Science	Mathematics	Computing/IT	Humanities
Language	Entertainment	Miscellaneous	Archives

How to ask a question

Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.

Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end.
Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in.
Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box.

Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers.

Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.

Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet.
Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic.
Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives.
Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.
Do not request medical or legal advice.
Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.

After reading the above, you may
ask a new question by clicking here.
Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.

How to answer a question

Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to.
Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.

Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question.
Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude.
The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

July 15

== Initiatives of US President ==Pondering this more, have you gone to www.thomas.gov and searched for American Competitive Iniative? If it is not mentioned, the White House and Congressional leaders may have decided to introduce components of the program into a range of bills currently being considered by Congress. You can always telephone the White House and ask about the program.

My understanding is that by intiative President Bush means a program or focused attempt to address an issue. Still, only a member of Congress can introduce legislation. In practical terms, members of the same political party as the President who are members of Congress enjoy linking themselves with the President by introducing such legislation.

legislation.\75Janice 7/24/06

The initiative article doesn't mention this. Even so, I have come to conclude that if the American president wants to make a law, then he can create his proposal, call it an initiative, and send it to Congress for approval. The American Competitiveness Initiative is an example.

Did I get this right?--Patchouli 02:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official name is still a bill (law), whether he chooses to name it an initiative, a proposal, a resolution, a Bushitization, or whatever. :-) StuRat 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he can't introduce it to Congress directly, but must get one Senator and one Rep to introduce it into each chamber. This is pretty simple, though, since around half of the Senators and Reps are in the President's party at any given time. Still, if Bush wanted to introduce a particularly stupid bill right before elections, he might find it difficult to find a sponsor. StuRat 03:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my understanding.

--Patchouli 04:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that diagram isn't right. The president cannot introduce any "initiative" or proposed law into Congress, as StuRat says. It takes members of Congress to do that. -R. S. Shaw 07:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. The President has exactly the same Constitutional power as any other person who is not a member of the House or the Senate in this regard. There is no Constitutional concept of "initiative"; some states have it, but the Progressive movement wasn't successful in that regard on the federal level. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one has yet explain George W. Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative. This is a spending program introduced by the executive branch.--Patchouli 19:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "American Competitiveness Initiative" uses the word "initiative" in a general sense; the word has no specific legal meaning in this usage. It could have been called "American Competitiveness Campaign" or "American Competitiveness Program." The article initiative refers specifically to the procedure whereby citizens can force a referendum on a topic by obtaining a certain number of signatures. -- Mwalcoff 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, the Executive branch in the US often sends proposed legislation to Congress for immediate introduction, especially with the large appropriation "budget" bills. They are called "the President's such-and-such bill," or "the President's budget"[1] AnAccount2 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it still needs to be introduced by a Rep and a Senator. If I could get two sponsors, I could just as easily introduce "StuRat's bill for the legalization of postnatal abortions to be performed on select lawyers, politicians, and auto mechanics". Hmm, that might not pass, so I'd better call it the "We Love America Bill", then nobody would dare vote against it. :=) StuRat 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plato's symposium

hi,

where can plato's original manusrcipt of the symposium be found?

thanks

bren

Plato's original manuscript is long lost in the mists of time if by Plato, original, and manuscript you mean what the rest of us mean. alteripse 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Wine Denominations

Can anyone tell me the commonly used English terms for the Spanish Denominations "Joven," "Crianza," and "Reserva"?

I feel safe in assuming that the first is "Young" and that the last is "Reserve," but I have no idea what the common usage term would be for "Crianza"

--Diabolic 06:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A wine in its third year that has matured for at least one year in oak" is a bit long, yes, but it's the best I can find. Some wine websites simply call it "crianza wine". David Sneek 21:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Crianza" might be "child" or "kid". In Spanish they use the word "Nino", but it might come from Portuguese "criança" or perhaps it is a word from South-America and not proper Spanish. Flamarande 10:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula's Chermosese

In Chapter 18 of Bram Stoker's Dracula is the following line (boldface emphasis mine):

In old Greece, in old Rome, he flourish in Germany all over, in France, in India, even in the Chermosese, and in China, so far from us in all ways, there even is he, and the peoples for him at this day.

My question is, where is the "Chermosese"? As can be seen by the redlink, there's no article (yet) for it in Wikipedia, and a Google search failed to turn up anything other than that same quote from Dracula. Considering that all the other places in the sentence are real, I would expect the "Chermosese" to be real as well. —Lowellian (reply) 07:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a misspelling of Chersonese? --Rallette 08:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Chersonese it is: a google search of chersonese + dracula returns several instances of the same passage. Someone more knowledgeable than me might know which Chersonese is intended. --Rallette 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should do these searches before posting here instead of as I post. Hm. Anyway, a search for "The Chersonese" brings results that definitely suggest the Malay Peninsula is Stoker's Chersonese.--Rallette 09:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thanks for the quick and informative answer. I've gone ahead and redirected Chermosese to Chersonese in case someone in the future has the same question. —Lowellian (reply) 19:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age at childbirth

At what age do adults have their first child? Are there any good statistics of this? I've tried searching 'having children' on wiki, as well as the Family and Child articles, but no related info. Anyone's got any statistics? Jack Daw 14:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way you asked the question will skew the age upwards, by eliminating many teen pregnancies from consideration. Also, what age is "adult" ? Is it 18 ? Also, the country, ethnic group, etc., will make a huge difference in the results. StuRat 17:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The age also changes over time, and by education level, as these charts show: [2]. StuRat 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Can't resist) Most people are zero at childbirth. (I apologize, but the heading was too provocative.) Geogre 02:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeees ... I was born at a very young age should be the opening sentence of someone's autobiography. JackofOz 03:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the phrase suggests that 461 people beat you to it. I think a girl aged five or six gave birth a few weeks ago (in South America?), but I haven't been able to trace the story.--Shantavira 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the phrase to search for is "age of women at childbirth". In 1993, the mean age of U.S. women at childbirth was 28.1 years. Here's my source, from NIH: Abstract of Birth Statistics 1993, P Babb Lynne Jorgensen 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the average age of women at the birth of all their children, not just their first child. StuRat 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is, by all means, never circumsize an infant boy! I was circumsized when I was eight days old, after which I couldn't walk for at least a year! Loomis 01:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, StuRat, I think you are right -- the 28.1 years is the mean age of women at the birth of any child, not just their first child. I didn't read carefully enough. Thanks for catching that. --Lynne Jorgensen 02:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Similar Wars

Hi there,

I am attempting to find two unrelated wars or battles in which the details of them are as close as possible to being identical. One ancient war and one modern war would be stellar if anything springs to mind. I would be happy to research the details on each war myself; I am simply hoping for a place to start ie. knowing which wars to research. Thanks so much.

                                                                     Daryl

World War I and Iran-Iraq War are completely unrelated. They were (1) total wars, (2) trench wars, and (3) resulted in millions of deaths.

I know that there are many dissimilarities and I am poised to be beaten over the head with them. For instance, the first lasted 4 years while the second 8 years. --Patchouli 05:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They also both made use of poison gas (which hardly any other wars did). DJ Clayworth 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The seiges of Dien Bien Phu and Khe Sahn in Vietnam spring to mind;About 20 years apart,someone wrote a book about the first (Hell is a very small place ?),you'd think the Americans would have read it and not done the same thing over again.-hotclaws**==(81.134.77.56 08:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What a brilliant question. There are some parallels between the (1097 version of the) Siege of Antioch and the Battle of Alesia, in that in both cases a besieging army was trapped between the city they were attacking and an approaching army. About 1,000 years between the two is quite an interval. There are of course many more differences between the two examples than the similarities! --Dweller 09:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some striking similarities in the various battles over Dunkirk. Geogre 11:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. revolutionary war is similar to the recent U.S. conflicts in Vietnam and the Middle East. In the first the U.S. beat the British using guerilla tactics that were foreign to 'traditional' styles and tactics. The Vietnamese and the various terrorist organizations beat/are beating the U.S. with similar tactical advances. -LambaJan 15:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two campaigns often compared are Hitler's and Napolean's attack and retreat from Russia. MeltBanana 16:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake in article about Mohammad.

Here is a mistake I found in the article about Mohammad :

Ibn Ishaq records that Khadijah bore Muhammad five children:

two sons named Al Qasem and Abdullah (who is also called Al Tayeb and Al Taher) and four daughters.

Well that is six children, not five. So if someone knowledgeable could correct it-Nikhilthemacho

I agree that those statements are inconsistent, but how do we know which part is wrong ? StuRat 20:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. They are Al-Qasim, Zainab, Ruqaiyah, Umm Kulthum, Fatimah and Abdullah. MeltBanana 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Name

the oriigin of the name  TAR HEEL for North Carolinians ?

The article Tar Heel. Geogre 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posession

What does the phrase "posession is 9/10 of the law" mean or refer to?

Thanks!!! I believe it refers among other ideas to the legal concept called adverse possession. If x owns Blackacre, a tract of land, and does not pay attention to y's possession and use of Blackacre's as Y's land for x number of years, the land now belongs to y. Y may go to court and be awarded title. The law is concerned with land maintenance and society's wishes to see land utilized and developed. Common law doctrine worships land title. It also worships actual possession and economic utilization. Of course, until x years have passed, x, the title holder, may claim his land in court and his right will be recognized. 75Janice at 5:36 UTC

It means that law is on the side of people that own wealth. It means that it is extremely difficult to legally get money from other people. In other words, a person with wealth has a 90% chance of keeping that wealth.

Only if the possessor has committed a tort, then you might have a chance at recovery for what you have lost on top of perhaps a punitive damage depending on how willfully the tortfeasor behaved.--Patchouli 19:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always took it to mean that the person who holds an object is assumed to be the rightful owner, unless proof to the contrary is presented (which only happens, say 10% of the time). StuRat 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat is right, at least according to dictionaries of proverbs and sayings. It means that having control of it is most of what it takes to have it by right. The law is less likely to evict than to award land, for example. See also, "It is easier to ask forgiveness than permission." Geogre 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "the law is less likely to evict." At least in the United States, the law is that if you don't pay your rent, the landlord has to go to the court to evict you and the law doesn't do anything to hinder your eviction — it is pretty quick and stays on the public records. If it were less likely to evict, no one would pay any rent. It is just that the landlord has to do it legally as opposed to showing up with a shotgun and booting you out unilaterally.

Rental isn't "possession", the landlord possesses the house, so has most of the rights. StuRat 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The basic point is that in a lawful and civil society it is easier to keep wealth. While where there is no law, physical might and access to a nearest machine gun makes right.

Let me put it more simply, how many people do you personally know have succeeded in obtaining other people's wealth for no legitimate reason? I just can't recall the name of the guy who unsuccessfully sued Bill Gates for money and got embarrassed.--Patchouli 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the above statements (except Geogre's and StuRat's) are quite wrong. This isn't an observation on how wealth is distributed or acquired. It's a lawyer's observation of how the law works: A person who possesses an object is presumed by law to be the owner of the object, and whoever else wants it has to go to court and prove that he, the plaintiff, is the real owner. Meeting this burden of proof and coping with all the trouble associated with a lawsuit (court fees, lawyer's fees, time lost etc.) is a significant obstacle, which is why lawyers quip that possession is often quite close to ownership, i.e. "the law". Sandstein 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means we have a bourgeois set of laws. Pckeffer

July 16

What is the copyright status of Zorro?

I find copyright for characters somewhat confusing. The creator generally owns the copyright, unless he sells it or created the character for somebody else (like Marvel). Then there are all the associated works by others using the character.

Zorro was created by a guy who died in 1958, and I think copyright in the U.S. is usually author's life plus 50 years, so Zorro should be public domain in a year and a half. Is this correct?

Sony Pictures apparently claimed it has the "exclusive license to develop and distribute all films and television programs based on “Zorro.”" I haven't found anything about the outcome of that case, though. Mr. Billion 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So: Who "owns" Zorro? Is there an official Zorro site? There's this, but I'm not sure how "official" that actually is.

The whole idea is farcical; The Curse of Capistrano was published in 1919, and anything published before 1923 in the U.S. is in the public domain. There are no exceptions to this.--Pharos 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pharos. --Mr. Billion 04:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but copyrights and trademarks are different; trademarks don't expire. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a general treatment of this subject, written for laypersons, see Protection of Fictional Characters (by Lloyd L. Rich). --Mathew5000 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

canadian elections

This is an ambitious project: multiple users would be a good idea.

I'd like to compile a history of newspaper endorsements of canadian political parties during election campaigns. There's currently an article for the 2006 election, but no others. It would be fascinating to see which newspapers endorsed whom, and if possible, when and why. Any takers?

You might get some at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada. Grutness...wha? 09:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Bankers

I am trying to find any names of bankers from 700BC to 400 AD

Probably all Chinese, but that's just a guess. DirkvdM 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of banking suggests the earliest banks were the temples of Babylon, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome; it doesn't name any individuals. I would have thought any individual setting up as an independent bank in those days would have been asking for trouble. Money would have been stored in a very secure place like the king's vaults or a temple, where the priests would have maintained control of the money.--Shantavira 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the garter?

Can anyone tell me the history of the American wedding tradition of tossing the garter? The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to help much. The Jade Knight 03:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yvon Neptune

Is Yvon Neptune still alive? Does anybody know? Melty Rox

[3] would seem to indicate that he is.-gadfium 04:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court in Australia

Why is the Supreme Court in Queensland designed as it is and what is the significance of the design and court protocols?(eg the position of the judge, the Crown Prosecutor, Defence Counsel, jury, accused and toher parties to the court proceedings) Any help/Appropriate websites would be of great help. Thankyou--203.134.189.38 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)James[reply]

Have you read the article Supreme Court of Queensland? --Canley 00:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Art

What do you call this?: http://www.3dcafe.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/originals/theclimb.jpg

I've seen art featuring the same idea as this one, but what is the single piece of art that inspired this one? --user:valuefreeperson2

Relativity (M. C. Escher).-gadfium 04:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Thank you! --user:valuefreeperson2

Common tree in California

I recently visited California, and noticed a particular tree that was planted in San Diego, Santa Monica, and San Francisco. It was commonly planted along the streets in these cities. It had white-ish bark and green leaves. Anyone know what the specific tree is? --Un sogno modesto 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Rich People care about getting max benefit for their money for small value items?

Hybrid Benz for 2008 From: Agence France-Presse From correspondents in Berlin

July 16, 2006

THE first hybrid Mercedes car will be launched at the start of 2008, German-US parent company DaimlerChrysler said overnight, in an effort to tap into a growing market as consumers look to cut their fuel bills.

My question is this: Does rich people care about getting value for money even if the amount (for the item) is less than $20 dollars. By rich, I'm refering to the top 10% of the population by income.

Ohanian 06:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New products are often first sold as novelties. The rich are a good source of money, but they don't care as much about actual advantages as they do about the status it gives them. "Hey, I've got this new thing. A hybrid car! You don't have that yet, do you?" (pittiful look on face). This is a bit exaggerated, but there is often a bit of that in the decision to buy something - the wish to stand out. Especially with a car, the ultimate ~~dick extension~~ status symbol. Though a disadvantage here might be that saving fuel is considered a bit of a left-wing thing, and rich people don't generally want to be associated with that. So my guess is that any commercials at this stage (for the expensive cars) will focus more on the novelty value than the fuel savings. DirkvdM 08:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it depends on if they are "new rich" or "old rich". People who started out poor and are now rich got that way largely by careful budgetting, and remain that way when they are rich. An exception might be people who got rich "the easy way", by winning lotteries or lawsuits. Those who inherited their wealth tend not to know the value of money and squander it frivolously. George Bush, Sr., for example, had no idea what a loaf of bread costs, since he was too rich to ever worry about such "trivial matters". An interesting example of this is when a 10% luxury tax was added to things like yachts in the US. The politicians had thought the rich could easily afford it and wouldn't care, but sales of those items plummetted after the tax went into effect, showing many rich people are watching their money carefully. StuRat 11:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read that after some harbour had upped its mooring prices, Bill Gates decided to move his yacht elsewhere. Considering that he has about 100 million times more money than I have that would be like me going through the effort of moving my bike to save 1 thousand's of a cent. The idiot could probably have bought the harbour to solve the problem. DirkvdM 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1/1000 is "one-thousandth of a cent". We can't have any supporters of Muslim terrorist using poor grammar, now can we ? :-) StuRat 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe everything you read - even on Wikipedia. How come incredibly rich people suddenly become "idiots"? Thrift is usually a laudable practice, so how come Gates is expected to be a wastrel just because he wouldn't miss a few billion here or there? Buying a harbour in order to avoid the trouble of moving your yacht - now that would have been idiocy. Simple solutions still work best, no matter how rich you are. :--) JackofOz 19:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read it on Wikipedia and I didn't call him an idiot for being rich but for what he did. The simplest solution for him would have been to not bother. What else do you have the money for? The idea of buying the harbour was only meant to illustrate my point. But if Gates moved to make a point, that point would have been sharper if he had indeed bought the harbour. DirkvdM 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forget something important - Bill Gates didn't actually move his yacht himself. He paid someone else to do it. All he did was say "yes, move it", which probably took exactly the same time as saying "no, don't move it". Sure the actual moving took someone some time, and Gates paid him for that, but if the amount paid to move the yacht was less than the increase in fees then it makes sense to move it. DJ Clayworth 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very simple answer to the question is "yes, that's how they stay rich." But a lot of people seem to think the opposite. It's true that ridiculously flashy spending gets a lot of attention, but most people in that top 10% (which isn't particularly wealthy, by the way) indeed look for value for money. Why? Because even if you're rich, it feels lousy to be taken advantage of. Keep in mind, though, that "value" itself is somewhat flexible. For instance, what's the value of a piece of fine art? Or a gourmet meal? Sure, an In-n-out cheeseburger probably nourishes the body exactly as well as a dinner at Michael Mina, but the artistic value can't be priced very well. (OK, it can, about $300/head as opposed to $3/head. But you know what I mean.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A nourishing cheeseburger? Where can you get those? DirkvdM 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A real cheeseburger has plenty of nutrients, but also has lots of horrible crap in it, like animal fat, bad cholesterol, etc. However, a healthy and tasty veggie version of a "cheeseburger" can be made, without these disadvantages. StuRat 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrallah's Investments

Why hasn't the Lebanese government seized Hasan Nasrallah's bank account. If Nasrallah weren't so loaded those youths wouldn't have money to march back and forth with ammunition attached to their chests and arms. They're on Nasrallah's payroll."--Patchouli 08:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is getting a lot of money from Iraan, and I bet little of it comes through conventional banking channels. In any case, Hezbollah is now part of the Lebanese government. AnonMoos 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, the Lebanese government hasn't lifted a finger against Hezbollah, which raises the question of whether it's really such an imperative to distinguish between the two in military action. You could make an SAT analogy question -- Hezbollah:Lebanon :: Al-Qaeda:Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Of course, Israel isn't about to occupy the entirety of Afghanistan and try to install a friendly government like the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan. On the other hand, perhaps the international community and/or Israel's offensive might be able to persuade the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah and actually exercise authority on the entirety of its own country. The question is whether the Lebanese government is strong enough to do that, and whether it could even do that without launching a Shia vs. Sunnis/Christians (or three-way) civil war. -- Mwalcoff 00:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book shown in Napoleon Dynamite

In the film Napoleon Dynamite, there is a book briefly show that has some odd title which I believe is related to cryptozoology. The book is never directly discussed. My vague memory is that it's an entitled "Bigfoot and Me"-- but a google doesn't find enough hits for that to be exactly. What is the title of the book? --Alecmconroy 09:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar system

Which calender celebrates/counts 11,22,33,44... years anniversary? I have heard of this some time ago, but can´t remember the calendars name.

Would be greatful for an answer.

--Tls99lli 10:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undecennial is the term for something occuring at 11 year intervels and undecimal is the term for counting by 11s, but neither one in conjunction with calendar in a search brings anything up. So... I'm a bit stumped. Maybe those terms will at least help you in searching :) Digfarenough 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sun is on an 11-year sunspot cycle. Most other calendar cycles are 12-year and 19-year (Metonic cycle). -LambaJan 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damnatio memoriae- Hatshepsut

Hi. I've been looking for images of evidence of Damnatio Memoriae of Hatshepsut, but can't find any. If anyone could help me out in finding some images of the erasure and destruction of her name, image or monuments: please let me know..

THANKS!

gelo 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Identification

Could anyone identify this aircraft, ie, Manufcaturer and Model: http://www.studioeleven.info/library/image/waddington_2006/IMG_7452.JPG

Thanks,

--86.137.228.26 12:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't without a better photo. It looks like some experimental kit plane but I can't be sure. Dismas|^(talk) 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title of second of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes novels

Is the correct title of the second of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes novels The Sign of Four OR The Sign of the Four, with an additional definite article? I have seen both titles used for editions of the book. Why has this title confusion happened? Did the second published edition have a different title than the first published edition? I know for a fact that within the text itself, the phrase used is "the sign of the four". My conjecture is that the original book title omitted the additional definite article, which contradicted the text itself, resulting in this confusion. Does anyone authoritatively know the history of this book's published editions' titles? —Lowellian (reply) 14:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a related question: which title is correct, The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes OR The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes? Again, I have seen published editions with either title. —Lowellian (reply) 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sign of Four is the first title in the Bodleian catalogue (1890, 1893); the Sign of the Four doesn't seem to show up until a 1937 US play adaptation. Case book first appears 1927, and Casebook 1986. If you'd like, I can request their copy of A bibliography of A. Conan Doyle (ISBN 0198181906 if you want to check a library) and check - it'll probably be authoritative - or request the books themselves and check the title pages... if so, leave a talk-page note for me and I'll check them tomorrow or Wednesday. Shimgray | talk | 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This question has been followed up on Talk:Sherlock Holmes. Any Wikipedians interested in further discussion should continue there. —Lowellian (reply) 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How best to (realistically) become a millionaire?

Some people do become millionaires from nothing, so it's not impossible.

Ways I can think of are:

1) Purchase rental properties. As over time the rents and the price of the property hopefully increase, use this to get mortgages to buy more property. Keep going.

2) Do a flotation on the London AIM stock market, or similar junoir stock market in your part of the world.

I am excluding non-serious methods eg.:

Rob a bank - unethical and very risky

Become a drugs baron - see above

Buy a winning lottery ticket - extremely extremely unlikely

Invent something - nearly all new products fail and loose money

Start with two million and become a gambler - jokey

Marry someone rich - I want to marry for love only.

Invest £X a month in the stock market - too slow, I could be dead before I made my £1M, when in any case it would be eaten away by inflation and not be worth much.

And I do mean £1M in british pounds or their equivalent in value - not 1M turkish lira for example.

Has anyone - perhaps a real living millionaire - got any other realistic suggestions?

If you must know, I've got an MBA, I'm currently worth over £200000 net, and I'd prefer to make £1M within say around 5 years.

I'd say the most realistic way is to just live below your means and save your money. Buy generic products instead of brand names, use energy efficient products, use public transportation/bike/walk instead of driving, cook your own food instead of eating at restaurants, etc.: lots of easy ways to cut down on expenses and let your savings grow. Why so anxious to make £1M anyhow? If you aren't happy with what you have now, you won't be happy with that, I figure. Digfarenough 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do all that already! Been doing it all my life. Howdya think I got the £200K (about $400000). And who says I'm not happy. Its just I'd like my own large country mansion. But in any case, I dont think merely saving money is enough to accumulate £1M in real terms.

You left off "encourage your relatives to do one of the above and then inherit it". ;-) --Fastfission 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take me out of Brazil and give me some fundings, and I'll make us both millionaires in three years. That, or you get your money back with compensations. :P I'm serious, though. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Become a venture capitalist; a wisely $70,000 invested in the Digital Equipment Corporation made back millions of dollars in the 60s. Just make sure you do not do what they did in the dot com boom time, and sink all your cash into a business with no way of taking revenue, or a break even point in the millions. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific way, the only way is to acquire something of value of of a million pounds and sell it. Wether you made it, or purchased it at a lower price or whatever. Philc _T^E_C^I 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start a cult and skim money from it. Crazywolf 01:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A common "American Dream" method is to find something that costs you almost nothing to make but people are willing to purchase at a nominal price - ie: disposable razors, wire hangers, shoelaces... Then, sell a few million of them. That is the basis of most rags-to-riches stories in the United States. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "purchase rental properties" method is risky. In recent years, in the UK, average rent increases have not kept pace with increases in house prices. Though you will still make money when your property is occupied, you have to expect it to be empty for (on average) a month each year. Factor in the cost of finding new tenants; the fact that you'll pay a higher mortgage rate for buy-to-let; the cost of repairs, gas safety certificates, cleaning up after departing tenants who've trashed the place; the risk that property prices don't rise as fast as you're expecting. All in all, it's far from a safe bet. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more, Open. And in fact I am losing money every month my property is occupied, because I had to drop the rent to attract tenants so my mortgage is not being covered. It's a mug's game. --Richardrj 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy did it by selling a million pixels on his homepage to anyone who wanted them..... Skittle 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploit malnourished children in South East Asia. Pckeffer

Try this site, if you want to become a millionaire. But be persistent. http://www.subconscious-secrets.com/ It shows you how to get there.

drinking law

am i already allowed to drink alcohol the day of my 21st birthday?? i just wanna make sure so i won't get in trouble .. thanks!

Dunno. You haven't told us where you're located. --ColourBurst 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm a law student - indeed, especially because I'm law student - I cannot give legal advice. You should consult a lawyer if you want an authoritative answer. That said, as far as I know in every US state you can drink on the day of your 21st. Indeed, I've been in bars in several states that offer specials to those who come in on the day of their 21st. So you're probably safe. --George 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember where (probably Texas given its track record), but I saw a news item recently that a jurisdiction wants to make drinking on your 21st birthday illegal due to the customary overdrinking. These morons obviously don't realize that people can just shift their binge to the next day legally. --Nelson Ricardo 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The binge drinking on the birthday has resulted in some highly publicized deaths. What I think is more common is for states and municipalities to try to outlaw the birthday specials George mentioned. However, in Louisiana, they still have drive-through daquiri stands. Geogre 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in almost any country other than the United States, you can drink legally the day before your 21st birthday. -- Mwalcoff 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, you can legally drink for 1,095 days (or 1,096 days if a leap year is involved) before your 21st birthday. That may or may not be a good thing. JackofOz 02:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh the USA, land of the free, home of the brave. You can get your Driver's license at 16. You can join the United States Marine Corps at 17, to recieve full military training. You can legally buy a firearm at 18 (in most states). You can vote at 18, and thereby use all your legal political power. You can legaly have sex with 18, and thereby you are legaly able to create a new human being (baby). And you can drink alcoholic beverages with 21, being able to get completly drunk. Ok, it largly depends on the state you are living in, but still all these patterns are the average standarts of the USA. Certainly, it is the most logical country of the world. Flamarande 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that in many states in the USA, there's no such thing as a "legal drinking age", so to speak. Rather, people must be a certain age to buy alcohol or consume it in certain public places, but if Ma & Pa want to buy little Junior some beer for home consumption, that's legal in some and perhaps most states, I do believe. Personally I think we should lower the "drinking age" but raise the driving age. When kids get killed around here, it's because of poor driving, not over-drinking. Give 'em a six pack and let 'em walk. --Kevin

Flamarande, in the U.S. you can legally have sex and procreate at any age. What is illegal is for an adult to have sex with a minor. --Nelson Ricardo 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, Mr. Ricardo. The Age of consent varies wildly from state to state. For example, in Kansas, if a pair of 14 year olds have consentual sex, they have both committed statutory rape against the other, and are both de facto sex offenders...now I don't think that this has ever been prosecuted, but it's possible. Also, under federal law, if two minors, ie under 18, film themselves having sex, and send the film to each other, they could be charged and prosecuted as child pornographers! Isn't law fun? Brian Schlosser42 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I half agree with you. Certainly raise the driving age. It's a very rare 17 who's anywhere near mature enough to fully appreciate the responsibility thay have to drive safely. I'd require much, much harder driving tests, and licences that have to be renewed annually, with a tough test each time. Young drivers, by the very nature of youth, flout just about every law in the book, and their bad behaviours become internalised all too easily. JackofOz 10:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of AP Herbert's "Misleading Cases" was about a bizzare case where someone died at sea, crossing the date line, and coinciding with the maturity of their heir - what day did either of these things happen on? It's fictional, but there is a well-reasoned note at the end which states that, according to the common law (quoting Halsbury) -

Full age is attained at the close of the day preceding the twenty-first anniversary of birth...

Assuming your state subscribes to the sensible common-law doctrine, you're fine. (Halsbury contends this means you actually become 21 the beginning of the day before, through an odd doctrine of parts-of-days, but I suspect legislation has now got around this) Shimgray | talk | 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You can legaly have sex with 18...". Probably, but I wouldn't recommend it. And you can't marry them all. DJ Clayworth 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader

Is he running in 2008?

He won't have much impact if he does. Karl Marx once said something about repeated patterns of similar historical events turning from tragedy to farce... AnonMoos 17:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly had an impact in 2000! Hopefully he'll run again in '08! I hereby endorse Ralph Nader for president in 2008. Go Ralph Go! Loomis 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have much to say on the subject. But then, it wouldn't, would it, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. :--) JackofOz 04:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. He didn't gain much publicity last time and he's getting older. On the other hand, in 2008 there probably won't be a super-offensive Republican to unite the opposition, like Bush in 2004. And if Clinton is nominated, I can imagine a lot of Democrats voting for someone else. Bhumiya (said/done) 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect reason from Ralph, he knew he totally screwed things for Gore in 2000. (Honestly, Nader was to Gore what Bill Buckner was to the '86 Red Sox. He's the guy that screwed up what would otherwise be a sure win. Not that I'm complaining!) I hope you're right, and that Hillary won't win. In any case, despite my above "endorsement" of Ralph, my serious all out favourite would be Rudolph Giuliani. He's got to be, definitely, by far, the best guy for the job. Failing him, I'd go for Condaleeza. She's extremely bright and knows her stuff. Failing her I'd have to go for McCain. Yes, he's a bit wacky, but I still like him. Well better than Hillary at least. Loomis 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a music

I'm looking for a popular 80's (I believe) electornic song I've seen in several places. It starts with an overdrive guitar like this (midi file)

Anyone can help me? Thanks! -- Anon

Last American slave?

When did the last black American born into slavery die? --80.176.147.202 19:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google answers lists "Charlie Smith, who died on October 5, 1979 in Barstow, Florida at age 137 years old, was reputed to be the last American slave, having been born in West Africa."; however, no one has ever verifiable lived that long. The 1960s or 1970s is probably the right timeframe for this to have occurred.

The last known living children of slaves are still alive today.[4] Rmhermen 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

science fiction story

I am searching for a science fiction short story with this plot: a miles-long lizard lands on the earth...it is worshiped as God.... it shifts position and causes mucho destruction...thanx...

Perhaps Bokrug from H.P. Lovecraft's short story "The Doom That Came to Sarnath"? --Canley 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be confusing things a bit. On Douglas Adams' book So Long and Thanks for All the Fish, Ford Prefect lands on Earth in a giant spaceship made by lizard people. The ship just stays still and causes lots of damage when landing. It seems very reasonable. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that story, but I can't tell you the title or author. Your summary matches my recollection, except that I thought the object landing on Earth was some piece of interstellar flotsam, probably not alive. The story might have ended with the words "Suck air".-gadfium 06:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was Heresies of the Huge God by Brian W Aldiss though I cannot find my copy of his "Moment of Eclipse" collection to check. Notinasnaid 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dune has some big old wormy things in it, they are involved in some rituals, but it's not based on earth. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "suck air" is the closing phrase from an early sci-fi short story called The Liberation of Earth, whose author I can't remember but is occasionally anthologised. No giant lizards are involved, but the basic plot involves Earth being militarily 'liberated' from under the dominion of one alien species by another alien species over and over, until eventually the human are reduced to running through the shattered remnants of the Earth looking for increasingly scarce water and re-telling the story of their liberation. As my copy puts it "The astonishing thing about this story is that it was written before anyone had even heard of Vietnam". DJ Clayworth 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I confused the two stories. Yes, Heresies of the Huge God by Brian W Aldiss is what the original poster was after. William Tenn wrote The Liberation of Earth, which contained the exhortation I recalled.-gadfium 23:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which mummies?

I seem to recall a ship that set out from Spain (maybe), having stored their food in cans with led in them. Eating food containing small amounts of led, slowly made them insane, reportedly, and the legend has it, they started unloading desks and whatnot onto the shores of Greenland. Insane and cold, they were naturally mumified.

What were these famous mummies called? I've searched google to no avail. They're not listed in the Mummies section.

Thanks!

Sounds like the Franklin expedition in much of the details. Bunthorne 01:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1550546163/002-1766549-0747217?v=glance&n=283155 This book is called "Frozen IN Time" and tells all about it.hotclaws**==(81.134.77.56 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

July 17

Adolf III. Von Berg

I am a Descendant of the German Von Berg family and i was looking for a more detailed description of his involvement in the crusades such as how much command power he had and what crusader sect was he part of and if he was in command of any territory in the crusader kingdoms

Well we seem to have some varying numbers and dates for the Adolfs of Berg...our Adolf III is not the same as Adolf I, Adolf II, or Adolf III in the German Wikipedia. Adolf III in German is numbered Adolf VI in the English Wikipedia, for some reason, and we have no Adolf V. Off the top of my head I can't think of any Counts of Berg who had any major involvement in the crusades or the crusader states, so he probably didn't have much power. Adolf III/VI seems to have been on the Fifth Crusade, but he died fighting in Egypt. Adam Bishop 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16th century Japanese culture

What impact did European technology have on Japanese culture, specifically, Bushido, and warfare in general?

We have searched and cannot find any links or sites to research.

Any help would be greatly appreciated...Thank You.

The article Nanban trade period discusses many of the technological and cultural impacts of the contact between Europeans and the Japanese during this period. Road Wizard 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 - 1 AD : 1 - ## BC

If you or I were alive in the years 1 BC and 1 AD, what years would we have known it as? And why wasn't there a year 0?

The "nativity era" wasn't used until over 500 years later -- see Dionysius Exiguus . At the time, 1 A.D. was known as 753 ab urbe condita (among other things). AnonMoos 14:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you would have known it as depends strongly on where you were. 1 AD has a handy sidelist of alternate terminology, though a common practice was also to use regnal years (ie, "the year is the fifth in the reign of Emperor X"), which aren't listed there and will strongly depend on location. See Year zero for the no-year-0 issue Shimgray | talk | 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.G. Wodehouse "Good Morning Bill"

Hello

Does anyone know the song that Tidmouth is singing at the top of Act 2 with the line "though his lance be swift and keen" & to what the tune might be?

WW1 Calendar Confusion

A long time ago I was told that during the 1st world war the Russians turned up to some campaigns on a different day, because they were using the Julian calendar and not the Gregorian calendar used by the rest of the allies.

Is this true or have I been mislead?

Aside from the obvious October Revolution having occured in November according to the Gregorian calendar, I can't find any such confusion over differences in calendar systems around the time. Were there any more specifics (e.g. which campaigns) that could help the search? Ziggurat 03:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians used the old calendar - I have a suspicion the Orthodox Church did even after the Revolution - but the Eastern Front was pretty much the Russians alone. There'd have been confusion, certainly, but I doubt it would have extended to major campaigning-level clashes - there just wasn't that scale of cooperation with their allies. Shimgray | talk | 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Orthodox Church still uses the old calendar internally (for reasons that have to do with not recognising the authority of the Catholic pope). Christmas, for example, is celebrated on what the Julian calendar calls "25 December" but the Gregorian calendar calls "7 January". JackofOz 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religions opposed to medicine

Scientologists are famous for abominating psychiatry. Do they hold the same views on non-psychiatric medicine? If a devout Scientologist had cancer, would he refuse conventional treatment?

On a related note: although Christian Scientists normally eschew treatment for all ailments, would they draw the line at a broken leg? Bhumiya (said/done) 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Scientology try Medical claims in Scientology doctrine, it seems they draw the line at drugs that influence the brain, but their definition of that may be different than what most would call psychiatric drugs. See Christian Scientists, the article doesn't seem to clear up your question but some of the external links might. Nowimnthing 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Scientologists and Christian Scientists are not in any way related and should NOT be confused! It's the Scientologists that are the nut-jobs, not the Christian Scientists, who established their church in the late 19th century (almost a century before the Scientologists), and are really no more, as far as I know, than another bona fide Christian denomination. The article on Christian Scientists doesn't seem to clear up the question because it's about an entirely different subject than Scientology! (Just felt I HAD to say that for all those Christian Scientists who must be irritated to all hell with constantly being confused with Scientologists! Then again, I really don't know all that much about Christian Scientism, so I shouldn't really take any position about their faith, except to say that they are by no means Scientologists!)

As for Scientology (or any other religion) eschewing drugs that "influence the brain", sadly for them, ALL drugs influence the brain. You stub your toe and your brain is involved in the painful reaction. Break a leg and it's your brain that's telling you that it hurts. Likewise, take a pill to stop your leg from hurting and what you're actually doing is telling your brain (or perhaps "tricking" it) to ignore the pain.

Same goes for non-medicinal substances. Have a glass of wine and you're "influencing your brain". Same goes with a cup of coffee, a piece of chocolate, or a simple can of Coke. All contain caffeine, which, strictly speaking, is a "mind altering drug", which "influences the brain".

I can go even further into absurdity. Eat a piece of candy, and the sugar in it will "influence your brain". Even simpler, eat an apple and its sugar will "influence your brain". In short, all food "influences the brain". Even further, all sensory input of any kind "influences the brain". Go out into the sunshine and the sun will, literally, change your brain chemistry.

Ok, I realize I'm being silly here, but then again, the subject was Scientology, right? Loomis 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought they were connected. They are most definitely not. But it is funny that people freely deride the weird practices of Scientology while giving a free pass to older, more "Christiany" religions with the same tendencies, then bristle at the suggestion of a parallel. Christian Scientists, guided by faith, have frequently killed their children by refusing to give them basic medical care. As far as I'm concerned, this is substantially worse than bilking consenting adult idiots out of money. I'm no fan of Scientology, but neither do I accept the view that cults founded before 1900 are beyond reproach. The Christian Scientists might be offended if I compared them to Scientologists, and vice versa, but as Arthur Miller said, the comparison is inevitable. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumiya, it was Nowimnthing who seemed to be making the obvious confusion, not you. As for the difference between bona fide groups, and nut-jobs, the line has to be drawn somewhere, To take an extreme hypothetical example, if all one religion basically tells you is "be a good person and you'll go to heaven", while another tells you "to go to heaven you must all gather together and throw a virgin into a volcano", well, I'm afraid I'd be forced to make a distinction. It's not a matter of age, as the former religion may have been been established yesterday, and the latter may have existed since antiquity, yet I'd feel the same.

As for the real-life example of Scientology vs. Christian Science, many people near and dear to me require psychiatric treatment to lead more productive, more functional, happier lives. To date, I've never been told by any Christian Scientist that these people should be denied this treatment and that psychiatry is a farce, as Scientologists seem so unhesitant to spout at any possible opportunity. Perhaps Christian Scientists believe that even psychotherapy, without the involvement of drugs is against their religion. However, to the best of my understanding 1) this is not their position, and 2) even it is, they seem to be satisfied in merely following this tenet of their faith themselves, without ridiculing those non-Christian Scientists who are in dire need of psychiatric attention. These remarks (the ones by Scientologists, that psychiatry is a farce and that they're fools for using it to better their lives) are hurtful to the mentally ill, and that's where I draw MY line. Loomis 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC quote "Lebanese Shia Sunni union would make Bin Laden proud"

Hello,

yesterday (the night between sunday 16 july and monday 17 july 2006) I was watching the news on BBC (1 or 2) and a reporter said there is a union in Lebanon of Sunni and Shia muslims that would make Bin Laden proud.

I didn't really get that comment, I mean, is Bin Laden truly the symbol of union between Sunni and Shia muslims? Isn't his organisation completely sunni, and hasn't Al Qaeda even targeted Shia muslims?

Thanks,

Evilbu 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stupid statement. In the Sunni fundamentalist Islamic movement Bin Laden is part of, Shiites are considered heretics or not muslim at all. David Sneek 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, because the BBC usually provides quality in my opinion. Evilbu 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bizarre thing to say. I sure hope this was from some third-party editorializing, not from the official BBC rewsreader. You'd have to be very uninformed or just vehemently anti-Muslim to feel that a Sunni-Shia alliance would necessarily benefit terrorism. Even if it did, as Evilbu says, it would not please Wahhabists like Bin Laden. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Brits are known for sarcasm and irony;maybe that was it?hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know the situation, but maybe the meaning was "[this group are] dedicated terrorists." Such a phrase "makes [well known terrorist] proud" could be used of any terrorist group, without regard to ideologies. Notinasnaid 08:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure he meant the average Lebanese feeling that way. It was a broadcast sunday night (monday morning) quite late (at about 2-3 AM GMT) and I think it was a woman in the studio talking to a (male young with white shirt)correspondent in Lebanon. Evilbu 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about Iranian Revolution.

I read the Iranian revolution article, but got rather confused. Following are my doubts, if someone could clear them. I think wikipedia is good, but one thing which I have peculiarly noticed about "political" arcticles is that they are quite "messy". In the sense that they cover all the happenings and topics without going into depth. So if anyone wants to really understand the reasons and finer points, then it cannot act as a comprehensive source. But still, I am impressed with whats going on in here. And by the way, I am a regular user of wikipedia, have around 950mb of articles from this free encyclopedia! Now some for my doubts :

Doubt1:

there is this following statement in the forementioned article about iranian revolution.

"In July 1980, the U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini."

But why did US conspire against khomeini? He was not communist or being supported by Russia. So what were the reasons? And though he (khomeini) was not the best choice for US, as mentioned in the article, there didnt seems any danger in having him in the regime.

Doubt 2:

There is the following statement in the same article.

"Thus, in 1980, Iraq (politically controlled by Sunnis at this time), with financial support from the rulers of the majority of Arab states, invaded Iran in an attempt to destroy the revolution in its infancy"

But which "revolution" are they against? The revolution, which was going on in Iran against Shah, was already successfull with Shah being overthrown, and Khomeini being in control. So where did a new "revolution" come into being?

To answer your first question, by 1980, the Iran Hostage Crisis had already begun. American hostages were being held in the U.S. embassy with the support of Khomeini. The U.S. wanted to rescue the hostages, and (if they could) get rid of a leader (Khomeini) who they saw as radical and dangerous. Iran was also a strategic location at the time, since it was right next to the Soviet Union, and with an anti-US leader in charge, the US would have little to no control over Iran. 69.40.243.177 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban leaders weren't communist, either.--Patchouli 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the second question, the revolution being referred to is the revolution that Khomeini had led the previous year. In some countries, it's not unusual for a revolutionary government to still refer to itself as "revolutionary" for years after taking power. --Metropolitan90 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of US doing regime changes around the world, starting with Hawaii's monarchy, which was before communism was invented, the vast majority of it, such as in South and Central America, had nothing to do with Communism, and everything to do with Laissez Faire Capitalism, where US firms wished to do as they pleased in nations that wanted them to do nasty things like pay taxes. User:AlMac|^(talk) 05:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase

Where does the phrase, "That's the beauty of it, it doesn't do anything" come from?69.40.243.177 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty of it, it doesn't come from anywhere! Try here for example. Adam Bishop 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually what caused me to come here and ask. Nobody there could find an answer. Maybe there is no answer. 71.31.150.179 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has some origin, but the origin isn't always known. JackofOz 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Birds

Why do we have state birds? What group is responsible for states having these?

As for why, try the introduction at national symbols, substituting "state" for "national". Various symbols (as noted at lists of U.S. state insignia) are generally designated by the state legislature, generally (I suppose) after someone or some group requests such recognition. The given reasons can vary well beyond the bounds of a quick answer. — Lomn | Talk 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is 'we'? DirkvdM 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many places will do all sorts of things to promote tourism. User:AlMac|^(talk) 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

Military School

What is the oldest military school/academy in the country?

Thanks!!!

Which country? JackofOz 00:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it's almost certainly the US Military Academy at West Point, although The Citadel makes claims for being as ancient. Geogre 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is probably referring to the U.S. --Proficient 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler

Your article on Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) reads, "Hitler was a great man who did a great deed in exterminating jews". This is not only offensive, but incorrect. This article is noted as not being changeable by new users.

I believe the best change would be to remove this sentence altogether.

It was vandalism, and has been removed. Thanks for being vigilant. JackofOz 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1870s Danish clothing

Can someone tell me what the typical attire worn by a rural Danish man in the 1870s-1880s was? I believe this was after leather breeches were out of style, but I could be wrong.

Danish people perhaps? --Proficient 03:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. While I found some interesting material there, and while it lead to other interesting material (and on and on), there was nothing on clothing. --Lynne Jorgensen 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal-Libertarian

Is there a particular political party that is home to people who consider themselves liberal-libertarians?

You mean liberal and libertarian? In what country?--Anchoress 05:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberal Party or the Libertarian Party - AllanHainey 09:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might try the Independence party started by Jesse Ventura as an offshoot of the Reform Party (when it skewed to the right.) They consider themselves "Socially Inclusive and Fiscally Responsible" Their platform is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-medical marijuana, pro-gun rights and fiscally moderate. If that is what you mean by liberal-libertarians. Nowimnthing 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe D'66. Please don't double post, so I won't have to double-answer. :) DirkvdM 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sheetmusic from the movie "legends of the Fall"

I am after the piano sheet music to the song played on the piano from the movie "legends of the Fall" starring Brad Pitt & Anthony Hopkins. The song is played by the woman & sung by the youngest son. ≈Mandi

- You can find an arrangement of "Twilight and Mist" at [ http://www.boardmanmusic.com/Ludlows.htm Boardman Music]. ~CivilizeMe

The original Addams Family show

I know that the Addams Family's first run was 1964-1966, but what year did the syndicated reruns begin? Thank you!

The origin or history of the phrase "Punchers Chance".

I would like to know the origin and any history of the phrase "punchers chance" or "a punchers chance". I know it is given to designate the underdog from the favorite in a contest. I believe it was first used in boxing, however, this term has become more mainstream and broadly applied in todays use of this phrase. I look forward to reading what you have discovered. Thanks in advance!

To start off with, the phrase is not to designate the underdog. You wouldn't say that someone is a "puncher's chance". Rather, it describes a low-but-not-too-low chance of success. This is often a term applied to the odds of an underdog's victory; however, a cursory Google search suggests that it's equally likely to find the phrase <underdog> doesn't have a puncher's chance, so being an underdog isn't synonymous with having a puncher's chance.

As for origins, it's the notion that an unskilled boxer (derogitorialy termed a puncher) could, should he get lucky, deck a skilled fighter by landing a hard blow before his opponent's skill can assert itself. However, I'm also not sure how "mainstream" this has become. The above Google search also indicates that the phrase is almost exclusively in use in fighting circles (boxing and the UFC seem to be the most common). — Lomn | Talk 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or "punter's chance", which gets even more google hits than "puncher's chance"? In that phrase a punter is a bettor against slim odds. alteripse 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodernism equals Neoconservatism

I am looking for information to either strongly support, or conclusively discredit the arguement that American Neoconservatism comes from Postmodernist political thought. Thanks. (This comment was left unsigned by Dhammond).

A quick browse over the Wikipedia article on Neoconservativism, and especially the origins of Neoconservatism, does not reveal any names that I recognize as also associated with post-modernism. But I think it would be helpful for you to define (either loosely or strictly) what you mean by "post-modernism", and also "comes from". I don't mean to be pedantic, it is just that in political discussions such as these there can often be a failure of consistent usage of words by both sides. Do you mean are there elements of post-modernist thought in neoconservatism? Or that post-modernists were important in the early establishment of neoconservative thought? What? It would also be helpful if you would define post-modernism because that word is tossed around (especially in the political realm) without any regard to what it is meant to refer to.--droptone 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VD and doorknobs

This question has bugged me for years:
What's up with VD and doorknobs? Something about getting VD from humping the doorknob, and how do you hump a doorknob? What the hell is going on here? =( --68.122.2.65 08:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been quite a few years. VD is pretty much universally called STD these days. As to your question, I've never tried that particular form of human endeavour, so cannot answer your question. But my colleagues here are all pretty kinky, so I'm sure they'll know. JackofOz 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about doorknobs. I have heard people talk about catching STD from toilet seats, though, which would be a little less athletic but no more likely. --Richardrj 11:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those silly myths. Generally, STD viruses (with perhaps an exception or two) require moisture as well as heat, and they don't survive very well outside of the body. Further, they're diffuse on any surface. Unless the "doorknob" is your nickname for a male partner's genitals, it ain't gonna happen. Geogre 11:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses dont recquire anything to 'survive' as they cannot die. The only thing they cant survuve are conditions that would actually cause their structure to deteriorate. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You're right. Bacterial STD's would die that way. Viral STD's would have needed some serious bodily fluid to get onto the doorknob, generally blood, and then they'd need to go inside the body to get to blood. I.e. you can catch a rhinovirus from a doorknob, but probably not even Herpes Simplex I, much less II or HPV or the others. Geogre 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Geogre was right the first time. The relevant states are not alive or dead but infective or non-infective. STD viruses do not survive well on dry surfaces and the fomite transmissibility is so low it has not been demonstrated in the ordinary envirnoment. alteripse 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what about getting it from doorknobs? Where did that come in? --mboverload @ 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that 'getting it from a doorknob' is a cover story. In years past when not as much was publicly known about the transmissibility of STD's one's reputation could be harmed if it became known one had a so-called 'social disease' as a result of sexual intercourse. So to protect one's reputation, one told a little white lie and said "Oh, I must have gotten it from a doorknob..." Presumably someone with an STD had had contact with said doorknob just prior to the innocent victim touching it.

monograph on michaelangelo

hello,

can someone tell me how i can find a monograph on michaelangelo.

There are some listed at Michelangelo#Further reading...or you could go to your local library and look up Michelangelo in the catalogue. Adam Bishop 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's one on the web, try Google Scholar. Geogre 16:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European film where a boy sits on the roof of a church

I'm trying to think of a film I saw, probably in the early 1990s, where a young boy climbs up a very large building, I think a church, and sits on the roof. Probably the film was either French or Italian, but it might have been from some other European country. --Mathew5000 15:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it myself by searching Google on the keywords movie|film boy "church roof" climb. The film is Le Grand chemin (The Grand Highway). But just out of curiosity, do post here if you would have remembered the film based on my description of that scene. --Mathew5000 15:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How old was the boy in Fiddler on the Roof? User:AlMac|^(talk) 05:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers

why was the article about Brian Peppers removed?

Basically, because of libel concerns. I may not be remembering this exactly right but I think Brian Peppers contacted Wikipedia, alleging false information in the article about him, and, long story short, it was deleted by Jimbo Wales because of those concerns. Mango juice^talk 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was as much in view of notability questions (as qualified, regrettably, by human dignity concerns) as in view of prospective legal liability. The article, FWICT, contained no libellous information but was thought improperly to focus on Peppers (cf., on the Peppers meme), such that, inasmuch as he was avolitionally a quasi-public figure and inasmuch as his notability came only from his being mocked for his appearance (how that's an encyclopedic concern is altogether beyond me), the value of our having an article apropos of Peppers/the Peppers meme was outweighed by the value of our preserving his privacy (once more, that seems rather an unencyclopedic concern). Joe 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is currently under discussion at, I believe, WP:AN/I. I'd wish a pox on the house of those involved, myself, but I haven't been involved in the slightest. Geogre 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wasn't a libel problem (there was no libelous information), it was a human dignity issue (article is based on an internet meme whose entire point derived from making fun of the disfigured). The deletion log (which only admins can see) has a comment from Jimbo when he deleted it on 21 Feb 2006 which says: "We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it". Which seems pretty sensible to me (basically saying "wait a year, see if anybody really needs this article or not at that point"). --Fastfission 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article prior to deletion can be read here. --Richardrj 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. Perhaps notibility. --Proficient 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of blood line in British royal house.

Hello,

all the time I hear names of Kings, Queens, and Houses in the United Kingdom. My questions are

1) who was the last king or queen to be a direct descendant of William the Conqueror?

2) which King or Queen is the earliest ancestor of the current Queen of the United Kingdom?

I tried just going through all Wikipedia pages, hopping on to the next king or queen but I got confused

Thanks, Evilbu 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II. --Mathew5000 16:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For question two, it depends on how reliable a genealogy you want. There are existing ones which trace here back to Adam (or to Odin), and other, slightly more likely including Roman emperors and Muhammed. Descent through Charlemagne's to Arnold of Metz, died 639, is fairly well established (although recent mathematical analysis suggests everyone in Europe is decended from him) Rmhermen 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be reasonable and assume the questioner is asking for the earliest ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II to be a BRITISH monarch. The furthest I can go back without getting a massive headache would be Edward III who ascended to the throne in 1327, who was the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II. Edward III was indeed a direct descendant of William the Conqueror, though exactly how I'm not sure. Therefore the last King or Queen to be a direct descendant of Willian the Conqueror, is, surprisingly, Queen Elizabeth II. Yes, apparently they're actually related, despite the extremely confusing and geographically mind-numbing route (with important stops in Germany and France) through Europe they took. Loomis 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward III was the 13x great grandson of Egbert of Wessex (reigned 802-839), through Henry I's first wife, Matilda, granddaughter of Edward Atheling. According to legend, Egbert was the 9x great grandson of Cerdic of the West Saxons (d. 534 AD). Beyond that it gets a bit hazy, but according to legend you can go back 24 more generations to Sceaf, a Norse tribal leader in about 60 BC. QEII is also descended from Alpin, king of Scotland (d. 834), Rhodri Mawr of Wales (reigned 844-878) and Brian Boru of Ireland (reigned 1002-1014). Grutness...wha? 03:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and from Mohammed (571-632). JackofOz 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably not from Mohammed. - Nunh-huh 10:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. Google hasn't produced anything concrete. Lots of general claims that most people in Europe are descended from Mohammed, but that doesn't help much. I'm certain that the last time the queen visited a Muslim country, such a claim was made and it seemed to raise nobody's eyebrows at the time. I must look into this further. JackofOz 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the claim is frequently made, but it's pretty much bogus. The supposed line of descent relies on some very questionable assertions. The issue is the identity of several of the sexual partners of King Alfonso VI of Castile and Leon. There is considerable controversy over the identity of Zaida, baptised Isabella, as she would be a gateway ancestor between European and Arab royalty. The question is whether Alfonso had two wives named Isabella, or a wife and a mistress each named Isabella, or one woman who was successively wife and mistress, named Isabella. Zaida, baptized as Isabella, was the mother of Sancho, illegitimate son of King Alfonso, born during his marriage to Bertha. Sancha and Elvira, however, are reported as legitimate daughters of Alfonso, born by his wife Queen Isabella (by the same source that names Zaida - it names his wives and their children including Isabella having Elvira and Sancha, and it then names his mistresses and their children, including Zaida/Isabella having Sancho, without giving any indication that the two were the same woman). It is only if Queen Isabella was identical to Zaida/Isabella that these Infantas are full siblings of Sancho, and that there is any possibility of a descent from Mohammed. (The line also arguably has some completely fictional individuals in it, both upstream and downstream from Zaida.) So the reason this "factoid" keeps getting publicity is because of the mild frisson produced by the idea that the queen and Mohammad are related rather than by any actual evidence that it is true. - Nunh-huh 03:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's interested in the topic, I'd recommend to Jack volume 2 of Burke's royal families of the world, published in 1977, which covers Africa and the Middle East (volume 1 covers Europe and Latin America, while volume 3 was supposed to cover Asia and the Pacific, but was never published). There's a section in the back which details some genealogical links between the royal lineages of the Middle East and the nobility of Europe, although I think it focuses on showing how current Arab monarchs can trace their descent from European ones (as well as from Mohammed), rather than vice versa. Thylacoleo 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, I will do that. I consulted volume 1 back in the early 80s about Russian genealogy, and I was aware of volume 2, but always wondered why the rest of the world's royal families weren't covered. Thanks for the info, Thylacoleo and Nunh-huh. JackofOz 04:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was always asking about King or Queens of England. That is quite impressive, if William the Conqueror is an ancestor of the current queen. Evilbu 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floor plan of the US Capitol?

Ugh. I'm trying to write some fiction. For which scenes are set in the US Capitol Building.

Does anybody know where one might find an online copy of the place's interior floor plan, or a map of the interior or something? --Penta 17:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off of the United States Capitol article are links to the main US Capitol page, which has a description of the building. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not a map. See, I need to know where places are in relation to other places, entrances, etc. --Penta 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try the link to the map of the grounds. It doesn't show the insides of the buildings, but you can click on each one and get info about them. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the last page of this quite large PDF file. You'll have to zoom in to 300% to see the individual room numbers. -- Mwalcoff 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get the info while you can, because it is being made confidential out of fear of terrorists using the data. All sorts of stuff used to be freely available, now they want to know who wants to know and how come they want to know, and whatever your answer, they not believe you. User:AlMac|^(talk) 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest Presidential nominee from a major party?

From the major parties, whether or not he *won* the election, who was the youngest nominee to be US President, and how old were they?

Additionally, why was the minimum age for US President set at 35? --Penta 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page United States presidential election a list of elections. I don't feel like clicking the names and calculating the age of each candidate, but there aren't that many if you want to do it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Jennings Bryan in 1896. He was 36.

How do you use the redirect function?

Hello. I am brand new to Wikipedia. I created an article for Civil War Times Illustrated, a history magazine. How do you use the redirect function to direct people who search for "Civil War Times" or "Civil War Times Magazine" to my article for "Civil War Times Illustrated." As it stands if you type "Civil War Times" into the search engine the magazine "Civil War Times Illustrated" is nowhere to be found.

Thank you verch much for your time

--Hitm1 17:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)hitm1[reply]

Edit the page you want to redirect from. Enter #REDIRECT [[Page You Want To Redirect To]] --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically questions relating to the functing of Wikipedia belong at the Wikipedia:Help desk. There is more detail on redirects at Help:Redirect (most Wikipedia functions have help pages named in this fashion). --Fastfission 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scientology...

What is this? Is it a cult? Why is it called religion? Mary

Check out our extensive article(s) on the subject at Scientology. Generally the line between "non-mainstream religion" and "cult" is very thin (see our article on cult for more on this). Whether or not it is a "cult" or not, it is certainly strange in my book. (Would you like a stress test? Oh, what a surprise, you are stressed! And the only cure is Scientology...) --Fastfission 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They told me I was a robot. So I told them to go fuck themselves. DirkvdM 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cult, but if you say it in public they'll sue you. --mboverload @ 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO, Dirk!!! I honestly haven't laughed so loud in a long time! Good one! I like it! Loomis 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making it fit the definition of a cult is easier than making it fit the definition of a religion. Religions usually have worship involved in them. One reason that some people call Buddhism more philosophy than religion is that, by itself, it has little worship or doctrine on the afterlife. Scientology seems to be a militant and irrational self-help group. Geogre 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Name

--What is a name given to mixed persons of the Italian and Polish decent? --68.66.174.68 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Polish-Italian? Or, perhaps, an Italo-Pole? Loomis 21:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::Oy!! (or Oy vey in your case). That's a bit unfair, Loomis. Sounds like you're injecting your own stuff into what is a perfectly innocent and reasonable question. Better to remove your second response entirely than leave it there and tell them to ignore it. JackofOz 23:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Jack. I'll respect your judgement on this one, as it's usually clearer than mine. Loomis 00:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VCR problem

Yes, the VCR is close to being obsolete, but I have over 200 tapes and still enjoy them. My VCR is giving me a problem which I hope someone can solve for me. When some tapes play, there are horizontal lines on the picture, then the picture twitches or jerks. At that time there is a high squeak sound. The sound seems to be electronic, not mechanical. This problem appears to be a massive tracking problem, doesn't it? Well, the automatic tracking can't control it, and I tried great amounts of manual tracking, to no avail. In fact, the manual tracking seemed to make it worse. The problem happens on some tapes and not on others. The age of the tape seems not to be a factor. The "jerk" doesn't happen always at the same place on the problem tapes. That is, if I rewind the tape a bit after a "jerk", the tape often plays fine right through the former "jerk" area. My tapes, recorded since 1979, have come from at least six different VCR's. Could this be an incompatability problem? How about static electricity? Or moisture? This problem is very annoying, because I can't watch these tapes in peace. Your suggestions will be most appreciated. 66.213.33.2 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had your VCR cleaned? Not to get too technical, but the tracking just moves the reader head back and forth on the tape as it flies by. Auto-tracking tries to find the most optimal signal. None of that matters if the rollers are dirty and sticky. The tape will jerk around and throw the tracking completely off. What worse, it may cause the tape to ride to high or too low on the rollers. When the edge of the tape hits the top/bottom of the rollers, it makes a whistle (sounds like when you put a reed of grass between your thumbs and blow on it). In the three terrible years that I did VCR repairs for Sony, I fixed about 90% of all VCR problems by just cleaning the rollers. Also note that VCR tapes are not permanent storage. The tape gets sticky over time, causing it to stick to the rollers, and the magnetic image on the tape bleeds - causing the colors to look funny. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Where do I go to get the VCR cleaned?

Colours don't look funny. Every colour has its own value. You're not discriminating against certain colours, are you? :)

As to the question, if you have that many tapes you might consider buying some spare players. Decent ones are not too expensive these days. I've heard that Philips and Panasonic players are good at playing all sorts of tapes. I've got over 500 tapes, so I've made sure I've got enough players to last me for the rest of my life. Same for record players (I've got over 4000 lp's). That said, it still makes sense to try to repair the old one. I think I've seen cleaning tapes, but you could also open the machine and clean the head and stuff with cotton buds dipped in alcohol. DirkvdM 19:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use cotton swabs. Use a ~~shammy~~ chamois (normally used for drying a car without getting streaks). If you get a strand of cotton in the heads, you'll mess up the VCR. Also, clean the rollers - that is a common place for problems. If you don't want to do it yourself, take it into a TV/VCR repair shop. However, it will cost just as much to clean it as it will to buy a new one. So, there's not reason not to try and clean it yourself. If you break it, just buy a new one. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Barry Oretsky

Hello,

I am trying to find out about a famous canadian Artist - Barry Oretsky

He's a member of the Royal Academy of Art and very well known in canada.

Thanks!

Aaron removed email

Government Defense Agencies and tv

My question is are there any government agencies similar to the CTU on fox's 24, and are there agents who perform tasks/missions similar to those that the main character Jack Baur performs? If so, which agencies, and which positions inside these agencies perform these missions? Also, how do they go about selecting such agents? Thank you,--Nezmith1869 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. it would probably be the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department. The CIA, MI6 and the Mossad probably all inspire the stories. Nowimnthing 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education

why do we need a national education system in nz and why is it free, compulsary and secular?

You seem to have three questions:

1) Why is it free? Well, I would imagine that's because NZ is a civilized country that believes that ALL its citizens have the basic right to basic education, regardless of financial means.

2) Why is it compulsory? How old are you? lol. Seriously, it's compulsory because a well educated public is a prerequisite for a civilized society.

3) Why is it secular? How else would you have it be? Do you think it would be preferable for one religion to have a monopoly on how the young people of New Zealand are educated? Loomis 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a vague recollection that the mantra "free, compulsary and secular" was a slogan for the political party who instituted the Education system back in the 19th century perhaps the Liberals? Lisiate 04:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity

I am wondering what is the difference between a rogue celebrity and a citizen celebrity--70.101.41.184 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a "rogue celebrity," but I assume it refers to figures such as D. B. Cooper and Bonnie and Clyde and The Wild Bunch and Jesse James and Pretty Boy Floyd: people who become popular figures for their illicit actions. Geogre 17:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue = notorious. Citizen = common man rising to fame. --Proficient 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military College

I posted this question a few days ago. I was vague. I apologize. So Ill repost.

In America, what is the oldest private military school?

Thanks!!!

Norwich University --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, The Citadel and Virginia Military Institute make those claims. The claims are a little tortorous, because the schools evolved from small colleges and, in some cases, secondary schools. Geogre 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

President? Dictator!

Why is it that the media doesn't seem to have the backbone to call a spade a spade when it comes to leaders of foreign dictatorships?

For example, Zimbabwe is clearly a dictatorship. It's "leader", Robert Mugabe has no democratic mandate and is nothing more than a miserable, racist, Dictator (with a capital "D"!)

Why are the media, as well as the rest of us, so humble and accommodating, that we all refer to Mugabe as "The President of Zimbabwe"? He's no "President" by any democratic sense of the word. He's nothing more than the petty, cruel, self-proclaimed leader of Zimbabwe. He's a Dictator, and to refer to him as a "President" is an insult to all democratically elected Presidents around the world.

I realize that the US President, (with a capital "P"!) George W. Bush, is not very popular around the world. Fair enough. Yet he was democraticaly elected by at least a plurality (if not a majority) of US citizens. Like him or hate him, he's the democratically elected "President" of the US, and as such, in accordance with the United States Constitution, will cede power to his successor, at the latest, at precisely noon EST, on January 20, 2009.

There are many democratically elected "Presidents" and "Prime Ministers" around the world that I'm not particular fond of. For example, for me, Jacques Chirac, the President of France, is an ass. Yet he was democraticaly elected and as such I respect his legitimacy. He is the valid, legitimate, democratically elected President of France, and should be respected as such.

On the other hand you have a clown like "President" Bashar-al-Assad of Syria. What is this nonsense? He's no "President"! He's merely the "president-for-life" Dictator son of another "president-for-life" Dictator - "president" Hafez-al-Assad.

When will the media and the rest of us develop the gonads to call it as it is. When refering to clowns like Assad or Mugabe, when will we all just start calling them as they are: "Dictator Mugabe" of Zimbabwe, and "Dictator Assad" of Syria? Loomis 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"President" is not a word which exclusively means "democratically elected" (and a president and a prime minister are two entirely different types of posts). It is a formal political title. See President if you are interested in what it specifically means—it basically means "head of state", usually of a republic (and republics are not all democratic). "Dictator", on the other hand, is not a title. Many editorials do refer to such people as dictators, but when reporting things, as opposed to writing editorials, usually they stick with the formal and more neutral titles. There are enough media sources in the world—and they are often happy to write scathing editorials of all world leaders—that I doubt it has much to do with "gonads" but rather with journalistic convention and style. Please also note that the reference desk is a place for asking questions that you want an answer to—not rhetorical questions that you then use to go on a little rant about. --Fastfission 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's for the same reason that Wikipedia refers to Mugabe as the President of Zimbabwe and not as the Dictator of Zimbabwe. Like it or not, he is recognised world-wide as the President of Zimbabwe. Hitler was recognised as the Fuhrer of Germany. Saddam was recognised as the President of Iraq, even after the US invaded. Respect is shown to the office, not necessarily to any particular holder of the office in a personal sense. Ultimately, it's a personal opinion (ie. POV) as to whether Mugabe is a dictator - albeit, an opinion that most people would share. JackofOz 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the difference between a President and a Prime Minister. No need to condescend. I know what a "President" is. If it's a matter of "journalistic convention and style", then "journalistic convention and style" should change. The role of the media is to present the public with as precise as possible a picture of what's going on in the world. Unfortunately, not all members of the public are as clearly informed about the difference between a "democratically elected" President, and a mere dictator-president. Therefore, to say that, for example: "Today, President Chirac of France met with President Assad of Syria", is not only innacurate, (and extremely insulting to Chirac, a legitimate President), but much more importantly, irresponsible journalism, and worst of all, misleading to readers. These two individuals may both indeed claim to be "presidents" of their respective countries, but to omit the fundamental difference between what it means to be "President" in these two countries is the ultimate in media misrepresentation. My question was not rhetorical. I am sincerely interested in why the media insists on calling these despicable people "Presidents" or "Prime Ministers" when indeed they are no more than Dictators. Why is this sort of distinction considered "so sensitive" that it can only be adressed in the editorial and op-ed pages?

It's not a "soap box" thing, rather, quite the opposite. If the difference was obvious, I'd have no problem. Yet I often hear colleagues, educated colleagues I should add, yet not educated in the social sciences, speaking of (in alphabetical order) "Presidents Assad, Bush, Chirac and Mugabe". Is it not the ultimate responsibility of the press to not mislead the public? Isn't it the responsibility of the press to clarify, rather than to cloud, the REAL state of affairs in the world?

Interestingly, Jack referred to the fact that Hitler was referred, at least up to a certain point, even by my personal all time hero, as "His Excellency, Herr Hitler, Fuhrer of Germany". Could a newspaper of today responsibly refer to Hitler as "His Excellency"? If it did, and I requested an explanation here at the RefDesk for why they referred to such an evil man in such an honorific way, would that be a "rhetorical question that I then use to go go on a little rant about"? No! I would sincerely want an explanation as to why the media would carry itself about in such an awfully misleading and irresponsible fashion to its readers.

I therefore repeat my question in a far simpler, far more NPOV form: Why does the media choose to make no recognizable distinction whatsoever between those world leaders that are democratically elected and those that are not? Loomis 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy is not the be-all-and-end-all of political affairs. Bhutan and Tonga, for example, are not democracies but they are fairly peaceful places as far as I'm aware. A benevolent, benign dictatorship can work well. It just hasn't happened that way in Zimbabwe. As for titles, it is a fact that Mugabe is recognised simply by virtue of holding the office of president. Whatever anyone may think of the way he has gone about his business since he became president doesn't alter that. The fact of that recognition by the world community means that that is the appropriate title for him. To call him "the dictator of Zimbabwe" would be inviting argument from those who happen to agree with his outrageous policies. In any event, what the media may say about any particular person doesn't have to govern what you or anyone thinks of that person. The very fact that you are aware of what he has been doing means the media is doing its job in informing the world of his brutal regime. Don't get too concerned with titles and labels. Actions speak louder. JackofOz 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with JackofOz on this one - your view that "Presidents" and "Prime Ministers" must be democratically elected is erroneous, that was never the case. It's the name of the position they hold, usually described and named in the constitution of the respective country. "Dictator" is a description and is therefore relative, the the same way that "depot" or "benevolent leader" is. Hitler is correctly described as Chancellor and Führer of Germany, that's the name of his position. You would always refer to Ken Lay as the "Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron", instead of "Ken Lay, corrupt businessman" (or "Ken Lay, visionary executive", depending on your POV, of course :) ) - one is his factual title, the other is a judgement. It's the same with words like "dictator". And since you're having a go at the press - the press' job (in an ideal world) is to report the news and leave the commentary to the editorials. This is done for a very good reason, namely humility, as it doesn't scream "my point of view is the RIGHT one" (we're back to the terrorist - freedom fighter problem). It also avoids the trap of painting different politicians with the same brush who are not necessarily comparable. If you were to say "Dictator Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe today met Dictator Joseph Kabila of the DR Congo" (this is only an example, I would not normally describe Joseph Kabila as a dictator), you would probably be insulting one or both of them by comparing them to the other.

In summary, titles don't make politicians (the position Chancellor of Germany was held by both Adolf Hitler and Konrad Adenauer, yet the two are hardly comparable), and it's up to each person to make up their own mind. Don't blame the press for as (in your view) ignorant population, and don't try to make the press push their point of view onto the readers (except through editorials, of course). — QuantumEleven 06:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy doesn't solve everything. Hitler himself was democratically elected, though he changed the system. Chavez is democratically elected. You could probably find other instances of democratically elected leaders turning bad. What I do have trouble with is that you seem to be advocating against neutrality in reporting... --ColourBurst 08:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mugabe was democratically elected, even! (He just hasn't been very democratically re-elected in recent years... the elections before 2000 weren't wonderful examples of democracy at work, but they were acceptable by regional standards. It's only since then it's got to the state it's in today) Shimgray | talk | 08:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To cut a long story short, Mugabe's official title is President. As such, it is used. Oh, and jack, Tonga's not that peacable these days. Unless there are serious changes there, it may not be a monarchy much longer... Grutness...wha? 06:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't sure about those 2 countries, they were just meant as a way of illustrating my point. :--) JackofOz 10:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the informed responses, guys. However we now seem to have a problem on our hands. Wikipedia is supposed to be entirely NPOV, right? Why is it then that all you have to do is punch in the word Dictatorships in the little box and you'll get a list of countries, a list, by the way that includes Zimbabwe, but seems to exclude Syria, Bhutan and Tongo (albeit, admittedly, the list appears to be attributed, but even that is not entirely clear...in any case, they chose to present that list and no other). If Wikipedia, the King of NPOV finds it appropriate to make such distinctions, why is it that the media, with far less NPOV pretense (eg. The New York Times is clearly a left-leaning newspaper, while Fox News is clearly right-leaning, despite any protests by either of these organizations) is seemingliy held to a higher standard? Either the wiki article on dictatorships should be edited to be more NPOV, or one must admit that the whole idea of full "NPOV" is an unnattainable fantasy.

In any case, thanks to all for your input. Loomis 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another self-analyzing question: Fastfission seems to have implied that my question was innapropriate, and more of a "a rhetorical question that [I] then use[d] to go on a little rant about" than a legitimate question. First, I don't see how I was "ranting" as a "rant" is an incoherent senseless emotional outburst. I may be wrong, but I thought that my question was rather calmly presented, well organized, sensible, and not in the slightest bit "rhetorical". I'm here to learn and I've truly learned a lot by the above responses. I'm glad that I asked the question, because I now feel somewhat more informed about a subject that I was previously rather perplexed about. I admit that my "questions" are rarely (actually never) simple one-liners, in fact they tend to be rather lengthy, and filled with all kinds of "starting" POVs to give them context, as well as to "get the ball rolling". But they're not soapbox dances. I don't ask questions merely to push one view, but rather to state mine, and try to better understand opposing ones.

I don't want to sit here and pose controversial questions if it's doing nothing else but irritating the hell out of the rest of you. But aren't the controversial debates the ultimate reason we all come here? I realize that I'm veering somewhat from the "official RefDesk purpose" by not asking specific questions, like, for example "How old is the Earth?" or "What does 'lorem ipsum' mean?", but is that what we're really here for? Those questions would seem easy enough to answer without the RefDesk. To find out the age of the earth, all that's required is to type in History of Earth and you'll get the answer in the first line. As for the latin phrase, we actually have an entire article entitled: lorem ipsum!

Oh well, if you honestly prefer questions like: "What's the best and fastest way to become a millionaire", just tell me. Loomis 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A room with a view (poppies)

in the movie, "a room with a view", was the field in which the "truth beauty" scene occurs orginally filled with lots of red poppies? (this is no longer true in the DVD). Thanks!

recent docu:Palestinian rappers on beach full of flags?

Hi, recently (I think on Dutch) television there was a short documentary about three Palestinians, who made rap music in Arab. One guy, probably the lead, did most of the talking(his English was quite good). He said that it had been like four years since he had seen the beach/had the chance to see it, and then they went to the beach (I am deducing it was Gaza). The beach was full of Palestinian flags, everywhere you looked you saw one. The interviewer spoke English without a Dutch accent, so maybe the documentary was bought by the Dutch network. So what beach could this have been. Is there an area in Gaza that has recently changed, so that people now rejoice in putting those flags everywhere? Evilbu 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the specific incident, but it is the southern Gaza strip area of Rafah that was cut off from its beaches by settlements until the evacuation of last year. AnonMoos 09:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I probably have a totally wrong of the daily life of the average Palestinian, but how large can those settlements be? All those years, couldn't he simply have gone a little further? Evilbu 11:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Gaza Strip area of Rafah, where Palestinians live, was cut off from its beaches by Jewish settlements. Since it is unwise for Palestinians to wander into Jewish settlements, or Jews to wander into Palestinians areas without weapons, this meant the beaches were effectively unreachable until the (illegal) settlements were evacuated. Skittle 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal? You're wandering dangerously into POV territory skittle! :) (Like I should talk!) In any case, I suppose it's pretty much settled that for a Jew to live in Gaza is verboten, and against international law as well (whatever the hell that means). After all, the future Palestinian State will obviously be strictly Judenrein. :) Loomis 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic living

I tried to find definition or meaning for the term ‘Holistic Living’ as we plan to organize a Symposium on ‘Holistic Living’. I could not find clear meaning or definition in Wockipedia, Google or Yahoo. However, www.vyasa.org try to give the idea that Yoga is Science of Holistic Living. Understanding the Yogic way of life. I try to define Holistic Living’ as follows:

Holistic Living may be defined as simple and spiritual living with moderation in food intake, adequate exercise and positive thinking and attitude to life. Yoga is Science of Holistic Living.

OR

Holistic Living is an art of living in harmony with Nature and concern to the whole universe.

Prof. B. C. Harinath Director JB Tropical Disease Research Centre & Coordinator, Arogyadham Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences Sevagram (Wardha) – 442 102 Web: www.jbytdrc.org, www.mindandbodyhealth.org

The article Holism might be of interest.-gadfium 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates on film

Has a serious dramatic film ever been made on the subject of pirates? It seems like every film concerning pirates has been a comedy or a tongue-in-cheek adventure. The subject matter seems like it would lend itself to a serious film, but I can't think of one. Bhumiya (said/done) 05:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Category:Pirate_films. --Richardrj 07:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pirate films is more comprehensive. Oi'll wager not many o'those be comedies.--Shantavira 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but none (of the blue-linked ones, anyway) seem to be really "serious". They all seem like light adventure films. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definition of a religious welfare organisation

can you please help with a this definition thanks

Not knowing the context, the following is a guess. To start, I assume that by "welfare organization" a charitable organization is meant, whose aim is to provide financial or other aid to people in need. Further, that organization is called "religious", presumably because it is managed by a church or some other religion-based institution, or has faith-based statutes. For example, in France there is something called Secours Catholique ("Catholic Aid"), which is run by the Catholic Church in France. Islamic Aid is a U.K.-based organization. In both cases, there is no requirement that the recipient of the aid profess any particular religion; the stated aims are purely to relieve poverty. However, faith-based aid organizations being accused of using the aid as a vehicle to promote religion, especially in disaster-stricken areas, is fairly common. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influential Australians

For our school project, we are researching influential australians...i have some ideas in mind but i was wondering if you would know someone really good for the project... thankyou very much

Start at Category:Australian people, and look through the various subcategories depending on what appeals to you. Category:Lists of Australian people might also be useful.-gadfium 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider owners of the press or TV stations as among the most influential human beings on the planet. One such Australian in particular springs to mind (Rupert Murdoch). Notinasnaid 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch blotted his copybook by rejecting Australia and taking US citizenship for purely commercial reasons. JackofOz 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Packer might be another good choice. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germaine Greer,truly a world changer--hotclaws**==(81.134.116.29 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Howard Florey saved literally millions of lives by developing penicillin into a practical proposition. Maybe you yourself wouldn't even be here if it were not for him. Bob Menzies said "in terms of world well-being, Florey was the most important man ever born in Australia". JackofOz 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

british royal family

this sentence isnt quite clear that you have written about queen charlotte who is said to have black ancestry and is an ancestor of queen elizabeth. it says although it is not the case that the british royal family is of mixed heritage then it mentions queen charlotte as being mixed. which is it. just because british royal family live in uk doesn't mean they dont have lineage from somewhere else. could you clarify and what is today's consensus on this topic. does the royal family awcknowledge that it is mixed race. thank you very much

The one-drop theory arises curious cases. Although it is not the case, since the British Royal Family lives in the United Kingdom rather, for the despair of a White supremassist British-Israelist, all the British Royal Family would be of African ascenstry, because of Margarida de Castro e Souza, a Portuguese of mixed origins, who was anscestor of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the great-great-great-great grandmother of the current Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II, known at her time for having a "moorish looking".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayvallance (talk • contribs) 06:32, July 19, 2006 (UTC).

Could you tell us which page you are referring to? There are over a million articles in Wikipedia, and we aren't necessarily familiar with all of them. In general, if you have comments on a particular page, you can click the "Discussion" tab above the page to reach a page dedicated to discussion of it. Notinasnaid 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He means Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. AnonMoos 09:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think (s)he is referring to (and quoting from) the article One-drop theory. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I agree with Jayvallance that this is a strange sentence. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think maybe it's time to teach people to get over these silly and ignorant ways of thinking about ancestry? How far back do you think you have to go before you too have an african ancestor? Likely less than 2 or 3000 years no matter where your more recent ancestors came from or how pale your skin is. See [5]. alteripse 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well when it comes to hereditary royalty one of the main things they have going for them is their ancestry. Another english queen with possibly closer then most african relations is Philippa of Hainault. MeltBanana 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alteripse. "Race" is a fairly bankrupt concept in genetics and anthropology, and then we have people so obsessive over some presumed "purity" of a thing that hardly exists without putting on very high historical blinders that they'd attribute or deny legitimacy to rulers, speakers, etc. on the basis of some presumed connection to a stinkin' continent! The amount of absurdity necessary to harbor all of these nonsensical views at the same time pretty well precludes reason or research being either an antidote or aid. In fact, to even answer such questions is to legitimate their premises, IMO. Geogre 13:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back far enough, everyone has African ancestry. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which country does not have any movie theaters.

In our college quiz a question was asked ,

Which country does not have any movie theaters. Options: a)Iraq b)Sri-Lanka c)Bhutan

Are you talking legal movie theaters? Licenced movie theaters? And whats the definition of a movie theater? Not a great question. Sir Lanka and Bhutan are both buddhist countries, and I'm sure they wouldn't have a legal sanction against movie theaters. Iraq because of the threat of bombings I guess. I still don't like the question at all. --mboverload @ 10:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be Vatican City. --Mathew5000 10:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the only people I know object to movies are Islamic extremists and various cults. The only place to actually have a law against movie theaters would have to be an Islamic country. --mboverload @ 11:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan I'd say, the place is so incredibly sheltered that once when they installed traffic lights in one juntcion, people thought they were decorations and held festivities under them. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for Bhutan. They just got TV in 1999! Ziggurat 11:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't factor in insulation from the rest of the world. I was thinking legal restrictions. Thanks Phil! --mboverload @ 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan has a movie industry [6] so it would be odd if the country had no movie theatres. See the articles on Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, as well as Travellers and Magicians and Culture of Bhutan#Radio, television, internet, and movies. The fact that it recently got TV makes it more likely (not less) that it has movie theatres. However, Sri Lanka certainly has movie theatres, as does Iraq. I strongly suspect that Bhutan has at least one movie theatre (although it might have opened somewhat recently). On the other hand, Vatican City has a population of only 783 and an area of only 108.7 acres; it may have a screening room of some sort for the Pope's entertainment, but I'd wager it has no full-fledged movie theatre. Also I would not be surprised if some of the world's very poor countries, such as Guinea-Bissau or Malawi, had no movie theatre. --Mathew5000 12:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in any of those aritcles or links is proof of that there is a movie industry, only that a couple of films have been shot on location in bhutan. And that a man of bhutanese origin has made a film. Movies have been shot in lots of places that don't have a movie "industry". Philc _T^E_C^I 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The country listed for a film in the Internet Movie Database is not the location where the film was shot, but the country where the production company is based. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, sorry then. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search [7] confirms that movie theatres exist in Bhutan, as I thought. According to a detailed news article on the subject [8], the first movie theatres in Bhutan opened in the mid-1960s. Today, however, "movie theatres across the country appear to be struggling and look dilapidated and run down." --Mathew5000 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same holds true for Sri Lanka (first link says the first cinema in Colombo opened in 1903) and Iraq (first link even shows a photo of a movie theater in Baghdad), so I think whoever made up the question in the quiz did not do adequate research - there seems to be no correct option among the 3 presented -- Ferkelparade π 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand perhaps? Apart from micronations, I doubt there are any countries without some sort of theater. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new rulers of Mogadishu appear to be installing a Taliban-like rule in their part of Somalia. Reports say they have banned movies. They don't control the whole country, though. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan, I guess. I think it is rather under-developed, by western standards. It is also the only capital city (Thimphu) not to have traffic lights. There is very little western influence there - if films were a western invention.--martianlostinspace 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is Tuvalu, but I cannot find any evidence one way or another. -- Lynne Jorgensen 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in Saudi Arabia

Which international diplomatic efforts (such as from the UN, USA or EU) are being made to bring about democracy in Saudi Arabia, or which particular high-ranking politicians are addressing this issue? I have read the wikipage Saudi Arabia but I can´t find any facts. ==Joel==

This has some useful links related to your question. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, why would anyone expect the UN to be so pro-democratic? After all, the vast majority of its component states are undemocratic. As for its Security Council, only three of its five permanent members are true democracies, and when added together with its non-permanent members, is usually composed of a majority of non-democratic states as well.

As for the US, look what shit it got into in the eyes of the international community when it actually dared to oust Iraq's brutal dictator and TRY, TRY it's best to turn the country into a democracy! Not only was this action seen by the international community as "against international law", but as it turns out, the Iraqi people, perplexing as it may be to westerners, don't seem to have much interest in being democratic after all. No wonder the US is now thinking twice about even bothering to take diplomatic steps to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia, a country of people who would would only resent such an effort.

Finally, the EU doesn't even have the backbone to stand up for what's right in the first place. It's too busy dealing with it's own internal foibles to have the moral authority to actually be taken seriously with regards to the spread of democracy. Loomis 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First they have to agree on something and only if something is worthy enough will they do something. Meanwhile too many countries inside the EU don't want to invade other countries to impose democracy down their troaths. Flamarande 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing people need is democracy in Saudi Arabia. The populace is more Islamist than the royal family. You can expect Osama bin Laden to receive red-carpet treatment thence.--Patchouli 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But allowing them to gain power may ultimately be the way to defeat them. When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, people realized what total assholes they were, and quickly tired of them (for destroying the ancient Buddhist statues at Bamyan, whipping women on the street for showing any part of their face, banning almost all forms of art and music and even kites, eliminating education for girls, etc.). Before they gained power, they could promise some perfect heaven on Earth would occur once they gained power. But when the reality is there for everyone to see, the lies become quite apparent. StuRat 19:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You surprise me Stu. First you said, very accurately, that it was the US that kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Now you seem to be saying that somehow it was the Afghan people themselves were responsible for their demise. Which is it? Loomis 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As matter of fact he wrote that they grew tired of them. The US bombed the Taliban to help the northern alliance. Flamarande 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't for the U.S., they would still be living under the Taliban theocracy.--Patchouli 13:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate the arrogance of democracy and the blatant double standarts of so-called "democrats" (war-democrats). We can do anything: invade another country, kill thousands of ppl, sell guns to everybody, bomb any country we like, aslong as we are a democratic state we are always the "good guys" and the other states are "evil oppressive states". Ah, and always use the "We want to give democracy down your troaths" excuse. I certainly share the opinion that the Taliban were a bunch of retarted medieaval religious fanatics who supported Terrosim by allowing Usama Bin Laden and his followers a safe haven. But at least they gave something we in all our arrogance are unable to give: PEACE. The US suffered 9/11 and in response they supported the Northern alliance in every way they could. They wanted to avenge themselves, cast down the current regime, and hunt down Ussama. Those were the real reasons and none others.

They didn't went there to liberate the ppl, destroy the poppy fields (in fact more dope goes out today, than under the Taliban), emancipate the women, rebuilt the country, and somehow give democracy to a "free, peace-loving Afghanistan" (nice illusion though). These are the excuses they like to show us so that we can say: "It was the right thing to do". The situation is going to get a lot worse there before it hopefully gets any better. Now that the US needs to support the current regime to secure the whole country and give PEACE. That's what really matters the rest is only a carefully constructed facade.

Belive it or not, in way too many countries Democracy is NOT the best form of goverment and to impose it by foreign force is the height of folly. A people has to reach a certain level of education and most importantly responsability; it has to first get used to the whole idea. And NOONE likes that someone from another country tells you what to do, and this is also the case of democracy. Don't invade other countries and impose "democracy" at gun-point and then get stupidly suprised and angry when the ppl there vote for your enemies (How could they? We invaded their county, bombed their cities, killed their realtives and now they vote in a party that doesn't like us - those ingrates). Give them real peace and trade fairly with them; real democracy will follow eventually. Flamarande 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, the Peace of the Taliban. Pax Talibanus. Things sure are peaceful when opening your mouth and expressing what you feel will get you killed. Or, as a woman, so much as showing your face. But oh, how peaceful it was, what with the football-stadiums-turned-execution-parks. Oh how I how the people of Afghanistan wax nostalgic for that good old Pax Talibanus. Loomis 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Marriage

What are the 11 specific different types of marriage that the Celts recognized. Is there a description of each?×

See http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Ancient_Celts/id/35232 --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Jewish Pope

Pertaining to Catholicism, who was the last Jewish Pope?

From [9]: St. Peter was Jewish. The only other "pope" generally acknowledged from a Jewish family is Anacletus II (1130), an antipope. Likely, other early popes were from Jewish families, but the records are not conclusive. Speculation on other Jewish Popes include St.Zosimus (417-418), based on his father's name of Abram. Evaristus (100-109) has also been mentioned based on some Pope Pius V writings. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently answered elsewhere on Wikipedia. There's actually two more possibilities. But I can't remember who they were and where it was answered. That's what happens if people cross-post the same question... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rock throwing

– When I was visiting Loch Ness in June, a friend asked me to throw a small rock or stone into the lake and made a wish for him while I was on the cruise. I did it as he asked me to do. He told me there was a story for that and asked me to find the answer and he said only the elderly poeple know the story.

I still can't get the answer so far as I was a visitor from another country.

Your answering to my question will be greatly appreacited.

Thank you

Looking forward to hearing from you soon

The source of the soul of life.

Since children are expected to take on the characteristics of their parents, where do you think the characteristics of life came from? I have found a life formula that points to the characteristics of life being tied to the characteristics of electromagnetic radiation (light). Light is one force, made up of two parts.

The characteristics of the electrical part of light are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion. Life experiences them as: No, Yes, I like you(love) and I don't like you (hate)and that is the bases of the mental/emotional nature of life. The characteristics of light also seem connected to math: negative to subtraction, positive to addition, attraction to multiplication and repulsion to division.

With life following the laws of energy, just like everything else, through light, the universe has one soul, and is full of life. I have a symbolic/math code for this at http://inthemath.com that shows this. Do you think that light can be the bases for the soul, and if not, what would make a better fit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightprize (talk • contribs)

Hi (again). I've deactivated your link, as we've seen it quite a few times here already. Please recall that the reference desk is not a soapbox or forum for advocacy. — Lomn | Talk 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh...wow, you're right and light is simultaneously a particle and a wave pointing to the duality of our existence, thanks for the enlightenment, now I think I will stare at the sun for a while ....ugh sorry for the troll bait, this kind of crap just annoys me. See the movie Donnie Darko for a great rant on trying to compress the science of psychology into simplistic false dichotomies like love vs hate/fear. Nowimnthing 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you mad? I asked a question, and how could you have seen it, I have not been here with light characteristics before. And when I asked the question before you were at a lost for words. Judging by the insults instead of any logical answer, you are still at a lost for words. I am trying to bait you alright, I am trying to get you to answer. YOu can't can you? [lightprize 190706]

It's a "loss for words", not "a lost". I prefer that nut jobs at least use proper grammar. As for my theory, being a pastafarian, I hold that the duality between the strands of spaghetti and meatballs accounts for the duality of the soul. :-) StuRat 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, you have been here before for the express purpose of advocating your website and fringe theories. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research and the ref desk is not a forum for advocacy. As for your "question", I don't think it rates a response. — Lomn | Talk 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Since you posted this on the humanities desk I will assume it is a philosophical question and not a scientific question (if it is a scientific theory: what explicit, testable predictions does it make that are not made by simpler theories?). As for what would make a better fit than light for the soul: magic. I have little patience for philosophical theories not grounded in reality, so I won't spend the time to thoroughly consider your idea. However, you seem to base this theory heavily on the fact that we use the words positive and negative for electrical charge. You should keep in mind that these words are completely arbitrary and that the pairs hot/cold, up/down, or even love/hate could have been used to describe charges. As with your previous theory of the number code, you seem to be basing a whole theory on the arbitrary words that have been used to describe natural phenomena. You also seem to ignore the fact that electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force have been further shown to be two aspects of the same force, the electroweak force. Where does the weak nuclear force fit into the theory? (I know I said I'd try to treat it philosophically, but you portray it as scientific so I can't help myself). And what's with the "energitic[sic], violent nature of males and the emotional, loving nature of females"? You provide a stereotype as evidence? Please keep in mind that the reference desk's primary purpose is to answer factual questions. If you are after feedback on your theories, there are many forums on the internet in which you can request comments. Digfarenough 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was allot. You look like you are on the soap box. 1)By magic I guess you are saying you know of nothing compareable, otherwise you would have said that instead of magic.

2) Science still sees 4 forces. The electroweak force has not been written in concrete, an that may turn out to be wrong. that has happened before.

3)I said nothing about the words, I said the characteristics. Whatever we call the characteristics, they would mean the same thing. 4) I am talking about what we have all seen. Some characteristics are clearly visible. Males have made an art of war and physical activity or sports. And the attraction of females is clear to advertising. The humanities deal with characteristics and the orgins, doesn't it? Why does this idea make you so mad? What are you, an athiest? [Lightprize 190706] Oh, I read that you are still mad at the number code. I didn't mention it here. I have moved on, why can't you?

You talk about simpler theories, What is simpler, and as inclusive than what I said about light? [Lightprize 190706]

You get shot on the third light from a match-hotclaws**==(81.134.116.29 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Now you see? If you had something to say, you would have said it. {Lightprize 200706]

Conflicts between Aphrodite and Poseidon?

My husband is a Capt at sea. He has recently taken a post on a vessel named Miss Venus. This boat has a history of mechanical problems and failures. I was wondering if anyone could tell me if there were any conflicts between Venus(Aphrodite) and Neptune(Poseidon)? Any help would be appreciated as all I can seem to find are references to lineage and a few stating that she is a protector of sailors.

Thanks in advance :)

           71.51.53.31 19:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          aka..Cheryl O.[reply]

In the usual version of the myth, Aphrodite arose from the sea, but chronologically that was before Poseidon became ruler of the sea. They don't really interact much at all in Greek myth...Athena had more of a rivalry with Poseidon, at least in Athenian legends. Adam Bishop 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Most famously, Athena and Poseidon squared off over the fate of Odysseus. Aphrodite just doesn't do much with him, although I think she has some oceanic powers based on her home in Cythia and some powers over, specifically, waves in the Odyssey. Geogre 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You both very much :) 71.51.53.31 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling

Is road cycling gaining or declining in popularity? In America, I suspect it has dropped since the retirement of Lance Armstrong, but in general, what is the state of Cycling in America, the UK, and the rest of Europe? AdamBiswanger1 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A major factor in popularity is access to safe places to bicycle. I mean the highways are populated with automobiles, there are various signs prohibiting non-motorized vehicles on various roads, the pedestrians occupy the sidewalks, no place is safe for a bicyclist. That's your typical community. Then there are the places where people have lobbied for bike paths, other types of paths. User:AlMac|^(talk) 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the history of marriage

i'm trying to find information on the history of marriage, such as, is it true the best man carried a sword in case the girl's family came to steal her back? or that a girl can be stolen and married without her consent? or why women change their last names-because the man more or less owns them? i'm looking for some sort of log of marriage throughout the centuries. thanks, bri

I find it appalling that our extensive marriage article doesn't have as much as a brief overview section on the history of marriage. This seriously belongs on the article's todo list. dab (ᛏ) 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage from where? In many cultures women do retain their last name even after marriage. "Best man" also seems like a cultural-specific thing. --ColourBurst 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what constitutes a marriage? I suppose you mean having gone through some ritual, but I've heard that in Europe in the middle ages a couple were considered married when they had been living together long enough. 'Official' marriages were, I believe, only for the ruling class. I'm curious as to whether the name-change is correlated to whether it's a matrilinear or patrilinear culture and where the couple go live. DirkvdM 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would matrilinear cultures have parriages? (Maybe redolent of parrying (per swords above) - not to mention thrusting.) Hmmm. JackofOz 06:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In England in the middle ages, married women weren't owned, the better way to think of them is as permanant "minors" with their husbands as their guardians. The name change is more like the same reason that when you take your pet to the vet, they append your last name on the pet's name so they know who is in charge of the pet. May have to add some of this later when I have my reference books handy. Crypticfirefly 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bride kidnapping is still common, even today, in some countries. StuRat 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is matrilineal, yet the wife traditionally adopts the husband's name. A pretty fair balance, I'd say. Loomis 00:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this chart, in Iraq, women do not take their husband's names. Crypticfirefly 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson, New York

Is Hudson, New York a gay resort town? -- Beland 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard anything of that sort. On the other hand, it has a large and growing artistic community, and these people are not known for sexual orthodoxy. Haiduc 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American stereotypes... Philc _T^E_C^I 11:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups referred to as cults

On the list of groups referred to as cults, a debate is ongoing whether the phrase "cult of Mary" is a "reference to a group as a cult." The issue resolves around how the use of the word "cult" in regard to a practice/devotion applies to a group of practitioners. Please share your opinion at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults#Disputed. We have been unable to get a response from postings at RfC. Gimmetrow 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blug. Why, oh why, are people so ignorantly hammering away like this, when it's so very easy to avoid all offense? The proper term is cultus. Yes, that is the word that gives us "cult," but "cult" in English has come to mean "whacky little group," and therefore, to rescue the theological meaning of the term, one ought to use the Latin. By using the Latin, you make it clear that you're referring to the theological/religious meaning of the term and not the cultural/social meaning of the term. Two letters, and no one gets mad. Take those letters away, and I submit, unless you're speaking to church historians, you change what you're talking about altogether. Geogre 02:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that there is a thing called the Marian Cult or the Cult of Mary, but the Cult of Mary is not a cult. For hagiographers, church historians, and theological types, a "cult" is an invocation in prayer and an elevation to sacredness. Thus, Solange was a girl whose head was chopped off by an amorous fellow. The cult of Solange is the habit of locals to invoke her in intercessory prayer. These participants in the cult don't know each other, don't have meetings, don't locate in a single place, nor join together for the exercise of their "cult." All of that makes the ecclesiastical meaning of "cult" so different from the common use that using that term fails to communicate and actually confuses. That's why people should use the older term, IMO. Geogre 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'cult' is rapidly losing all its meaning. How often is some movie reviewed and we're told "This film is destined to become an instant cult classic". The literal meaning of that is that it would be liked by a very small number of people, whereas what the reviewer is trying to say is that it will be liked by a very large number of people. Duhh!! JackofOz 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JackofOz that the word 'cult' is very diluted. And in fact, in the past 15 years or so the whole 'cult of the cult', particularly with regards to the perceived harm of cultlike organisations, has gone through a healthy self-examination and evolution. Now, there is a more specific term intended to identify measurably harmful organisations (I won't give examples for fear of offending adherents) while excluding organisations that may have wacky or extreme beliefs but which, in practice, do not harm adherents. The term is 'Destructive cult' (note that our article on the topic has a different definition). HERE is a useful document listing the five defining characteristics of a destructive cult. On another note, I think the article linked to by the OP is useless listcruft and if I'd known about it when it was up for deletion I'd have voted against its existence.--Anchoress 04:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it will go to AfD again. Before you condemn the list entirely be aware that one editor has been on a campaign to add various odd entries. Gimmetrow 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin, The Descent of Man

I recently bought this book at a yard sale and from looking at your page on it i had a question. I was curious about the original print of this book. I had seen a picture on Wikipedia of the first page of the book with the publisher and date on it. Mine was very similar. Mine appears to be an original, only it was published in New York instead of London. It was published by D. Appleton and Company in 1871. I have had a very hard time finding any useful information on the printing I have. If you could provide me with any information I would greatly appreciate it.

Amanda

it appears that 1871 is just the original publication date, not necessarily the date of your edition. I found reference to a 1883 American edition by Appleton, maybe you have that? dab (ᛏ) 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a real Appleton from 1871, definitely hold on to it. It was produced by William Appleton, a publisher in New York (the firm is named after his father, Daniel), and is the first American edition of Descent of Man. They also produced the first American edition of Origin of Species—originally as a pirated, unauthorized edition, but eventually they came to a royalty agreement with Darwin and became his chief distributor and publisher in the U.S. Hope that is of some help. Descent of Man was a highly-anticipated book, because of the success and interest generated by Origin, and so had a pretty large print run, so I don't know whether it is worth a whole lot, but it is a great find in any case.

There is some information on the Appleton arrangement (not much more than I've given you, though) in Janet Browne's Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton University Press, 2002), on pp. 133 and 222 (the Browne book is an excellent biography of Darwin, by the way — probably the best one yet written).

Here's my question: Is the Appleton edition the entire book (both volumes—21 or so chapters)? The book is usually sold as a single book today, but it originally came out in separate volumes, at least in the British versions. --Fastfission 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollanders

If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes? -- Миборовский 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And would those from Amsterdam be called A-Holes ? :-) StuRat 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't???????????? I've got some explaining to do.. AdamBiswanger1 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in Dutch, the language they speak in Holland (which is not a country), they are 'Hollanders', while the people from Poland are 'Polen'.

People of New Netherlands Dutch descent in New York are also known as "Hollanders" in English.--Pharos 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why are inhabitans or Russia Russians, while in China they are Chinese? And it gets crazy now : apparently inhabitants of the USA are Americans?? Evilbu 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lloyd Wright recommended a good term for people from the United States: Usonians. It was a good idea, and the word is pronouncable, but it didn't stick. Geogre 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your reasoning people from Holland should be called 'Holles', not 'Holes'. Why are people from the Netherlands in English called 'Dutch' in stead of 'Netherlanders'? And what do you call people from the UK? Ukonians? If they would have left Ireland alone (actually, that was a Dutchman, but never mind that) then they could have been called 'British'. Which is often done nevertheless. Which could be used by Irish republicans - they're called 'British', so why didn't they stay there? Anyway, I digress. For some answers to the original question see Netherlands (terminology). And for some answers about the British see British Isles (terminology), an article I started. DirkvdM 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

Village of Stebbe, Marienwerder, West Prussia.

I am currently writing a family history and have evidence that my great-grandmother was born in Stebbe, Marienwerder in 1864. I realise that Marienwerder is now known as Kwidzyn and is a part of Poland. My problem is that I can find no information about this village. I don't know if the spelling is correct but I am taking it from her marriage certificate, issued in Australia in 1890. It would be helpful if I could learn something about the layout of the villages within Marienwerder in the late 1800's, but have had little success on the internet so far.

If anyone can help me in some way I would be most grateful.

Many thanks. Claire Wilkinson.

Kwidzyn is at 53°44' 18°55'. You can use the ShtetlSeeker to find all the towns that "sound like" Stebbe near that location: ( Use this page and fill in Stebbe and the latitude and longitude, and narrow the search to Poland). The most likely seems to be Stuba (or Stobna) at 54°13' 19°17', 36.5 miles NNE of Kwidzyn. (Looks quite rural on Google Earth!) Anyway, playing around with the Shtetl Seeker is often a good way of finding such small villages. - Nunh-huh 06:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh, YOU ROCK! That is one of the coolest and most useful sites I've seen in a while! How did you find it?--Anchoress 06:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Years mispent in genealogical pursuits<g>. It is a good site, though! - Nunh-huh 07:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that the SunSite at UNC-Chapel Hill had created a virtual stetl, and they linked to the same site, so it has been around for a while. It's great stuff. I'm not sure if the virtual stetl is still around anywhere, but it was fantastically well researched and cited down to the last detail, so, if you're looking for daily life and other cultural phenomena, it's worth searching out. Geogre 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Classic' Albums

There is currently, on UK TV, an advert for an album by Ray Montaigne or Ray La Fontaine or Ray Somethingorother. Anyway, its pretty irrelevant what his surname is, as this is being billed as a 'classic' album. I'm assuming this album is newish and thus, to me, can not be classed as a 'classic' as it may well be forgotten in six months time.

My question is, what makes a good album classic album? --DPM 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what makes a 'good' classic album, but I know what can turn a modern album into a 'classic' album; if it covers Stairway to Heaven, Another Brick in the Wall, Johnny B Goode, Bohemian Rhapsody, Blue Suede Shoes, White Room, Saturday Night Fever, Lay Lady Lay, Cocaine, Brown Sugar and Pinball Wizard.--Anchoress 11:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Classic Albums (an article I started), not 'classic songs'. If you find out the exact name of the artist and the album, please add it to the list. As to the question, what is 'classic' is very subjective, but you've got a very strong point. I suppose the makers want to attract a new, younger, audience. Also, the setup of the series is somewhat unique, with the way the albums are analysed, so if that album is well suited for that approach, it would be a bit silly to start nitpicking over the name of the series. DirkvdM 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Classic" is a word that does not have a legal meaning in terms of advertising or packaging. (For an example of "legal meaning" consider that a fatty yellow spread can't describe itself as "butter" unless it meets certain requirements). This means anyone is free to use it for anything, and crucially, advertising people will use it. It is one of a number of useful words for advertisers, which make some people think it has a special status. "Acclaimed" is another useful word. So is "exceptional". I have to say, I don't think that article is going to lead to very productive discussions, and might be better off deleted... might as well call it "List of albums that someone likes". Notinasnaid 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal? He didn't ask about the law, just some comments. And the article is about a tv series. Am I the only one getting the question? It's not that complicated, is it? :) DirkvdM 14:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

legends and rituals

can u tell me of rituals ,legends ,festivals ,poetry regarding the atmoshere,lithosphere and the hydrosphere.--Mightright 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)§--Mightright 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)§--Mightright 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)≈§--Mightright 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There once was this thing in the sky

It helped the clouds gaily float by

Its name was quite queer

Some called it the 'shere

At least when the Mightright was near

--Anchoress 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do your own homework. However, I can't resist pointing out that almost every non-modern religion's gods start off as gods of the weather (atmosphere), earthquakes (lithosphere) or the sea (hydrosphere). May I point out all mythology dealing with Zeus or Poseidon? —Daniel (‽) 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, interestingly for a seafaring people, the Norse mythology put its emphasis on the storm gods and very little on the various sea gods. This suggests either another weirdness about their mythology or that their sea journeys came after their mythology was set. Geogre 03:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism had very few nature "gods" (it's not the correct term, but will suffice), if I remember my religions course correctly (Shiva certainly wasn't. Vishnu wasn't either, neither was Lakshmi.) I'll ignore monotheistic religions for now, even though some of them count as "non-modern". --ColourBurst 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words Make You Feel

Why is it that when you use different words that supposed to be synonyms, it gives the other person hearing that word feel different unless you used another word. For example, I recently told my dad in an e-mail he sent me that his grammar was atrocious (he put commas outside quotation marks, no capitalization of I, etc.) and I was soon after grounded. Why would it have affected him differently if I would have used terrible or, even better, just bad in place of atrocious? Thanks. schyler 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you use a word to label a person or their actions, you're making a judgment. Doesn't matter if it's "atrocious" or "excellent", it's still you judging them or judging what they do. People are entitled to feel whatever they feel about that. There are more subtle ways of suggesting change, that don't involve passing any judgment on them. Btw, contrary to popular belief, you can never "make" a person feel anything. People always make their own choices about their own feelings. JackofOz 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connotation? AnonMoos 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although "atrocious spelling" is quite a common phrase it is also hyperbole as bad speeling is not realy comparable with most atrocities. Also being prescriptivist is a good way to wind anyone up. The placement of commas and quotes is not a fixed issue Quotation_mark#Typographical_considerations. MeltBanana 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider being forced to put punctuation inside quotation marks (where the punctuation was not in the original quote) to be one of the most stupid grammar rules around, and intentionally ignore it. Also, to avoid offending people, try saying something like "your writing would be even more effective if you used proper capitalization". StuRat 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think getting grounded for criticizing your dad's grammar is a bit much. But, if you learn to be more diplomatic as a result, maybe it's all for the best. StuRat 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rules don't actually "force" you to do anything, Stu. You always have the choice to ~~rebel~~ be an individual, as is your wont. JackofOz 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, pish posh. Punctuation is a convention that allows for greater readability and comprehension, and therefore it pays to be prescriptionist on the matter. Since we all speak different dialects, transcribing our speech to our writing results in Babel. That's why we have to have a set of rules for the artificial language that is written English. Americans put commas and periods inside of quotes because of the old printing presses. Those two bits of type, according to Algeo and Pyles's history of English, were half-size, while a quotation mark was a full size block. At the end of a line of text, a comma or period might fly out of the case when it was flipped over, so putting the comma and period inside a quotation mark would hold them in place. In Britain, these two were set outside of the quotation marks (and went flying sometimes). Colons and semicolons were full sized type blocks, so they could go outside in America. However, whatever the historical reason, these are the American conventions, and so one should follow them in America and those nations that have adopted its conventions. The question mark goes inside a quotation because the whole sentence is being used as an interrogative, not because the question is being quoted. Since a question mark is terminal punctuation, it ends the sentence, no matter where it occurs. Therefore, you can't keep going after "quoting" one. It's all pretty logical, and you disobey these things only to imperil your readability. Geogre 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli citizenship

does one really have to be Jewish to have Israeli citizenship?

No. See Arab citizens of Israel. --Mathew5000 13:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that would go against international law. Well, it should anyway. :) And it would be downright silly. DirkvdM 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are prohibited from being citizens of Jordan or Saudi Arabia...

AnonMoos 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Is there no international law against that? And what are the reasons anyway? DirkvdM 07:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Only about 80% of the population of Israel is Jewish, the rest being almost exclusively Arab, with some Armenians and others. In fact, non-Jewish Israelis enjoy every civil right as their fellow Jewish citizens, including of course the right to vote, the right to form political parties, (of which there are several,) the right to be members of the Israeli cabinet, (I don't think there are any at the present time, but I know for a fact that there have been in the recent past,) and even, in theory at least, the right to be elected prime minister (though it's realistically impossible due to Israeli demographics.) In fact, Salim Joubran is an Israeli Arab who currently sits on the 13 member Supreme Court of Israel.

Israel is an entirely secular state, with only one exception, which only applies to Jews anyway: The Orthodox branch of Judaism is given jurisdiction in matters of family law such as the solemnization of marriage and the granting of divorces among Jews, as well as matters regarding conversion to Judaism.

The only other possible source of controversy would be the Law of Return, which allows for "fast-track" citizenship for all persons who are either coverted in an Orthodox manner (see above paragraph) or people of any religious conviction who have at least one Jewish grandparent. For example, when the Soviet Union collapsed, quite a few practicing Russian Orthodox Christians who happened to have had one Jewish grandparent were granted immediate citizenship.

The law may be controversial, but it should be remembered that similar laws exist in countries with large expatriate populations such as Ireland, Greece, Russia, Germany etc...

So yes, Israel is often refered to as "the Jewish State", with Orthodox Judaism having some sort of "official status", but saying that should be no different than calling Greece with its law of return and central status of the Greek Orthodox Church as the "the Greek State", or looked upon another way, refering to England as "the English State" with an actual "State Religion" for which the Queen of England is considered leader. It's very true that the "official religion" of England is by no means discriminating towards non-Anglicans, yet its "official" status would seem to actually make England, arguably, somewhat less secular than Israel. Loomis 15:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of Return is only for people of the Jewish religion, however, not for all people originating in the land which is now Israel. It is, therefore, an official policy favoring one religion over others, unlike in most secular countries. StuRat 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how else to say it, but, that's simply not true. What else can I say? It's simply...not...true. The definition of a "Jew" in the Law of Return does not follow the Jewish, "religious" definition of a Jew. Rather, it was fashioned to precisely mirror the Nuremburg Laws and their definition as to what a Jew is. Nazi anti-semitism was purely an "ethnic" or "racial" thing. They really couldn't care less about your religious beliefs. A Jew could convert to Christianity, join the Nazi Party, where a swastika armband, sieg heil and all the rest, but the Nazis couldn't care less. So long as you were a Jew "by race", which included not only full Jews, but half-Jews and even quarter-Jews, you were a Jew, and there's nothing you could do about it.

Of course, according to the Nazis, any "Aryan" who would dare convert to Judaism was a filthy race traitor. As well, any "Aryan" who would dare marry a Jew was similarly regarded as no better than another filthy Jew. Therefore, Israel's Law of Return takes these people into account as well. Should you marry a Jew, whatever your religion, you qualify. Should you convert according to the Orthodox tradition, you qualify as well. This of course seems to insert a "religious" aspect into the law, but that isn't its intention. Its intention is merely to provide safe haven for the Jewish nation, while allowing some leeway for non-Jewish relatives of Jews, and those few non-Jews who are so enamoured with Judaism that they actually want to become part of the Jewish nation. Loomis 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The law of England does discriminate against non-Anglicans in relation to the line of succession to the throne. It also favours males over females. JackofOz 23:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, I hadn't thought of that. Loomis 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Didn't England only recently revise the law concerning right of citizenship to children of English mothers and non-English fathers? 2) What, then, does the matrilineal passing of the Jewish ethnicity (not sure how to word this; apologies in advance) fall under? --ColourBurst 07:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, my basic point was about "basic human rights" in Israel and England for non-Jews and non-Anglicans, respectively. For the average English citizen, being a non-Anglican is no more or no less of an impediment to enjoying full human rights in England as is being a non-Jew in Israel. Still, a good point. Loomis 02:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A related issue; it seems that in Canada (of all places) there were people suggesting the influx of Chinese into Vancouver (aka Hongcouver) be restricted. That didn't go through, though. DirkvdM 07:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more info (such as perhaps a link?) on that would be extremely helpful, Dirk, for me to give you an informed response. From what little you've told me so far, though, "there were people" suggesting this or that is very little to go by. Nowhere in the world will you not find some fringe group with some outlandish suggestion. I'd say more, but again, it would be irresponsible of me to comment on a claim for which I have so little information about. Loomis 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, with only a slight bit of research, (simply entering the term HongCouver into the search box,) what you're refering to is just as I suspected, nothing more than a couple of sensationalist articles in a couple of tabloid newspapers in Vancouver, printed no doubt to sell as many copies as possible. Hardly a government proposal, or even an initiative by any serious citizens' group. In fact, had any single member of Parliament or any single member of the Provincial legislature of British Columbia so much as hinted that he or she endorsed any sort of anti-Chinese immigration policy, it would create quite the controversy, and the particular politician would inevitably be forced to apologize, and perhaps even resign for the remarks, as is the usual practice for any Canadian politician who makes such an outlandish gaffe. I suggest you read the article. For one, it points out that Canadian government policies actually encourage Chinese immigration to Canada, not the other way around. Second, it makes quite clear that the term "Hongcouver" was most likely coined by newly-immigrated young Chinese to brag about "the takeover"". At any rate, it's pretty clear that it was not meant as a racist put-down coined by the non-immigrant community, as you seem to be attempting to imply, rather, at the very most, no more than a silly play on words originating in the Chinese-Canadian community itself.

It's clear that this was some sort of desperate attempt to defend Dutch politics by trying in vain to display that "pretty much the same thing goes on in Canada". Well it doesn't. It's simply unnacceptable in Canada for a politician to dare express even the mildest form of racism or anti-immigrant sentiment. (I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist at all in Canada, only that it's at the very least an extreme taboo among elected officials). I realize that this may be difficult to comprehend by European standards, but it's the simple truth about Canadian culture. Sorry Dirk, try again. :) Loomis 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth are you on about? I didn't ask for a response. I didn't say anything about Dutch policies. I just made a loose remark. Try what again? DirkvdM 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not true, in 1995 the mayor of Markham expressed concern for the white flight in Markham, and pointed directly to Chinese immigration as a cause. As far as I know she was never sacked for it. I also disagree with HongCouver being used by Chinese to brag. The article itself says it has possible pejorative connotations - some of the University of California campuses have similar pejorative names, like UC Irvine, which is sometimes called "University of Civics and Integras" and "University of Chinese Immigrants". The fact is there's probably more white Canadians uncomfortable with Chinese immigration in Vancouver than you think. However, nowadays a restriction on Chinese immigration is never expected to pass - Chinese immigration is concentrated enough that they have certain political clout. --ColourBurst 07:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'll have to reserve judgment on that claim, as I don't have enough info about it. Yet what I do know is that since 1994 the mayor of Markham has been a MAN named Don Cousens. Who is this female mayor of Markham in 1995 that you're speaking of? I've always maintained that Canada isn't entirely free of racists. No country is. It's very possible that the mayor of some town in Canada put his or her foot in his or her mouth in 1995. The likely result though, would have been, at the very least, a public apology.

These gaffes have happened before. In 1995 Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau after loosing the 1995 referendum by the slimmest of margins, in his concession speach made the relatively mild comment (relatively mild by European standards that is) that the loss was likely the result of "money and the ethnic vote". He resigned as premier the following day. Some time later, he publicly apologized for this unfortunate statement.

All this is to say that Canada is a far cry from those western European countries where openly racist and xenophobic parties routinely garner at least 5%, and up to 18% of the public vote, and win a similar percentage of seats in their respective parliaments. Loomis 14:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant deputy mayor (Carole Bell). My searches don't find an apology, although there was a petition circulated by the 12 GTA mayors which condemned her comments (however, Don Cousens didn't.) The specific charges she leveled was that the Chinese immigrants didn't contribute to their community, and that concentration of ethnic groups was a weakness (this of course ignores the fact that many other communities had ethnic concentration as well).

Unfortunately, being "the other" means that (because of group attribution error) such charges will remain in the minds of many (of course, group attribution error means that a lot of these comments will be made in the first place, but that's why people are so vigilant about it.). --ColourBurst 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've answered your own question, ColourBurst. I'll take your word for it that a petition was circulated by 12 GTA mayors condemning her remarks. Seems like the natural course of events for that sort of thing in Canada. I'm also grateful for your intellectual honesty in providing that fact.

In any case, worst case scenario: Deputy Mayor of Markham, Ontario, Carole Bell is a racist bitch. Similarly, Don Cousens, in not condemning her comments, is a disgraceful cowardly ass, and as such is not fit to call himself mayor of any Canadian town.

Shame on both of them, assuming without verifying that it's all true. But I'll take your word for it for now.

Nonetheless, you don't seem to be getting my point. Yes! I've probably said it more than a half a dozen times by now! Yes! There do exist racists in Canada! Look at Zundel! Look at Keegstra! Best yet, look at aboriginal leader David Ahenakew who stated to a reporter from the Saskatoon StarPhoenix: "that Jews were a disease and that Hitler was trying to "clean up the world" when he "fried six million of those guys""! So much for the "noble-aboriginal-at-peace-with-earth-and-nature" myth!

Having said that, though, I feel compelled to mention the truly, truly admirable response by Matthew Coon Come, AFN national chief, one of the most decent and courageous of human beings I've ever had the pleasure to come across, for his outstandingly courageous response to this outrageous remark. He took it upon himself to visit synagogues across Canada to personally apologize on behalf of all aboriginal peoples of Canada for the outrageously racist statements of his predecessor. I tip my hat to Matthew Coon Come, a truly GREAT man if I've ever seen one.

Yet the essence of my point is this: Look at the seating arrangement in the House of Commons in Ottawa. Name for me ONE MP who actually got elected on a xenophobic, racist platform.

They simply don't exist. There's the Tories, the Liberals, the BQ and the NDP, plus a few accidental independants. Name me ONE MP who actually stands firmly for the notion that Canada should, in any way, change its racial makeup to be more "European" or more "White". Even the BQ, the champions of an independent "French State of Quebec" try their best to lure the votes of non-white Francophones such as the enormous Black Haitian community of Montreal. They don't care about their colour, all they care about is the fact that they speak French, and no matter how much I'm against their seperatist platform, they're no racists, and I respect them for that.

Name me ONE, just ONE MP in Ottawa who actually manages to hold on to his or her seat with any true openly racist platform, and I'll admit that I'm totally wrong.

Compare that, again, to the roughly 5%-20% of the electorate in many western European countries who actually vote for, and send to parliament, unabashed racists and xenophobes.

There's simply no comparison. Loomis 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking past each other here, and we agree more than disagree. I didn't mean that Canada's mandate is openly racist ("racist" itself often being a word up for debate). In fact, many of Canada's politicians take great pains to not give this impression - it is simply political suicide, at least most of the time, in a country that for better or worse claims a higher moral position on ethnic and cultural integration. And I'll agree with you that another Chinese Exclusion Act-like policy probably isn't in the works (however, if there are extraordinary circumstances, such as a world war, I'm not so sure.) --ColourBurst 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A loose remark? By that do you mean that your statement was nothing but a complete non-sequitur? With absolutely no relevance to this nor any other discussion we've ever had? If so I'm truly sorry for assuming that your post regarding my home country had at least some meaning to it. Loomis 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis, you're weird. DirkvdM 07:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, that remark was simply uncalled for, rude, and uncivil. I've tried, (and it's been indeed a difficult task) to do my best to treat you with as much respect as I can possibly muster. You clearly challenged and grossly misrepresented a certain incident that occurred in Canada, and then you say you have no interest in a response? Am I not allowed to respond to what I believe to have been be a gross misrepresentation of my country's culture?

In any case, I've given you the same intellectual challenge to the hypocrisy of your hyper-pacifist "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" position not once, not twice, but three times by refering to the allied liberation of the Netherlands in WWII, which unfortunately was a rather violent incident in history. Yet each time you simply choose to ignore the challenge, rather than either put up a counter-argument (as is your right, and as is what I truly would have hoped you would do) or to simply have the courage to admit, as I have had the courage to admit about my own positions on many occasions, that you may have been wrong, and that you would like to consider rethinking your position. Apparently you have neither the intellectual capacity to back up your positions, nor the courage to admit when you may be wrong. I'm wrong quite often, and when I am I admit it freely. I have the self-confidence and the security in my intellect to recognize that nobody (and certainly not myself) is right 100% of the time. I only wish you would rise above your own petty insecurities to once in a while admit that you can be wrong as well. In the meantime, consider this too as a "loose remark", without any request for a response. Loomis 11:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eyelets

would eyelets have been used in the middle ages as fasteners for clothing

Apparently yes. There may be some controversy as to how early metal eyelets were used, though. You might want to take a look at this discussion about medieval fasteners. - Nunh-huh 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need reliable source that USA changed stance on Halabja gas attack responsibility

Hello,

currently I am trying to give some other people an example of views in history that change over the years.

In 2003, a popular argument by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq was the use of gas against the people of Halabja in 1988: Halabja_poison_gas_attack. This article claims that diplomats were told initially to claim Iran was behind the attack, later the DIA claimed that there was no absolute certainty, in 2003 it seems to be 100% certain that it was Saddam Hussein, for instance read :

[10]

"in one of the worst atrocities of Saddam Hussein's rule.", that line is quite explicit.

So what I am looking for is a reliable source that in 1988 the USA government claimed it was Iran. A reliable source could be a quote in a newspaper like New York Times. A website is reliable enough(I know that newspapers or networks aren't completely reliable themselves, but it's something). I have used Google and the links in the article about the poison attack, but did not succeed.

Thanks

Evilbu 13:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For stuff in 1988, you are not going to find much on the Internet as far as contemporaneous articles. I would recommend checking out the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature for that year at your local library. It will should give you tons of articles written on the subject and many libraries keep back copies of more popular magazines like Time or Newsweek. Nowimnthing 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I live in Belgium, I do have access to the public library of Ghent and also the library of its university... Evilbu 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend looking for UN Security Council measures. The Security Council was going to examine the attacks and investigate, but the US vetoed it. I remember this from the time itself, and I was furious. Those of us on the left in the US had been anti-Saddam for a long time, but also anti-war. The US was allied with Iraq at the time, in what sure seemed to me to be a cynical ploy to keep the Iran/Iraq war going, which caused both countries to pump oil in excess of OPEC quotas to pay for materiel, which meant zero or negative external fuel price pressure on the US economy, which ended stagflation, which gave a particular party the ability to claim that it had lowered the interest rates. However, I'd start with looking for the Security Council motions, as those are going to be well documented. Geogre 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This is a little off topic : but did the Iranian government ever officially cite USA being allied to Iraq as a reason to continue the war? I mean : is this what you claim? And are you claiming that both countries sold oil to the USA for weapons (I am sorry, I understand maths, but I don't understand economics) You would be surprised about those UN files : I can't find them on the official site. And as soon as I start plucking them from anti war sites, the neutrality could again be disputed. (Actually it seems the article on Halabja is claiming a shift in stance it cannot give sources for) Evilbu 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course. I am saying that Iran was about to "win," so the US aided Iraq. It was in the US's interests to keep the two sides fighting, to not help broker a peace, and to supply whichever side seemed to be about to run out of materiel. After the radical deflation of oil prices in the wake of the war, several banks in the US failed, and US economic interests with regard to oil prices changed. Geogre 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm,

[[11]] This is already quite explicit about the US stance. Evilbu 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a song...

Sorry, but I can provide very little data as the lyrics were for me incredibly hard to understand... It's a song (probably a single) with great success in the 90s and even today can be heard in mainstream pop music radio (at least in Spain). In the chorus apparently says something like "Mercy, mercy mercy" with background voices, it's sung in what seems to me a "black music style" and sung by a black woman... It's hard but, maybe it rings a bell to somebody... thanks :D

By a google search with "lyrics Mercy, mercy mercy" it returns Queen Latifah has a song named Mercy, Mercy, Mercy. I think it fits the criteria you have given. here are the lyrics. Hope this is what you were looking for. schyler 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're looking for "Mercy, mercy me" by Marvin Gaye. Lyrics and info. It was used a few years ago in a television commercial in the U.S., although I don't know if it was the original or a cover version. Whichever, the lyrics are haunting.

I think the first answer is probably more correct. Mercy, mercy, mercy was originally recorded by Cannonball Adderly, one of the best sax players ever, and was written by his pianist, Joe Zawinul. It was a huge hit and was covered by several artists over the years. -LambaJan 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Henrichsen (cameraman shot in 1973 in Chile) : where is the footage

Hello,

forgive me for coming to this board quite often. I love this place and I like to help whenever I can. If I am violating some sort of restriction you can tell me.

Some time ago, the kind people here helped me found out the name of this cameraman from Argentina who got shot in 1973 in Chile, by the very soldier he was filming.

It is often said these images shocked the world. In German class, we listened to the song "Der Kameraman" by Wolf Biermann. We asked our teacher whether or not we could actually see those images he sang about and he made a vague comment like : there probably isn't anyone who still has those images....

Thanks to the great internet, I thought I would succeed, but this is the best I could do is this :

[12] which is in Spanish and only includes a vague picture. Now I am beginning to fear that I would get results if I would know Spanish... but my knowledge of Spanish is next to nothing (I do speak French but it is still not good enough).

So if anyone can tell me where I found more pictures/the movie, or perhaps some Spanish word combinations that could help me in Google, I would be really happy.

Evilbu 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to expand Native Americana

Hi I don't think this is where I ask this but, I would like to add quite a bit about Native American Art, including basketry, rugs, pottery etc. I would like to know where I could ask for help from some other contributers, as this is a topic with very little representation that I could find, yet it is quite an extensive and facinating field.

Thanks for your time James Possamai

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Rmhermen 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could start your own sub-project on "Art of Indigenous peoples of North America" or just start writing articles. The creation of new articles is likely to grab the attention of others interested in this area, who then may contribute, as well. StuRat 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also want to browse the categories Category:Native American art and Category:Native American culture. Be sure to add your new articles to one of those categories, since that's one of the best ways for others to find your work. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about inflation, incomes

I'm trying to make a comparision between 1906 and today. A school was built in my town in 1906, it cost $40,000. I wanted to see what the average (U.S.) income was in 1906, and I can't find it; does anyone know where I can look this up? Also, the average income for 2006? And a decent inflation calculator to see how much a $40,000 school in 1906 would cost now? Thanks for anything!

There are some calculators here: [13] or you can check out the book, "The Value of a Dollar: prices and incomes in the United States 1860-2004, very handy. Nowimnthing 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

Searching for a Hero of the Soviet Union

I was reading through Lee Harvey Oswald's journal of his time spent in the Soviet Union, and he mentions meeting Pavil Golovacha. A yonuge man my age friendly very intelligent a exalant radio techniction his father is Gen. Golovacha Commander of Northwestenr Siberia. Twice hero of USSR in W.W. 2.[5] - because of Oswald's dyslexia and mispellings, I'm left with relatively no clue who this "General Golovacha" is supposed to be a reference to. If my rudimentary trivia knowledge serves me right, "Golovacha" would be a feminine name anyhow, so is unlikely - but I assume it is a similar spelling, I found a few variations on the name, but none ever listed as commanding anything in Siberia. Hero of the Soviet Union says only 101 people were ever twice-awarded, so it should be a relatively short list of possibilities. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be something Ukrainian like Golovocho or something similar? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our article on Oswald mentions the name as "Pavel Golovachev". However, I can't find any detailed information on his father the general, except a few mentions of his initials, "P. Ya. Golovachev. (see here, for example). Maybe that will help someone. -- Vardion 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I do a proper search, his father is actually in our List of World War II aces from the Soviet Union article — it says his first name was also Pavel. -- Vardion 06:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A million thanks Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Bike Rodeo

My grandson took part in the Ada Bike Rodeo this year. Keagan Hull is 2 years old. We heard from friends that a tape ran on this event in the evening news and Keagan was on it. None of our family saw it. We are interested in finding out if it is possible for us to obtain a copy or see this footage.

Sandie Hull

What country are you in? What channel was the news programme on? Your best bet is to approach the channel itself, see if they can let you see it. Maybe their website has archived news programmes or something. Or look for a website or forum dedicated to TV in your location and make a request there. Someone might have it. Good luck. --Richardrj 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Here: need something edited

I am having some trouble editing the entry about Tom Cruise. The current version (vandalized, I guess) has stuff about a book about Nazis instead of the actor. Can somebody help? I keep getting an edit conflict. I tried following the instructions on Help:Revertingbut it doesn't work. Help!

Wikipedia seems to be a bit broken at the moment. In particular, the page history feature doesn't seem to be working right, and as a result watchlists also may not. I tried unsuccessfully to revert Tom Cruise too. It might not even be vandalism, it might be damage to the database. May be best to wait. Notinasnaid 10:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried it too, no luck. Wait for a few hours (we had a database lock earlier this morning, and could still be seeing aftereffects from that), if it doesn't go away, the place to take this is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). — QuantumEleven 10:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 20 has the same issue. Developers are working on fixing the issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review of My Flowchart

Please critique this flowchart for its accuracy. If you wish to modify it and submit your own, then do so. File:Treason.JPG.--Patchouli 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What flows where and isn't it a bit too limited to bother making a chart? DirkvdM 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that sedition and espionage are subsets and the only categories of treason.--Patchouli 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a hierarchical taxonomy, not a "flowchart". AnonMoos 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Espionage is not necessarily a subset of treason. If I spy for my country against an enemy I'm not guilty of treason - I can only commit treason against my own country. Plus there are other categories of treason. If I join in an ongoing rebellion I might be guilty of treason but not sedition (or espionage). DJ Clayworth 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedition is also not necessarily a subset of treason. In fact, they tend to be defined, prosecuted, and punished as different crimes. - Nunh-huh 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it isn't a flowchart. I should have called it a concept map.

Rebellion is the second type of sedition. Sedition can involve "speech" or "organization". Rebellion is a part of the latter. Correct me if I am wrong.--Patchouli 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A flowchart doesn't seem to be in order here at all. If your point indeed is that sedition and espionage are subsets of treason, whether that's an accurate statement or not, it would appear that a Venn diagram would be a more appropriate choice to illustrate that. Loomis 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Euler Diagram.JPG--Patchouli 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you didn't say that the first time. If I may comment on the content, isn't something only treason after you've made a promise (which you then break)? 'Your own contry' is something that happened to you. If you've never pledged any allegiance to that country out of free will, then spying against it isn't really treason is it? That's the problem with conscripts in the army. If they get send out to some war abroad, then, once there, they may decide the other side is the one they should be fighting for. And act accordingly. Afaik (but would I know?) that rarely happens, possibly because it's regarded worse than defection. One Dutch guy decided in the Indonesian war of independence that he'd better change sides. Even though people in the Netherlands now acknowledge that the Dutch army was wrong, he is still not allowed to return to the Netherlands. But I digress. DirkvdM 07:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.answers.com gives two definitions for treason.

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.

I meant the first one, namely political treason.

The Netherlands is a very tolerant country. If wish I were a Dutch citizen; I would never betray the Netherlands. If an Iranian did betray his country by joining the enemy and fighting against it in Iran, he would be shot to death with a shooting squat or hung. Those folks, especially, the mullahs think of exile as a joke. Even outside Iran, he wouldn't be safe. Shapour Bakhtiar, a former prime minister of Iran, is a good example. He only objected to Khomeini Islamists excesses and execution of dissidents.--Patchouli 10:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cant use wikipedia mirror sites to cite wikepedia. Answers.com is just out of date wikipedia articles. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com uses many sources one of which is Wikipedia. Here is the citation for the above definitions of "treason".

"treason." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton ::Mifflin Company, 2004. Answers.com 22 Jul. 2006. http://www.answers.com/topic/treason

--Patchouli 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superman - interesting quote

Somewhere on Wikipedia, I found a remarkable quote by either comic writer or artist, on Superman. It was something along the lines of "He is the lost son of a dead planet, forever mourning the loss of millions of lives". Thats a very vague recollection of it. It was said by a major figure I think, someone like Gaiman or Miller maybe, maybe not. It is defintely on Wikipedia, as part of a comics related article. I have scoured for weeks but I just cant see it!

Can anyone help? Its such a vivid and beautiful line, I will be poorer without it.

Article of questionable validity about Albania

Can someone who knows a bit about Albanian history tell me whether or not this article is true or complete bullshit? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is complete, er, horse hockey. It appears to be the plot of Every Inch a King, a 2005 novel by Harry Turtledove. --Cam 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, see Otto Witte. Maybe I'm wrong about the horse stuff.--Cam 15:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting it up for deletion, then.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

samoan fa'afaline

Could anyone help with any studies or articles on the fa'afaline in Samoa, the boys who choose the gender roles of females?

See the bottom of berdache for a whole cross-cultural list... AnonMoos 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "caravan halt"

Hi, I would like to ask if anyone knows the exact definition of the phrase "caravan halt"? I've looked through every dictionary and encyclopedia I have and I can't find anything. I believe it is a type of rest stop on a caravan trail. Is that right? Thank you. DragonRouge 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without context it is difficult to say for certain but yes you are probably right. Whether it means a campsite (for going on holiday) or a caravanserai (for trade route stopping points) is not clear. MeltBanana 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court Reporter

Never having been to court, I've often wondered: Do court reporters record testimony verbatim, including obscenities? Or do they "fix up" the language a bit? For example, would this testimony, which I saw on TV last night, be taken down exactly as spoken: "She always be up in my face. I told her 'Get out my face, bitch.' She think she all that. She think she better."?

According to the transcript article, the transcripts that court reporters take are supposed to be exact, but it doesn't cite any sources, and it's a bit of a stub. --Bmk 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent case in Tulsa, Oklahoma where a judge was found guilty of indecent exposure for using a penis pump under his desk during cases he was trying. The court reporter is said to have recorded the whishing sounds the penis pump made in the official transcripts (she was also the person who blew the whistle (ahem) on him). User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At law school I worked with someone who did court reporting on the side. She transcribes absolutely everything, and I suspect that's required. You'll forgive me if I don't Lexis it, though. --George 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JFK, Jr.

We often hear the young JFK, Jr. called "John-John". But I seem to recall, from about 30 years ago, the story that Mrs. Kennedy hated that nickname, because neither she nor her husband ever called their son by that name. They called him John. What happened, apparently, is that once the President brought young John to a horse show, or some other informal event. The boy began to wander away, and the President called "John". John continued walking away, and the President called "John" again. The press either thought "John-John" was his nickname, or wanted to use this cute reference, and so adopted it. I believe that JFK Jr. also hated this name for the rest of his life, and never allowed anyone to address him by it. Can anyone verify this and/or provide some links? Thanks. 66.213.33.2 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles John F. Kennedy, Jr. and John F. Kennedy mention this, and CNN mention it briefly here. --Canley 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan d' anyelica?

Anyone know much about Juan d' anyelica?

I created the wiki entry on him, but it is just a stub now. I saw him down in Mexico a few times back in 2001, but haven't been able to find much info on the net about him.

Supertramp's "Fool's Overture" - Who's the Fool?

The lyrics of Supertramp's "Fool's Overture" seem to have a strong political and historical message, and the song seems to include many allusions to WWII. The lyrics are heavily reminiscent of the British position in WWII:

"History recalls how great the fall can be...While everybody's sleeping, the boats put out to sea...Borne on the wings of time...It seemed the answers were so easy to find..."Too late," the prophets cry...The island's sinking, let's take to the sky..."

In particular, a soundbyte of Churchill's famous "Never Surender" speech is played.

The song then speaks of a "fool": "Called the man a fool...stripped him of his pride...Everyone was laughing up until the day he died...And though the wound went deep...Still he's calling us out of our sleep..."

One explanation I've heard is that the "fool" being mentioned has far more to do with a character in Orwell's 1984 than any actual historical figure. This would be dissapointing, as I would have hoped that the song would have been a real commentary on a real historical figure.

Does anybody have any idea? Just who is this "fool" that Supertramp is apparently refering to?Loomis 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to explain prog-rock: profound sounding nonsense. I know about WP:NPA but prog-rock Gah! Anyway ive calmed down now and a candidate for the fool could be Neville Chamberlain or P.G. Wodehouse or even Oswald Mosley I suppose. MeltBanana 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the 'until the day he died' line, I think it actually describes Churchill. As far back as 1934 I think, he was making noise from his place of disgrace on the backbenches (wasn't he actually booted out of the party for a while?) about the dangers of Hitler and German re-armament. He was laughed at, he was called a fool (and much worse). He was called a warmonger and accused of trying to foment hysteria in order to revive his own political career. But, I agree with MeltBanana. It's probably just bullshit strung together in rhyming couplets. :-) --Anchoress 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, that's the problem with poetry. With so much stress on form it is hard to follow the content. Which makes it easier to 'fake it', which means a lot of poets do. Which means most people will assume there is no content. Which means most poets won't bother. Etc. Better use verse, but then that doesn't work well in music. Then again ... rap? DirkvdM 07:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uhhh...don't you mean "prose", not "verse"? Loomis

July 22

Raw materials for medieval siege weapons

I have being trying to find, what raw material was widely used in middle ages in the construction of siege weaponry like ballista and battering rams?. Was there an specifical kind of wood to build them?
And how about medieval asian siege weapons like Hwacha and Fire Arrow;
what raw material was used to build those siege weapons?,
- and since Hwacha is korean, is there any evidence that Pinus koraiensis was used as raw material to build that weapon?--HappyApple 06:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you were lucky enough to be having a siege by a major waterway, the besieging army would travel by land. There is no way you could take these weapons a long way over land, so they would have used whatever trees they could obtain locally. Obviously they would have preferences, like oak, since its denser than many woods. Blacksmiths attached to the army would have made fittings. After the siege, the stuff would have been burned or left to rot. Or so it seems to me. Notinasnaid 08:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they used whatever they could find. As an example, during the Siege of Antioch during the First Crusade, wood was brought by ship from Europe, since they happened to be near a port. During the Siege of Jerusalem, though, they had to use whatever wood was available, and there were no vast forests of very strong kinds of trees there like there was in Europe. I can't think of a good example of a European siege where better wood was readily available...you might also want to look at siege engine though. Adam Bishop 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are all concentrating on one material, but there were two more they needed, at least: leather and rope. They'd bring the ropes (hempen) with them, if they could, and make leather on the spot. All of those weapons were tortion devices for most of their history. Oh, and iron was nice, when they wanted wheels, but that would have been purchased from sutlers on site. Geogre 16:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it can be said that ropes and leather was bought during the trip? Or they bring them from home. And what kind of leather was used for those machines? Was there any preference? such as leather from any particular animal?. But, the question regarding the wood, remains unanswered, although oak could be a particular preference for the construction of siege machines in western hemisphere, how about Asia?. Can be said that pine or bamboo was used in the construction of ships and siege weapons like chinese Junks (ship) or korean Panokseons? Unfortunatelly in siege engine there isn't information regarding raw materials used. How about materials like sulfur used in trebuchets or oil and iron, where did the cruzaders or middle age armies found it?, Did they mined it?.--HappyApple 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Protocol

I'd like to know what is proper telephone calling etiquete. I need to know from what hour to what hour is propper to call somebodies home. Is it Ok to call before 8 am? Is it OK to call after 10 PM? What is the proper hours you can call someones home?

Personally I think 9am is the earliest time you should call someone's home, and 9pm the latest. --Richardrj 07:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These answers depend on what person you are calling. Close friends, business partners/fellow workers, family, etc all warrent different replies.--droptone 07:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't answer the phone if it rings after 22.00 h. In the morning, I'd say 09.00 h sounds good. Although that also depends on the day of the week (working day, a possible morning-after). DirkvdM 07:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 until 9 sounds good unless you know that they have a night job (don't phone until 2 pm in that case). Obviously, you can ask a friend if they have a different rule. Don't forget to allow for time zones! Oh, yes, telemarketers prefer to be called at 3 am. Notinasnaid 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It largely depends. Close friends and family are usually understanding. Regular friends probably around 8-10 PM or 8-9 AM. --Proficient 10:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., it is illegal for debt collectors to phone you before 8 am or after 9 pm, presumably because doing so is annoying and intrusive. With that reasoning in mind, calling outside of those hours should be reserved for people you know well. Though personally, I would not call other than a relative or close friend before 9 am without a good reason. Crypticfirefly 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you married to this person? If so, it's probably okay to call whenever you want (unless it isn't).

I have $1000,000 to give away

I only have two choices: either a) I can give it all to one person, or b) I can divide it equally between 100,000,000 people so that they all get exactly one cent each.

Which of the two choices would result in the greatest increase in the sum of human happiness?

If these conditions were relaxed, what would be the best number of people to divide the $1M between to provide the greatest sum of human happiness.

(It is of course a philosophical question about utility theory. Strictly according to what little I know of this theory, the answer should be b). But I'm not so sure. )

(This has a practical application. If I succeed in business and make a lot of $$$, then I could leave it in my will to a few people who will be very grateful to me, or I could selflessly leave it to Oxfam when the recipeients will have no idea who I am.)

Thanks. --81.104.12.53 10:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some happy medium? Because giving one person $1MM would make that person really, really happy, but giving 100MM people 1 cent wouldn't make any of them any happier.--Anchoress 10:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for a second I thought that said 1,000. Well, I'd say give the million dollars to someone who needs it, and then maybe they can give some of that to other people who need it. That's the better solution. Giving a 100,000,000 a cent each isn't going to do shit. (sorry for the vulgarity) 71.199.245.249 12:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs a million dollars. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on who you give it to. To someone in a rich country 1 million is enough to live in reasonable luxury off the interest, giving them the option to stop working and enjoying life to the full. More than that would be wasted on unnecessary luxury goods.

A cent won't be much to such a person. But most people in the world live in poor countries. So if you distribute it evenly, to most people one cent will be much more, to some even like what a dollar would be to a westerner. Still not much, but it will still be appreciated by most people. However, if one of those people gets that million, that would be like giving 100 million to someone in a rich country, which would be a waste of the money.

So if the million goes to someone somewhere in between, to whom it would be like the equivalent of 50 million to a westerner, then most of it would be wasted. So I'd go for option b.

Of course there is also the administrative cost of giving 100 million people a cent, but I assume we are supposed to ignore that. DirkvdM 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you have a million to give away, as the header says? In that case ignore what I just said and give it to me. :) DirkvdM 18:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give $i,ooo to each to small charities,that way LOTS of people benifit.hotclaws**==(81.134.68.10 08:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Jus give it all to Make Poverty History Philc _T^E_C^I 00:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps giving 100 people 10,000 dollars each would be a solution. --Proficient 07:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Africa you can buy an innoculation against common but deadly diseases for around $10. My guess is that you could make 100,000 people extremely happy by doing that. My recommendation would be to give it to one organisation who does this sort of thing well and let them do the innolulations.

In other words, for the utility theory part of this, the amount of happiness brought by $N is not dependent only on the value of N but also who is getting it. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peope who made the most (and least) contributions to human happiness?

Who are the top five people who have made the greatest increase to the sum of human happiness in all time?

I ask for the top five because I want to include other people apart from the religious leaders who I expect will be proposed.

I think these may include people who have done things in subtle and non-obvious ways, where the chain of causation is long, slow, and not obvious. For example the people who were responsible for initiating the building of the sewage system in London in the 19th. century must have saved a great many lives that otherwise would have died of typhoid, cholera and so on.

Similarly, who are the people who made the greatest reduction in the sum of human happiness over all time?

Thanks --81.104.12.53 10:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good case for Alexander Fleming or Stanislav Petrov, but my choice would be Norman Borlaug. Of course, happiness is such a difficult quality to qualify, any answer is going to be subjective. Ziggurat 10:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between reducing misery and adding to happiness. Adding to lifespan also does not equate with increasing happiness. I think the single thing that has given the most happiness to the most people is reading, so I nominate Johann Gutenberg for making books accessible.--Anchoress 11:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this another one of those "Hitler" games where a question is asked and the challenge is to see how long it takes for someone to finally bring Hitler into the discussion? (sort of like the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" game?) Well, I guess I'll be the sucker this time and submit that Hitler was most certainly one of the people to have made the least contributions to human happiness (or rather, the largest contribution to human unhappiness). Loomis 11:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of number of deaths the Great Leap Forward and the following Cultural Revolution had a larger impact, so Mao Zedong is a candidate, as should be Stalin with the Great Purge and the collectivization policies. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think Stalin is pretty high up there. He managed to make things miserable for people far and beyond those immediately effected by his policies (who were pretty miserable as well, of course), as the effects of his many policies were very long-term. --Fastfission 15:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for unhappiness, I think whoever decided to turn the guy who sought to reform Judaism into the figurehead of a whole new religion probably ranks up there, although I guess a lot of people have been made happy too. And whoever came up with the idea that women are the property of their fathers and husbands. Whoever came up with the idea of land ownership made millions and millions of people unhappy for a looooong time, and whoever decided that monarchs were God incarnate.--Anchoress 12:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Barry Manilow is one of the top five people who have made the greatest increase to the sum of human happiness in all time, because he writes the songs that make the whole world sing. --K

Does the change have to be intentional, because if it doesn't Muhammad and Jesus have probably killed billions through the misenterpratations of their works, extremist views on their intentions, and holy wars. So could possibly be nomiated for the most unhappiness, but also as founders of the two leading religions, could possibly have brought the most happiness to the world. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of sympathy for the view that Johann Gutenberg has made the biggest contribution, since without learning from printed books none of the other people mentioned would have been able to do what they did. On the other hand if Mr. Gutenberg hadnt invented movable type, probably someone else would have done.

Although I am not religious, I do think that Jesus in turn is responsible for creating the culture, including the protestant work ethic, that allowed a stable society were the good people mentioned above could prosper. Although there has been some religious conflict, the good in my opinion far outweighs the bad, since without Christianity we would be living in a barbarous world of Viking-like feudalism, where might is right. Or a pre-Christian Roman style society perhaps.

As I understand that Christianity was in part based upon Buddhism, then it could be that the Buddha is the greatest human, since he set off the whole idea of being eithical in thought and action rather than selfish power and dog-eat-dog.

No Chinese yet? They are always forgotten. Gutenberg may have done western civilisation a lot of good, but his Chinese counterpart (if there is such a person) did this much earlier in a huge country, so the total number of people who benefitted from it must be much greater.

Also, one has to keep in mind that a lot of famous people are accredited with stuff that was really the result of the work of many. I don't know how much Gutenberg contributed, but there must have been work done by others that he built on.

As for another country with a huge population, the Russian revolution dragged Russia out of the middle ages, thus stopping a misery that had lasted centuries. But who is one to ascribe this to? Lenin may have been an important figure, but he also caused a counter-revolution that was not necessary for this purpose.

Buddha is indeed a good choice because he gave people who are in need of some religion (apparently a lot of people) a less destructive alternative. And considering (again) the number of followers and how long ago he did this the total impact must have been huge. DirkvdM 18:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting the Russian Revolution for spreading happiness would be funny if it weren't sad. While nobody things that Tsarist Russia was any walk in the park, the October Revolution did not improve the fortunes of Russians very much in either the short or long term. --Fastfission 00:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not on the short term, but certainly in the long one. The Russian empire was one of the most worst countries of the world until WWI. We can say all we want about the crimes of Russian communism, but they developed that country, provided education for the masses, and got rid of the whole medievial legacy of Tsarist Russia who which still had serfs until the October Revolution! And like or not Stalin defeated Hitler. Not that this excuses in any way the millions who perished in the communist purges, the Gulags or in Siberia. Flamarande 00:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They went from bad to bad, arguably bad to worst. Serfdom had been abolished by Alexander II, by the way. Stalin defeated Hitler almost in spite of himself; he was a lousy military dictator. I think it is beyond question that there are a million ways in which the Russians could have ejected the Tsarist rule without becoming Leninist and eventually Stalinist, much less inflicting it on to neighboring countries ruthlessly. The October Revolution was, in the end, a great tragedy — faced with the possibility of freedom after so many centuries of servitude, the Russian people went from one type of slavery to another. --Fastfission 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom was abolished in the 1860's, half a millennium too late! And the Tsars 'forgot' to industrialise. The question is if the situation for people improved. Before 1917 there was one revolt after the other. After that there were none. It took just two things: distribute the wealth more evenly and create more of it. Socialism did the first thing and industrialisation did the second. It took Russia just a few decades to go from the middle ages to being the first space travelling nation. Quite an achievement. And it wasn't a fluke. It took the mighty US ten years to even just catch up. And they needed a Nazi and the death of the chief Soviet engineer to achieve that. The first decades of the Soviet Union were probably the greatest economic boom of the 20th century. After that, inefficiencies in the system finally brouht it to its knees. It was a ladder that needed to be climnbed and then thrown away. Alas they chose to dive into the deep end of the pool of capitalism, throwing the people before the wolves. But that's a different story. DirkvdM 18:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, yes, they were very late in abolishing serfdom, but let's not pretend the rest of the world was in a state of wonderful freedom. The U.S. didn't abolish chattel slavery until the 1860s itself, and many other countries were later than it. Anyway, as I said, nobody here is saying life under the tsars was good, the question was whether the October Revolution really improved things much. I think there is a plausible argument that it didn't — that even under Lenin, to say nothing of Stalin, life for Russians did not substantially improve. Socialism did not distribute wealth evenly, it simply impoverished everyone (that's not the same thing). Industrialization was done under the yoke of slavery and at the end of the gun barrel. Anyway, if you'd like some nice, non-hysterical references on Russian and Soviet history, I'd be happy to provide them, but selectively trolling Soviet history for accomplishments, and forgetting at what cost they came, is ridiculous. I'm not a fantatical anti-Communist (and I haven't argued that the alternative they needed was capitalism), but it is pretty clear that the Soviet Union was a period of intense repression, hardship, and economic mismanagement, with a body count far larger than Nazi Germany. David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb is a wonderful book if you want to get a better understanding of life in the Soviet Union, but hey, it's up to you. Or you can live in a fantasy world where the only way to industrialize is to kill a few million people first, or mistake a few technological developments for general prosperity. --Fastfission 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, in Western Europe inthe 19th century there was also a lot of poverty, although there, it was a result of industrialisation. In the USSR it was (at least in part) because of the Tsars. In both cases the end result was a considerable economic improvement. Except that in the USSR they had the option to learn from their predecessors. I suppose that's why it went so fast despite the 30 million lost in WWII. Being a communist or not has nothing to do with assessing this. At least it shouldn't, but I suppose that's where the problem lies. People tend to first look at which conclusions they want to reach and then come up with the argumentation. I just try to counteract that, in the process trying not to lean too far to the other side. It's a tricky balancing act.

Anyway, the question was if things improved for the people after the revolution, and they certainly did. Like I said, there was an end to the revolts, and that is a pretty strong hint. That's the voice of the people themselves, not outsiders with preconceptions. DirkvdM 08:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the people who made the internet possible;happiness=Wikipedia and I can listen to the Arizona Diamondbacks on my puter;unhappiness=spam--hotclaws**==(81.134.68.10 08:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As a reinforcement for the Light army, I'll add history's greatest scientist, Sir Isaac Newton. GTubio 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But enlightenment of knowledge leads to unhappiness, hence through some study an amerindian tribe has been found to be that happiest people in the world. Ignorance is bliss. Philc _T^E_C^I 00:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hitler have children?

I was curious, since weird and unusual topics comes into my mind usually...did Hitler have any children? If not, why not? If he didn't then that is good because it would be a terrible thing for someone to have that name (I take this back if they're racist)

No, but he did have nephews, like William Patrick Hitler. Supposedly his nephews agreed never to have children. Adam Bishop 15:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He only had only nephew - on his father's side - who was in the U.S. Navy in WWII. And the ones supposedly agreeing not to have children were Hitler's grand-nephews. Rmhermen 16:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "Book of Lists" (probably number 2) by Irving Wallace, Amy Wallace and David Wallechansky, it is stated that Hitler had a child by a French woman during WWI. When Germany occupied France during WWII, Hitler had his son found and placed him in a middle management type role in the administration. The Book stated that as of the mid 70s, Hitler fils (whose name was something like Albert) was working as a cleaner (I think). It's been a while since I have read the book so the memory is a bit hazy but if anyone wants to chase it up, that would be great. --Roisterer 03:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he did like the children of Goebbels. Evilbu 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off on a tangent -- movie buffs who read this question will of course think of a couple of Hollywood flicks. Hitler's Children was a successful 1943 Hollywood film about Hitler Youth rather than actual Hitler offspring. For Hitler clone children, there was of course The Boys from Brazil. Both films were based upon novels, but who reads books? --Kevin

I'm just asking, why didn't he? celibacy or something?

Maybe this explains it:

Hitler has only got one ball,

The other is in the old town hall,

His mother, she pinched the other,

Now Hitler ain't got none at all!

That was a song invented by the British during WWII to make fun of him and has absolutly no bearing in reality.

Really? You mean his mom really didn't steal one of his balls? Thanks for clearing that up!

Well someone very clever with a (notso) great sense of humour thought it was worthy enough to write it down here. Sarcasm can cut both ways u know? And please in the name of good education sign your statements. Flamarande 19:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to know why he didn't had any children? Do you think we can ask him perhaps? "Hey Adolf, there is a guy who wants to know why you didn't had any children." The guy only married at the very last day of his life, commiting suicide with his wife Eva Braun on the same day. Some very (un)credible investigators suppossedly found "proof" that Hitler was once part of the homosexual scene. Others claim that he suffered from syphilis while others are sure it was Alzeimer. His own secretary said in the History channel that Eva told her that it was a normal sexual relationship. Perhaps he simply didn't want any children or was simply infertile. Nobody knows for sure and we simply don't have conclusive proof. Take your pick. Flamarande 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry - Gary Snyder

I am looking for a poem by Gary Snyder. I don’t know its title and I don’t know where it was published. I had a copy of it several years ago and have since lost it. The first line of the poem contains the word “cicada” or “cicadas”. Other lines include the words “hills”, “mountains”, and “trees”. It is a fairly short poem, perhaps 10 lines. I don’t believe that it was an excerpt from a longer piece. I’ve tried browsing through actual volumes of his poetry to find it, but to no avail. Can you help me?

"Song of the Tangle" is probably what you want. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where in UK to invest £750000 in buy-to-let property?

This is a serious practical question. I can borrow £750000 at a reasonable interest rate to invest in rental property. It could be one or several properties.

There are a number of constraints:

The property(s) must be in mortgagable condition.

It must be in the UK.

The rents must be high enough to pay the mortgage, so I'm looking for at least a yield of 5% or 6% or more (in other words the total yearly rent must be at least 5% or 6% of the property price. )

I'd like to buy a property or properties that I would enjoy living in myself in the future.

Ideally, I would like to spend it all on one big house in the East Anglian countryside, that I would enjoy moving into myself after a few years. But the problem with this is that big rural houses like this would be almost impossible to let, and even when let the yield wouldnt be high enough.

So does anyone have any serious and realistic suggestions about where and what I should buy?

Thanks --81.104.12.59 13:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the return needs to be rather higher. You need to allow for (a) unlet periods. It would be wildly optimistic to hope that it is let more than 10 months of the year. (b) running costs: fixing the roof or plumbing, advertising for tenants, legal costs of contracts, fixing broken furniture after the tenants. (c) the ultimate overlooked problem: the income you receive from letting (less a 10% allowance for wear and tear) is taxable. If we suppose annual running costs of 10% of rental and that you are paying tax at 25%, the figure seems to be to be interest rate / 0.9 / 0.9 / 0.75 (I may be doing this wrong but hopefully you get the idea). So a 6% mortgage translates into almost 10% rental return required. It's very hard to get this, except on scruffy flats in areas where property is cheap but demand is high. Probably nowhere in the south east of England at all. I don't think borrowing is an attractive way to start buy to let, but is becomes more interesting when compared with the rates obtainable on savings (which are also taxed, providing a more even basis for comparison). To match a 4% savings rate on the above argument you'd only need 4 / 0.9 / 0.9 = around 5% return needed. Notinasnaid 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am aware of your concerns as I have been investing in property for the last thirty years. You've made a mistake over tax, as mortgage interest and other expenses are deductable from rental income, so its easy to pay no tax at all.

I'd go for London. The housing market is most stable there in terms of long term upward trends and letting of almost any type of property is helped by the demand. When you're ready to move out to beautiful East Anglia (I'd recommend Norfolk for its charming people and scenery, though not if you like hill-walking!) you'd be truly unlucky if the prices there had risen faster than London. Also be aware that London itself varies enormously and there are pockets which are far better than even their immediate neighbours. Avoid the London congestion charge zone like the plague... and even worse, any areas which look likely to be sucked into it, which pretty much means anywhere on the circumference! Ken Livingstone needs a lot of money to pay for the Olympics. --Dweller 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dry docked and hurt'en

i am recovering from a bad injury that may leave me with partial use of my right arm. i do not qualify for social security benefits as i have been unemployed for so long that my quaterly credits have run out. does anybody know of any private sector companys that have a hireing program for partially disabled people over age 50 ? 15:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)thanks wikipedia-nauts15:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)(Hobgoblin)

You don't qualify for social security because you have been unemployed for too long? What kind of reasoning is that? And a disability doesn't matter? What horrible country are you from? DirkvdM 18:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA, yep your SS will run out if you dont pay into the account with in so many quarters. go figure, (hobgolin)

A horrible country indeed. Well, if you're from the northern US you can always cross the border and get permanent residency status in Canada. After a reasonable amount of time (a matter of a few months) you'll qualify for about $800/month in assistance as well as free medical care. Another great option (assuming you're white) is to try to emmigrate to any western European social democracy, they seem to offer the same sort of deal. Loomis 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your white? Did I miss the lynchings? Philc _T^E_C^I 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Phil. I was refering to continental Europe only. Not the UK. Not at all. I love England (as well as Scotland, NI and Wales,) but England in particular, for its culture of warmth, openness and tolerance. My first time taking the ferry from Calais to Dover, I literally got goose-bumps at my first sight of those beautiful white cliffs. It was odd, though I had never been to England, I felt such an inexplicable feeling of "coming home" (after spending a bit too much time on the continent!) If I was forced to live in some other country aside from my own, England would be at the top of my list.

My little remark was only meant as a jibe at those continental countries where that ugly spectre of racial and religious intolerance seems to be rearing its ugly head once again. The English people have always seemed to rise to the challenge and stand up for what's right when the rest of the world seems to be going haywire.

England just has a special place in my heart. I just intinctively know that whatever the calamity, the good people of England will always be on the right side, standing up for all that is good and proper, and stubbornly refusing to be lured into the den of the devil, no matter how tempting it may be. Take good care Phil. Loomis 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers loomis, your a really nice guy. Maybe it is a fair point to say that continental european countries have more problems with rascism, but I would probably say it's only the mediteranean ones, I dont know why, but spain france and italy seem to be the focus of it all, where as germany despite its somewhat more violent past, has taken a real turn for the better (though there is a general dislike the turks, which doesnt help my point), and from what I know is quite tolerant nowadays, and also that, though I may be mislead, apart from a few contreversial cartoons (which can be attributed to ignorance not rascism), nothing bad has come from scandanavia. But yeh, spain and france are quite bad, mostly dues to problems with terrorism from foreign countries, notably algeria, and a lack of any serious ethnic groups, which will stand up for themselves. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Singaporean corporations?

What are the largest corporations in Singapore, by revenue for the most recent financial year? Of course, more lists using other factors, such as market capitalization and net income, would help.

What are the major corporations in Singapore, in the computing industry (particularly dot-coms)?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Superstition

When my dad was born, the left side of his body was paralyzed. It went away and his parents worked with him so there wouldn't be any adverse effects later in life. Nonetheless his left arm doesn't bend straight all the way and his left ear and eye are a little bit lower than his right eye and ear. When my dad was getting his hair cut, the barber (of Vietnamese descent) noticed the abnormality, and my dad said he might want to get it fixed surgically, since it has bothered him and my mom a long time (why, I do not know). The barber quickly objected saying that if your do anything surgical to your ears, your business may suffer (he is a business man). Somehow I think my dad is making it up to not do the surgery because he's scared. Am I mistaken and this is a legitimate Vietnamese superstition? Or is my dad just afraid? schyler 16:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hizbollah : surprises

Yesterday I saw Nasrallah on television saying they have surprised the Israelis, and they can surprise them again. I think by surprising he means the rockets hitting Haifa. As I understand it, Hezbollah did not target Haifa in the first days of this conflict, and I even remember that some did not take the threat to start attacking Haifa serious. But why was this a surprise, when I go through Wikipedia, it has been known for a long time that Hezbollah had Katyusha rockets, and this picture (on Wikipedia) [[14]] clearly suggest it gives them the possibility to attack Haifa? So what am I misunderstanding? Evilbu 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main "surprise" so far was hitting the Israeli ship. AnonMoos 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the original "surprise", supposedly, in that they claimed that they hit the ship with an unmanned drone aircraft, but recent evidence seems to indicate that it was a conventional missile. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was Israel that originally claimed it was a drone. --Fastfission 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I remember reports that people were surprised to see Haifa hit (that hasn't happened before?) So you think Nasrallah was referring to the ship that was attacked? Evilbu 21:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the surprise may have been due to the speculation that they may have acquired some missiles that could reach Tel Aviv. See this BBC article for details. Road Wizard 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably he is just blowing hot air for propaganda purposes... Adam Bishop 03:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related question. Iran is widely known to be a heavy supporter of Hezbollah. Does this mean that the arms we're talking about (such as the katyusha rockets) originate in Iran? If so, my question is a purely logistical one. How does Iran manage to ship these rockets? Iran does not border Syria or Lebanon. The only land route would take them through Iraq or Turkey. Iraq would be an unlikely route as it's crawling with US troops. Turkey wouldn't be that much better, as it's an ally of the US and Israel. Are the arms actually smuggled by land through one of these two countries? Are they brought in by air or by sea? Or does Iran merely provide a tonne of cash (which is a lot easier to smuggle) to Hezbollah, which in turn allows Hezbollah to buy these arms from a third party. If so, from where do these katyusha rockets originate? Loomis 13:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US does not control all of Iraq (because it is not actually crawling with US troops, and even if it was they still wouldn't control all of it). Adam Bishop 16:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Adam. Just to clarify, I shouldn't have used the word "crawling", as this would seem to imply that I view the presence of US troops in Iraq in a negative fashion, which is definitely not the case. If only the US was in fact in control of any weapons that may be smuggled through Iraq, then perhaps the Hezbollah would have had no rockets to fire, (or none left at least) and this whole tragedy would have been averted, saving the lives of many Jews and Arabs alike. Loomis 21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah probably gathered all these rockets for quite some time and perhaps even built some of them. But if you really really want to know ask Mossad and not Wikipedia. Flamarande 18:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right Flamarande, and that they'll soon run out, making the need for Israel to take any more defensive action unnecessary, and, as I just said above, saving the lives of many Jews and Arabs alike. Loomis 21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read here and there that Hezbollah has hundereds ! of rockets. It is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. Flamarande 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pity, Flamarande. If only they ran out we wouldn't be in this mess. Loomis 22:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptor Sir William Reid Dick

I have a piece of sculpture done by Reid Dick, and I'd like to know who to contact (and how) to establish its value and to make arrangements to market it. Thanks! - Marion--65.98.151.243 16:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)--65.98.151.243 16:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you based? Azerbaijan? Brazil? Cameroon? ... --Lambiam ^Talk 21:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest any reputable art dealer or valuer. If the sculpture is difficult to transport I'm sure that any nearby dealer would be happy to visit you to value it if it is by a recognised famous sculptor. As you seem to be in California, U.S.A. I'd expect you to be able to find a suitable dealer in Los Angeles or one of the other larger cities in that state. AllanHainey 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

space/time

How does gravity affect space time between the event horizon and the singularity of a black hole?

Why don't you ask that on the science desk? AnonMoos 17:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European cities and towns: good west end and poor east end

In Eric Hobsbawm (1962, 2005) The age of the revolution 1789–1848, chapter 11, it was stated “Urban development in our period [1789–1848] was a gigantic process of class segregation, which pushed the new labouring poor into great morasses of misery outside the centres of government and business and the newly specialised residential areas of the bourgeoisie. The almost universal European division into a ‘good’ west end and a ‘poor’ east end of large cities developed in this period.” I wonder why this geographical vector is invariant throughout Europe? – Kaihsu 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that it is. In London, the eastern section was downstream, and closer to the docks. AnonMoos 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading about this in old urban geography textbooks. It is said to be due to the fact that in Britain, at least, the predominant wind is from the south-west. So in the centuries when coal was used for heating, if you lived on the eastern side of town you would get everyones smoke pollution there, plus industrial smoke also. So the better-off would choose to live somewhere else.

I also remember seeing a diagram of the residential, commercial and industrial sectors of a typical UK town, and it did correspond rather well to where I was living at the time. Perhaps I've seen the same book you've mentioned. --62.253.48.1 18:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you beat me to that answer by just a few minutes. I just wonder if it wouldn't have made more sense to put the industries at the eastern end of the town. Just east of the workers residencies, so they could walk there. In the middle ages the dirty industries were also placed outside the cities. And in Amsterdam indeed to the East, afaik. DirkvdM 18:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. In the U.S. many cities seem to have a "good" North side and poorer South side. Rmhermen 00:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hobsbawm's sentence is supposed to be "universally good and bad side, which were west and east in London." Generally, the US does follow the north/south pattern, and I suppose semiotics might have something to say about it. However, one of the critical factors in London is that the managers might want a quick jaunt to work, so the property values would be too high for the workers, but the workers had to adjust to the notion of "work" being some place far away (when, earlier, work took place at home, or one's work had a residence attached). The developers put the mills wherever they chose, but the poor were already located in the poor areas. In London, another factor was elevation, as being below the river's level would mean more disease and misery in general (e.g. Southwark). Geogre 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's because rich people carry more metal (coins, jewelry) than poor people, so the earth's magnetic field subtly deflects the rich people westward. No, don't listen to me. ;) --Bmk 04:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a more likely explanation. 19th century industries produced lots of coal smoke. Are the prevailing winds in Europe from the west as they are in North America? Coal smoke produces substantial deposits on everything downwind, which would make the western edges of towns preferable to the eastern ones. alteripse 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was already said by the anon. DirkvdM 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we feed this back to the Wikipedia (the encyclopedia)? What is the appropriate article to integrate this information? – Kaihsu 13:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanisation? DirkvdM 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added. – Kaihsu 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney-General's Reference

I am curious as to this point in UK law. When the Attorney-General refers a question of law for the consideration of the Criminal division of the Court of Appeal after a trial of first instance in the Crown Court, who argues against the Crown? I would think that the defendant would have no interest in instructing a lawyer to do so, since the outcome can have no bearing on the original acquittal. --David Mestel^(Talk) 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do these help? (I have not read them). [15][16] – Kaihsu 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it turns out that the Treasury Solicitor briefs counsel as Amicus Curae to argue against the Attorney-General. --David Mestel^(Talk) 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that is a cute set-up. – Kaihsu 12:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we feed this back to the Wikipedia (the encyclopedia)? What is the appropriate article to integrate this information? – Kaihsu 13:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put this question to a criminal lawyer of my acquaintance, who queried its basic premise. Why does the question assume that someone needs to argue against the Crown? What if there are no interested parties? --Richardrj 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about white Rastafarians

If a white man chooses to become a Rastafarian, is it mandatory to assume a fake Jamaican accent? Rastafari interests me and seems to be 'calling' me but I've met several white Rastas who seem to me to be 'trying too hard' to sound like what they think 'Rasta should be'. I know about the importance of the Rastafarian vocabulary but is it essential to deliver it in a forced Jamaican accent say, if you're from Northern England? That just seems wrong and contradictory.

Also, what do black Rastas generally think of white Rastas? I've read accounts online of real hostility yet other people seem to have had no problems, even when in Jamiaca.

Thanks. --84.68.50.179 23:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to become a Rasta does it even matter? They copy the accent because they want to and nothing else. They want to be really "original" and therefore they copy a accent, smoke some ganja, and grow their hair. I think that most of them eventually grow up. But hey if you wanna believe, then believe. By the way, have you ever heard about the spiritual rewards of Atheism? Please convert now. Flamarande 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry, couldn´resist :).[reply]

FWIW, I've met several white rastas and not a single one of them would ever consider faking a Jamaican accent. Why should they? If you convert to Judaism you should suddenly start speaking in a stereotypical Jewish way already? Or start with usin-a da mock Italiano if you become Roman Catholic? It's silly. (BTW, FWIW, my country's best known rasta is white - the MP Nandor Tanczos). Grutness...wha? 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw man, New Zealand is so cool. I can't even imagine a Rastafarian, Linux-using, US politician. —Keenan Pepper 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     He skateboards, too.

Baseball Illustrated Magazine

I am searching for information about Baseball Illustrated magazine. It was published in the 1960's and 70's. Specifically, I am trying to locate past issues for an article I am working on.

The person who runs this website may be able to help you. Or this one. Wonder why there are so many universities that host this type of stuff?--Anchoress 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do i learn

I believe you may be asking about Jehovah's Witnesses, the most prominent group that uses the name Jehovah. Their corporate body is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They maintain a Web site. I mention the Witnesses because the way you phrased your question sounds very similar to Witness literature.

-75Janice How do ilearn more about Jehovah God?

You can start with our articles Jehovah and God, or go to the nearest synagogue and ask a rabbi. Where do you live? —Keenan Pepper 04:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'God God'? Jehovah means 'God'. This is like the Gili islands in Indonesia. 'Gili' means 'island', so that would make it the 'island islands'. There are more examples, but I forgot. DirkvdM 06:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Angels -- "the the Angels Angels". --K

Chai tea? How about PIN number or ATM machine? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See our aptly named article, RAS syndrome. Not many articles have a joke in the title.-gadfium 08:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! I completely forgot about "please RSVP"! — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pendle Hill in Lancashire="Pen" "dle" and "hill" all mean "hill" A threefer!-re,original question-Jehovah's Witnesses? hotclaws**==(81.134.68.10 08:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, wasn't that one on QI? DirkvdM 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a language question now but dle means hill? What language/word does that come from? Rmhermen 16:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The La Brea Tar Pits = The the tar tar pits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, if only we had more, oh wait List of tautological place names. MeltBanana 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite Interresting, actually. There's even a 'Hill Hill Hill Hill', Torpenhow Hill. DirkvdM 08:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want Judaism, Torah, Christianity, or Bible. Jehova usually (maybe always) refers to the god of the Abrahamic faiths, more specifically, to the Judeo-Christian ones. Emmett5 23:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah Rockets

What type of rockets are Hezbollah firing on Israel? Many thanks, --86.139.122.229 09:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Hizbollah :surprise" topic from yesterday might satisfy you for a moment... Evilbu 11:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katyusha are the ones most people are worried about, very short range, low flying. --Fastfission 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very inaccurate, too.--Patchouli 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The how do they manage to hit only soldiers (whilst Israel hits only civilians)? That would only work if all Israelis were soldiers. And maybe that isn't too far from the truth. DirkvdM 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They hit only soldiers? Strange, in CNN, Sky One, and BBC the reporters quite clearly say that mainly civilians in Haifa, Tel Aviv, etc are the victims. But Dirk perhaps you are watching Al Jazeera which is as a quite impartial newsnetwork (not). Flamarande 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother, Flamarande. Twisted as it may seem, there are some that view all Israelis and all Zionists as soldiers, and hence legitimate targets. A rather convenient rationalization of terrorism, don't you think?

In fact I myself am an unapologetic Zionist, so I suppose it would be perfectly ok according to this twisted rationale for the Hezbollah to knock on my door and behead me alive. Oh well...the life of a Jew... Loomis 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Hezbollah's Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah acknowledges that they've killed Muslim children. (Probably referring to Mahmoud Talussi, 4, and Rabiah Talussi, 7). Of course, he apologized and said they were martyrs, which is no doubt quite comforting. - Nunh-huh 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders why that "honorable follower of God" doesn't pick up a gun and fights like a real Muhajadhin in the frontlines against Israeli soldiers, instead of hiding in a safe location and making political statements which are worth Camel dung. I mean if he dies a martyr he will get 30 virgins, so why does he hide his sorry as*? Could it be that he doesn't really believe what he preaches? (imagine that - how unexpected :( ) Flamarande 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And GW Bush should be on the front lines in Iraq. Or maybe that's not how leadership works. --Fastfission 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there is the diffrence: Bush doesn't preach the glory of martyrdom. And he doesn't claim that a martyr will get a lot of virgins in heaven. Still, he lies alot like any good politician.Flamarande 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuns.jpg - Nunh-huh 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its because hes not a muslim. Philc _T^E_C^I 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused Phil. Yes Bush is not a Muslim, and yes "Bush doesn't preach the glory of martyrdom." That's a good thing, no? I'm confused by what you said. I'm assuming you had a good point, but perhaps you should clarify it so the rest of us can understand. Loomis 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Iran in my childhood and I don't recall any mullah talking about women in paradise. It could be that I wasn't paying attention.--Patchouli 06:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stirred up something it seems. Not that I didn't realise that - it's just what I like to do. :)

Ok, I exaggerated, but what I heard on the (Dutch) news is that in Israel it is mostly soldiers who get killed, whereas the Israelis themselves kill mostly civilians (and many more too).

Then again, I don't exaggerate as much as some others (as is to expected with a controversial subject). DirkvdM 08:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question correctly, the answer is not Katyushas. They have a very limited range and could only hit Haifa if launched within Israel itself. While there are Katyushas being fired into Israel by Hezbolla, that's nothing particularly out of the ordinary. BBC TV News was more certain than this ([[17]]) BBC Online piece, but it seems they're Iranian Fajr missiles, or possibly Zelzals. Whatever they are, they're not very nice. --Dweller 10:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're weapons, they're not supposed to be nice. :) DirkvdM 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are nunchakus illegal in so many places?

P ?

I don't know the full rationale (i.e. why nunchaku are illegal but small handguns are not), but I imagine it is for the same reason that brass knuckles are generally illegal and many other small, concealable, hand-to-hand violent weapons are illegal. It strikes me as very strange that certain classes of deadly weapons are illegal while others are often quite legal. --Fastfission 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because there isn't a National Nunchaku Association. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nunchakas don't kill people. Ninjas kill people Bwithh 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother is this a poor copy of the old phrase: "Guns do not kill people, people kill people"? That is an old excuse of the NRA. It is quite wrong you know? "Guns do not kill people. People with guns kill people (usually). " Flamarande 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a stereotype that Americans do not understand irony or sarcasm. I wonder where this came from? Skittle 20:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classy Skittle, real classy. Which "American" are you refering to, Skittle? Seems to be Flamarande. From what I can tell from Flamarande's userpage, s/he is not at all from the US. (Though, Flamarande, I apologize for speaking on your behalf...if you are indeed American, or if you disagree in any way with what I'm saying, my full apologies go out to you). Loomis 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, people outside the US dont give one about the NRA, so that was probably the major pointer in Skittles assumption. Philc _T^E_C^I 00:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do Phil, and I'm not American. The irony of it all (I suppose I'm capable of understanding irony because I'm not American:) ) is that I probably agree with Skittle's underlying point 100% My position: (Except for the police and the military,) guns should be banned outright. The 2nd ammendment should be repealed. For goodness sake, 30,000 Americans die each year from gun related deaths. Compared to countries like the UK with extremely tough gun laws, the amount of deaths in the US, per capita, is staggering. Is "sport hunting" really that important? Anyway, I know this position may be extremely uncharacteristic of me, throwing me into the extreme left-wing of US politics, but what's right is what's right. So Skittle, (if I'm reading you right) I totally agree with you. I'd just kindly ask that you try your best to avoid stereotypes. I know, I know, living right next door to the US I've got a whole bunch of my own, so it may be hard to resist. And Phil, thanks for playing referee, as always, we tend to get far too personal here, myself included. All the best. Loomis 01:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flamarande may of just had a really long night and needs some sleep. --mboverload @ 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that Flamarande may or may not be American, and that the people whose irony/sarcasm Flamarande was probably too tired to understand probably were American, was why I thought it would be okay to write what I did. I thought all these circumstances combined would make this a clear, gentle suggestion that people were not being serious. Note the 'stereotype' in my comment. It was meant to illicit a 'oh, right' from Flamarande, and be a slight comment on confirmation bias. Hey ho. Skittle 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was trying to be witty, not necessarily in a sarcastic, but definitely in a light-hearted way (aren't ninjas now the height of camp?); I'm a Chinese Londoner in NYC with British attitudes towards gun control; and judging by the use of "Oh brother", I would guess that Flamarande is indeed American though probably not a stereotype, and of German/Spanish ancestry according to her user page. Bwithh 23:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, my friend has a pair of them and he was never arrested. Anyways, many edged weapons are illegal as well. However, my impression is that ninjas never used nunchakus because there's no actual record concerning their use. And of course, I feel sorry for poor Grand Master Hatsumi for the appropriation of ninjas by popular culture. --ColourBurst 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a documentary of Bruce Lee that I saw, he saw nunchukus being used as part of a dance and decided they would be cool weapons for his next movie. After that, they were all the rage in the king-fu subculture. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Born Society

[http://www.freedomnowok.org] [http://www.freedomnowok.org/WP.html]

Please include these links under The Free Born Society —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FreeBornAngel (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 July 2006.

Not an appropriate question. Try the help desk. Besides, no links exist for that organization. --ColourBurst 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someones doing a bit of publicity on their site, me suspects... Philc _T^E_C^I 00:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should nowiki these things whenever we spot them, lest they get the benefit anyway. Geogre 12:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flip Wilson joke

I found the following joke in the Wikipedia article about Flip Wilson. I don't get it. Could someone explain the punch line for me?

This is a story about a Roman. His name was Herman. His name was Roman Herman. The fad of the era was berries. People collected berries. They were a status symbol. One day, while Roman Herman was roaming the outskirts of Rome, he spied a berry. It was the most beautiful berry he had ever seen. He took the berry and brought it to his wife, who loved berries. She saw the berry. She praised it. She said "That's an awful nice berry you got there Herman!" Pretty soon, word got around about the berry. People came from all over Rome to see the berry, and to praise it. One night, there was a menacing knock on the door. It was late. Herman opened it. He said "Who are you?" They said "We've come for your berry." He says "It's not my berry, it's my wife's berry. Have you come to praise her berry?" They say, "No, we've come to seize her berry, not to praise it."

I bet it makes more sense if you hear it out loud. I've noticed that "seize her" sounds a bit like "Caesar." Perhaps that is part of the joke?

Also, does this question belong here, in the Humanities Reference Desk? Should I have asked on the Flip Wilson article discussion page, or maybe somewhere else?

--66.67.106.36 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more appropriate than the Flip Wilson talkpage. Talkpages are for discussing article content.--Anchoress 03:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great place for your question! The joke is a long setup, to the final quote from the mob: "We've come to seize her berry, not to praise it." This is a pun based on the famous speech from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar by Marc Antony:

   Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; 
   I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

The whole speech is in Act 3, Sc. II; for instance readable here. --ByeByeBaby 03:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more on this type of humor, see Shaggy dog story (third paragraph). --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, that's disappointing. I hate Shakespeare, I don't know how anyone can understand his writing. Its like that language from the Darmok episode of Star Trek, The Next Generation.

--66.67.106.36 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lame joke, it's way too long and it's only for a small group of insiders. But then, what can one expect from someone named Clerow? DirkvdM 08:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you describe a joke based on one of literature's most famous lines as "for a small group of insiders". You'd need to think about what audience the joke was aimed at when written/performed. I can think of comedy venues in the UK where it would bomb and others where (if someone other than me made the gag) it would go down very well indeed. Most humour has a large slice of cultural/educational elements that help or hinder them. Even silent slapstick. --Dweller 10:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, the overlength of the joke is half the point of this particular genre of humor. As in the famous joke "The Aristocrats", you want to make 'em wait, and then wait some more, and then laugh and/or groan at the punchline, which verges on the anti-joke. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 11:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Holistic Living

American Holistic Health Association (AHHA) promotes and explains what is holistic approach to health. I tried to find definition or meaning for the term ‘Holistic Living’ as we plan to organize a Symposium on ‘Holistic Living’. I could not find clear meaning or definition in Wickipedia, Google or Yahoo. However, www.vyasa.org states that ‘Yoga is Science of Holistic Living’ (Editorial, Yoga Sudha, July 2006). Understanding the Yogic way of life, as described by sage Patanjali on three principles namely Ahhaar (food), Vihaar (exercise) and Vichaar (thinking). I define ‘Holistic Living’ as follows:

Holistic Living may be defined as simple and spiritual living with moderation in food intake, adequate exercise and positive thinking and attitude to life. Yoga is Science of Holistic Living.

OR

Holistic Living is an art of living in harmony with Nature and concern to the whole universe.

Prof. B. C. Harinath, Director, JB Tropical Disease Research Centre & Coordinator, Arogyadham, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences Sevagram (Wardha) – 442 102 Web: www.jbytdrc.org, www.mindandbodyhealth.org

Holistic living means living in a holistic manner and as your quotes show different people have different opinions on what that entails. As there is no one description of what holistic living is, you are better off reading the holistic article and drawing your own conclusions on what a holistic lifestyle should be. The simplest definition of holistic I know is "an awareness of the interconnectedness of all things" from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. MeltBanana 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental interconnectedness, I believe. JackofOz 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Street names

I would very much like to know the reason why the following two roads were named.

Rosemary Lane, Pett and Fairlight, East Sussex

and

Peter James Lane, Fairlight, East Sussex.

Can anyone help? Thank you

I would suggest you might have your best luck for getting these questions answered by calling the local council office for the area (I'm not sure of the organizational structure in England, but here in Canada, street names are given by the city or town council). Looks like that would be the East Sussex County Council office, actually, from some quick Googling. Chances are, they have a naming scheme of some sort, and will probably have some idea on these names. Good luck! Tony Fox (speak) 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battles won against overwhelming odds

Is there such a list on Wikipedia? I tried looking at [[18]] but no joy.

I can think of a few candidates, mostly won by various forces against forces which were vastly technologically inferior.

I wondered what was "the most extraordinarily long-odds against victory" won by a side battling another with reasonably comparable arms technology?

The Battle of Thermopylae (a few thousand vs 200,000 at a conservative estimate) would be a great contender, except that, erm, the Spartans ended up losing. :-) --Dweller 11:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems would be that each "won against overwhelming odds" is also a "lost due to terrible planning/incompetence." I mean, if you put on there Battle of Secessionville, you have a great victory or a great fiasco. If you put on Battle of Shiloh, the same. Isn't Kaison one of the greats? Well, depends on who you are. Geogre 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of planning/incompetence, if the Spartans had won at Thermopylae with an army of roughly equivalent technology, but outnumbered c. 100:1 (conservative estimate) and possibly much more, that's a pretty extraordinary achievement. The two examples you give (I can find no info on the "battle of Kaison" on Google) roughly equate at 2:1 and 1.25:1, which aren't stupendous odds to overcome. Can anyone come up with victories overcoming odds of 10:1 or more, without overwhelming technological superiority? --Dweller 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By Kaison Geogre may have meant the Battle of Khe Sanh AllanHainey 07:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Agincourt. Unless you count the longbow as an overwhelming technological superiority. (It may not quite have made it to 10:1, but not far off). DJ Clayworth 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The longbow definitely did constitute an overwhelming technological superiority. Being the only one able to fight at a distance helps cut down the enemy's strength before they reach you and can start to fight themselves.

Two examples I can think of are the defeat of the Spanish armada, partly caused by the bloody English weather (which for once was good for something), and a Germanic tribe against a bunch of cocky, overly self-assured Romans. I can't remember which tribe that was, though. Somewhere in Belgium I believe. Of course, the Romans came back a bit later, less cocky, and wiped them out. DirkvdM 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Battle of the Teutoburg Forest? It took place in southern Germany, and after that the Romans never did properly 'come back', but left Germania alone. — QuantumEleven 05:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The crusaders won the Battle of Montgisard against Saladin, both sides were about technologically equal, but Saladin had maybe 5 or 6 times as many troops. In the First Crusade, the crusaders defeated a Muslim alliance at the Siege of Antioch, with far fewer troops (although I suppose an army of saints and angels counts as a technological superiority...). Adam Bishop 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on - I wouldn't say they were technologically equal. The famed mounted Turkish archers were very surprised to see their deadly arrows bouncing off the heavy metal armor of the Frankish knights. Granted, the surprise might have worn off since the last crusade, but militaries often are very conservative and resistant to change. It was common for the Frankish knights to wade through many times their number while suffering few losses. The armor made a huge difference --Bmk 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True but the majority of crusaders were not heavily-armoured knights. That probably helped at Montigsard, since the army was small enough that the number of knights was relatively large. But in the First Crusade, those that were had often lost their armour and horses by the time they fought at Antioch. The mounted Turkish archers were more of a technological superiority than heavy Frankish cavalry, in some ways (heavy cavalry could not chase them, for example). And the crusaders often fell for the Turkish trick of feigning retreat, so they might end up surrounded, or they trusted too much in religion and relics when they were otherwise outnumbered and outsmarted (like the Battle of Hattin).

By the way, back to the original question, what about the Battle of Chateauguay? Canadian militia defeating American regulars, or so we'd like to believe :) Or the Battle of Ain Jalut, if only because the Mongols were (up to that point) apparently unstoppable? Adam Bishop 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For battles where one side had an overwhelming technological advantage, Rorke's Drift, at 35:1 odds, was pretty impressive, as was the 1:35 casualty ratio. --Serie 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The great battle of Munich on September 1, 2001, England fought germany, and won, conclusively. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Date

Common Date,what does it mean?

Are you thinking of Common Era? —Keenan Pepper 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Israel hated in the Middle-East

Why does the middle-east nations hate Israel, so much? 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC) by a user from 66.87.95.91

Because it drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land, and has since 1967 occupied the West Bank, where millions of Palestinians live under a military regime and are ethnically cleansed to make space for settlers. David Sneek 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be lucky to get a buck an acre for that crappy land. It's a desert. It all sucks the same. =D--mboverload @ 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Arab-Israeli conflict. Nowimnthing 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let's reverse this: why do Israelis hate Arabs so much? DirkvdM 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Six-Day War, and Yom Kippur War Nowimnthing 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...the problem is more complex than bodies of people unified under nations interacting uniformly. Most of the rulers of the middle east, perhaps Iran excluded, would rather just do business with Israel than fight. Unfortunately, public opinion and armed Islamic militias operating partly within government organizations prevent them from making peace and getting on with their lives. And as for the Palestinians, I think the Arab governments are more irate that they've been driven onto their lands, rather than from their homes. Palestinian refugees are a major economic and political problem; they tend to be unskilled, well armed, and pissed off (not without reason). For an example, see Black September, an unpleasant but historically interesting event. I might also note that there really is no historical enmity between Arabs and Jews. They have coexisted relatively peacefully for millenia. --Bmk 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with David Sneek's comments. To avoid turning this into a never-ending argument, I'm going to avoid refuting his accusations about Israel. But regardless of whether Arabs have justifiable grudges against Israeli behavior, I don't think the issue is Israeli tactics. After all, it's not like the rest of the Arab or Muslim world really gives a damn about the Palestinians. Look at how the Kuwaitis treated Palestinians. The 1982 massacres in Palestinian refugee camps were committed by Lebanese, not Israelis. Egypt does everything it can to keep the Palestinians in Gaza from entering Egypt.

So if the Arab countries (and Iran) don't care about the wellbeing of the Palestinians, why do so many Arabs and Muslims hate Israel? The answer is a mix of nationalism with old-fashioned antisemitism. Consider the following comment from Brigitte Gabriel, who was raised in Lebanon and later lived in Israel and the United States:

"From Television programs, to national songs, hourly radio newscasts and newspapers, our citizens were fed a steady diet of lies poisoning our attitudes towards the Jews. Israel - Aaesrael , Israel is the devil. Al-Yahud shayateen, The Jews are evil. Sarakou Al-Ard Al Arabiyah. They stole Arab land. Al Wakt al wahid allazi yassir endana salam huwa lamma naqtul kul al yahud wa narmihum bil bahr, The only time we'll have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea. Every time Israel was mentioned it was attached to the phrase, Al adew al Israeli. The Israeli enemy."

Arab textbooks portray Jews (and Christians) as evil infidels. The Arab media is full of antisemitic libels like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (serialized on Egyptian television) or the claim that Jews or Israelis were responsible for 9/11 (created by Hezbollah's TV station).

This religious bigotry mixes in with a nationalist component. Radical Muslims don't like having a state not under Muslim control so close to the Islamic heartland. In a recruiting tape, Osama bin Laden says "the crusaders and the Jews have joined together to invade the heart of Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam): our most sacred places in Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina, including the prophet's Mosque, and the al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (al-Quds)."

So even if Israel withdraws from every inch of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, it's still going to be surrounded by millions of people filled with murdurous hatred for the country. That isn't going to change anytime soon. I can't imagine a peace between Israel and its neighbors similar to, say, the peace between Germany and France in the foreseeable future. The best we can have is a cold peace maintained through the balance of military power. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff- so what is the Israeli analogue to the Arab sentiments? I've seen what you've stated repeated in other media many times now, that Arab portrayals of Jews are very negative, with the Hamas and Hezbolla missions being to wipe out Israel at the extreme end of the spectrum of Arab feeling towards Israel. So my question is what is the Israeli attitude? It seems to me that they employ palestinians, they trade with arab countries, and they do not have similar organisations like Hamas or Hezbolla that are shouting for wiping out all Arab countries.

-- Drunk Cow, 03:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are some extremist Israeli organizations like the banned Kach movement. But they remain on the fringe and don't have a lot of support like Hamas and Hezbollah do among Palestinians and Lebanese Shia, respectively. I think that Israel has always tried in some ways to be accepted by its neighbors as one of the gang. The founders of the state asserted that Israel would be a felafel-eating Middle Eastern country -- that's why they chose the Middle Eastern-sounding adjective "Israeli" rather than "Israelian" or something. Every public-school student in Israel learns Arabic. There's a lot of Arabic words in Modern Hebrew slang. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs brags about its peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt and low-level relations with other Arab and Muslim countries, even as those countries act as if they are embarrassed they ever made peace. That said, goodwill can only last so long. I remember reading about a teenager who had been hurt and lost several friends in the 2001 Dolphinarium massacre. She spoke to an American audience and really touched them with her story. Then someone asked what she thought about the Palestianians, and she said something to the effect that she has no sympathy for them and that they can go to hell for all she's concerned. It was obviously somewhat shocking for an American audience to hear, but you certainly can understand where that feeling comes from. -- Mwalcoff 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a personal anecdote to perhaps add some context: My uncle was born in East Jerusalem in the '20s, while the Brits were in control. Then in 1948 Jordan "occupied" the West Bank and East Jerusalem, forcing all Jews in the area to flee from their land. Why is so little spoken of the Jordanian/Arab occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the "stealing" of land that was occupied for centuries by Jews? Loomis 06:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusionary rule

Could someone please provide me with some examples of American criminal court cases in which the exclusionary rule was used to clear the defendant of his charges?--208.100.200.142 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Weeks v. United States, the earliest example, a conviction was overturned on appeal. Or do you mean cleared in the original trial? Neon Merlin 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the case in which the rule was first established. Could you provide notable examples of cases since the establishment of the exclusionary rule in which the rule was used to prevent convicting evidence from being used in court?.--208.100.200.142 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGPL

The Nuvola icons were released under the LGPL by author David Vignoni. Does this mean that he is required to provide the source files for all the icons? Presumably, all of these icons were based on vector drawings, but some of them are available only in bitmap form. Neon Merlin 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel vs. Arab

Hi:

Who is right? -- Israel or Arabs?

The Bible says Israel people lived where they are now at least 3000 years ago.

But medieval and modern history shows that Ottoman empire owns the lands before 20th century.

So who is the true owners of Jerusalem?

L33th4x0r 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bible is nonsense. History is interesting, but not every historical claim can be rewarded - too many things have happened in the past, not every injustice can be set right. So it's up to those who live now to solve this. Most of the people in the world feel that Israel should withdraw within its 1967 borders, and there should be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as a capital for both states. But unfortunately the Israeli settlement policy is aimed at preventing this, and supported by the most powerful country in the world, the USA. David Sneek 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I thought Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel, no? L33th4x0r 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound like a hippie, but the whole concept of owning land (let along being the true owner) is kinda weird. Imagine what it was like the first time one person told another, "Hey, I own that part of the ground. You can't walk there." It's like the old sitcom plot of drawing a line down the middle of a room. I saw we treat Isreal like a toy two children are fighting over and just take it away from them until they can calm down and be adults! :) 128.197.81.223 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, but who are "we"? --Bmk 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That thar's a good point. The UN? Not that it would actually work... (Tempted to say the US is "we", because well.. y'know.. pronouns). Digfarenough 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well "Who owns Jerusalem?" is not really the right way to phrase the question. It's owned by the landowners who have title to the land. The real question is what state it should be in or who should govern it. History doesn't really help settle the question. It was Ottoman for centuries, but no one thinks it ought to be given back to Turkey. The 1947 UN Partition Plan, had it been implemented, would have put Jerusalem under some sort of international control. Instead, it was split between Israel and Jordan in the 1948-49 war. But the international community by and large did not recognize that division. In 1967's Six Day War, Israel reunified the city. Yet most countries, including the United States, continue to abide by the legal fiction that Jerusalem, or at least the eastern part of it, is not really part of Israel and is instead some sort of diplomatic no-man's land. So I don't really know if you can say "who is right" using history as a guide. I think if you look at most borders in the world, you'll see they were adopted either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table (sometimes after a war). Presumably, what we'll see eventually is a division between "Jerusalem" and a Palestinian city called "Al-Quds." That's certainly not going to happen in the near future; I don't think the Israelis are going to put an international border 2 or 3 miles from their Parliament building while a terrorist group opposed to Israel's existence controls the Palestinian government. -- Mwalcoff 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was easy to determine who is "right", this whole mess could have been nipped in the butt. Unfortunately this is something that has been talked and fought over for ages, so there's no easy answer to this question. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Isreal: First nation to evolve gills wins. Digfarenough 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAURYN HILL FANS...I NEED LYRICAL HELP!!!

To anyone and everyone that listens to Lauryn Hill: At the beginning of Doo Wop (That Thing), does anyone know the SPOKEN WORDS that she SAYS, not sings, before the singing/rapping begins?

All the websites dedicated to lyrics start off with "It's been three weeks since..." and not "Yo, remember back..". I know the song pretty much by heart but the first 30 seconds or so is pretty confusing.

If anyone can help, please post what they think is the lyrics. Thanks! -Andrewia 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I can figure out -

Yo, remember back on the boogie when cats used to harmonize like...(woo woo). My men and my women, don't forget about the (not sure). It's about a thing. If you feel real good wave your hands in the air and (can't understand the rest).

The only website I could find was one that had to be translated from Chinese, but I disagree with some of the lyrics [19]. --Joelmills 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one, don't know how accurate it is:

Yo, Remember back on da Boogie when Cats used to Harmonize like: woooooowhooohooo (check out the situation) My men and my women dont forget about the Dean The Sarat-al-Mustakeem, Yo its about a thing, If you feel real good Throw your hands in the air! (MUSIC STARTS) Admit two shots in the atmosphere! Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah

--Anchoress 03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, thanks for the help, but the first suggestion was no help because the (not sure)s are exactly what I need to find out. And the "Dean" thing doesn't make much sense either, unless someone can elaborate on the "Dean" and how they're relevant to the song.-Andrewia 05:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

folio incognito: E. F. Schumacher

I think it was E. F. Schumacher who wrote something like the following, either in Small is beautiful or in This I believe:

A person with faith(?) strides with a certain confidence. He may love the Encyclopaedia Britannica for "she knows more than he", but ....

Web search rendered no result; I went to the library, checked out cursorily This I believe, and could not find the quote; someone else checked out Small is beautiful so I could not consult it. I would appreciate the exact quotation and citation. Cheers. – Kaihsu 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education can help us only if it produces "whole men". The truly educated man is not a man who knows a bit of everything, not even the man who knows all the details of all subjects (if such a thing were possible): the "whole man" in fact, may have little detailed knowledge of facts and theories, he may treasure the Encyclopaedia Britannica because "she knows he needn't" but he will be truly in touch with the centre. He will not be in doubt about his basic convictions, about his view on the meaning and purpose of his life. He may not be able to explain these matters in words, but the conduct of his life will show a certain sureness of touch which stems from this inner clarity.

~Small is Beautiful, p. 100 (paperback edition)

Ziggurat 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Israel attacking Beirut?

Ok. I am not biased on this subject in any way, I am not trying to provoke anger/flames with this question, but this is really confusing me. I understand (if not condone) the reason why Israel is attacking southern lebanon, Israel allegedly is trying to move hezbollah back from the border to secure its towns near the border (e.g. to make a "buffer zone").

But my question is why attack Beirut? This city is in the center of Lebanon, and by looking at a map, very far from Israel? Right? How could anyone or anything in this city be of a threat to Israel?

Hanez --216.211.78.176 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah is headquartered there. Israel is not attacking the Christian parts of the city. See this LA Times story. -- Mwalcoff 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, they're doing theit best to destroy any means by which the two Israeli captured soldiers can be whisked off by air to an even more awful place, like Iran or Syria, while at the same time closing off all supply routes for the Hezbollah to rearm and resupply. All this involves destroying or at least incapacitating all airbases and airports, destroying the main land routes to Damascus, and blockading all sea ports.

You're right, it makes no sense for Israel to intentionally destroy anything or anybody that has no strategic value to their enemy, the Hezbollah, least of which the targetting of civilians, which if not simply for purely humanitarian reasons, would be against Israeli policy if anything because it would cause them to look like barbarians and thus lose even more international support.

You don't have to condone what Israel is doing or even to trust Israel's commitment to humanitarian values to recognize that the targeting of civilians is, strategically, and tactically, both counterproductive as well as downright stupid. Israel hasn't established itself as such a successful military power by utilizing strategically and tactically counterproductive and stupid measures to win its wars in the past, and whatever your position on the issue, it would be illiogical, in my opinion, to assume that they'd start now. Loomis 06:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i need help please sir !

i have big problem in the vikipedia (Turkey) they have own web page but when u search the kurds u cant find they always deleting and blocked..in the turkey 20 million kurds are living but they wont put the aobut kurds aomting theyare still racist turks are racist please help we wanna write own culture ...is this free encycopeida right ? so where is the freedoms ? turk r racist they dont want we wirte someting...please fix u guys this problem about this thanks dont give the turks thiswebsite they are racist and stupid ! thanks bye —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJFG (talk • contribs) .

There is nothing we at the English language Wikipedia can do about any other language's Wikipedia. You might want to contact Jimbo Wales. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is not the right place for this kind of discussion. Also, tr:Kürtler isn't deleted, although it does appear to have a large number of warning templates. Are you saying there's a big conspiracy of the Turkish admins to systematically bias the Turkish Wikipedia, or just that there are some Turkish users with strong feelings? —Keenan Pepper 02:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience the edit-wars between Turkish nationals and Kurds are about on par with Israeli-Palestine relations. Unfortunately, as Zoe notes, unless we speak Turkish there's no way that someone on the English Wikipedia could intervene - we don't have any special authority on these matters, in any case. Ziggurat 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did AC/DC play at a high school in Northern California?

Please help settle a dispute . . . Did AC/DC perform at Clayton Valley High School in Concord, California, in 1980 or 1981? Unless I am crazy, I seem to remember the band playing in the schools outdoor atrium . . .but no one seems to believe me. Hopefully, Wikipedia can find out something to prove me right or wrong . . .?! 66.169.118.223 04:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

legends,stories

can u give me links to sites about festivals,legends,sayings ,rituals,poetry assciated with the land ,air ,water i india. the reason i am asking u to help me is because when i googled it the answers were not very relevant .

diversity

can u explain to me what is the diversity of environment in the world that supports life .--Mightright 07:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your question eight times and still can't make out what you're trying to ask. Could you rephrase, please? Try to use complete sentences, capitalisation and the occasional punctuation mark. In the meantime, our articles on biodiversity, life and ecosystem might be interesting reading. — QuantumEleven 07:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or the diversity of environment that exists in the world .--Mightright 07:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]