Name of War])' or some such? I believe there would be, given the fact that battles are generally fought on ground which has strategic importance to the overall war, but cannot think of a single one at the moment. I am not just asking for European battles, however, and would like to know about battles in other regions of the globe. TIA! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many second battle of ... entries in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how many of these were fought on exactly the same ground, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tagishsimon, however, these would all appear to be battles within the same war as 'The First Battle of ....', and therefore not quite what I am looking for. It would make sense that there would be a number of battles fought on roughly the same ground as each other within a war, as offensives and counter-offensives unfold. What I am specifically looking for is battles fought over the same ground in different wars, possibly even between different combatants, yet called by more or less the same name. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I looked through a lot of those (but not all, I'll admit), and I couldn't find any that met KageTora's criterion that it be a different war. Battles of the Isonzo gets up to #12, but again they're all the same war. If you don't insist on the "second battle of XXX" rubric, but just battles in the same place in different war, then there are three Battle of Basra entries, for three different wars. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best example of this is the Battle of Thermopylae, which has four completely different battles. Perhaps also Siege of Jerusalem, which has numerous different sieges, some of which do not involve the Jews at all. There are many more, these are the first two that popped into my head, but I'll look for some more. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the Battle of Brentford (1016) and Battle of Brentford (1642), but they may have been a couple of miles apart; our articles are not clear, and IIRC the location of only one of them is marked on OS maps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Megiddo is another one, and Battle of Baghdad. (The Middle East will have a lot of these.) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The two battles of Bull Run, for instance, or of Sedan. Battles very often occur at such-and-such a place for a reason (strategic importance, etc) and thus are likely to recur. And think of sieges. There have been any number of sieges of Rome...Rhinoracer (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two battles of Bull Run took place during the same war, though. Siege of Rome works though. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston, SC was a major battle in both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I don't think either one was referred to as "The Battle of Charleston," but I just typed "The Battle of Charleston" into Google and it gave me two suggestions: "The Battle of Charleston Revolutionary War" or "The Battle of Charleston Civil War". As for the location of the battle, both were land-to-sea battles in the Charleston Harbor. -- kainaw ™ 12:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you allow sieges then there's loads: Siege of Rhodes (disambiguation), Siege of Syracuse, Battle of Carthage, List of sieges of Constantinople, Battle of Kiev, Siege of Chartres, Siege of Paris... there's more at List of sieges, but I can't be bothered to go through them all. Hut 8.5 12:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Lots of information for me to look into there. I should have specified that I wanted non-siege battles, though, as they were obvious candidates from the start, but I'll look into them, too, as some of the lesser known sieges may be of interest and of use in what I want this information for. Thanks! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list of disambiguation pages starting with "Battle" might help, although you will still have to check them all to see if they are from different wars. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what you are looking for, but John Keegan in his book The Face of Battle considers three battles as representative of three eras of warfare: Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme; fought five hundred years apart but within a few miles of each other. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were Battles of Yorktown in both the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkirk has been the scene of major combat at least 6 times. In general I would think that you could pick just about any field in the Belgian/Dutch and surrounding area and there would be a good chance that battles had occurred there more than once. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean like the Second Battle of Old Pierre's Field, The One With The Cows In, Down By The Stream. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Army

Does the Mexican Army have a national march? if so is it Zacetacas by Genaro Codina. ?86.1.246.190 (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)archie.g[reply]

I've moved this over from the Help Desk. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Unknown Painting

What is the name of the painting on the cover of this book [10]?

Thanks in advance, 220.245.45.84 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which philosopher has made the biggest personal difference to contemporary life?

a) For all time, b) active since 1800? For many philosophers, if they had not existed someone else would have come up with the same ideas, by analogy with the invention of the telephone or flying machine which had several people in various countries working on similar ideas. 78.144.255.50 (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]