Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 15

Tahiti

2 question:

Did the Kingdom of Tahiti in the early 19th century had queen consorts?

Who is the current pretender (recognized or unrecognized) to the Pomare dynasty of Tahiti? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Queen_of_Tahiti has the answer to number two (see the bottom of the article). Falconus^{p t c} 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For number one, I think it's a yes, sort of. The impression I've been getting from reading about this era is that both the title of king of Tahiti and the ascribing of the ultimate authority to the husband rather than the wife may have been European views imposed on top of a different Tahitian social structure. There were several chiefs, no one supreme, and both husband and wife in such a "royal" couple seemed to have power of negotiating relations and making decisions.

Anyway, you need a good history of Tahiti, but for starters online have a look at Tahiti: The Island Paradise, by Nicholas Senn (BiblioBazaar, 2008 – but a reprint of an older book), ISBN 9780559279393. On page 61-63 it gives Tetua as the name of one of Pomare I's (to 1803) wives, and possibly the person responsible for his influence. (The wikipedia page says he had four wives).

Page 67 gives Tetuanui as the first wife of Pomare II (1803-1821); page 78 mentions another wife called Terite and a third with no given name described simply as Pomare vehine. And page 81 mentions another wife, referred to Marama – although as that was her father's name it might not actually have been her own name.

Pomare III (1821-1827) died at age seven. He was succeeded by his sister Pomare IV who reigned to 1877, which takes you out of the early 19th century. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the annual budget of the US Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser?

Also, on a related note, does anyone know where I can find a state department budget more detailed than simply the "budget in brief" presented on their website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You could try reading the Congressional Record, since the budget will have been approved by Congress, or the Federal Register, because I believe that all executive departments publish reports in it. However, I've never used either one (except for small PDF excerpts that I found with Google), so I can't help you search through it. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Israeli terrorists

Have any Jewish people blown themselves up to kill a bunch of Muslims? 71.100.5.245 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See Jewish religious terrorism and Zionist political violence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Zionist terrorists were actually the first to start using car bombing in the Middle East (see Stern gang), against both Palestinians and British civilians. Only later were the tactics taken up by Palestinians.* Many of the terrorist tactics we have come to associate with Muslim terrorists originated elsewhere. Palestinian suicide bombing comes most directly, if I recall, from the example set by the Tamil tigers. (A very interesting read on this subject is Mike Davis, Buda's Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb, 2007). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

*Which, I think should be obvious to any clear-thinking person, does not make it right or fair or anything like that. But it does serve as a counterpoint to those who believe there is some kind of Muslim exceptionalism regarding this kind of terrorism. There have been a lot of different groups engaging in terrorism in the 20th century. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

While not actually blowing himself up, Baruch Goldstein himself could hardly have expected to survive the massacre he planned, so it counts as suicidal terrorism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An exceptionally prominent Jew gave expressed approval ^{Joh 15:13} of sacrificing one's life for a cause. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But he was not speaking on behalf of Judaism -- thus his assertion can no more represent Judaism as it could people who wore sandals or those who had long hair. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He might beg to differ. He was Jewish and claimed to be the Messiah and/or was claimed to be by His followers, who were also Jewish. He was dispatched, as a number of contemporary Messiah claimants were. The difference was that His following did not die with Him. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 07:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But he was rejected by the Jews. In Judaism, he is a false prophet and his message thus cannot be said to be representative of Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. See the article INRI. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: he was rejected by most jews. Others followed him and began the early Christian religion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, for sacrifing one's own life, but not others. Unless He made oxcart bombs in His spare time. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't exactly Jewish, but consider the life of Samson: he died by intentionally pulling down over his head a Philistine temple that was full of Philistines (enemies of Israel). The biblical account notes that he proclaimed that he wanted to die with the Philistines, and it records that he was quite successful in his attempt, killing more Philistines in that event than in all the rest of his life. The polytheistic Philistines weren't Muslims, of course, but this might be an inspiration to militant Jews. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, but what tense should be used with Biblical narratives? Esther is in the past (i.e. historical) tense, Book of Job is in the present (fictional), while Samson blithely switches back and forth in the first paragraph! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think that question has been discussed at length among the editors who specialize in Bible articles, so you might want to seek out that discussion. The O.T., in particular, gets tricky, because a lot of it walks the line between history and folk tales. Also, keep in mind that the Bible (as with the Quran) are primary sources, so restating them "as if they were true" is also tricky ground. Seems like it would be safer to treat them as literature, in which case describing their "plot lines" in the present tense works, and also reads better. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 07:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject heading says "Israeli terrorists" but the question asks "Have any Jewish people blown themselves up to kill a bunch of Muslims". While definitions of terrorism vary, many don't require the perpetrator sacrifice their lives. And not all Israelis are Jewish nor are all Jewish people Israeli. Moses is sometimes called a terrorist for this reason. However the bible would suggest Moses was perhaps more of a messenger or spokesperson for God. So in those terms, it's perhaps better to say God is a terrorist and there are many actions in the Old Testament/Tanakh which some people particularly some atheists would argue are terrorist acts. (this mentions Moses as well) [1] [2] Of course whether God can be considered an Israeli or Jewish is a different issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Geography / General knowledge question may be some history

Which place has an old structure (now a museum) that was the site of the absolute first utilization of a now well-used natural resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.95.8 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather obscure for homework. It sounds more like a pub quiz question or something. --Tango (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a home work question. I have tried it myself to research. Hence sought help.

Basically i am looking for places where the mostly used natural resources like coal oil gas were first used. will apprecaite help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.95.8 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The way you initially framed the question sounded like you either already knew the answer or you were repeating a specific question given to you by someone else. Do you have a specific location that you were looking for in mind that you simply cannot come up with the specific name, or are you looking for examples of anywhere that would fit the description?

Coal has been used for thousands of years, and I greatly doubt that the location of the "absolute first utilization" is known, let alone still standing as a museum (See Coal and History of coal mining).

I think the same situation is true for oil as well - see Petroleum, Petroleum industry, and History of petroleum. —Akrabbim^talk 18:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The first building to be lit by gas was William Murdock's house in Redruth - this might very well be a museum today, but we don't have an article on it. The first non-private building to be lit by gas was the Soho Foundry in Birmingham - this is still a working factory, but it does have a small private museum attached to it. The first building to be lit by electricity was Joseph Swan's house in Low Fell - probably _not_ a museum, based on our article. Tevildo (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I have a definite answer. The Museum of Science and Industry, Birmingham was the first place that electricity was used commercially (for electroplating). However, it closed in 1997 and is now derelict. Tevildo (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd question the certainty of this claim of precedence. Artifacts known as the Baghdad Batteries, excavated in the vicinity of that city and thought to be approaching two millennia old, have been interpreted as primitive electric cells putatively used to electroplate gold on to jewellery or similar small items. This would presumably have been a commercial application. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer may be Cragside, which is considered the first place of use of domestic electric lighting. It also used hydraulic power. 78.151.123.102 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A question about "places where natural resources were first used" is welcome because it is notable information on which an encyclopedia may help. The OP's added constraints that there must be a structure at the place and the structure must now be a museum make one wonder Why is that important? Does the museum have to be open to viewing exhibits about the resource? Is this research to collate places or museums? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you are after, as it's a bit obscure, but the Gobelins Manufactory, a seventeenth century tapestry factory in Paris, now largely preserved for tours, was the first place to use chlorine - in 1785, as a dye. Warofdreams talk 01:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have guessed the rackets courts at University of Chicago but it appears not to have a museum. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• The phrase "absolute first utilization" pretty much rule out any answers involving coal, natural gas, or petroleum/oil -- all have been used since pre-historic times, albeit in tiny quantities. Answers involving electricity or power are wrong, because the question calls for a "natural resource", which electricity and power aren't. The answer may well be Gobelins Manufactory for chlorine, cited above, or it may be that my fellow Wikipedians and I still haven't solved the riddle. That's the problem when the riddle-poser doesn't know the answer ... --M@rēino 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

two victims nowadays

It's understood Francine Hughes was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity for setting fire to her abusive husband, James "Mickey" Hughes, while he slept in 1977. I know Tracey Thurman is partially paralyzed from when she was nearly killed by her abusive husband, Charles "Buck" Thurman in 1983. I was wondering what those two women and their children are doing nowadays. Is Buck Thurman back in jail?24.90.204.234 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless they've done something newsworthy, I doubt anyone here could tell you much. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright restrictions on Olympic photos

Reading this story from the Signpost, I was confused about the IOC's grounds for the lawsuit. Are they saying that it's somehow a violation of copyright laws to buy an Olympic ticket, take a picture there, and permit the picture to be used commercially? Or is it some other crazy matter? Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they say that when you buy a ticket, you agree to the smallprint associated with it, which includes the no-commercial-photography stipulation. They (and other big-money sports events) also restrict commercial video, and real-time (or real-time-ish) live-blogging of events. The practical legality of this (whether such a contract stipulation is really legal) is untested in most jurisdictions, but that's one of those pay-$10M-to-find-out-in-court questions. 87.114.150.241 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) My understanding is that an Olympics event, like many musical, artistic, cultural and sporting events, place controls on the intellectual property derived from the "performance" at the event by tacking conditions onto the patron's entry.

This is how it works normally: when you buy a ticket to enter a venue, you are being granted a licence to enter the land (venue). This licence can be granted on certain terms. These terms can be incorporated by reference and, for example, printed on your ticket. (Hence the reference to the ticket.)

These conditions are contractual in nature: you hand over money and promise to abide by these rules, and in return the owner of the land grants you a licence to enter upon the land.

Presumably one of the conditions of entry to the venue is that the patron will not make commercial use of, or permit the commercial use of, photos of competitors taken at the event.

Alternatively, it may stipulate that you agree to assign the intellectual property in your photos to the IOC, who then grants a licence back to you to use it for non-commercial purposes, though I don't think this is the case here, since the article seems to refer to the photographer granting licences.

Assuming the first case, then, if you then allow the photo to be used commercially, you have, on the face of it, breached a term of the contract between you and the IOC (?) formed when you bought a ticket to the event. Note that this would not be a question of infringement of copyright, but merely a contractual matter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking a sports event is not a "performance"—it does not exist in "fixed form" other than the copyrighted works made from it (recordings, photographs, etc.) which is in the US case anyway required for something to be copyrightable (if sports were scripted, it would be something else... WWE, for example, probably falls into a different category than the Olympics).

To me, it looks like this is a contractual issue and not a copyright one, looking at the IOC's specific requests. Presumably if you had somehow gotten in without a ticket, it wouldn't be an issue. (You'd be breaking other rules, but not copyright.) Copyright seems to be the mechanism of control here, but not the underlying issue of dispute. But I'm no lawyer. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really no different from going to the theater, discretely taking a few shots of some hot production, and then trying to sell them. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

...actually, yes it is quite different. "Dramatic performances" are specially covered by copyright law. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The two are quite different in nature. A sporting event is not an artistic work or (arguably) a performance. However, in some jusridictions performers face the same issue in preventing recording of the performance as the IOC would face in preventing recording of the sporting event from an intellectual property standpoint - hence why the prohibition on photography is often also enforced contractually as a condition of entry instead.

The issue here is copyright, but not the IOC's copyright - it's the photographer's copyright and how he has licensed its use. The IOC probably has no copyright in the images, and only has a contractual claim. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the issue here is contract law; the IOC is not claiming that their copyright was violated, rather that the person who took and licenced the picture for commercial use violated the contact they entered into when they purchased the ticket. This isn't about intellectual property; its about violating a contract. --Jayron32 03:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the way the contract was breached was through the (allegedly) inappropriate licensing of the images. IP is an issue, though the claim is contractual in nature. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Right... again, I think the issue is contractual, but IP is being used as the mechanism of control. The contract says, "you handle your IP in a certain way"—it's not a straight IP problem though (which would not be a contract so much as a statement—"we own the IP on this"—which they can't do in this case, I don't think). --Mr.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

October 16

what is the hookers, escorts, and masseurs association?

i was at target and there were people with these i heart hookers t shirts advocating for more prostitution or something yelling, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HELP SUPPORT ABUSED PROSTITUTES? i was quite confused and a bit curious and appaled, are they for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.103.253 (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Helping abused prostitutes =/= advocating for more prostitution. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk)

See Sex workers' rights. Here's an external link. Marco polo (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I found a website that is it hookers escorts and masseurs, but my question is, is this organization for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.103.253 (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

At Target??? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon in the US for political groups seeking signatures for various political measures to congregate in front of stores like Target, Costco, etc. (Or at least it wasn't when I was in California—I have to admit I haven't seen it in Massachusetts yet—there may be some ordinance banning that kind of activity, or maybe it is just less referendum-happy.) The theory is that if you put up a signing sheet for some political cause in a high-traffic area (and do this at multiple places across the state), you'll quickly be able to get the 20,000 or whatever signatures you need to introduce a referendum or whatever. The stores in front of which these are posted do not have any affiliation or connection with the group, usually. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about California, but generally speaking a political group or anyone soliciting outside of a store would be doing so on private property, and thus would have to get permission of either the mall or the store itself. They can't just plant themselves and ask people to sign petitions. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well. I do know about California: Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins. Hey, I can almost see it from my house. PhGustaf (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

More fully It's very common to see petitioners for almost anything at California outside malls. The malls can post signs saying, "Ignore those guys", and I think limit their number, but they get to make their points there. PhGustaf (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here in the heartland, they would probably be advised politely to pack up and leave before the nice young men in the black-and-white cars with red-and-blue lights arrive. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 00:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Or worse yet, before mall security shows up - a guy named Vito, who is known to lack a sense of humor. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Around here, the mall security guys are pretty tame. The Vitos and Vinnies work at the casinos. PhGustaf (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

They work where the local businesses need them the most. The protest described here would probably fall on deaf ears in Vegas. But counting cards? That's serious business. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 00:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

From a quick glance, I don't see any reason to suspect that organisation is not real. As has been mentioned, there are definitely organisations which advocate for sex workers' rights and welfare. In New Zealand where prostitution is largely legal since 2003 there exists a Prostitutes Collective in existence since 1987 http://www.nzpc.org.nz/ http://www.nzpc.org.nz/page.php?page_name=About%20Us who are definitely real. As has been mentioned these organisations don't necessarily advocate for more prostitution although they may not share your apparent stigma to sex work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you Geolocate to California, which is wonderfully progressive about all sorts of social issues. Most likely they were trying to raise awareness for sex worker abuse, as linked above by another poster. As to their methods, you are the only witness and we can pass no judgment. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in COYOTE. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a considerable number of such organisations listed in Category:Sex worker organizations. (I am particularly impressed with the name of the Canadian one listed under C). As pointed out by others above, most such organisations are principally involved in making conditions safe and healthy for sex workers (a laudable cause), not in promoting it as a career path. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd abbreviation

I've run across a manuscript document from Indiana from 70 years ago in which a man named John frequently writes his name as "Jno." He occasionally will use "John", so I know that I have the name correct, but I've never seen such an abbreviation. Is this at all a common abbreviation? Or is this guy perhaps dyslexic? Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not dyslexic. Jno. used to be an abbreviation for John. Consider John Witherspoon, signer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, who signed his name clearly as "Jno Witherspoon". --Jayron32 03:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The "o" was usually a superscript, i.e. Jn^o. See, for example, John Harvie's signature here. Other abbreviations used by signers of the Declaration include Rob^t, Sam^l, W^m, Tho^s, and Ja^s, all very common at the time. The inverted letter order of Jn^o does seem a bit strange in comparison, but it too was standard. —Kevin Myers 03:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My favorite of those style was Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, who abbreviated his rather odd first name as "Dan^l of S^t Tho^s", which used the superscript three times in one name. --Jayron32 03:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers; I've never observed "Jno" before. I've run across the superscript idea in other, older, documents (if you look in the Language archives, you can find me asking questions about early nineteenth-century spelling in southern Pennsylvania, regarding one of these documents) in many forms. As these are church meeting minutes, I often found both M^r and Rev^d being used, as well as a Samuel whose name is spelled Sam^l. This Indiana document is different, however: it contains records from 1918 to 1938; the superscript is not used. Was this abbreviation still in common use into the 1930s? I'll not be surprised if it's simply that this guy is unusual; he consistently spells "minutes" (i.e. the meeting minutes) as "minuet" or "minuets" (e.g. "The minuet of the last meeting were read..."), for a reason I've not discovered. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Google Books tells me that in the New York Times Index of 1922, the abbreviation "Jno" was used 100 times. So it was still around, though I imagine it was getting a little musty by then. —Kevin Myers 04:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you go to Google and enter ["jno" abbreviation] you will see this same question asked many times, going back a number of years. The reason for the usage seems to be lost in antiquity. One theory is that it was somehow to distinguish "John" from "Jonathan". Another is that the superscript "o" is actually a fancified period. The John Harvie signature linked earlier would seem to challenge that, as he had a period... under what looks like a double oo (though it could just be a fancified swirl), thus adding a layer to this little mystery. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This PDF posted by BYU [3] lists a lot of the abbreviations used for names. They say John could be abbreviated "Jn" or "Jno" and that Jonathan was abbreviated "Jnthn". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

John Dee on the colours of angels

In a book on the history of mirrors, I read a passing reference to John Dee's investigations into the colours of angels, but can find no other mention of it on the Net - can anyone point me to it, please? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We have John Dee ... deals with his angel summoning activities. One can imaging the angels, sitting in heaven, thinking "buzz off, barking mad person, I'm not playing your game". --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Although rather a dubious work, this book appears to accurately reproduce Dee's musings on the subject. Warofdreams talk 11:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that a good deal of John Dee's original (manuscript) writings are preserved and available for study in the British Library, but have never been published in printed or facsimile form: in principle you could consult them directly. I learned this a couple of years ago in a lecture/demonstration on Enochian magick given by someone researching that subject. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these - sadly (for many reasons) i'm not in the UK, so can't visit the British Library. The book I read mentioned he went to especial pains to discover angels' colours - does anyone know what specifically he did to find these colours, or did he just ask the angels in person? Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dee's alleged conversations with the angels (via Kelley's mediumship) were extensive so it's likely that either they volunteered the information, or that he asked for it, directly. (Whether the conversations were in some way genuine, self-delusion on Dee's and/or Kelley's part, or concoctions of Kelley, is of course an open question.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he posted questions on some divine reference desk - thanks for your help, 87. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky?

This is a reference desk, not a "philosophical debate" desk

An aphorism written by the Polish poet Stanislaw Jerzy Lec. Now, just for philosophical debate, Assuming that a 4-leafed clover does bring luck, does this brings truth to the conclusion of the man's lucky day? I have thought about this for a long time, and here are my thoughts about it. Let me first clarify something. Being lucky = Attaining something people believe brings luck (like the 4-clover) + One's own belief that such a luck-bringing object exists and that it does hold this power. Now; assume that X is a person who believes in luck-bringing objects. And, There exists a 4-leafed Clover (A conventionally agreed-upon luck-bringing object) X encountered a Clover (can't tell if four leafed or not). X thinks he is either lucky OR not lucky. Even if X believes that he's encountering lucky events, he can't justify his luck through reasoning. HOWEVER; It's us, the so-called external observers, who know the truth of the situation. HE IS IN FACT LUCKY, or at least we know that this is what he should ultimately deduce. NOW. Note that there's a BIG difference between the factors that make a belief comes true, independent of me, the experiencing person, and between the the factors that make this belief comes true to ME. Thus, in the example above, It's agreed upon that a four leafed clover will bring luck - these are the factors that make the belief true (four leaves). But I didn't experience this fact due to inadequate reasoning tools, hence for me, I didn't satisfy the requirements of justification, and I couldn't transcend from THINKING about it to KNOW it... The problem is, MANY epistemologists think that if these two factors mentioned above didn't match, then you have NO KNOWLEDGE of the fact in question. That is, An experienced philosopher would answer that, since X didn't justify, he didn't know. What one doesn't know, doesn't exist, at least in the Understanding. Hardest thing about philosophy is that one must use formal logic, not the informal methods of argumentation, to prove his argument. Still, that's why philosophy is great. This is typically similar to why mathematicians don't trust mathematical proofs if brought upon via PC calculations, as they might go wrong at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLaguna (talk • contribs) 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC) That's an aphorism, not amorphism. 194.39.218.10 (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Counting objects such as the leaves on a clover is a skill and as such, has nothing to do with luck. Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC) The reference desk or information desk of a library is a public service counter where professional librarians provide library users with direction to library materials, advice on library collections and services, and expertise on multiple kinds of information from multiple sources. I'm simply asking for guidance on a Philosophy-related topic. I know many wikipedians here can point me to rather plausible sources to fully understand the aphorism mentioned. Maybe If I hadn't added my personal opinion about it I wouldn't have been adding this comment! And again, My premise did assume that a 4-leafed clover does bring luck. DarkLaguna (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing reference to primary source in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papier-m%C3%A2ch%C3%A9_Tiara

The article with the above URL, "Papier-mâché Tiara," seems to be missing an important reference citation to a primary source document. I copy the middle paragraph under the section "Continuing usage": "A new silver papal tiara to replace the destroyed ones was only manufactured in 1820, but the papier-mâché tiara continued in usage for decades afterwards, its lightweight design making it a comfortable alternative to the heavier silver alternative for popes as they aged. It was finally officially retired from usage in 1845, when a new lightweight tiara was manufactured for Pope Gregory XVI. Contemporary reports suggested that Pope Gregory viewed it as demeaning that the Vicar of Christ should be seen wearing a crown made not from gold or silver but from mere crushed paper."

It seems that the author omitted reference to a primary source which must have mentioned the existence of the lightweight tiara manufactured for Gregory XVI in 1845. I have done a tremendous amount of checking this out, with the aid of the Google search engine. I found no references at all to this 1845 tiara, outside the Wikipedia article itself. The lone reference: Lord Twining, A History of the Crown Jewels of Europe, 1960, seems to be related to another part of this article. Still, I thought it might be the hoped-for primary source, so I had a reference librarian go through it. She was kind enough to supply PDFs of the key pages referring to papal tiaras, but there is not a whisper about this 1845 lightweight tiara.

In conclusion, it would be thrilling to resolve this matter, if you can obtain from the article's author either a true reference to the tiara in question or a restatement of the sentence in which the claim appears. Either of these options assumes that there is no typographical error with respect to the year 1845 or that the statement as given contains a factual error.

Elbuckoaqui (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Elbuckoaqui, welcome to Wikipedia and kudos on doing all that research and checking. I hope you stay and continue to contribute in this way. Looking in the article's history (click the "history" tab at the top of the page), it says that the creator of the article is User:Jtdirl. The way to ask them about their source is to go to their talk page User talk:Jtdirl, and edit the page to leave them a message. They can respond either under your message or on your own talk page, and hopefully you can get that resolution. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The article List of papal tiaras in existence lists three tiaras commissioned by Gregory XVI, but gives an unknown date for the lightweight version. The 1845 tiara seems to have been a "heavy duty version", but both are non-links. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus

Can anybody recommend some good academic or otherwise authoritative sources on the subject? Our current sources on the subject are vaguely appalling for their low quality - a blog article by Larisa Alexandrovna repeating rumors, a bizarre and utterly unconvincing interpretation of a vague one-liner in a White House memo, and ostensible reprints of NATO and Washington internal documents with no convincing proof of their provenance. Ray^Talk 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding the entry "China" in Wikipedia's database.

I'm sorry if I am wrong. I had mostly just skimmed the article, but I could only find one instance of a round-about population number thruought the entry.

I would like to see how the population had changed during and thruought China's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.245.122 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For more detail, with some history, see Demographics of the People's Republic of China. The article goes back to the first PRC censuses of the mid 20th century. —Akrabbim^talk 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Historical Population" section of that article has estimates going back to 2100BC. TastyCakes (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the good ol' CIA World Factbook. I missed that part. —Akrabbim^talk 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

October 17

which type a plant of miswak is used for these important person? Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H, Prophet Isa Aliah Salam and Prophet Musa Aliah Salam for cleaning the teeth?

According to our Miswak article, Salvadora persica, the arak or peelu tree. Tevildo (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

William and the Nasties

This is a short story for children from the book William the Detective – it isn't published any more as far as I know, due to its (debateable) anti-Semitism. Does anybody know of a (free) online source where I can get the whole text... Google Books? Something similar? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 13:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find an online text, but it appears that while the story was eventually removed from William the Detective, this did not happen until the Macmillan edition of 1986 and it was thus still in the Armada editions published in the 1970s. These can be obtained online for relatively little, for example here's one. This could be an alternative way for you to read the story if you wish. Karenjc 15:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hadith about killing anyone who insults Prophets of Islam?

Any idea where such a hadith can be found? A muslim here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=det7TUsLy8U&feature=player_embedded seems to be quoting one from somewhere. Шизомби (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This website says it is from Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain but gives no more details and I cannot find similar mentioned elsewhere. This website describes the extremism often found at islam4uk and fabricating quotes to support a view is common in most causes. This site has the well referenced hadith from many works, "He who insults Ali, insults me. He who insults me, insults Allah. And he who insults Allah, Allah will throw him into Hell" Mustadrak, hakim, vol 3 p 121. 18:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Here is a fatwa on the question. meltBanana 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese People

In Talk:Gweilo#derogatory, Cheerful Eric mentions "It's a the result of several hundred years of living under British rule.".

I came to think, is this the result of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? I want to point out that "feilo" ("肥佬", meaning "fat man") is a very common word for calling males fat. It's systematic, and by that I mean that it is regularly used; some people are actually called Fat Man "肥佬", or people use it as a nickname, or people refer to these fat men as "Fat Man" "肥佬", in the way that they would say "Hey, Fat Man, come here.". This is seen in movies. Another example is Lydia Shum. In the article, it says "She was affectionately known to peers and fans as Feifei (肥肥) ...." (肥 meaning fat). If I were her, I would never let anyone call me that. And this is public.

There are other names that people call each other, but maybe someone can list them. So in light of these phenomena, are these phenomena the result of

• Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
• The opposite of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, where culture affects the language (we and others (people) use)
• Linguistics (where the rules of Cantonese grammer and syntax require Cantonese people to be so forward with names)
• Anthropology (where Cantonese culture does not mind insulting names)?174.3.111.148 (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no real answer, but I would like to add something re: your last proposition. How do you know something (for instance, putting remarks about fatness into nicknames) is realy insulting? You may feel it is, and others around you may feel the same, but do the Cantonese friends of the mentioned actress feel that way? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My impression was that white people who really fitted in properly and spoke Hakka or Cantonese or whatever would be quite happy to call a chinese colleague a yellow devil. Possibly people like to keep the language and culture together so they can switch mode easily. Dmcq (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You might find it useful to examine different cultures' perspectives on ideal body types. Just as Mid-evil Europe celebrated plump figures, there is a strong association in traditional Chinese culture that fat = healthy. So, calling Lydia Shum "Fatty" might well be akin to something like "Hey, good-looking!" DOR (HK) (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Victoria of the UK + George V of Hanover?

When she was choosing a husband, Victoria obviously wasn't concerned with the fact that Albert was her first cousin. So why didn't she marry her paternal first cousin, the future King George V of Hanover, who was single at the time of her marriage to Albert? Had she married him, the Kingdom of Hanover and the UK would have formed a personal union again (assuming that Prussia didn't annex Hanover) and a member of the House of Hanover would still reign in the UK. I am reluctant to accept Victoria's love for Albert as a reason; politics had proven to be much stronger than love so many times. It seems to me that the British simply wanted to cut the ties with Hanover. Why? Was it that better to be on good terms with Prussia than to have the crown of Hanover? Was it something else? Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Albert was tall, good-looking, and intelligent; Victoria liked him immediately. He was also being promoted as her future husband by her uncle, Leopold of Belgium. IMO Victoria couldn't have done better. B00P (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of factors against George; a) he was totally blind - not much tolerence for disabilities in those days b) he was an convinced autocrat - not a good qualification for someone who would need to tiptoe through the minefield of the British Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read (source long forgotten, I'm afraid) that the British establishment was very happy to lose Hanover, since it wasn't particularly useful and had the potential to embroil them in messy German disputes. Algebraist 12:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since George was almost exactly the same age as Victoria, part of the British Royal Family (indeed second in line for the throne after his father until Victoria's first child was born), and partly raised in Britain, they were almost certainly acquainted. That he was apparently not a candidate prior to Albert may indicate that there was at best no particular attraction between them, and when the equally eligible Albert proved attractive to Victoria at her relatively early age of 17 there would have been no incentive for her, or her advisors, to look elsewhere.

(Further) In any case, since the young Victoria was very closely controlled by her Mother and other advisors (including her uncle Leopold who, as B00P mentioned above, wished to sponsor Albert), potential suitors were selected by them, much as in many arranged marriages today; it was fortunate for both Victoria and Albert that they were so mutually attracted, but if the opposite had been true, doubtless other candidates would have been presented. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The political and strategic awkwardness for the British of continental entanglements resulting from just such a dual monarchy was clearly demonstrated as early as the Seven Years' War. The medieval idea of joining together disparate nations by dynastic marriages ordinarily appeals today only to the kind of genealogists who compile huge lists of the claimants to various thrones.--Wetman (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How about King William's War (named by the American colonists for William III of Orange, husband of and co-monarch with Mary II of England and III of Scotland) or War of the Grand Alliance; the Hanoverians weren't the first imported monarchs to embroil England and Scotland in quarrels more relevant to the monarchs' continental interests than to Britain's insular, maritime and imperial ones. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

test (see if this brings it back to the front) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 18

Black Brazilian President?

Brazil's population is about 50% black. Did Brazil had a black Brazilian president? If not, is there a black Brazilian trying to run for presidency? Sonic99 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mean Pardo, not "black". You may find the article Politics of Brazil useful, as well as President of Brazil. Intelligentsium^review 02:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Intelligentsium -- why can't he mean "black"? You seem to take it for granted that black refers to skin color from a particular location (i.e. Africa) rather than a skin color. If you would take a look at, for example, the cast of the The Cosby Show, there was a variety of very dark, dark, light and very light black people for whom it was not at all bizarre to be referred to as "black" and even be directly related. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Of the five presidents mentioned in the President of Brazil article (Sarney, Collor, Franco, Cardoso, and Lula), all seem to be Hispanic or white. The major candidates mentioned in the 2010 Brazilian general election also seem to be Hispanic. As for your 50% statistic, our article on Brazil's demographics says that only 7% of the population is black. This is sourced from the 2006 census. —Akrabbim^talk 02:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hispanic? Brazilians are of Portuguese extraction, not Spanish. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While in modern usage the term usually refers to just people of Spanish descent, Hispania did include what is now Portugal so it is justifiable to use the term more broadly. --Tango (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, Brazilians are never correctly termed Hispanic (and don't even think of trying that on the Portuguese). --Nricardo (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lusitanic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil has never had a black president, nor one who was identified as Pardo. Marina Silva is expected to run for the Green Party in the next presidential election. Warofdreams talk 21:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When I say black, I mean black people and mixed people who look more african. Why Brazil never had a black or pardo president when non-whites make up a large percentage of the population? Sonic99 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because people don't vote on the basis of race, alone ? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Victoria vs. Tzu Hsi

What were the two female rulers view on each other? I read in a book by [Jean Fritz]] that Tzu Hsi was happy when she outlived Queen Victoria. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

An internet search brings up the following passage from a collection of Qing Dynasty stories and anecdotes (collected from books and periodicals) (清稗类钞), attributed to the Empress Cixi, about Queen Victoria:

"予乃最聪明之人，尝闻人言英王维多利亚事，彼于世界关系，殆不及予之半。予事业尚未告成，亦无有能逆料者，或尚有可使外人震惊之事，或尚有迥异于前之事，均未可知。英为世界最强国，然亦非维多利亚一人之力。英多贤才，各事皆由巴力门议定，彼惟画诺而已。我国大事，皆予独裁，虽有军机大臣，亦惟赞襄于平时，皇帝更何知。"

Rough translation:

"I am a most intelligent person. I often hear about Queen Victoria of Britain. Her effect on world affairs does not even match half of mine. My enterprise is not yet complete, and no-one can yet predict what will happen. There may yet be things which will amaze those outside, or which are drastically different to the past - who knows. Britain is the most powerful nation inf the world, but it is not all Victoria's own doing. Britain possesses a great deal of talent - all matters are determined by Parliament, and she only marks her assent. In our country, everything is dictated by me alone. Though we have Grand Councillors, but they only assist on a day-to-day basis; as to the Emperor - what does he know." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Queen Victoria of Tzu Hsi?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought I would help out with the Chinese end of things because that's harder to come by. Queen Vic presumably wrote in English so a lot of people should be able to find the sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ganga and Brahmaputra - Are they tributaries of each other?

The river Ganges flows through Northern India and then bifurcates into two distributaries in West Bengal namely Hugli and Padma. Padma flows to Bangladesh. On the other hand, Brahmaputra's largest distributary, Jamuna comes to Bangladesh and joins Padma and flow together till Bay of Bengal to complete their course. So, can we call Ganga as a tributary of Brahmaputra? Srinivas 10:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The two rivers share a delta and distributaries, but neither is usually considered a tributary of the other. It would be hard to say which is the "principal" river and which is the tributary. Also, each splits into distributaries before any of their distributaries merge. Marco polo (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So, we can't call them as tributaries of each other? Srinivas 05:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why has the European clothing style spread throughout the world?

Even in places like Japan or Africa people wear trousers and so on. Why has the style of clothing that originated in Europe (more exactly, in England where the suit began as horse riding clothing) become the prefered clothing of virtually every culture? 78.151.108.233 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is due to the influence of the British Empire, I imagine. --Tango (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

American hegemony. --Nricardo (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think it probably came directly from Britain, not via the USA. I don't think American culture really spread worldwide until we all started watching US television and films. British culture starting spreading as the British Empire grew. When did the rest of the world start wearing European style clothing? --Tango (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading, decades ago, in one of Vance Packard's books, that Isaac Singer, the American who founded the Singer Sewing Machine Company, started a vigorous campaign to persuade 19th-century Japanese to adopt Western dress which could be sewn and mended with his machines. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In China, trousers were adopted during the Warring States period in order to facilitate the development of an effective cavalry. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just an educated guess but the last vestiges of frequent use of traditional clothing styles in China and Japan took place by the end of the 1940s. Japan was surely influenced by the American occupation, while China was almost surely influenced by Marxism and/or the Soviet Union (e.g. Mao suit), though Chinese clothing from the 1940s-early 1980s was Western-style, but clearly not American or Western European in fashion. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Though in general there is a lot of Western wear in Asia by the end of the 19th century, long before WWII, especially in official and military contexts. For example, check out the duds of the Imperial Japanese Army, who started to dress in such a fashion at least by the 1860s. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that you are talking primarily about men's wear. In many parts of the world, traditional clothing is still worn by women—e.g. saris. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an assumption here that it was somewhat foisted upon these nations... I suspect it is more complicated than that. In many of these countries—Japan in particular comes to mind, but there are analogues elsewhere—the idea of dressing in a Western way was very much tied up with ideas about "modernization" in the late-19th century. It was seen as a direct embrace of Western power and success and a rejection of the "traditional" ways that had (allegedly) resulted in the East's declined status vis-a-vis Europe. I do agree that much of this is probably originally a British influence, though there were other colonizers as well, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese women, I understand, were wearing kimonos, especially in rural areas, into the 1950's. Asian and African fashions have certainly affected European art, clothes and furnishings, as seen from terms such as Chinoiserie and Japonisme. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Mr. 98. To go back a few centuries — as part of his modernisation campaign, Tsar Peter I of Russia forced his people to wear European clothes to help make them more European and less Asian. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Images of the Japanese diplomatic staff prior to World War II show them wearing morning coats. That has nothing to do with US occupation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In the areas of the world that are associated with terrorism, like Afganasthan (sp?) european clothing is not worn so much. 89.242.102.196 (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oriental vaginas

Slow down, it's actually a serious question! I've been reading a number of old limericks, dated from the 1930s and 1940s, which make mention of the idea that the vagina on Asian women runs horizontally (i.e. the "slit" runs left-right). Now, my wife is Asian, so I don't need anyone to tell me that the idea is completely bogus, but I'm curious as to how the idea ever became popular and what the origin might be. In the notes section of the limerick collection, the editor mentions that this was a widespread folk belief at the turn of the century, and the limericks collected from diverse sources make a kind of prima facie case that people at one time did think this a fact. Are there any sources out there that talk about this? At some point, the legend died out (due in no small part, I am sure, to the efforts of these people), but when did the legend die out? It's a "not-mention in polite society" kind of topic, so I'm have a difficult time even finding a single source. Matt Deres (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example, here's one from 1944:

A Chinaman hailing from Wusih

Once laid an American floozie.

"How different," he cried,

As he slid it inside,

"To diddle a vertical coozie!"

Obviously that one is from the other POV, but illustrates the same kind of thing. Matt Deres (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just a gynaecological riff on the slitty-eyes/epicanthetic fold business. Have a vague idea that when Dutch and the Japanese started hanging out the idea/joke arouse that Japanese vaginas were more capacious. Declan Clam (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting typo there ;).--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I first heard of this in the early sixties, though I believe entirely as a joke: "Afterward, you can play the harmonica." This would be oral tradition from a Boston-area plumber. PhGustaf (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Did this idea extent to South Asians or South East Asians or only East Asians? Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a racist joke referring to "slant-eyed" people, what we used to call "Oriental". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Matt, does your wife know what you post on the Internet ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Nil Einne understands who "East Asians" are - Orientals, Mongoloids, etc. The question is whether the idea ever extended to South Asians or South East Asians. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The various limericks refer to people from China, Japan, Manchukuo, Hong Kong, "North China", and then there's one that's based in Palau but concerns Japanese women. And, for the record, I referred to them as "oriental" because that's how they were referred to at the time (and in the book). If I was looking for first hand accounts of slavery in the US, it would do no good to search for "African-American" because that term wasn't used back then. Matt Deres (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is "oriental" considered derogatory in the US? I don't believe it would be considered so elsewhere - slightly quaint perhaps, but not derogatory. In the UK, "oriental" as referring to north Asians probably is on par with "antipodians" referring to Australians and New Zealanaders. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's antiquated—it's somewhat on par with "Negro". Not offensive other than the fact that it invokes a somewhat backwards way of talking about race, e.g. it calls to mind Charlie Chan, Yellow Peril, WWII propaganda, etc. It's not a slur, though. See Oriental#American_English. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this this kind of urban legend originated in the racist white mindset, before Asians became model minorities back in the nineties. There's something sort of diametrically opposed about Asian culture to the Western way of thinking. Collectivism versus individualism, and all that. It took a rather diseased mind to take that opposition to a more graphic manifestation, and there we have it, a rather silly, sordid idea about lady parts that at bottom conveys a feeling of 'otherness' and the exotic. Vranak (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it made it easier to dominate a distant country (economically and especially in warfare) if you were told the people are so different from you that they could be considered no more than savages and maybe not even human. Of course, if you were closely involved, it didn't take long to find out that they were just like you. The demonisation of foreign peoples was an easy way to keep the masses back home "on-board" with the economic or military invasion of a distant foreign country. Imperialism has a lot to answer for. Astronaut (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Though it's also the case that exoticizing and eroticizing the locals goes hand-in-hand with colonialism. Wherever you send young men out to police your empire, mixed-race babies show up rather immediately. It's an otherness, but one that is both attractive and repelling at the same time. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

True - it's likely analogous to this proto-cybernetic age's combination of the uncanny valley and robot fetishism. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Orientalism (aren't those foreigners really different from us) and Saartjie Baartman the Hottentot Venus (aren't those physical differences really fascinating and worth exhibiting to the public)/ Elongated labia gives more on the genital variation theme . BrainyBabe (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How too write a "diary" in the proper language of "tone" of the late 18th centurey

my question is basically as i wrote it above, but too be more specific make it 1787 and at the constitutional convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You could look at the text of Fanny Hill an erotic novel written in 1748, or any of the works of Jane Austen 1775 - 1817 to get a feel for the language of the period. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would look at the letters of John Adams that he and his wife exchanged during this time (they are published). They illustrate quite well how a learned American would correspond—a genre with somewhat different stylization than fictional (British) writing. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Harriette Wilson's diaries would also be useful here. She was a very influential character. Steewi (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many American journals and diaries of the era that have been published. So many, in fact, that you can choose New England, Southern, religious, secular, a foreign traveler, etc.—these will all have a different tone. Of course, you'll want to read William Pierce's sketches of delegates, written at the Convention. —Kevin Myers 11:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Common sense vs women's intuition

Is women's intuition the same as common sense? How is common sense related to intuition? Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See Intuition (knowledge) and Common sense. They really aren't related concepts. Intuition is really about "gut feeling" and a sort of mild precognition, where someone knows what to do without having any experience to base it on. Common sense, on the other hand, is all about experience. Common sense is basing conclusions upon a sort of shared (or common) human experience; while intuition defies explanation, but begs it, common sense needs no explanation, because the shared experience that it derives from makes it readily apparent to everyone. If something is put down as "common sense" it means that every human should understand it instantly; for example killing random strangers is bad; this is taken as "common sense" since nearly all humans from any culture would recognize this as basically true. --Jayron32 00:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think so. Common sense is, in my understanding, a way of cutting through nonsense and bullcrap with down-to-earth, simple insight. It undercuts very sophisticated ways of thinking that may be too complicated to be useful or workable.

Women's intuition, on the other hand, is more about an empathic insight into motives and behaviors. It knows the human heart too well to be fooled into believing professed motives.

How is common sense related to intuition? Well, they both call upon the unconscious to resolve discrepancies, rather than complicated, explicit logic. Vranak (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There are indeed some similarities; after all men don't have either! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please. There's no need for inflammatory comments, meant in jest though they may be!

I was thinking a little more about this issue and I'd add that women's intuition is good at taking in available data, synthesizing it into a 'big picture', then making accurate deductions based on that picture. So it's not just about motives. Also, I'd add that women's intuition need not be confined to women. Vranak (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that neither one has been the product of a double-blind scientific study, as far as I know, and both terms are used very frequently to attempt to undercut logic. "Here is a 20-point proof of why this legislation makes sense." "I dispute your proof — anyone with any common sense knows that it's just a bad idea!" Tempshill (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Though it is true that many studies have occasionally found common sense to be more sensible than elaborate theories, when it comes to the realm of human behavior. There has been a lot of work in economics in particular on the irrationality of human markets, and so forth, that reaffirms the value of "intuition" over complicated theory. But all of this just points to the idea that the theories were just wrong from the beginning, which is entirely compatible with a rigorous theoretical outlook on life. And the fact that the commonsensical can be integrated into a theoretical language suggests this as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

May I add that "women's intuition" isn't a phrase one hears much nowadays in enlightened circles. The traditional Christian inference was that men are logical and women intuitive— and hysterical, "hyster" being Latin for womb. Thus men were leaders and women didn't vote. --Wetman (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Women's intuition exists so that women reserve the right to say "I told you so" without taking the risk of being incorrect. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Great answers folks, thanks. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Both "women's intuition" and "common sense" are hogwash. They are both merely a bundle of prejudices, stereotypes, folk-knowledge, biases and so on, and an excuse for not thinking or to devalue the more rational thought of others. (Common-sense may also include tacit knowledge in some useages of the phrase.) They appeal to people because they affirm the common sterotypes and prejudices shared by others from the same social background, or serve as an excuse for the intransigent power of the person who thinks they possess them. 89.242.102.196 (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

October 19

About a ID

Please help me to get an email id od Swamini Daya Matha the president of SRF. My ID is [email address removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.224.106 (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your email address to avoid you getting lots of spam - we will reply here. Are you saying you want to find an email address for this person? I can't find one on their website, so it probably isn't publicly available. Just email SRF and let them forward it. --Tango (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Scottish independence

Does anyone know of any detailed studies done into the financial viability of Scottish independence? I've seen lots of talk about how much Scotland contributes to the Treasury and how much it gets out of the Treasury, but nobody seems to include the extra costs that would be incurred by an independent Scotland. There are fixed costs to being a sovereign entity that are independent of size (some defence costs, diplomatic costs, etc.), would an independent Scotland be able to afford these things? (There would be increased costs for the rest of the UK too, but since the rest of the UK is much larger than Scotland the extra costs would be proportionally smaller.) --Tango (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A recent report by Professor Ronald McDonald of the University of Glasgow (how can anyone argue with someone called that?) argued that "fiscal autonomy" for Scotland would benefit both Scotland and the rump UK (ref). Fiscal autonomy isn't quite the same as the economy of a fully independent country; knowing exactly how that might go means the academics and politicians have to hypothesise the details of the settlement that Scottish negotiators make with their Westminster counterparts. The major uncertain factor is oil revenue; this was the subject of the 1974 McCrone Report (commissioned by the UK Government) which concluded "An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time into the future." (ref); this report was classified secret until recently. Now the North Sea isn't the Bonanza it once was, but there's still quite a lot left. How much value that would be for an independent Scottish exchequer depends chiefly on two factors: firstly on how much of the North Sea is ceeded to Scotland as part of the settlement, and secondly on the future price of oil. It's not at all certain how the North Sea would be divided up between the two countries - would it follow the same trajectory as the border (which meets the sea at Lamberton, Scottish Borders heading roughly NE) or would it proceed due east, or at some other angle. The disposition of the seabed was reportedly manipulated by Whitehall in 1975, in order to disadvantage an independent Scotland. (ref). The second matter is the future price of oil; if it's high, that makes it economic to explore the remaining parts of the North Sea, and to expend more effort extracting every drop from the existing North Sea fields; if it's higher still that may make it economic for the large oilfields west of Shetland to be exploited wholesale ((ref)(ref); that's less practical if oil is cheap. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Of the specific line items you mention (the reserved matters, essentially) really only defense is a major cost; of the UK budget roughly 9% is defense, some £42B. I don't know the FCO's current budget, but this document puts it at about £1B in 2000, of which (just pro-rating) you'd expect Scotland's share to be £100M; even with inflation and the inefficiencies you talk about, we're maybe talking £150M, which really isn't a lot. But take into account the avowed stance of Scottish politicians (SNP, Scottish Labour, Scottish Lib-dem); they seem dead set on a much less interventionist, and a non-nuclear, defense posture, so you could expect that £4.2B Scottish proportion to fall quite a bit (much more than the foreign inefficiencies you talk about). But all this depends on the settlement, as above. No-one can tell what price Scotland will negociate for its proportion of Trident (a particularly militant Scotland could in theory end up with de-facto control of three Trident boats; a similar problem/opportunity struck Khazakstan and Ukraine, and we really don't know what deal they struck with Moscow); we'd just be guessing as to what defense commitments the UK would extract out of Scotland (Scotland has a border, coast, and land area out of proportion to its population, making it expensive to defend). And we don't know to what extent the EU's foreign affairs and (just maybe) defense policy will progress, making it less necessary for the smaller EU countries to have embassies etc. in every little country (they just leave it to the EU guy instead). As with gross revenue, above, it's all about the settlement, really. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What remains is a) the one-time cost of scission (which one would imagine would be cheaper than the cost of the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, given that so much is devolved already, but surely several hundred million quid) and costs (or savings) associated with stuff that isn't divided between the two. Again we're on the horns of an unknown settlement. It's pretty certain that, just because SCO and UK become different countries, they wouldn't completely divide everything (perhaps with cross-border bodies like the North/South Ministerial Council serving as a template); it's likely that the two will remain bound in defense and intelligence matters for decades. Rather than speculate about how much this will all cost, given we have so many unknowns, I wonder if anyone has costed the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia - I'll ask a fresh question to that effect below. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus genealogies

Why are the genealogies of Jesus different and seem to have inconsistencies? 208.180.136.118 (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies. Can you be more specific? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There are various theories as to why this is the case, some of which aim to explain away the inconsistency, others of which claim that one or both are incorrect. Genealogy of Jesus#Explanations for divergence deals with this in some detail. Warofdreams talk 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the differences between that of Matthew's genealogy and that of Luke's genealogy? [4] [5] 208.180.136.118 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Names can be confused from one source to another. The lists of the Disciples also vary. But you're missing the more obvious inconsistency, which is that God is Jesus' father, Joseph is not, so why does Joseph's genealogy matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a difference in the genealogies. [6] 208.180.136.118 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking the same question? Are you having trouble understanding us? First of all, there are two different genealogies - one through Mary and one through Joseph. Have you looked at the links that have been posted? That you have even posted?

To reply to you Bugs, Joseph's ancestry may have been given to show that he was a descendant of David as well, so that if people didn't get that Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, they would still see that he fit the bill of prophecy as a son of David. —Akrabbim^talk 14:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers. Sounds like a ligitimate question to me, as the responses below seem to have come to the conclusion that nobody has the foggiest idea why the differences. There does not even seem to be a consenses if Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth. Some say a descendant of David and others say (John 7:41 - 43) it is pretty clear that Jesus was thought originally not to be a descendant of David nor born in Bethlehem. Sounds like a lot of "theories" to me and very confusing. Maybe somebody can clear all this up, Christian or not. You would have thought that over all these centuries and the millions of people studing this issue that there would have been a consenses on this by now. Whassup? Maybe Bugs Bunny has an answer, however I doubt it. --67.99.29.30 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Of greater concern to the OP is that religious thinking, unlike scientific thinking, requires axiomatic truths. Science abhors axiomatic truths; which is a Good Thing. You want your scientists to be willing to explore every avenue of research, and not to accept anything as "true" just because it is. That's fine, since science is not really equipped to explore religious axioms. In order to be a religious person, at some level you must have faith. That is, at the core of religion are religious axioms which are accepted as Truth without proof, even more importantly Truth without the possibility of proof, which is of course, the definition of "religious faith". Now, the Genealogies of Jesus are not these sort of axiomatic Truths. There must be some logical, scientifically provable reason for the inconsistancy, which is also consistant itself with the axiom that the Bible is 100% true and that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, etc. etc. As a religious minded person, you can accept that:

• We may not now know the explanation for the inconsistancy, but the explanation would be logical and easily understandable should we ever know it.
• Any possible explanation which has the conclusion that the axioms of Christianity are wrong must itself be wrong; so we can discard those.

Thus, any of the explanations wherby Luke's or Matthew's genealogy is actually describing Mary's decent; or that one traces a biological genealogy, and the other a legal genealogy, or that one traces a direct father-son genealogy, while the other skips generations, could each be correct. The religious person would hold that one of these is probably true, or another as-yet-unthought-of but equally plausible explanation is true, and not knowing which is true right now is OK. The conclusion that, because we are unable to pick which explanation works right now means that the whole thing is made up, and God does not exist, or that Christianity must all be wrong because we have not proven one or the other of these explanations, is itself a faulty conclusion. It is functionally exactly the same thing that the anti-evolutionary nutjobs do when they find some hole in the fossil record; they claim that because there is not yet any adequate explanation, that the only explanation must be that "all of evolution is wrong". This is clearly a bad conclusion, and its the same bad conclusion that holds that because there is not yet any one definitive explanation which explains how both Matthew's and Luke's geneology can both be true, then one must somehow reject all of Christianity as false. --Jayron32 14:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The short answer to the question is that nobody knows why the genealogies in Matthew and in Luke are so different. The discussion linked above by Warofdreams discusses several theories:

That Joseph had two fathers—one natural and one legal—as a result of a levirate marriage involving uterine brothers.

That the legal line of inheritance is traced throughout one of the genealogies. That Luke’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. That Matthew’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. That one or both of the genealogies are incorrect.

The line of descent mattered to Matthew and Luke because they wanted to show that Jesus was the heir of David, a matter of Jewish law and not of biological descent. For those who do not accept the gospels as literal truth, there is good reason to think that the reason the two accounts differ is that they were both made up. Jesus himself seems to question the relevance of descent from David in Mark 12:35 - 37. In addition, the two accounts occur in the respective birth stories, which are radically different and seemingly cannot both be true. For example, in the Matthew birth story, Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem, while in Luke they live in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem for a census. The discussion in John 7:41 - 43 seems to make it pretty clear that Jesus was thought originally not to be a descendant of David or born in Bethlehem, and that these facts were problematic for those who considered them important for messiahship. John M Baker (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else in this thread, thank you for treating me to the phrase "uterine brothers". Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to John M Baker's correct account just above and ignoring any "special truth" in this particular case, the general truth about multiple alternative genealogies is that, except in cases where one is simply in error, they are symptoms of the fact that they are constructions that have been invented for a purpose, in other words they are pseudo-etiological, inventing desirable connections. The genealogy's specific purpose in Matthew, as with that text's other historicisings, is to demonstrate that certain passages, read as if they had been intended as prophesies, have now "come true". For "House of David" see Davidic line.--Wetman (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wetman can explain further on "they are symptoms of the fact that they are constructions that have been invented for a purpose, in other words they are pseudo-etiological, inventing desirable connections" as that is too deep for me. --67.99.29.30 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what is meant is that related to allegory like what I see done in Middle Ages literature. This might account for the different genealogies if they were invented for some specific purpose other than family histories. That might account for the discrepancies if I am seeing the meaning of allegory correctly. Perhaps they were meant to be something like a fable or parable.--67.99.29.30 (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the article on anagoge certain Medieval Theologians describe four methods of interpreting the Scriptures: literal/historical, allegorical, tropological (moral), and anagogical. A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. A fable is a succinct story, in prose or verse, that features animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities), and that illustrates a moral lesson (a "moral"), which may at the end be expressed explicitly in a pithy maxim. So the genealogies of Jesus could be looked at certainly from different viewpoints, from literal to anagogical (when by a visible fact an invisible is declared). --LordGorval (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For how many years was mahjong officially banned in China?

Wiki's article on mahjong states:

This game was banned by the government of People's Republic of China when the country was founded in 1949. The new Communist government forbade any gambling activities, which were regarded as symbols of capitalist corruption. After the Cultural Revolution, the game was revived, dissociated with gambling elements (see below). Today, it is a favorite pastime in China and other Chinese-speaking communities.

but the quote is unreferenced and no official end date to the ban is given. I think this is quite an extraordinary (though certainly believable) claim, and was wondering if anyone had an RL to expand upon it? 61.189.63.208 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No reliable source as requested, but mahjong was made illegal during the Cultural Revolution, in some areas earlier.

Mahjong, in its non-gambling form, was legalised on 23 October 1985 when the Ministry of Public Security issued the Notice on the Public Security Authorities No Longer Interfering on the Manufacture and Sale of Mahjong and Playing Cards ("关于公安机关不再干预麻将、纸牌的制造、销售问题的通知") -- that's the primary source and I'm sure looking it up will take you to the reliable sources you need. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet rejecting Ophelia

In the play Hamlet, there is a relatively famous scene in which Hamlet, pretending to be mad, rejects Ophelia (The nunnery speech). What were Hamlet's motives for doing this? Was it just because he didn't want to blow his cover or was there a deeper reason? Library Seraph (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

He had a feeling that he would not be getting out of his predicament alive, so to spare her grief he rejected her. His pandering clearly backfired as she soon meets her maker, leaving him in grief. At least, he would be if he didn't have a dozen other pressing problems. Vranak (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pandering? "I do not think that word means what you think it means." :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. When you act primarily to cater to another's feelings, rather than what's authentic from your perspective, it's pandering. The whole 'cruel to be kind' deal. Hamlet was so vain that he figured Ophelia couldn't take whatever was to come, so he pushed her away from him in a preemptive action. Vranak (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As Inigo was just saying, "pandering" means something different from what you're saying: [7] "Patronizing" might be the word you're looking for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is, as you said Vranak, that Hamlet was (supposedly) acting for her benefit but against her wishes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So, was Ophelia engaged in prostitution? That's what "pandering" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think my point is clear regardless of whether you agree with my word choice. Vranak (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend to come across as snarky, Vranek, but to hint to you that "pandering" is in modern English usually reserved for describing the action of providing someone the sexual services of someone else in the expectation of reward, so if you were to use it in another context you could inadvertently cause perplexity or offence. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

These are just the first few examples out of the very many that come up, and all are from professional, edited publications. Vranak's is a perfectly widespread usage. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Usually" does not mean "exclusively". In most if not all of those examples the term is being deliberately employed to co-opt the readers' disapproval by exploiting their familiarity with the more pejorative meaning. Vranek's use of the word had no obvious pejorative implication, suggesting that he might not appreciate its usually negative connotations. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pandering in the sense of "kissing-up", and that still doesn't describe Hamlet's behavior. However, back to the proper sense of the word, "nunnery" was sometimes a euphemism for a brothel, so maybe Hamlet was onto something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly clear from this story [16], for example, that pandering can be used in the sense of being super-sensitive, not kissing up and most certainly not with any sexual connotations. Interpretations of Hamlet's actions aside, it is quite apparent that the word is frequently used in contexts without sexual overtones. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, 87.81.230.195... Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While pandering may be used in metaphorical senses without a literal sexual connotation, it is virtually never used by modern native (British) English speakers/writers other than to suggest a lesser or greater degree of disapproval. You might be surprised at some of the things dreamt of in my philosophy, Malcolm XIV: does yours encompass the possibility that you might be mistaken about something, bearing in mind that in this discussion you appear to be in a minority? Anyway, drifting rather far from the OP's primary concern. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you now concede that the word is not usually reserved for use in a sexual context, nor that if you were to use it in another context you could inadvertently cause perplexity or offence. In fact, if you look at the British National Corpus, you'll see that the word is almost never used to mean the action of providing someone the sexual services of someone else in the expectation of reward: [17][18][19][20]

Note, also, that I provided links as evidence that the word is often used in a non-sexual context, whereas you are content to make blanket assertions as "proof" of your rather protean position. And yes, this discussion is a derail, but that was because you insisted on being prescriptivist about Vranak's choice of words. Good night, sweet prince. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the grammatics, you should remember that nobody can give you a definitive answer to your question (except possibly one person, and he's dead). Hamlet is a play that has many interpretations, and not everyone agrees that Hamlet is only pretending to be mad. However Vranak's interpretation is a pretty good one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

While agreeing with the general idea that the interpretation is really up to the director (compare Olivier's and Hawke's Prince for two very different and very competent takes on the scene), I should point out that _Ophelia_ dumps _Hamlet_ - "My lord, I have remembrances of yours, That I have longed long to re-deliver; I pray you, now receive them." She tries to provoke a reaction, and provokes a rather more drastic one than she (or, rather, Polonius/Claudius) hoped for... Tevildo (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cost of Dissolution of Czechoslovakia?

Thinking about the Scottish independence question above got me thinking - has anyone studied how much the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia actually cost (financially)? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

...not to mention how much it saved.--Wetman (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It cost so much they were overdrawn at the bank. [Fill in obvious punch line here.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What is word for "crescendo" but with just complexity (no. Voices etc)

So crescendo is for more and more loud, bu what is name for more and more complex, more instru ents/voices ie complexity like "wall of sound", evennif it is the same loudness throughout, thanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.65.154 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, crescendo is a Italian musical terms used in English . But I don't think you'll find what you are after in that list. Things like tempo and volume are not represented objectively by notes in musical notation so terms like crescendo and andante are needed to indicate to the player how to play the notes on the page. How complex and how many instruments play a part IS written by notes, so you don't need a special term for it. Vespine (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The study of increasingly complex information linkages—music is one kind of information— is a goal of network theory and network science.--Wetman (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen a word for this, akin to crescendo. The best I can think of at the moment is "increase in instrumentation". But that is far from a standard term. I don't think there is a standard term. Pfly (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Density" is the word you're looking for. That's the term most often applied to the concept you are describing, in academic journals, etc. --S.dedalus (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A musical example would be Ravel's 'Bolero'. Or even Elvis' 'Suspicious Minds'. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Another would be towards the end of Part 1 of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells, which even has a running commentary (by Vivian Stanshall) so that you can tell how each new instrument affects the overall sound. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, so "increase in density".. more a phrase than a word, but still. Pfly (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fugue comes close to the idea you're looking for. Ravel's Bolero is a great example of a fugue - one instrument comes in, then others join one at a time, each playing a variant on the theme of the first instrument. As also noted above, the "introduction" at the end of Tubular Bells could also possibly be considered a fugue. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. A fugue is an example of music that increases in density, but not all pieces that increase in density are fugues. Ravel's Boléro is not a fugue in the ordinary understanding of that term. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is love?

...romantic love?

189.121.121.92 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a nice article at love that probably covers it as well as one can expect to. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Worth it ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Love is... all you need! -- The Beatles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

From Love and Death:

Sonja: There are many different kinds of love, Boris. There's love between a man and a woman; between a mother and son...

Boris: Two women. Let's not forget my favorite.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's nature's way of fooling you into reproducing. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Loving your siblings is nature's way of fooling you into reproducing? Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Only in the Appalachians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but loving your siblings is not commonly understood under the expression "romantic love", as specified above. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the question what is romantic love? It's rather unclear to me. I thought the question may be what is love and is love the same thing as romantic love? Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To your genes it's all the same. Take the Honey Bee, for example. The worker bees don't reproduce themselves, yet the slave away in the service of the hive. Why? Because by doing so they help the queens and drones produced by their hive (their siblings) survive and reproduce better. Their genes get passed on (because they share them with their siblings), even though it's not a direct transmission. On average, you share half your genes with full biological siblings. That's the same amount you share with your children. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Haddaway knows, but he isn't telling. (start head bobbing....now!) --Jayron32 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but that's helping your genes to reproduce not helping you to reproduce. Even if you strongly believe in the gene-centered view of evolution it's still important to distinguish between you (or an individual organism) reproducing and your genes reproducing even if you think the organism is a moot point. Note that the commonly expressed phrase 'an organism is just a gene's way of making more genes' does distinguish between the two. Consider also that if you love your siblings excessively but not in a sexual or romantic kind of way, you may negatively affect your chances of reproducing. In evolutionary terms, this may or may not be worth it but the fact remains it's not helping you reproduce. While in eusocial organisms you may argue considering the individual organism is pointless, we can still distinguish between individuals and if you want to talk about the colony as a collective then you should do so as a collective. In any case, while human behaviour may share some few similarities with eusociality it's clear quite different and that isn't a great model system except perhaps in helping people get a basic understanding of a limited set of concepts Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you (the OP) want to read a good book on the subject, I recommend Anne Carson's Eros the Bittersweet. Deor (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

October 20

File:Old sculpture.jpg

can anyone identify any information about this sclupture i posted it on wikimedia commons but there is no licease information or anything. thanks KSLaVida (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) File:Old sculpture.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSLaVida (talk • contribs) 01:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Old_sculpture.jpg KSLaVida (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The museum label is right there in the image. You took this picture in the Musée d'Orsay, Paris. The sculpture is 19th century French, perhaps a morceau de reception for the Academy. --Wetman (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here it is: Your sculptor is Jules-Félix Coutan. Better keep notes as you go!--Wetman (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Moral/Ethics Money Question

My friends went to the liquor store to get beer for a party. Karl bought an 18-pack of Bud Light, Chris bought a 12 pack of Coors Light, both similarly priced. At the party they handed out beers without thinking about brand, i.e. people just took whatever they got, there was no discrimination between brands. In the morning there were only 7 Bud Lights left. My question is how should the beers be divided? 169.229.77.106 (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Before or after breakfast ? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be completely impartial you can give Karl 4, Chris 3, and have Chris reimburse Karl for the fifth of the bottle that was his portion (18/30 = .6, .6*7 = 4.2). Maybe Chris and Karl don't care that much. What's a dollar or two between friends? —Akrabbim^talk 02:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention the number of ounces or ml per beer, so let's assume each beer is 10 ounces, for ease of calculation. You also didn't mention whether you value Bud Lights more highly than Coors Lights. Let's assume not. Pour all the beers into a big bowl. (They're all Bud Lights, so you could also pour them into a compost bin and you won't notice much difference in flavor.) The amount to pour Karl, into his own compost bin, is (10 * 6) * (18/(18+12)), which is 36 ounces. Chris gets the remainder. Now both of them must chug and throw away what they can't get down their throats before pausing. Everybody wins! Tempshill (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, friends that keep accounts of these sorts of transactions aren't friends for very long. If you spend this much effort to keep track of who owes who a few bucks, you end up resenting each other, and the whole mess just isn't worth it for a few bucks. Instead, each friend should be buying the beer in good faith as a gift to the party effort; and should expect no compensation for their own donation, which is given freely and without expectation of remuneration. If everyone keeps that attitude, there is no danger of hurt feelings. Leave the leftover beers in the fridge for the next party, or let them be community property on "whoever wants it drink it" mentality. --Jayron32 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good answer. Another idea: Give them to the party's host. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be a start towards the concept depicted here: [21] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

benefit concerts for Pacific islands earthquake clean-up efforts

Were there benefit concerts for the 2009 Samoa earthquake clean-up efforts?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though there were at least a few concerts organized to benefit clean-up efforts and victims of the Samoa earthquake. "I Love the Islands" is among them. Information about this event which took place October 19, can be found here: [22] Additional information and video of the event can be found here: [23] Several other smaller concerts by individual artists/bands also seem to be in the works. The search string "samoa earthquake concerts" yielded the above results and others related to smaller events. You can see the results here: [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktstrat (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There are actually multiple "I Love the Islands" being carried out. The Auckland and Christchurch were on Monday and Tuesday respectively and Auckland will almost definitely have been the biggest but there's still Dunedin, New Plymouth and Wellington to go. Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone wrote an article about the event? When I tried to do a little preview, it was deleted. On October 7, there was this event called "Hope for Samoa". It was also a benefit concert.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note also my comments at WP:RD/E#show_related_to_natural_events Grutness...wha? 05:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Brades Cockatoo Axe

Hello, where was the Brades Cockatoo Axe made?--119.17.139.241 (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Brades & Co., Ltd. were in business in Sheffield, England, which had been a center of fine metalworking since the late 17th century.--Wetman (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic Residency

There is a monastery somewhere in Europe which offers a residency for academics who successfully apply. They provide room and board for a year and leave the student to their own devises. Do you have any idea what monastery this is? Also, are there other similar residency programs anywhere in the world? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A question about this concept was posted here a couple of months ago. Go through the archives, I remember two such places were brought up. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP posted this question here more than a year ago. There was no proper answer in 2008 (neither do I have one).

There are quite a number of monasteries which provide accommodation in Europe (there are dozens in Italy, alone), but I could not find any mention of the academic scheme you are referring to. You may check with a travel agency specialising in "educational" tourism. It may also be an idea to talk to a clergy man / a theological faculty / a seminary in your vicinity. There is also this site [25] for monastic accommodation in the US which you could check for information. This site [26] also has some useful links. In theory, many monasteries may offer accommodation in return for some donation. Of course, you will have to follow some rules. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds a little like the section of Herman Hesse's novel the Glass Bead Game, where the protagonist is sent as an intellectual emissary to a Benedictine monastery. 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I couldn’t remember whether I had asked about this, and couldn’t find it in the archive. . . An understandable mistake, you will grant, since no one could help me the last time. In any case, Cookatoo’s answer is helpful and will get me started. Thanks! --S.dedalus (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an actual religious monastery, or just a metaphorical "monastery" for academics? Just curious --71.111.194.50 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Image location?

Does anyone know where my friend is standing in front of?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rob_morgan.jpg

Thank you. KSLaVida (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is your friend in the picture you must at least be able to narrow it down to which country and/or city that the picture was taken in. That would make guessing for us a little bit easier, especially since it is such a low resolution that zooming does not reveal much. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you get real desperate, you could ask him. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's one of the matching fountains in St. Peter's Square. See the image at right. Deor (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese presense in southeast asia: c1920s

Just curious to know what the Japanese were doing in varios parts of Asia, in particular in Sandakan, Borneo. I came across this from the film Sandakan No. 8 which tells a story about a karayuki-san (prostitute) and brothel in Sandakan. One article says that these japanese brothels existed in conjunction with the expansion of Japanese business interest and colonial empire (link). ie: that the prostitutes were brought in mainly to service japanese men abroad. What sort of business interest did they have here? And has it got something to do with with the expansion/invasion of the japanese empire during WWII, even though the brothels existed around 1920s? Which is at least 20 years before the japanese army invaded Borneo. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese were involved in extensive trade relations throughout Asia and also globally by the 1920s. Our article on Sandakan indicates that the main trade item during the 1920s would have been timber. Japan was then rapidly urbanizing and would have been importing timber for that purpose. Throughout its industrial history, Japan has had to import raw materials, such as timber, from other countries, principally other Asian countries. A desire to gain control of these raw materials was certainly one of the main motives behind Japanese imperialism during the first half of the 20th century, which was in turn one of the principal causes of World War II. Just to be clear, Sandakan was not part of the Japanese Empire in the 1920s. It was the capital of British-controlled North Borneo. It was not occupied by Japanese forces until 1942. Those forces were expelled in 1945. Marco polo (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Japan was importing oil, as well, and I know Borneo is a major oil producer. Was it back then? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It started in Sumatra in the late 1800s. Not sure about Borneo. Googlemeister (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found the Balikpapan article, which mentions that in that area, In 1897, the first drilling of oil began by a small refinery company. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

However, the region around Sandakan (then British North Borneo and today Sabah) has never produced much oil. It wouldn't make sense for Japanese merchants to be in British Sandakan if they were after oil several hundred kilometers to the south in Dutch Borneo. If they were in Sandakan, they were there for timber. Marco polo (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What was the first battle that firearms (small arms) was widely (or almost widely) used?

What was the first battle that firearms (small arms) was widely (or almost widely) used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.89.186.165 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out History of firearms. From what it says there, it looks like in 1288 a battle definitely took place using guns (since we found one there) although it's likely they were used a century or so before. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Early Modern warfare has a lot of info about gunpowder weapons in general, as well as canons, was used in 1260. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course one probably could not consider a cannon small arms, and finding one gun does not indicate that they were widely used. Googlemeister (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but it provides a time frame for a question that that is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to answer completely accurately. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on your definition of "widely used". I'd say it happened during the Thirty Years' War, when Gustavus Adolphus shifted from the classic pike-heavy tercio pike and shot formation, to a linear one with emphasis on flintlock muskets. --Carnildo (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

One suspects that the answer is contained in the first paragraph of the History of firearms article:

"The earliest depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-10th century silk banner from Dunhuang [China]. The Tê-An Shou Chhêng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchens." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

what's the deal with this "one suspects" thing, are you a blast from the past, circa early eighteen hundreds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.45 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Cerignola (1503, France v Spain) is "considered the first battle in history won by gunpowder small arms". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

With widely used, i meant something about, 1 in 25 soldiers used firearms (small arms).187.89.112.108 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on Norwegian stamps?

Hello, I've had an email sent to me recently, asking whether a 2002 Norwegian stamp would qualify as public domain. I know stamps in some jurisdictions are PD, but aren't in most. The stamp in question is from 2002, and I uploaded it to Wikipedia as fair use in 2004. The gentleman who asked is writing a paper on group theory, and would like to use the image. Any advice on whether it would be more than simple fair use? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors that patrol Wikipedia:Media copyright questions may be better equipped to answer your question than those that patrol this reference desk. You could ask your question there... --Jayron32 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just contact the Norwegian post office and ask for permission to use the image in the paper? As it's non-commercial use, I don't think there'd be a problem getting permission even if they do claim copyright on it. On the www.posten.no web site I found the mailing address "Posten Norge AS, 0001 Oslo". (If you don't speak Norwegian, don't worry, lots of people there speak English. It would be polite to apologize for writing in English, of course.) --Anonymous, 03:11 UTC, October 21, 2009.

mormons in the military

What % of the US military is made up of Mormons? Googlemeister (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The best I can find is this table of recruits by state, which shows that while Utah made up 1.2% of the population, it contributed only 0.6% (1999) and 0.7% (2003) of military recruits. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be because many military-age mormons go on two-year missions. Wrad (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oisiu-Eiseu and the Tomb of the Unknowns

The description of this monument on Wikipedia and several other sites indicates that this name is included in wreaths that represent major battles of World War I. Unlike the other battles of the war, some of which have articles that are "too long" this one is a red link. I find no reference to this on any other google searches, or to either half of the hyphenated name. Was this an actual battle better known by another name? The information is consistent with information provided by the cemetery's website. SDY (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Minorly, the cemetery's website spells it differently from our article as Oisiu-Eisue, which is equally unhelpful in both Google and Wikipedia searches. SDY (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also spelt Oise-Aisne United States campaigns in World_War I#Oise-Aisne, 18 August - 11 November 1918 not sure what is actually carved on the monument meltBanana 23:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The monument itself just has wreaths, not writing, as far as I can tell from the picture on the website (which is a 5 kilobyte .jpg that wouldn't show small details). I haven't been there in many years. Oise and Aisne are both departments and rivers in northern France, so that makes a lot more sense. Given that English and French use (more or less) the same alphabet, it seems odd that the spellings would be rendered so differently. Those departments have not changed their names. SDY (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As a side note, there is a cemetery and memorial for the Oise-Aisne campaign in France. Our article on the subject is somewhat dominated by a rather unusual feature associated with the cemetery. The memorial there includes a substantial "Tomb of the Unknowns", which also includes the same dedication ("Here rests in honored glory..."). Is this a standard inscription used at all US memorials that include unknown soldiers? (There are 597 of them at O-A alone). I'm guessing that WWI and WWII produced no shortage of unknowns. SDY (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a French / Flemmish issue; like Ypres / Ieper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Corporate vs Personal Income Tax

Is the portion of the income tax payed by the corporation tax larger than the portion payed by individuals? Also, did the amount payed by the corporation tax decrease during the 1980s and 1990s? Is the current corporation tax lower than pre-1980 levels?-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What jurisdiction are you talking about? In a lot of places, individuals face a progressive tax scale, so your average tax rate may be higher or lower than the corporate tax rate depending on your income level. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about corporate and personal income tax rates in the USA. 99.146.124.35 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Check Income tax in the United States and State income tax --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the Congressional Budget Office, corporate tax only was 20.2% of individual income tax (only) in the 1980s, 23.3% in the 1990s and 23.5% in this decade. Note that this does not include the myriad of other taxes both companies and individuals pay. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

October 21

LORD OF THE FLIES QUESTION

I know this kinda isn`t supposed to be here, But I just couldn`t resist asking who from a book published this year, movie or tv show reminds you of Ralph,Piggy and Jack from LORD OF THE FLIES respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.23.55 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The judges on American Idol. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is post a homework question? --71.111.194.50 (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. It's definitely a request for opinions. "If you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere." AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see a teacher, trying to detect a student's understanding of characterization, asking them to find a modern example, and explain why, sure. As for an answer, we can't answer homework, but if you don't watch any modern TV or movies, do a search of various movies and TV shows of the past, as it sound like only the book needs to be one published this year. And, the "or" makes it sound like all three could be from the same TV show or movie. IIRC (and this was 25 years ago) Piggy was kind of slow but wise in his simplicity, sort of like a certain famou movie character from the mid-90s. that's all I'll give as a hint, and you're on your own on the others.209.244.187.155 (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Piggy was the clever one of the group. He was the stereotypical geek - thick glasses, asthma, no social skills, etc.. This sounds like an essay question to me, so even if we gave ideas it wouldn't really help the OP - they would still have to write the essay. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy of a sonnet

There is a part of a sonnet which is often conventionally indented. It's the whole of the sestet, less the final couplet. Does that part have a name of its own? Marnanel (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Middle eight? Of course it depends on the type of sonnet, of which there are several (as detailed at sonnet). I suspect that this pattern is most common is English (i.e., "Shakespearean") sonnets, in which case you're looking at three quatrains and a couplet rather than an octet and a sestet - and it's the third quatrain that's indented. The third quatrain is usually the volta - a change in the theme or imagery - before the resolution of the couplet, so it makes sense in some ways for this section to be set apart from the rest. I don't know of any separate name for it however. Grutness...wha? 06:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. Marnanel (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Grapevine restraint

The (engl.) Grapevine Restraint was called "Polish Crouch" (Polnische Hocke) by the former East German Army. I assume that the origin of this term originates from an Ethnophaulism-like background: Not because it was used in Poland (at some time) but something like you can restrain a Pole in that way. To strengthen this "theory" I am interested to learn how this technique is called in other countries (also in an ethnophaulism-like manner?). Thanks for answers! --Grey Geezer 07:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Christianity In Nagaland-India

No references can be found on how Christianity actually started in Nagaland-India?

It might depend on who's doing the looking. Have you asked anyone, or searched yourself? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Revival in Nagaland has a reference. There is also the book History of Christianity in Nagaland, The Ao Naga tribal Christian mission Enterprise 1872-1972 by A. Bendangyabang Ao, published in 2002, Shalom Ministry Publication (Nagaland). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin quote

The following quote is widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

But I noticed wikiquote claims this is misattribution http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Misattributed. Is there any scholarly reference to prove it is misattribution? --Nyol55 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof that he said it? Generally, the burden of proof for any proposition is on the person asserting that the proposition is true. DO you have any evidence, such as an actual text known to be written by Franklin, in which the quote appears? Without any such proof, we have zero reason to believe he actually said it. --Jayron32 13:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This book and this site say that the attribution is doubtful, especially since the word "lunch" is anachronistic. Franklin's papers are searchable here. He apparently never used the word "lunch" in all of his voluminous writings. The quote is probably a modern invention, although it's conceivable that Franklin might have said (or supposedly said) something similar, using different language. Any witty phrase eventually gets attributed to Franklin, Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, or George Carlin—and sometimes to more than one of those guys. —Kevin Myers 13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also to George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde. 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Comic Steven Wright also gets more than his share of bogus attributions. He reports having seen a collection of his quotes on a web site where none of the quotes were actually his. He's embarrassed that most of the fake quotes are lame, and regrets that he didn't write the few good ones. —Kevin Myers 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or as Yogi Berra is often quoted, "I really didn't say everything I said." — Michael J 14:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is on most maps this massive landform (one of the largest of its type in the world) is dissected by a dashed imaginary line?

What is on most maps this massive landform (one of the largest of its type in the world) is dissected by a dashed imaginary line?

This is not homework but I have looked all over the we. I thought maybe latitude and longitude and I would think it would be water but I am not sure. Does anyone have any ideas about this? Thanks for any direction or help you have to offer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your question is very unclear. I'm not sure if you're looking for the name of a landform or an imaginary line. If the latter, I'd go for equator, Tropic of Cancer or Tropic of Capricorn. Or possibly Arctic circle or Antarctic circle. If it's a landform you're asking about, you'll need to explain better, or perhaps someone else will understand you better. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This question was also asked a few days ago. Did you check out the answers there? Astronaut (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

does anyone write with two hands? (simultaneously, for speed)

does anyone write with two hands, for speed? (simultaneously). Since just about everyone is s l o w e d way down by having to channel a sentence through a hand writing out all the letters, I'd think that at least SOME people would overcome that by forming letters with two hands (a pen in each). This doesn't require learning a lot of shorthand, but would only apply to ambidextrous people. I'm thinking of like writing an i with the right hand, then moving on to the t, moving on to the next letter etc, meanwhile the left hand dots the i, crosses the t, etc. Any precedent? 92.230.64.45 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of that, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody has taught themselves to do that. Some famous historical figure (I don't recall who) would write with one hand, but alternating between writing normally and mirror writing backwards so there was no need to move the hand back to the beginning of the line each time, thus writing faster (he, of course, also had to learn to read mirror writing - this was for his personal notes). Also, I have a friend that writes with two pens at once, holding them both in the same hand and switching between them to write different words in different colours (when taking notes in lectures to highlight keywords) - it doesn't seem to slow her down at all. So, if people can teach themselves to do things like that, I can't see why they couldn't use both hands to speed up writing if they wanted to. --Tango (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tangentally related, James Garfield, one of the few true polymath, or likely genius, U.S. Presidents could supposedly write simultanously with both hands, in two different languages. He supposedly could translate an English passage into Latin with one hand and Greek with the other. --Jayron32 16:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! We have a mirror writing article! And Tango, you were probably thinking of da Vinci. —Akrabbim^talk 16:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tangentially to Tango's mention of a fellow's writing alternate lines in normal and mirror script, see Boustrophedon. Deor (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"James Garfield, one of the few true polymath, or likely genius, U.S. Presidents" -- right, right, hence his being Garfield's namesake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.64.45 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that his doctors were lacking in the genius area, or he might have survived the assassination attempt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The simultaneous writing of Latin and Greek is also attributed to Branwell Bronte. However, when I tried to find a source for that, the first one to come up was this, which announces it to be a capacity shared by many mediums, as a form of automatic writing, so that doesn't seem too reliable (!), but it credits another source.
Our article ambidextrous is fairly useless, but you might enjoy this about [Henry Kahne], who could write with both hands, both feet and his mouth, simultaneously. Additionally, Sir Edwin Henry Landseer could draw/paint with both hands at once. And a related concept is Bi-directional text,and specifically Boustrophedon. Gwinva (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Literary device like a prolepsis.

What is it called when a story shifts ahead in time (not as an interjection but permanently)? A prolepsis or flash forward is by definition a 'temporary' scene interjected within the normal flow of the story. I believe the article for the film AI: Artificial Intelligence used to mention it (as having one of the largest such shifts in film), but the article has been changed hundreds of times since last I looked and I can't remember the name for it. Thank you. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellipsis (narrative device)? Recury (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just where the story jumps ahead in time. I don't think an Ellipsis would be an accurate word for it because that's more of an implication of events than jumping forward. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, the more I think about it the more it seems you may be right, it's sort of the same thing from a different perspective, but I think there's another word for what I'm describing. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does Jane Austen (and other 19th century authors) use a letter followed by a series of hyphens in lieu of some names and places?

I have run across this issue in multiple 19th century books including Pride and Prejudice and Wuthering Heights. Rather than give a specific name for an army unit, name a certain house, or even reference a real person, the author chooses to scribe a single letter (assumed to be the first initial to the alluded to item) followed by a series of hypens (creating a single straight line). An easy to locate example of this is in Mansfield Park when we first meet Fanny's parents in chapter 38. Mr. Price (Fanny's father) enters with multiple monologues dotted with the phrase "by G-----" (assumed to mean "by George"). Pride and Prejudice is full of this anomaly in each and every discussion involving the soldiers with whom the younger Bennet girls are so smitten.

Can you please explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.130.115 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the same thing with years ("19--"). I think it is done to avoid pinning the story down to specific real life times, places, people, etc., although I can't see why it would be necessary to do that for a first name as in your example. --Tango (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In that instance, George stands for Jehovah, which would have been considered unacceptable language (blasphemous) in some circles.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the past tense? I've seen comments on Youtube about how "these stupid atheists should just wait until they die and are judged by G-d and see who's laughing then." TomorrowTime (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not writing the word "God" in full is common in Judaism. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the specific example in Mansfield Park, Mr. Price is saying "By God," and the author uses dashes to avoid profanity. This is different from the noted frequent practice, in stories from that period, of using dashes to avoid specificity. John M Baker (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's rather more likely that the exclaimation "by George" comes from the oath "by Saint George" the Patron Saint of England. A little less blasphemous, but still a bit risque in polite society of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides the obvious cases of what would be considered profanity, it was also used in names and dates as mentioned. Mostly because most older novels and stories often tried to create the illusion that the fiction was indeed reality (probably stemming from the origin of modern novels in epistolary novels such as the works of Samuel Richardson). To complete this illusion of reality, names and places could be concealed so as to give the effect that it is to protect living persons from being compromised. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've observed the same thing in rather different works, too: for example, Dostoyevsky, writing half a continent and several decades away, will sometimes do this with the settings of his stories. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the word "sweetheart"

I remember reading a story about a noblewoman in medieval England whose husband died. She had his heart embalmed and carried it about in a casket, everywhere she went. She called it her "sweet heart and faithful companion". Can you point me at a source for this story please? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If Scottish will do instead, see this about Devorguilla Balliol, wife of John Balliol, mother of King John of Scotland and founder of Sweetheart Abbey:

http://www.scotland.org.uk/guide/Devorguilla_Balliol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the man-made wonder of engineering that required so many workers to complete that a town was built just to accommodate them?

What is the man-made wonder of engineering that required so many workers to complete that a town was built just to accommodate them?

I found Tongariro hydro-electric Power Development Project but I am not sure. Please direct me if possible. I did not see this question on here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gijeanie (talk • contribs) 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sure many construction projects in out of the way places involve work camps of some kind or another... Do you mean towns that were left afterwards? TastyCakes (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Surely there are multiple examples of such projects... the Hoover Dam among them. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The pyramids in Egypt had small towns full of workers and their families. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, for which the temporary towns of Cabramurra and Khancoban were built for the (mainly migrant) workers. Both towns became permanent settlements. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or any of the large number of company towns that sprang up in the coal mining regions of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Googlemeister (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

True. I was focussing on "wonder of engineering" and "so many workers". The SMS was certainly a wonder of engineering; and it required so many workers that huge numbers were recruited from many overseas countries (mainly European) - so many, that their numbers had a massive impact on Australia's post-war demographics, ultimately leading to us becoming one of the most multicultural countries on Earth. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch John, Utah would fit your description, but I suspect that's not what you want. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Any large mine or dam or other engineering project built away from a major settlement." might be an appropriate answer. Seriously, there must be hundreds of such towns across the world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many examples of this worldwide. Twizel, New Zealand was built just to house the people who worked on the Waitaki River hydro scheme, for instance. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What seperates two continents and has many names?

What seperates two continents and has many names? I found many ideas on this but need more assistance! Can anyone direct me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gijeanie (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Water? TastyCakes (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bosphorus/Hellespont? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Red Sea? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Atlantic Ocean, which is called Atlantischer Ozean in German. Googlemeister (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My SWAG: "two continents" is separated by a space. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A nickname for Istanbul is "The city on two continents". Obviously, Istanbul was Constantinople. Now its Istanbul, not Constantinople... Damn. Now that song's stuck in my head. -- kainaw™ 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have an article on names of Istanbul. -- kainaw™ 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Con... stantinople... C, O-N-S-T-A-N-T-I-N-O-P-L-E..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What is one of the four largest cities within a familiar geographical shape found by a man with controversial religious beliefs?

What is one of the four largest cities within a familiar geographical shape found by a man with controversial religious beliefs?

I am without a clue on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gijeanie (talk • contribs)

Do you mean "founded" by a man? TastyCakes (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your question is too vague to be properly answered. "Familiar", "found", and "controversial" all need to be defined better. Also, the lack of punctuation and poor phrasing make it unclear where the modifiers apply: does the man have controversial religious beliefs, or do the citizens? Did the man find the city, or the shape? If those terms and phrases are left vague, I could argue for just about any city on the planet: Mexico City, Provo, Pittsburgh, Naples, etc, etc! --M@rēino 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Give us some context. Where did this question come from? --Tango (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Amarna? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Providence, Newport, Portsmouth and Warwick, Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams? He founded Providence (1636) and the colony, but not the other three towns that originally formed Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Or how about (e.g.) Salt Lake City or Provo, Utah founded by Brigham Young? How familiar the shapes are really depends on who and where you are. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP might be stabbing at Philadelphia, PA, USA. William Penn was certainly controversial, even before he decided that Cheese Whiz was appropriate on steak sandwiches. 19:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe Alexandria - Alex the Great certainly had some weird stuff with Egyptian religions going, and you will probably find enough Alexandrias to form any geometrical shape.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a little harmless, recreational fun, but User:Giljeanie has posted three of these confusingly-worded riddle-me-this posers in a row. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

if gore won the election in 2000

Would that mean that the vice-presidency would have been the highest-held position for a Jewish person in the United States?--99.179.21.44 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on how you defined highest-ranking, but if POTUS is #1 and VP is #2, then yes. Lieberman was the first Jew even on a ticket, iirc. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

¶ Since the three branches of the United States government are co-equal (although each can be dominant for different purposes or at different times), Jewish Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States would at least in theory (if not in all the protocol tables) rank as high. As I recall, Louis Brandeis was the first Jewish Justice, followed by, among others, Felix Frankfurter, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas (who was almost nominated Chief Justice), Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Although never Vice President, Judah P. Benjamin was arguably the second-most important man in the Confederate States of America, actively advising President Jefferson Davis and executing many of his policies (in addition to his duties as, successively, Attorney-General, Secretary of War and Secretary of State of the C.S.A.), after Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens had withdrawn from active participation in government.

¶ I'm not sure how far Jews have ascended in the leadership of the other co-equal branch, Congress, although for many purposes, every United States Senator is equal to every other Senator, every U.S. Representative equal to every other Representative, and every Representative equal to every Senator. Barney Frank, presently chairman of the House Banking Committee, would be considered by many to be a good candidate for Speaker. Rahm Emanuel, presently Chief of Staff to the President, was Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, ranking below the Speaker, the House Majority Leader and the Majority Whip among Democratic leaders in the House.

¶ And if Sen. Barry Goldwater (R.-Arizona) had been elected President in 1964, he would have been the first President of Jewish ancestry (although not religion, as his parents had converted to Christianity.) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Morgenthau Jr., secretary of the treasury, was, for one week in 1945, first in line to the presidency. At the time, the Constitution had no provision for replacement of the vice president after a VP takes over for a dead president. Next in line at the time was the secretary of state. Between the resignation of Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, Jr. and the appointment of James F. Byrnes to replace him, Morgenthau was "a heartbeat from the presidency," as they say. By the time Nixon resigned, the succession law had been changed to put the speaker of the House and president pro tem of the Senate ahead of the secretary of state, so Henry Kissinger -- constitutionally ineligible to be president anyway due to his foreign birth -- was never "next in line." Nonetheless, secretary of state is often considered the senior member of the cabinet behind the president and VP, so you could make the case that Kissinger was the highest-ranking Jewish person ever in the U.S. government. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Year a bust (art) was made

What year was this bust of William F. Friedman made? I called the museum it is being shown in but all they could tell me is that it was made by Richard Nachman. I found a page regarding that person here.--Rockfang (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

what's a word for something that's sneakily but cleverly pretending it's something it's not?

what's a word for something that's sneakily but cleverly pretending it's something it's not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.188.124 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disguise? If you give us some context, we might be able to give a better answer. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an IP with exactly 2 edits, the first of which was reverted. "Sneakily but cleverly pretending it's something it's not"? Well, it can't be a sockpuppet, because they ain't clever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Doppelgänger; although it's most commonly used for people, you could reasonably use it for something like a product that resembles a well known brand ("it wasn't until I opened the box that I realised I'd bought 500 cans of Croca Cola, a doppelgänger for real Coke"). Doppelgänger specifically implies deception, so it may be more appropriate than simply saying "a look-a-like". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Coatracking. See Wikipedia:Coatrack for the Wikipedia context. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think mimic and simulant also fit except maybe not implicitly "sneaky", for that I probably like doppleganger better too. Another word i like which might fit in some contexts is clandestine, that implies sneaky and clever, but doesn't imply it's pretending to be something it isn't, but it certinally could be. Vespine (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Snake in the grass. Vranak (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nihilartikel fits for some things, too. Then there's "Wolf in sheep's clothing", as well. Ther are numerous terms, and the context will be important in deciding which one is best. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In the field of encryption, it is called steganography. -- kainaw™ 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No confidence in presidents?

To quote from the current In the News section: "President of the Marshall Islands Litokwa Tomeing loses a vote of no confidence in the Legislature and is temporarily replaced by Ruben Zackhras." I know that prime ministers in many countries can face votes of no confidence, but I've never heard of a system in which a president could face such a vote. Are there any other countries in which the position of "president" — either with this title or one that would more reasonably be translated "president" than "prime minister" or another term — is vulnerable to votes of no confidence? Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence#Presidential systems should explain everything. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the Constitution of the Marshall Islands reveals that the president is elected by the legislature and can be removed from office with a vote of no confidence. I suppose he's called a president because he's also the head of state. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mocking murderers - Can they receive a harsher punishment?

In Argentina, the Justice sentenced Alejandra Ortiz (a woman) and Sebastián Rodríguez Vázquez (a man) to 20 and 25 years of prison respectively for murder (in a robbery, assault). Alejandra Ortiz mocked the victim's family all the time. Can the Justice, in that case, give her a harsher punishment for that?. Source to the case. [27] --Maru-Spanish (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you see the source, she is the red-haired woman. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it depends on many factors, including jurisdiction, but I don't see why not. Judges factor in a lot of things when handing down sentence and I'm pretty sure I've heard "lack of remorse" used when justifying a sentence. Vespine (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In the US, the law decides what the maximum (and minimum) sentences are for a given set of crimes, but the judges (often? always?) get the discretion as to what to give you within that range (I believe). Lack of remorse can definitely get you the upper end of the range, and can affect your chances at probation later. No clue about Argentine law, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In a criminal case, the jury is instructed to examine mitigating and aggravating factors (in that order). The former can lead to a minimum sentence, and the latter a maximum. The court will look at items such as whether or not the victim was consenting, whether the offender was under duress, prior convictions, age, and yes, whether they "mocked" or "laughed" at the victims or their families. We have an article for Mitigating factors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vespine, Mr.98, the Judges (three Judges in Argentina trials) ordered that she will never be paroled (she MUST be 20 years in prison). Maybe... that's because of her lack of remorse? --Maru-Spanish (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 22

Running dogs of capitalism

Who actually came up with the phrases "running dogs of capitalism" or "running dogs of imperialism"? That is, the phrase is commonly used in jest regarding Maoism, but is it actually from Mao? Or whom else? What's the origin? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)