Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions

Reference Desk

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 Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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.

Febuary 1

Questions about essence of Aryan racist theories

Hello,rty

I am trying to understand the racial theories of the nazi's better. Please don't try convincing me that these theories are wrong etc.. because I know, and that's not the point :

• 1. Do I understand correctly that basically they believed that the original Indo-Europeans spread all over Europe and Asia (explaining the big Indo-European family of languages) and mixed with all sorts of people already living there? And that their idea of a "good race" was a race of people who hadn't done a lot of mixing?
• 2. If so, then why exactly would Germans (and Germanic people in general) be "more purely Indo-European"? I mean, most scholars believe the Indo-Europeans started spreading from somewhere near Turkey or the Caucasus. Well, wouldn't that be the right place to start looking for the perfect race instead?
• 3. Alfred_Rosenberg#Racial_theories says : "This master race included the Scandinavians (including Finns), Germans, Dutch (including the Flemish people of Belgium), and the British." I don't get it, why Finns? Their language isn't even Indo-European at all. I heard they looked down upon Slavs, well, wouldn't that make a Finn even "lower"?
• 4. What about the German-speaking people in Switzerland?

• I believe they would preferably have been annexed into the Third Reich. 惑乱 分からん 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• 5. I heard the Nazis had a whole list, describing the hierarchy of races. Does Wikipedia have that full list?

Thanks!Evilbu 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I found the articles Aryan race, Alfred Rosenberg and Untermensch. 惑乱 分からん 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi racial hygiene was not about linguistic families. Their "Aryan" race had less to do with the Aryan language group than it did the Nordic theory of American, German, and French anthropologists of the late-19th and early-20th century. It was not just about language, though the existence of German-speakers in some countries was taken as evidence of past lineages, but not always. "Racial characteristics" were anthropological and psychological ones, not linguistic ones, under their model. And a "good race" was not exclusively about non-mixing — you could be a "bad race" and still not mix. The problem for them was when "good" and "bad" races mixed they thought of it was a "cacophony" as a result — this was used particularly in propaganda against the USA and the USSR, both of which they depicted as being heavily mixed (the USA as Whites and Blacks, the USSR as Slavs and Asians). --140.247.243.251 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

-Unfortunately, I do know something about this line of thinking. I can't claim to be an expert on what exactly Nazi race theorist considered the cutting edge of their business. But I do know something about those who've tried to perpetuate that line of thinking in more recent times:

1. Yes.

2. There used to be pure Indo-Europeans in the east, but they miscegenated with Asiatic peoples over the years, producing Slavs and other eastern Untermenschen. The - to them - obvious historical superiority of the Germanic peoples meant that they were, naturally, the purer breed.

3. Language is a historical coincidence. After all, most European Jews spoke a Germanic language, that didn't make them German. So, the fact that the Finns spoke a non-Germanic language is of no bearing. Remember, the Finnish language is fairly clearly and uncontroversially relared to the Samoyedic languages. But Finns look nothing like Samoyeds. Racial theories have proven quite flexible in this respect. Remember, Nazi theories were expansive enough to grant "honorary German" status to the French, Spanish, Italians, Hungarians and Arabs as necessary. All of them did live in lands that had been invaded by Germanic peoples at one time or another. And race theories could easily be made to show that, in the distant past, practically anybody could be descended in part or whole from the pure Aryan strain. Remember, there was no DNA testing at the time. The comparative method in biology used physiological characteristics to make identifications, and those comparisons were often less than systematic.

4. What about them? The Greater German Nation included them too. They didn't join the war, but that didn't make them lesser people. After all, the UK and US fought the Nazis directly, and that didn't change their position in the racial theories of the time, or of their successors.

5. I doubt it. First of all, the Nazis and other race theorists were never able to stick to a straight story. When the winds blew one way, the Irish were marginal beings of clearly inferior stock; when the wind blew the other way, they were part of the great "Celto-Germanic" race. Every race theorist tends to think he (it's usually he) belongs to the Master Race. But the rest is a tissue of rationalizations that changes depending on who's paying the bills. "Race theory" is just too ugly a business to want to get into and expressing excessive curiosity about it will get you branded as questionable. That alone discourages most research into it.

--Diderot 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, here's a big question, and it certainly deserves a big answer! First of all, Evilbu, the pages you need to look at, in addition to those highlighted by Wakuran, are Nordicism and Nordic theory. Also I would suggest that if you are really interested in this topic there is a lot of good academic monographs. One of the best I ever read, though slightly dated now, is The Aryan Myth-A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe by Léon Poliakov. The main thing to focus on is the rise of nationalism in the nineteenth century, in particular the development of specific national myths used to explain the alleged superiority of a particular community or people. The seminal work here is Arthur de Gobineau's 1855 Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races , where the Aryans, the speakers of Indo-European languages, were held to be responsible for all of humanity's greatest cultural achievments; and at the peak of the Aryan pyramid, in Gobineau's estimation, were the Germanic races of northern Europe. The greatest danger was that the 'purity' of this original race was subject to etiolation and dilution: After passing through the age of the gods when it was absolutely pure; the age of the heroes, in which the mixtures were moderate in strength and number; the age of the nobility, where human faculties remained considerable though they could not be renewed from dried-up sources, it has descended, more or less swiftely according to the environment, to the final confusion of all the elements...The portion of Aryan blood, already subdivided so frequently, which still exists in our countries and which alone sustains the edifice of our society, advances daily towards our last frontier before total absorption.

As you can see, the myth is based on a descent from an original, and mythical racial Garden of Eden, a source of all purity, moving by stages towards contemporary anthropological and political realites. Of necessity it is a theory that has to be modified by practice and reality. Over time it goes through many subdivisions, with the Nazis devising their own categories of superior and inferior, giving Gobineau's cultural model a specific biological twist. As you have quite rightly hinted, the whole theory is eclectic and selective, allowing people like Rosenberg to 'adopt' races like the Finns: even the Japanese were later described as 'honorary Aryans.'. One of the best critiques of this whole pseudo-intellectual farrago puts the position as follows: Naturally there is no such thing as a pure race, not even a Jewish one...Race: it is a sentiment, not a reality; it is 95% sentiment. I don't believe that it is possible to prove biologically that a race is more or less pure. Who said this? Why, Benito Mussolini, in an interview given to the historian Emil Ludwig in 1932. He went on to say, soon after meeting Hitler for the first time, that if Nazi race theories were correct the only pure race in Europe was the Laps! Clio the Muse 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think you should bear in mind that the race theories of the Nazis served political goals, personal whims and popularist themes.. Scientific credibility came second and instances of german archaeologists burying fake artifacts only to dig them up later to prove germanic influences are well known. In general the essense of the race theories was to give the german people a sense of togetherness and belonging together with additional scapegoats such as jews - what ever felt good. As the second world war progressed the racial theories showed less and less consistency with whatever allies the germans could find being declared 'noble' if not truly aryan - this included many unlikely people including turks and central asian peoples.

The nazis were not in general cold blooded scientists/anthropologists - but natural populists - I think to expect to find any logical consistency in 'aryan' theories would be a small hope - except in finding that fundamental the division was into 'us' and 'them' along with 'people we'd like to be friends with' eg dutch,swedish, 'people who actually are friends with us', and 'any oddballs stupid enough to fight for us'.87.102.23.143 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A few answers:

1. I think they would believe that Indo-Europeans originated in the black forest and spread out over the globe if they wished to..!

2. Again 'aryan' was a badge intended to link any possible allies and the german people together - as you rightly spot - the two ways of thinking don't match.

3. The Finns - again why excluded a similarly civilised and probably friendly people when in all probability if you play your cards right they could be good allies.

I think it's important to make a distinction between nazi aryan theories and other theories of an 'aryan' origin of europeans. They won't always be the same thing. For instance if we intend to trace european history back through time using language as a guide we eventually end up in India - with the Vedas and sanskrit and the like. This would make gypsy's (travelling people who originate from india) perfect examples of aryan people - yet they were not as far as I know encouraged to live in germany at that time.87.102.23.143 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to read Aryan#Racial_connotations if you haven't already.87.102.23.143 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a line of thought in the early 20th century that said the Proto-Indo-Europeans must have originated in Northern Europe, since their language had words like beech. (Those who promoted that theory must have conveniently ignored that PIE also had words for monkey and elephant.) The predominant theory now is that the PIEs originated in or around Ukraine. -- Mwalcoff 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Which are the supposed roots for "monkey" and "elephant"? Seems most scholars believe similarities (such as En. "ape" Proto-Slavic *opica etc) are due to borrowing. 惑乱 分からん 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I got that from this page. Guess you can't believe everything you read on the Internet -- Mwalcoff 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Would an old blond-haired blue-eyed man who tended the medical needs of dogs and horses in the Wehrmacht be a veteran-aryan? Edison

Good effort, personally I've come to the conclusion 'blond skiers' = 'aryan', is that what adolf meant?87.102.77.95 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross with a circle.

Are there any examples of groups today that use the cross with a cirlce around it to represnt there poltical party. Any example of a group using this symbol, in a non-church related way?

The British Campaign for nuclear disarmament-CND-uses a cross with dropped arms inside a circle. I have a feeling that the straightforward cross and circle symbol may have been used by certain Fascist parties in the past, specifically the Hungarian Arrow Cross. I do not know of any contemporary uses. Clio the Muse 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the article on celtic cross, particularly the last paragraph political symbol. Plenty of right wing parties and fringe groups use this, not necessarily in their logo, but as a symbolic emblem I saw several examples of celtic cross graffiti recently in Rome. ---Sluzzelin 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nuclear Disarmament symbol is not a cross with dropped arms. It's the semaphore symbols for "N" and "D" (nuclear disarmament) superimposed. Corvus cornix 23:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification! Clio the Muse 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

...Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), which invented the peace symbol—a circle around a configuration that looks like a missile but is supposed to represent both a broken cross and an overlapping of the semaphore N and the semaphore D.Mueller, John (1989). Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War. pp. p. 160. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

—eric 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, eric. I wonder if the author got some supporting documentation for that assertion, or if it's just his speculation? Corvus cornix 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

None are mentioned in the text, and that's the only neutral looking source i've found connecting a cross to the peace symbol. The others are such as: Behreandt, Dennis (2003). "Unpeaceful Symbol: A Look at the History of the So-Called Peace Symbol Reveals That It Originated in Ancient Pagan Rituals, and That Its Use Has Been Primarily as a Token Not of Peace, but of Evil". The New American. 19 (9). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) which i won't even bother quoting.—eric 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my concern, since so many right wingers try to demonize the peace movement by claiming their symbol is something Satanic (like an upside down cross). Corvus cornix 00:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's more dicussion of this at Peace symbol#The CND or Peace symbol, with references. Corvus cornix 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Koran

How would i go about getting an English Koran, more specifically, a free one. I know the Arabic ones are better, but i don't have time to learn Arabic.

Thanks Omnipotence407 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Several online translations link from the article on Qur'an. See Qur'an#External_links. They're free, and they're in Engish. ---Sluzzelin 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost certain if you go to the your nearest mosque or Muslim bookshop, they should have some, and I imagine they'll all be free. I remember one of my friend's having a Koran with both Arabic and English in it. Hope this helps. - Akamad 01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That would surprise me; I thought the Koran was not, officially, allowed to be translated out of Arabic? I'd be surprised then if Muslim bookshops carried them. Barnes and Noble certainly does, though. --24.147.86.187 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As the Qur'an article says translations are fine, they are just regarded as merely interpretations not canon. A companion of Muhammed wrote the first translation. meltBanana 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As with the Bible, some editions of the Qur'an are subsidized or given out free (including the not perfect but very useful Yusuf Ali version—unfortunately recently with revisions that are not improvements; I suspect the Amana edition gets funding from Saudi Arabia). The biggest give-away seems to be CAIR's Explore the Quran Campaign, but shipping is not covered. (Wow, I just realized that this is the very nice Muhammad Asad edition, with a full liberal, somewhat eccentric commentary, which some Muslims have recommended highly to me, though I've never seen it—it's not in my college library, and I balked at the regular purchase price. In short, well worth the $7.65!) (A little Googling also turned up this request form, which might get you a totally free Yusuf Ali Arabic-English version.) Wareh 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify for melt banana: an English "Koran" is not, for Muslims "THE Koran". It's only "AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF the Koran", because "THE Koran" has to be Arabic, or it's only a translation. Some bits of it are, according to some clerics, simply impossible to translate. Why? Because the exact words, rhythm, diatrics, and virtually everything there is about it are relevant to its meaning, so the English can't be 110% accurate. Unlike the Bible: which for Christians, just says exactly what it means. Which is translated into thousands of languages, and thus considered "THE Bible.martianlostinspace 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Types of lawyers

What type of lawyer should you be if you want to work for the government suchas a united states attorney. --Croc 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Criminal law. You need experience as a prosecutor. Corvus cornix 02:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the work of United States Attorneys and their staff has nothing to do with criminal prosecution of individuals, although that's their best-known and most 'telegenic' duty. --Charlene 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

United States Attorneys are generally appointed after years of experience in various fields of law. There are only 93 United States Attorneys (and 94 offices - I don't know how that works but I got those numbers right from the DOJ) at the present time. Of course, each of these individuals has 20 or more lawyers, paralegals, and administrators working under her or him, and this may be the career you're thinking of. United States Attorneys handle federal criminal prosecution, debt collection, civil litigation (if someone sues the US government for, say, a slip and fall accident that takes place in a government office), the vetting of contracts between the US government and private entities, most government real estate matters, bankruptcy fraud, bank fraud, health care and quack medicine fraud, coordination of multi-jurisdictional investigations, child exploitation, immigration law enforcement, violent crime on Indian reservations, and the like. Very few of these positions are likely to be held by a criminal prosecutor; a lawyer with a specialization in medical matters would likely handle health care and quack medicine fraud, while a real estate lawyer would handle real estate and a commercial lawyer would likely handle vetting contracts.

This means that even the smaller jurisdictions may employ lawyers drawn from half a dozen fields, not just criminal law. --Charlene 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A U.S. Attorney represents the United States in civil and criminal matters in a geographical region. They are litigators. Once can be an assistant U.S. Attorney in most jurisdictions upon law school graduation. These are the lawyers who actually go to court. It is a prestigious position. One needs to attend a good law school, edit law review and have excellent recommendations. The work is classified so one also needs an FBI clearance. The official U.S. Attorney is responsible for the office. The U.S. Attorney is a prominent lawyer in the area with political ties. I worked in the Manhattan office and there was a compartmentalization between civil and criminal which does not occur most places. When I was there, lawyers did not specialize further. Perhaps Charlene graduated after I did. The lawyers are good all-purpose litigators. It is a brilliant career move. A young lawyer is given an active docket of 6-10 cases after a short course at DOJ in D.C. Comparable experience at a large private firm would take at least fifteen years. The office works with lawyers from the specialized agencies, such as FTC,SEC,HUD, who would know their specific specialty.75Janice 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 1 February 2007

The practice in Manhattan is *very* different from that in most jurisdictions. There are no Indian reservations, for instance, in Manhattan (as far as I remember), and many other federal agencies have offices there and may have their own attorneys. In places like Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, South Dakota, Mississippi, southern Georgia, West Virginia, etc., etc., etc. United States Attorneys have much more on their plates. My brother-in-law works as an assistant United States Attorney in one of those states. --Charlene 00:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan is not that atypical. Believe it or not, Manhattan is part of New York City, which is a city in New York State, which is one of the United States, which is a nation on planet Earth. What was never clear to me, and perhaps you could ask your brother-in-law, is the relationship between the U.S. Attorney's Office and lawyers from agencies with the U.S. government. My friends from law school work and worked in jurisdictions such as Montana, Kansas City, New Jersey so I don't think my answer is absurd.

If the question is about what a government lawyer does, the answer is one can do any type of law. You represent the government instead of a private client. The hours are typically less -depending on the culture where you work. The pay is usually less. On the other hand, you may get paid more per hour worked. The benefit of striving toward a common good rather than helping a monstrously wealth corporate is a benefit. From my own experience, it is hard to know what lawyers besides litigators do b/c they are rarely shown on TV or films. If you are interested, a local bar association may be able to pair you with lawyers in various fields so that you could visit and talk with them for a few minutes.68.81.166.246 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 2 February 2007.

What is the relationship between Neo-Nazis and the Japanese Nazi Party?

The wiki article on the National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party doesnt really explain how its relationship with the white neo-nazi parties is. On the one hand the Japanese are hardly aryan but on the other hand the founder of the Nazi movement Adolf never lost any sleep over his alliance with Japan. --Robinhood29 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess it's fine, although the movement doesn't seem to have any strong international connections, just a loosely connected network... 惑乱 分からん 02:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would Hitler lose sleep over an alliance with Japan? Japan was not a threat to Germany in any way. Japan was not a threat to any of Hitler's ambitions in Europe. Japan was a willing enemy against the United States. The United States was (very) slowly becoming an offensive ally with Germany's enemies. So, it was a case of the U.S. becoming an enemy of Germany through the rule "The Ally of my Enemy is my Enemy" and Japan becoming an ally of Germany through the rule "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Ally". Now, if Japan decided to do something silly like try to conquer Poland for itself, then Hitler would have lost some sleep over the arrangement.

I just thought I should note that there is no reason to assume Hitler believed anything he said. He was a Machiavellian-styled dictator. Thus, he got his people in large groups before talking to them (because the intelligence of a crowd is equal to the dumbest person in the crowd) and then said whatever he had to say to make them happy. --Kainaw ^(talk) 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nazism has taken shape around the oddest of paradoxes, Robin: a movement that was essentially inward looking and violently nationalist has transcended both race and nation. Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism. Putting the common hatred of all things Jewish to one side, the issue of race, and even the concept of Aryanism, has become largely irrelevant. Of all the European nations none suffered more greatly at the hands of the Nazis than Russia; and yet there is now a vigorous and violent Hitlerite movement in that country. There is no reason why the Japanese Nazis should have any connection with other Nazi movements, though I feel sure that they would co-operate and ally with one another, if they felt this to be necessary. Clio the Muse 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I beg to differ. National Socialism is not a simple, natural, human response to bitterness and discontent. For example, Black Americans in the pre-civil rights era, despite the grotesque inhumanity they had suffered as slaves, and continued to suffer under segregation and other racist policies, conditions that no German can ever dare claim to have suffered, did not turn to National Socialism. Instead, to their credit, they turned to civil disobedience and non-violent protest. Similarly, the Jews, despite two millenia of the most inhumane of treatment, never turned to National Socialism either. Finally, the assertion that the Russian people suffered more greatly at the hands of the Nazis is a remarkable one. It's true, some 20 million Russians perished in WWII, yet much of this was due to the military strategy of their "leader", Josef Stalin, who felt no compunction in using his own people as, basically, cannon fodder. Even so, the Russian Nation never had to deal with existential issues such as the prospect of complete annihilation and extinction. This nightmare was one only the Jewish Nation was faced with. Loomis 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, you say black americans suffered 'conditions that no German can ever dare claim to have suffered'. They did not (in my opinion). The German Jews in the concentration camps were every bit as German as the officers running the camps. I would say that these Germans have every right to claim to have suffered at least as much as the blacks in their struggle for civil rights. Nothing against blacks, just a point. Just because they were Jewish, doesn't mean they weren't German. -Joe^Talk!_Work 04:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and sin

According to Christian legend, Jesus was without sin including original sin, correct? Dismas|^(talk) 06:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe and sort of, according to legend to be sure. I'd start by checking out Virgin Birth, Original Sin, and the oft confused Immaculate Conception. As I recall, St. Augustine believed that original sin was imparted by orgasm -- whether or not you consider Aurelius' views as legend remains to be seen. --Cody.Pope 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on ones understanding of sin. Some Christian Theologians posit sin as being opposition to god. Jesus, as the role of sacrificial lamb, was a perfect offering, taking upon himself man's collective and individual sin. For a short time, God 'viewed' Jesus as sinful. Jesus cried out "Lord, why have you forsaken me?" then he died, not by smothering, as was typical of crucified, but by heartbreak, as seen from the separation of blood and water.

The question of 'Original Sin' is one of custom, not theology. What is perfection? Phillip K Dick, in VALIS posits many questions regarding the possibility of existance (re absurdity) of God. The questions, while being valid, are irrelivant to Christian theology, but not tradition. DDB 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The WP article on Original Sin says it's sin you're born with. And if Jesus was born (I think He was), and He was also God, well God was perfect, and therefore without sin. So I suppose He was without sin in that sense. The Bible makes that quite blunt: Jesus was the only perfect man.martianlostinspace 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And just in case it isn't clear, DDB is describing a particular theological interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion. An interesting one, but not one that all Christians necessarily hold. Not that DDB hasn't said this, but I thought it might not be clear. :-) Skittle 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(Snicker) ha ha (Snicker) teeheehee... Oh, sorry. I find the concept of discussing religion funny. Especially on the internet. With a bunch of... geeks... (hee hee hee)

Anyway, sorry about that. Yes, I'm pretty sure that the concept of Immaculate Conception was to make sure that Mary was holy enough (born without this so-called "Original" sin) to give birth to Jesus. So if Mary was born without it, that must mean that Jesus was born without it, right? Since having the "original" sin is hereditary. So Jesus was born without it, as would any of Jesus's children. No, wait... that would only be if Jesus's wife (or, you know, children's mother, was without the "original" sin. So... never mind on that last regard. Abyss42 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm going to Hell for this, aren't I?

Thank you, Skittle. You are correct. I would never want to close off debate .. only add to it :D DDB 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Abyss, technically, I think purgatory .. for a long time ;) DDB 11:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Abyss42 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First Contact

We were discussing this in my class a couple of days ago and it still is in my head. during the time of the colonisation of India(meaning Indonesia,india+more(actually everything past cape good hope until the street of magelhaer I believe)) by western-imperialist Europeans, there would have to be moments of first contact with the local population. now I was wondering how exactly did they handle such situations? I mean they lacked knowledge of the language; didn't know anything like it either; didn't know any of the traditions and customs. (mind you: they were dealing with some highly developed civilisations:unlike in Africa at that time)Graendal 08:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a "first contact" situation in the way that Christopher Columbus's and John Cabot's meetings were. There had been sporadic contact between the West and the East for millennia. Also, most early contacts were over land, not over the ocean, so the very early Europeans weren't just showing up out of nowhere - they had already travelled through adjoining territories where there would likely be speakers of the language used in the next country. By the time great numbers of Europeans arrived by sea there were already Europeans there, and some natives spoke the European languages. --Charlene 08:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look into Enrique of Malacca, Ferdinand Magellan's personal slave and interpreter. The earlier "imperialist outsiders" in Indonesia, of course, were those who introduced Islam to the Hindu and animist inigenous populations. --Wetman 09:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The first Europeans traveling to Indian Ocean ports either included some who spoke Arabic or engaged Arab and other traders who knew the trade languages (such as Arabic) already spoken in the region. The next generation of European traders in the region would have included some who could speak local languages (learned on earlier voyages), and they would have met local interpreters who had learned Portuguese. The first European to sail to India was of course Vasco da Gama. Before landing in India, his expedition called at ports on the east coast of Africa engaged in trade with India, including Malindi. In Malindi, da Gama engaged Ahmad Bin Majid, an Arab trader, to travel with him to India. Our article on da Gama indicates that he communicated with people on the east coast of Africa and that the Portuguese were aware that the Arabs were already trading with India (as they had probably been doing for at least a thousand years). It would not be surprising that some European seamen spoke some Arabic, because there had been centuries of trade between southern European countries and the Arabic-speaking ports of North Africa. Such contact would also have given Europeans an awareness of Arab customs. Spain and Portugal may have had an advantage in this area, because the Arabic-speaking Nasrids were not driven from the Iberian peninsula until 1492, just a decade before da Gama's voyage. Marco polo 15:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The First contact (anthropology) page could use some expansion. I recall reading somewhere that European explorers went through first contact experiences frequently enough for a while that there developed a bit of knowledge on how to go about it, although it was always a dangerous procedure. A lot can be conveyed through gestures, gifts, and willing submission to local customs of formality. Pfly 06:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Converts to Islam

Why is it that converts to Islam change their names? Just tradition or is it some sort of spiritual shedding of their old self? Dismas|^(talk) 10:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the latter. 惑乱 分からん 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not tradition, per se. Or at least not an old tradition. Black American Muslims in the Elijah Muhammad tradition bound up Islam in a form of nationalism - a willful and comprehensive change of identity motivated at least in part by political considerations. So for them, adopting Islam also often involved "abandoning their slave names". Although many western converts to Islam are not black and/or not bound up in any special form of nationalism, many are still touched by well-known American Black Muslim experiences like that of Malcom X. And, converting to Islam in the west is at least a somewhat anti-social thing to do. Changing your name is a very visible token of your break with who you were and your rejection of at least a part of the society around you.

You may have a point with the "slave name" argument as I seem to recall Malcolm X saying something about slave names. Although, the question came to mind because of the interview that I heard with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar the other day on NPR. He had converted and changed his name, though as far as I know, none of his ancestors were slaves. Not disputing what you said, just adding that I don't think it applies in all cases... but then what does outside of Science? Dismas|^(talk) 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Asad is a non-African-American example from an earlier period (1926). Wareh 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, one shouldn't take generalization too far, although for Muhammed Asad there was definitely a willful and at least partially politically motivated element to his conversion, even if not inspired by American examples. And, converting from Judaism to something else was a pretty seriously anti-social thing to do - at least if you plan on socializing with Jews. And, on the other hand, there are people who convert to Islam who do not change their names at all, even where there was a very serious and comprehensive conversion, like Richard Colvin Reid. --Diderot 00:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In countries where Islam is more commonplace, I doubt such name changes at conversion to Islam happen very often. In contrast, adopting "Christian names" is a regularly recurring part of the Christian missionary narrative in countries where converting to Christianity is at least a somewhat anti-social act. It was actively encouraged and given a quasi-theological basis by Catholics until the 1980s.

--Diderot 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In countries where Islam is more commonplace, I doubt such name changes at conversion to Islam happen very often. If you look at the Ethiopian and Kenyan athletes who switched to Bahrain and Qatar (see List of nationality transfers in athletics), all but one of them adopted an Arabic name. So it may also be an Arab tradition more than a muslim tradition. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bahrain and Qatar are small countries in the habit of buying athletes. I expect those athletes felt some level of pressure to remake themselves in their adopted nations' images. Notice that Yamilé Aldama and Todd Matthews-Jouda switched to Sudan - a far poorer but quite Arab and Islamic state - but did not change their names. --Diderot 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While some do it to escape slave names I think others do it to pick a name with supposed meaning which displays their devotion to Gawd http://www.convertstoislam.com/NewName/newname.html On a slight tangent I always like the line in Pulp Fiction where a boxer called Butch tells a taxi driver that names have no meaning in america. meltBanana 16:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

HINDUISM: Jai Mata Di/Jai Mata Ki--translation of Di and Ki?

(question moved to language desk) OI! I didn't get a satisfactory answer on the language desk, that's why I asked here IN THE FIRST PLACE. What's the problem?!?--Snowgrouse 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original question: I asked this question in the Language section already, and didn't get answers. So I'm asking the Hindus here: What does the "di" or "ki" at the end of Jai Mata mean? I understand Jai Mata means Victory to Mother(Goddess), but what's the purpose of the syllable at the end? I understand Jai Mata Di is Hindi, and I suspect the Ki is Bengali.

The question remains: What does the Ki or Ji signify in "Jai Mata Di"/"Jai Mata Ki"?

Democracy Index and relatively low USA rating

This economist article:[1], linked in Wikipedia in Democracy Index, shows the democracy ratings around the world, and the USA doesn´t do so well compared to other countries. Could someone please briefly explain/summarize the general reasons why the USA democracy is inferior to those of other countries, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Scandinavian countries and Ireland. Thank you. --AlexSuricata 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article gives full details of its scoring system and breaks down the scores for those countries. The USA's democracy is flawed, as was notoriously shown by the shenanigans of the United States presidential election, 2000. A simple example where the USA would have been marked down in the scoring is "There is a dominant two party system in which other political forces never have any effective cance of taking part in national government". The USA's worst category (it scored 7.22/10) was for "Political Participation". Read through the questions on page 10 of the report. It's unsurprising that other countries scored much better, but 17th place out of 167 ain't bad; the USA beat the UK (23rd) - we scored 5.00 for "Political Participation" and I think that might have been generous! --Dweller 11:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As Dweller says, the article does give a lot of information about its scoring method, which is based on 60 questions in 5 categories. The scores in each of the 5 categories have been normalised to give a maximum possible score of 10 in each category, but you can "unnormalise" them again to get the raw scores e.g. for US, raw scores are:

• Electoral process : 10.5 out of 12 (median is 11.5 out of 12)
• Functioning of government : 11 out of 14 (median is 11.75 out of 14)
• Political participation : 6.5 out of 9 (median is 6.75 out of 9)
• Political culture : 7 out of 8 (median is 7 out of 8)
• Civil liberties : 14.5 out of 17 (median is 16.5 out of 17)

For comparison, I have given the median (middle) score for each category across the "Full democracies" group of countries. The questions in each category are listed at the end of the article, so you can try to work out for yourself just where the US might have lost marks in each category.

Incidentally, the US "Political participation" score is only just below the median score for this category across the "Full democracies" group of countries. The categories where the US has been scored lowest compared to other "Full democracy" countries are "Electoral process" and "Civil liberties". The US scores are the lowest out of all the "Full democracy" countries in both of these categories. Gandalf61 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dweller: Yes, I read the article, including Page 10, and did not find the concrete information I was looking for with reference to the USA. I am not - as you falsely assume - American, nor have I ever been there, and for that reason was also unsure. To my knowledge, this site is a (very useful + informative) place where one could find information/explanations to things that one does not understand or know, by asking politely, and without necessarily receiving sarcasm or aggression in the reply (would be nice). As for "getting some hubris", I do not understand that expression either, sorry. Nonetheless, thank you for explaining that the 2 party system and the 2000 election are contributing factors. Perhaps there are others too (I don´t know, that is why I asked). --AlexSuricata 12:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if my reply was deemed uncivil in any way and have deleted the appropriate parts of my post. I have no insider knowledge other than what I read there. Reading the questions and seeing the detailed scores for the USA as Gandalf and I have done, some of the areas where the country underperformed can be intuitively understood. Incidentally, I did not cite the 2000 Election as something that would have lost the country points in this report, but rather as evidence of a flawed democratic system. --Dweller 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two things that come to mind. As a rule, people in the United States don't vote. Rarely does voter turn-out exceed 30%. There are many excuses for it, but that's not important. It is just that people don't vote, so the Democratic process is hindered. Also, the United States is not a Democracy. It is a Republic. Republics have democratic processes, which often gets them confused for Democracies. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Voter turnout isn't that low. The table on Voter turnout shows an average 54% and that includes elections in non-Presidential election years (electing Congresmen only). Rmhermen 18:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of voter turnouts in other countries, but isn't 54% quite a low turnout? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as "Republics" go (People's Republic of China and SPQR spring to mind!) the USA is a pretty dang Democratic one, hence its very high rating as 17th out of 167 countries. --Dweller 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"The American bureaucracy ... was set up for very slow speeds of the printed word and railways. At electric speeds, nothing in the USA makes sense." - Marshall McLuhan, 1970 Vranak

The Economist methodology is very suspect. Take a look at Question 14: "Is the legislature the supreme political body, with a clear supremacy over other branches of government?" The U.S. loses a point on this. But is the American system of three equal branches of government a bad thing? Not necessarily. Americans could make a case that they should get points for being able to vote for dozens of offices from president to county coroner, and for initiative and referendum in some states. The Economist doesn't give any credit for those. -- Mwalcoff 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The same for Switzerland. The country has compulsory referenda on just about anything, with massive participation and a multi-party system, yet scores no higher than 10th. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Di means the act of giving respect : like to address by using a surname wud be like " Dear Mr. XXX" in written correspondence. I hope that settles ur query! Garb wire 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war and Catch 22

What are the similarities and differences between the Iraq war and the story of Catch 22? Mr.K. 14:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're in the miltary to begin with, you can't get out of either situation without being court-marshalled. Vranak

You could, of course, plead insanity; but then there is a catch.... Clio the Muse 20:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I got out (unwillingly) during the first Iraq War without a court-marshal or pleading insanity. I was in a motorcycle accident. After three months of rehab, I was fine, but my medical-discharge paperwork was already filed. However, this brings up another topic: How much sympathy should I have for a person who enslists in a group that exists for combat and then complains when they are sent off to combat? --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Catch 22 is a fictional setting. Iraq has elements of very creative imaginations, but anchored in reality. Media voice decry the conservative presidential position at every instance of tragedy. But they are supposed to do that. It gets confusing for those who don't know that they sway in a political direction.

Catch 22 was apolitical. In Joseph Heller's day, it was just as unimaginable, then, that mainstream media would criticise a left leaning administration as it is today.

Europe, post world war 2 was allowed to develop in the West, substantialy without Eastern influence, as communist Europe was busy with internal disputes. Iraq, as Vietnam, has significant neighbors that are capable of extending internal strife. What remains to be seen is if the world will let them, and if the political opposition can capitalise on the success of terrorists. DDB 08:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Olivier

Is it true that Lawrence Olivier once forgot his lines whilst performing Shakespeare and recited the names of the tube stations from his house to the theatre so convincingly that noone noticed?Ameliapitt 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Denis Quilley reminisces in this Guardian feature. He remembers an evening involving a very intoxicated overworked Olivier performing Eugene O'Neill's Long Day's Journey into Night:

On this one tired night, he couldn't remember Booth's name, couldn't remember which play they acted in, and after ad-libbing for a minute or two, he got up saying: "I'm sorry lad, you'll have to excuse me, I'm not feeling too well," and staggered off the stage.

Olivier pulled himself together offstage within seconds, all he needed was the first line to throw him back on track. He rushed back on stage and continued the dialogue - "Nobody suspected a thing."

Quilley didn't specify what exactly Olivier said in his ad-libbing, and I couldn't find anything on the tube stations. ---Sluzzelin 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I carelessly stated that Olivier was drunk that night. In fact he was just very exhausted from running the National theatre during the day and having suffered major health problems shortly before. Since you mentioned Shakespeare: Though this was an O'Neill play, in the mentioned scene Olivier's character, the retired actor James Tyrone Sr. , "drunkenly bemoaned the fact that he could have been a great Shakespearean actor."---Sluzzelin 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In his autobiography, Olivier discusses a serious bout with severe stage fright late in his career. He kept performing stage roles until he conquered it. Perhaps the above incident refers to one night in the process.75Janice 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 1 February 2007

Love letters, French, l8c. spec. between Empress Eugenie and Napoleon III

Hello: I am giving a talk on the above subject and would like to know a source to find thes letters, if they exist.

Many thanks,

Judigee

Your request is a little unclear to me, Judigee. Are you looking for a general anthology of French love letters of the eighteenth century, or specifically letters between Eugenie and Napoleon III, which, of course, belong to the nineteenth century? Anyway, on Napoleon and Eugenie I know of no English translations of their letters, but you will find some representative samples of their exchanges in Desmond Seward's Eugenie: the Empress and her Empire. A new paperback edition was printed last year by Sutton Publishing. The treatment, to be frank, is not very profound-a little too gossipy for my taste-but the subject has been reasonably well researched. Clio the Muse 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What role did the United States play in the 1965 military coup against Sukarno?

What role did the United States play in the coup against Sukarno? Are there any documents to support the claims that the CIA was involved in planning the coup? How much aid was given to the military? What role did the United States play in the 1965 military coup against Sukarno? To what extent had Red China and the Soviets been connected with Sukarno prior to the coup? To what degree could the coup be considered part of America's policy of containment?--Dinotro 17:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Sukarno, not Sukrano? Rmhermen 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the evidence presented here [2] and here [3]. I cannot, of course, personally vouch for the political objectivity and reliability of either of these sources; but they do at least lay down paper trails you should be able to follow. Clio the Muse 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After the Vietnam War, in 1975, there was a security fear based on the Southern states decision to capitulate without first destroying its armament. It was felt that the Vietnamese would get money by selling these weapons to other communist regimes. One such possible recipient was Timor, which is very close to Australia. It is known the Australian PM, Gough Whitlam, failed to reject the Indonesian (Right wing, under Soeharto) invasion. It is rumored Whitlam gave tacit approval to the murder of Australian journalists at Balibo.

I think the politics of that entanglement should give you an idea of US foreign policy concerns regarding Sukarno, as it impacted on the ANZUS treaty. DDB 09:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Former Presidents' eligibility to run for Vice President

Originally posted at Talk:President of the United States -- Vary | Talk 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC) There have been some former President's who also were Vice President, like Nixon or George HW Bush. so if a Vice President can become a President, can a President became VP? example, Bush his term is almost over and Dick Cheney wants to be the new president, can he use George W. Bush as his Vice President or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.35.109 (talk • contribs) 17:50, February 1, 2007.

I don't think so. The 12th Amendment reads in part that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Since he can't run for president again, he can't be Vice President, either, as that would put him back in line for the presidency. There are different readings of the relationship between that and the 22nd Amendment (see 22nd_amendment#The_relationship_between_the_22nd_and_12th_amendments, so if the question ever arose I think it would likely be an issue for the Supreme Court to decide, but I'm inclined to think it wouldn't be permitted. -- Vary | Talk 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any legal prohibition against a former 1 term President from running as a vice president. So Jimmy Carter or George H. W. Bush could now run as a Vice President candidate, as before his death could have Gerald Ford, whose name was bandied about as a Vice President candidate to run with Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. The negotiations reportedly fell through because Ford wanted to have more influence than the typical Vice President. Edison 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Legally this may be true, but psychologically, it would be very unlikely. After being the most powerful man in the world, an ex-president is hardly likely to be satisfied being second banana. One was reelected to the Senate or House (can't recall who), but I don't think any of the rest tried for elected office. Clarityfiend 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Darn! That means we can't flip the "Billary" ticket this round and have a run by "HillBilly". --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See President of the United States#Life after the Presidency, which mentions JQ Adams and Andrew Johnson returning to Congress, and Cleveland returning to the Presidency after a break; but omits Teddy Roosevelt's failed bid for re-election as President. JackofOz 23:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See Former United States presidents who ran again for the complete list.--Pharos 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Place names in Prague

Things in Prague used to have very German(?)-sounding names but at some point they were changed to Czech(?)-sounding names (e.g. Laurenziberg is now Petřín). Is there an article has info about this change like when it happened, why, and who made the change? I looked around a bit but couldn't find anything. Recury 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot say with any certainty when these changes were made, or by whose decision, though I think it reasonable to assume that they were made by the Czech government-or the Prague municipal authorities-in the wake of the country's independence from the Austrian Empire in 1918. It is possible, though, that such alterations were made before independence, with the liberalisation of the empire and the growth of Czech national consciousness in the nineteenth century. It's quite likely that German and Czech names existed side by side for some time before 1918. Clio the Muse 20:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I found no official dates either, but to give you some context, have a look at the articles on Czech National Revival, Germanisation, and Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938). According to this article in German, the 19th century saw many Czech speaking people moving from the the hinterland to the city; by 1855 Prague's German speaking population was no longer in the majority. ---Sluzzelin 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good info, guys. Somehow I got the impression that it happened all at once in an organized, official sort of way, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Thanks for the help. Recury 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "the name". Austria (as opposed to Hungary) used German as its official language, but came to require fluency in Czech of its officials in Bohemia. So Laurenziberg would be found in official documents, and is more likely in English, before 1918. After 1918, the Czechoslovak Government strongly encouraged the use of Czech; but it was a while before English writing abandoned the familiar German names (and we, WP, still use Pilsen, and the French Prague.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In the late 19th century, as Czech speakers came to dominate Prague municipal politics, German names were phased out. I think they took German names off the street signs in the 1890s. With Czech independence from Austria, there was a great degree of anti-German sentiment. The Nazis restored German as the first language of Prague, but their defeat, and the expulsion of most Czech German-speakers, meant the end of German Bohemia. In Prague Castle, you can see an old, 19th-century bilingual street sign in which the German part has been rubbed out. This presumably dates to 1945. I've got some info about Czech street names around here somewhere; I'll try to find it. -- Mwalcoff 01:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"In 1892 the Prague city council, dominated by Czech nationalists, voted to replace the city's bilingual street signs with exclusively Czech ones" -- The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861-1914. by Gary B. Cohen, Slavic Review, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 141-142 -- Mwalcoff 01:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pepper article?

In the UK, you can buy these things called 'peppers' and they come in green, red, yellow or orange and they're not spicy and they're often bigger than an apple and bulbous, as opposed to long and thin. I type in 'pepper' in Wikipedia, and I predictably get a disambiguation page but this doesn't appear to feature an article on the kind of pepper I'm looking for. --Seans Potato Business 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for the bell pepper article. - AMP'd 19:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In the UK they are also referred to as capsicum, as well as peppers (never bell peppers). They are sweet rather than peppery, and can be used in a wide variety of recipies. Clio the Muse 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll be... thanks AMP'd. --Seans Potato Business 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To add to the confusion: Where I live, whe call them peperoni. And, had I not been forewarned, I would have been one of those tourists "in for a surprise" when ordering pizza in the United States, as explained in Wikipedia's article on Pepperoni. ---Sluzzelin 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And it's not just in the UK! You can buy these where ever they can be grown. I buy them all the time here in the southeren United States! schyler 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think his point was that they're called "peppers" there, not and never "bell peppers", so when he went to look them up under Pepper he was surprised they weren't in the list. I knew a guy from St. Louis who called them "mangoes", which was even more confusing. We just call them "[colour] peppers", as opposed to "chile peppers", which are the hot ones. Oh great, now I'm hungry. --Charlene 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Which have nothing to do with the country Chile. I think the peppers are usually spelled "chilli" peppers. (Nothing to do with Red Hot Chilli Peppers.) JackofOz 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The spelling is a contentious issue, Jack - see Talk:Chili pepper. Natgoo 00:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated cycles of pejoration: multiple sequence of periodic euphemism and dysphemism treadmills

Some words develop negative connotations with time (pejoration), and some previously unsavory words become progressively more acceptable (like the expression "that sucks", which previously was very negative, or the expressions "God-awful" and "chrissakes"). I read some years ago of an example of multiple cycles of pejoration and restitution for the pair of words "ass" and "arse", at least in British English. Apparently over several centuries, alternately "ass" or "arse" would be viewed as more rude, and the other the polite form. For example, at the start, it might be appropriate to use the word ass in polite company, and impolite to use the word arse in polite company. Fifty or 100 years later, the opposite was true; arse was the proper word, and ass was the nasty term. Fifty or 100 years after that, the connotations of the two words had flip-flopped again. Apparently this cycle continued on for a long time. I have from time to time tried to find out more about this. Does anyone have any information?--Filll 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the difference between "arse" and "ass" dialectal? 惑乱 分からん 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the substitution of "donkey" for "ass" a class-shibboleth or a localism? Midas had asses'-ears, but at Wikipedia this is bowdlerized to "donkey's-ears", apparently out of a misplaced fastidiousness. In the US one hears of Jesus entering Jerusalem "riding on a donkey", with its unconscious echoes of how Yankee Doodle went to town. Is the substitution insisted on in the same milieu that makes no verbal distinction between "ant" and "aunt"?--Wetman 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think donkey/ass are old synonyms, ass (for arse) and ass (for donkey) have no etymological connection as far as I know, ass(arse) is related to Greek orros (or something), ass(donkey) is related to Latin asinus. 惑乱 分からん 11:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See rhoticity. Actually, a friend of mine wrote a paper on such a cyclical behavior of postvocalic /r/ in New England. (I can't find it on the internet, but if you like I could give her your e-mail.) — Sebastian 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhoticity has nothing to do with it, as there is no /r/ in either 'ass' nor 'arse', it is merely a different initial vowel. Additionally, there are some British dialects where 'ass' is traditionally acceptable, such as Midlands English, which generally shortens most vowels, however, the reputation of 'ass' as an Americanism has diminished this somewhat. 194.80.32.8 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what anybody but Wakuran is talking about. What cycle? "Ass" is American, and "arse" is British. There is nothing more to it. No doubt they are etymologically related. Possibly, American speakers interpreted a non-rhotic pronunciation of "arse" as something like the British pronunciation of "past" and substituted the American 'æ' vowel that replaces British 'ɑ' in that position. Also, Jesus would ride a donkey rather than an ass in American English because the word "donkey" is the normal word for that animal, no doubt to avoid ambiguity. Marco polo 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Could it be possible that the use of the word "ass" to mean buttocks originated as a euphamism for the taboo "arse?" Like "darn" or "dagnabbit" or something? -- Mwalcoff 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's dialectal, just as old "hoss" for "horse", "cuss" for "curse" etc. 惑乱 分からん 11:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes my impression is that at one time, ass for buttocks was a euphemism for arse. then eventually ass acquired crude connotations, and arse gradually became neutral. So then ass was the taboo word, while arse became the euphemism. This apparently cycled a few times in the UK. I do not know the relationship with American usage however. This is what I read some years back. I wish I could dig up the reference again. I was fascinated by it so I remembered it.--Filll 06:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A fascinating discussion! But Marco is right:arse is British and ass is American. It has only ever been used in England in reference to the behind as an American loan word, as far as I can tell. The second usage of ass for donkey is still to be found in Standard English, though now slightly antiquated. There is a short story by the Irish writer Padraic O Conaire which translates into English as My Little Black Ass. Yes, that's right! If anyone doubts the veracity of this you will find it in The Oxford Book of Irish Short Stories, edited by William Trevor, first published in 1989. I dare say it appears in the American edition, for obvious reasons, as My Little Black Donkey, but I would be interested to know for sure. And please, folks, do not attempt to do a google search for the original title. You may end up with more than you wish! Clio the Muse 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Or how about Big Black Ass, then? (How pubertal...) 惑乱 分からん 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

District court for the District of Columbia — but not the D.D.C.

Does the District of Columbia have a district( of Columbia) court the way other U.S. states have a state court? That is, not a federal court (federal district court), but a "local" court. The article United States District Court for the District of Columbia says:

Cases dealing with the laws of the District of Columbia are heard by this court only under the same circumstances that would cause a case under State law to come before a Federal court.

That would seem to imply that there must be some other court to handle other cases, no?—msh210℠ 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind: I've found an answer to my question. Not on WP, but, rather, at dc.gov. I will now commence looking for WP articles on the DC courts, and write stubs if they don't exist.—msh210℠ 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

District of Columbia Court of Appeals --Spoon! 12:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the island of Kikipujuu?

I can't seem to find anything about this subject on the web. I believe it's one of the islands in the Ralik Chain in the Marshall Islands.

Barik Wadju

66.248.222.34 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about the spelling, Barik? I've scoured my maps and can't locate this island. Perhaps that's not surprising, considering the whole Marshall group has over a thousand! Clio the Muse 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Marshallese spelling seems to be a bit flexible.—eric 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a dBASE format gazetteer for the Marshalls here[4], some 5,000 entries including islet and atoll names. Nothing that looks like Kikipujuu tho.—eric 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Israeli reaction

How do the Israeli government and general Jewish populace view the current Fatah/Hamas fighting? Clarityfiend 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For official government reactions this is quite informative [5]. Clio the Muse 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the general Jewish populace, well, I don't see how it's possible to gauge the reaction of an entire people, but I'd venture to guess that such infighting is generally viewed as both tragic and frustrating. Loomis 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re the second part of the question, regardless of whether you mean the general Jewish populace of Israel, or that of the world, you'll find the usual diversity of opinion. Many will think as Loomis described. More politically astute people will worry about how the Israelis will be able to undertake any kind of meaningful negotiations when they can't possibly work out who's really in charge today let alone tomorrow. There will also be a minority who will rejoice in what they perceive as their enemy's discomfort. Mindful of the ref desk take on people's personal opionions, I'll keep my opinion of them to myself. --Dweller 10:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misread you, Dweller, but you seem to imply that only the "less politically astute" view the situation as "tragic and frustrating". I'm quite sure that even the most "politically astute" would lament the situation as tragic and frustrating. Tragic because of the inevitable continuation of the violence and misery that the Palestinian people will inevitably suffer, and frustrating for the very reasons you described concerning how this will only stall any possibilities of a final peaceful resolution. Loomis 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear, rather than you misreading me. The two frames of mind are far from incompatible. --Dweller 10:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it though, I can't help but be honest. No, the general Jewish populace does not delight in the suffering of others; yes, some Jews may, but they're a disgrace to their people. Yet, in all honesty, in electing Hamas, an organization that promotes terrorism and denies the existence of Israel, the Palestinian people have finally laid to rest the fiction that they're ready to be true partners in peace. Hopefully some day they will be ready. But at the very least, the election of Hamas has finally laid to rest the fiction that Israel, in being forced to hold on to the occupied territories, is either acting out of paranoia, or as an agressive "imperialistic" force, subjugating an innocent people in an "apartheit" like manner. Rather, it's finally become clear, even to the Europeans, exactly what Israel is struggling to contend with. Loomis 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I wouldn't characterise the vote as supporting terrorists, although Hamas won the vote, I would point out that both the leading parties are terrorist in practise. I understand the Palestinians did not actually vote Hamas for their terrorist credentials, so much as for their cleanskin politics, it being known that Fatah has corruption issues. I understand that all moderates have been eliminated over the years by any of many activist groups. However, I understand a hope of the praxis of democracy is to encourage moderation over time. When the rule of law returns to Palestine, Israel will find a negotiation partner. This affects Israel, which naturally has moderates of its own who desire the stability of peace.

Within Israel, there are conservatives and radicals, neither having one person or party that represent a conservative or radical view. The conservative Israeli parties seem to have had more success with negotiations over the years, with Egypt, Lebanon and Fatah, but that is only an impression of mine, as the more leftwing parties seem to have had power during the worse conflicts in recent years. It is presumptuous of me to suggest that it is a convenience for the left to maintain conflict, while stridently calling an end to it. DDB 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"This affects Israel, which naturally has moderates of its own who desire the stability of peace". DDB, perhaps it wasn't what you meant, but the way that comment came across it actually sounded like Israel itself is equally overwhelmed by radicals, just as the Palestinians are; that "moderate" Israelis, the ones who desire "the stability of peace" are a struggling minority just as they are amongst the Palestinians. Yes, there have been a few radical, shameful, "take their land and kill'em all!" parties in the Knessett, such as Meir Kahane's Kach party, but in 1988, Kach was declared a racist party by the Israeli government and banned from the Knessett, and, in 1994, following the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, the movement was outlawed completely. This is how racist radical Israelis are dealth with. All the major parties, be they Labour, Likud or the newly formed Kadima, in addition to, of course, the several minor Arab parties representing Israel's 20% Arab population, as well as several left wing socialist or communist parties, one and all desire the stability of peace. Loomis 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Loomis, that wasn't what I meant, but I wrote it because I am trying to compare two things that aren't similar. Israel is an advanced liberal democracy and her politics have those foibles peculiar to such. The politics of Israel as portrayed by liberal media, with the cooperation of Israeli political parties, draw the equivalence. I would point out that Fatah, too, claims to want peace, but no leader of Fatah has ever agreed to peace terms. Israeli's probably, naturally, view the issue from the prism of their politics. In fact, it has little to do with them. Likud has been very effective, and Israel has done poorly when Likud has been in opposition, but the populist view is not that, and is reflected in media. DDB 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Black races

Hi Can black people be races?Nasa135 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)nasa

Race is such a loaded and not very precise concept. However, have a look at the page on Black people, which addresses the issue in general terms. Clio the Muse 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to tell what the question is asking:

• Is there a "black race"?
• Are there multiple races that are all generally called "black"?
• Can black people be racist?

Without knowing the question, an answer cannot be properly given. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As part of an answer I think it's fair to say that there are multiple black african races - if you would consider in general italians to be a different race from scottish..87.102.4.6 10:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard there was much larger genetical diversity between blacks worldwide than whites, if it helps. 惑乱 分からん 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking whether black people can be racist, you might want to step back and instead look at your assumptions. Are you assuming that all black people are Americans, or that the American form of racism is somehow typical worldwide? Are you assuming that black people are historically the most put-upon group in every country in which they live? Are you assuming that the only cultural tensions around are between blacks and whites?

Then talk to a native American (or even better, a native Canadian) about whether black people can be racist. I think you might be surprised. --Charlene 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You could probably find persons of every "non-black" race with bad experiences, if you just look around, see also black supremacy. 惑乱 分からん 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, anyone can be racist, just as anyone can be a victim of racism, no matter what race they are. --Candy-Panda 08:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Febuary 2

Getting into university

Everywhere in the media, I hear that it's "hard" to get into university, but is it? In my senior years of high school, I have an average of 86%. Should I have nothing to worry about when it'll get time for me to apply to a university? Is it just "hard" for average students who have marks of 70%-75% to get into university? --Codell ^{[ Talk]} 03:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are you located in the world? The use of the word university instead of college seems to indicate to me that it might not be the US. You should be consulting with an advisor either at your school or independently who can guide you through the proccess. Also how well you do on the SATs/ACTs etc will have an impact. Half-way through senior year seems a little late to be thinking about this though, you better get a move on. After looking at your profile I see your from Canada this site looks good http://www.schoolfinder.com/Gradvmedusa 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Call the university or universities you want to attend and ask them.

Even which province you're in (assuming you're in Canada) will make a HUGE difference. There's no "Canadian educational system"; there are 13 systems, one for each province and territory, and there's more variance between the provinces than there are between many European nations.

Your chances of being accepted are influenced by which province you live in, which province you're planning on studying in (if not your own), and what you're planning on studying. Unless you're planning to study in the US you likely won't need to take SATs, but (for instance) in Alberta your marks on provincial exams are as important as your grade percentage. It also depends on whether your high marks are in academic, artistic, or vocational courses, and even how the university you're planning on attending views those types of courses. (It even depends on how registration is set up - in Ontario you apply to a central university registry and then choose which university you want to attend, which means that every university has the same requirements, but in Alberta and B.C. you have to apply to each university individually, and each university and faculty has slightly different requirements.) Every province has quotas that state how many Canadian students from out of province can be admitted; these quotas don't apply to students from the Territories or PEI or those applying to certain faculties such as medicine or law (and can be different depending on where you live - in the West, students from other Western provinces get priority over students from Ontario and Quebec), but they can prevent you from attending your university of choice.

I often think American students are put through the wringer to far too great an extent. Not only do they have to graduate with high marks AND write SATs, they (and even their FAMILIES!!!!!) have to go through interviews! I can't imagine any university here basing admission on how one's FAMILY handles an interview - in fact, I think it's blatantly illegal in most provinces. When I went to university in Alberta in the early 80s even interviewing prospective undergraduate students was strictly forbidden. --Charlene 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Charlene comments, admisssion procedures vary widely in the U.S. by school. Interviews are not required everywhere. In fact, I got an admission letter from a college to which I had merely sent my SAT scores but never sent an application to. Schools vary in how selective they are - especially prestigious and smaller schools which receive far more students than they can accept so they have more elaborate procedures to find the "best" students for the school and, as far as legally possible, the "best" mix of student diversity. Schools like Harvard and Yale accept only about 10% of applicants. Here is a list of the lowest acceptance rate school: [6]. But generally, speaking the U.S. has more than enough places for every student at some college - just not necessarily their first or second choice. The U.S. also takes in half a million international students (one-third the number studying abroad in the entire world[7]) Also Americans take tests, not write them. Rmhermen 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The most selective U.S. colleges and universities reject a great many applicants who have perfect 4.0 grade point averages and/or perfect SAT or ACT scores, and/or who are National Merit Scholarship Finalists and/or who are their schools valedictorians. If they are athletes who can help the school have a winning season in a major sport, or if their parents went to the school (makes them a "double legacy") or if their family is rich and might give a million dollars to the school, or if their grandfather is on the board of trustees, or if they are a famous persons offspring, or if they are famous themselves such as an actor, they can be admitted with just about any test scores and grades. But there is always a college experience available to anyone who finishes high school or who passes the GED (in the U.S.). They can attend a community college and take courses in the same topics as at the selective colleges, perhaps using the same textbooks, perhaps taught at a less frantic pace and with more remedial education. They can attend a smaller and less selective 4 year college. They can take remedial math or remedial English if they have trouble in those area. They can then transfer to a college to complete a 4 year degree program, or obtain a 2 year Associates degree. Getting into a college is the very easiest part, compared to passing the courses. Then getting out with good grades and recommendations is the key to getting a good job or getting into a good graduate school, unless they possess any of the helpful attributes listed above which help one get into a selective college. Edison 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much for the notion that it's 'hard' to get into university. First, those who get in may be inclined to feel superior to their non-collegiate brethren. Not good. Second, those who get in may feel like they've got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and stay the course even if university does not suit them. Also not good. That said, there's plenty of benefits to going to university, but it's hardly the be-all and end-all of learning. It's best to think of a university as a business, first and foremost. Vranak

In general it's hard to punch above your own weight - this comment might apply to 'big money' courses like law.. In general just about anyone can go to university - as long as they try to do a subject they're good at. But there's a lot of snobbishness etc - where a degree in ancient history/the classics is considered better than one in pottery. Also universities make a big fuss about how good they are - despite the fact that from an economic point of view they are entirely parasitical. Now I'm older I release that my university degree is a load of bullshit and 'big names' in university life a bunch of self-promoting retards. That shouldn't shop you from from enjoying time at university if you go - most people do enjoy it.. It like a butlins for geeks. And by the sound of it you should have no problem getting in.83.100.183.48 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See also this article about students without bombastic grades getting into university. BTW 83.100.183.48, at university you will not just find some self-promoting retards, but also tenure lovers, paper writers, non-teaching professors, etc. Mr.K. 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolute paradise - why did they kick me out?83.100.183.48 23:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because you are not an idolater and you did not let them transfer their memes into your brain.Mr.K. 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the 'meme transfer' really pissed me off, and continues to piss me off more and more every year - as for idolatry - ?213.249.232.136 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You were not worshipping the bunch of self-promoting retards = not an idolater.Mr.K. (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was thinking of idolatry as in golden calf..213.249.232.136 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To narrow it down more, I'm from Ontario, I'm halfway through grade 11, and I take all the academic science courses (biology, chemistry, physics, space science, medical, etc.) and history courses. I'm planning to study here in my home province and go to a University, not a college. Wow, you all make the American system sound so corrupt (No offence intended). Now, Vranak, I totally agree with you. Happiness in life is more important than just having wads of cash and feeling superior. I just like science and history and am looking to further my education in the field, and if I can get a good job for it, all the better. Thank you everyone for the help so far.--Codell^«T» 02:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I too got all that bullshit about a good job - (I'm from the UK by the way) - now say you were doing chemistry - where I am there are more than 20 chemistry departments taking say 60 students a year - that's 1200 chemistry graduates a year - are there that many real vacancies for chemists in the UK per year - answer - no nothing like that. Ask yourself this - who told you that you would be earning big money because you got a degree.. Did someone actually tell you that - or were you just allowed to keep impression that a degree was a ticket to a wealthy lifestyle.. I feel bad (sort of) for being such an ogre about this - but unfortunately the rose tinted assumptions of the young don't always match up to the realities of life. Have a good time at university by the way.213.249.232.136 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghana during the First Persian Gulf War

How was Ghana involved in the first persian gulf war in 1990-1991. I know they didn't deploy troops to Kuwait, but did they do anything else? And does anyone know solutions that helped the war stop? I already viewed the wikipedia page on here, but it wasn't much help. Thanks!

-I choose to remain anonymous

Does anyone know anything about this topic?

Classical authors who have acted as spokespeople for the regime

In the book "Who Killed Homer", the authors state that "no important Classical author ever becomes a mindless spokesman for the regime." I could think of Virgil, for one. Am I correct here, and are there any others? The Mad Echidna 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really see Virgil as a 'mindless' spokesman for the regime? He provided Augustus-and Rome-with a great foundation myth; but surely the Aeneid goes far beyond the limits of bare political necessity? Propagandists never achieve the sublime. Clio the Muse 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you can read the first page of this article without a subscription. "The new approach, developed initially by Brooks, Parry, Clausen, and Putnam, is profoundly pessimistic, for it finds that the Aeneid speaks with two voices, as Parry puts it, those of personal loss as well as public achievement. That is, the poem's successes are accompanied by failure—of Aeneas, of the Augustan order, and of human nature in general and its ability to attain its ideals." Obviously, not everyone agrees with this reading of the Aeneid, but Virgil's poem certainly contains all the material needed to support it. It's a rare modern reader who can come away from the poem's last page with the feeling that he's just heard the closing statement of "a mindless spokesman for the regime." Wareh 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The literary form one should be looking at is panegyric. Poets like Claudian who wrote panegyrics were otherwise occupied, perhaps more mindfully, on other occasions. Propagandists for the regime multiplied once that regime was Christianized and the classical schools were closed down. "Mindless" is the word that renders the opening statement unintelligible: "Many important Classical authors served on occasion as spokesmen for the regime, and in the fifth century they were replaced by Christian ones." --Wetman 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, one wonders what might be meant by the term regime. In the twentieth century, many notable writers got kudos for writing support for left wing ideals, highlighting the faults of Western Institutions. George Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. Steinbeck wrote the Grapes of Wrath. Fitzgerald wrote The Great Gatsby. Then there was that book/movie All The President's Men. Yet, in many ways, all these books' writers fell into a trap of endorsing a populist view, occasionally at odds with reality.

Consider Arthur Miller's The Crucible. There is a direct association between the outrage one naturally feels when a movie producer who supports totalitarian communism is given restricted democracy, and the unjust witch trials in Salem. It is an irony that more modern research has suggested ergot poisoning as a plausible explanation for what happened at that community, when people are so much more comfortable believing Miller's thesis of evil and sadly misled humanity.

It wasn't just the twentieth century where great, respected books support the populist view. Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species was a great work that made few of the wild claims attributed it by radical activists wishing to support their majority view, that of simple folk. Karl Marx and Engels wrote something that seems to have much support in many institutions, yet fails in profundity stakes. After all, who could question the phrase 'common good'? The Three Musketeers, and those following, (Twenty years after, Vicomte de Bragelonne, Madame de la Valliere and The Man in the Iron Mask) were great works that did much to endorse the populist view of the relative importance of things. Charles Dickens wrote much that people believed in, regarding fairness in the face of disparity between wealth and poverty. Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace was despised by Fyodor Dostoevsky, who replied with Crime and Punishment, yet which work is remembered better? Which is the greater?

I think those who write books that aren't endorsed by the vast majority of mankind, are few, little liked and little remembered. Neitsche, Maquis de Sade (John Lennon tried), Hitler. DDB 09:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If Neitsche is Nietzsche, you should know he is extremely popular at least in my country, Brazil, very liked and remembered very often. TV shows, high school and college students and newspapers often refer to him. I thought this happened worldwide as well. By the way, there was also a best seller book, When Nietzsche Wept by Irvin Yalom, which will become a movie now. And there is a Brazilian movie about him, Nietzsche in Turin.People like Nietzsche.I don´t understand why you say that about him. And I thought Marquis de Sade was "pop" nowadays, there is a movie about him as well...

I think people who wrote books that aren´t endorsed by the vast majority of mankind were forgotten exactly because of that. Their books were not published, sold and copied (during European middle ages, for instance, the priests decided which works would endure and which would not) and so we can´t know if they are few or many.A.Z. 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There were 95 Theses

How many are now inapplicable?

132.239.90.211 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See The 95 Theses. [8] is a listing of them in English. Per Exsurge Domine, Pope Leo X wanted Luther to retract 41 of them. That should have left about 54 of them as undisputed at that time. The Catholic Church no longer sells indulgences to reduce the time spent in purgatory, so doubtless many of the 95 theses are no longer applicable to the Church in this era. Since the Church does not now sell pardons and since St. Peters has been built and paid for, many of the theses no longer address corruption in the Catholic Church. Edison 06:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Computer generated pornography

I was looking for the above and found that there is only an article on Poser porn and nothing by a more straight forward description. Is this all that there is on wikipedia on this subject or have I missed something in my search?83.100.183.48 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably isn't much more information... 惑乱 分からん 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Beards

Looking at the article on beards I notice that there is much on beards in ancient greece.. But I was hoping to find more on beards in china - attitudes etc maybe some interesting quotes. Would this be a suitable addition - surely confucious must have said something on the subject - he had a beard I believe - has any one got any good sources or excellent quotes?83.100.183.48 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting story about a man being arrested in China for wearing a beard.

 ...Umar Aziz paid the price for sporting a beard in China...


 ...All was well with Aziz till one day in 1995, when he and his wife were taken into custody
 by the Chinese police.He was charged with sporting a beard, seen as a symbol of Muslim identity
 and a rejection of Communist philosophy, and supporting the anti-China movement...


 ...He was tortured and beaten on a regular basis for four long years before being released. 
His wife died in police custody...

Entire story found on this page: Rediff
--Codell^«T» 03:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not being any help. but I had to mention, Gee, was it only the beard that got them jailed? What about the wife? Did she have a beard too? DDB 05:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions about fascists

1. Are there any countries in the world where the government self-identifies itself as 'fascist'? The answer to that is arguably yes. In the 1930's Michael Aflaq , the chief the theorist of baathism, modeled his then theoretical ideological system on European fascism, The one difference was it empathized Arab people as "the master race." The Syrian gov's offical ideology is baathist.

2. Are there any elected politicans anywhere in the world that represent a political party with 'Nazi' in the name?

Thanks very much. --84.68.213.80 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi" meant nationalist in German, so in that sense, yes, right-wing parties with the word "Nationalist" in various languages exist.

Nazi did not mean "nationalism" in German; "Nazi" was short for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", meaning "National Socialist German Workers' Party". It's specific to the party. Skittle 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course there's the American Nazi Party, and the British Nazi Party, though to my knowledge neither of them have had any electoral success. Then again, unless your name is Bernie Sanders, you have to be either a Republican or a Democrat to make it anywhere in US politics.

Of course you also have guys like former KKK Exalted Cyclops, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia in Congress. Of course, like I said, it's practically impossible to get into congress without being either a Democrat or a Republican. Naturally, then, Byrd joined the Democratic Party and got elected Senator. Naturally as well, this particular Exalted Cyclops is one of GWB's fiercest critics in Congress. Loomis 00:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But, of course, having somebody evil who hates you doesn't make you good. Hitler and Stalin hated each other, after all. StuRat 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're of course correct on that one, Stu. I just threw that last bit in for fun. I suppose it's very similar to the old "the enemy of my enemy MUST be my friend" logical fallacy. But speaking of Hitler and Stalin, I can't help but quote Churchill once again, speaking upon the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941: "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." Loomis 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a little strong to call Byrd "evil". Putting the Klan into context (the 1940s) is very important, and that the activities of the Klan, as well as the violence it is infamous for, varied over time. I'm not an apologist for the Klan's or for any form of racism, but using the blanket term of "evil" for anyone who was a member of it is just stupid, just as it is stupid to call all Germans who were in the Nazi government "evil". --24.147.86.187 15:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But we're talking about a former Klan officer (Exalted Cyclops), not an ignorant tobacco chewing hunch-man. If "blanketing" the term "evil" over the top 20 Nazi/KKK officials is stupid, then I don't like the word "stupid" anymore. What he represents now is a different fact that I leave for people like Mnemeson to consider.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The number two Nazi was Hermann Göring. I wouldn't call him evil. Misguided maybe. Power-hungry maybe. But evil? No. The same goes for Rudolf Hess, the number three. And definitely for Albert Speer. I wouldn't dispute the label for people like Hitler and Himmler, but I think there's a danger of overusing it. -- Necrothesp 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Henchmen often do the worse evils than do the leaders. And again it depends on what time you are talking about: the Klan's history is marked by some periods of high violence, some periods of little to no violence. To use the term "evil" to describe political positions one no longer finds palatable is intellectually sloppy at best. Harry Truman, Hugo Black, and many other people started their political careers in the KKK as it was considered by many at the time to be something of a leadership and cultural organization, not too different from the Rotary Club today. And heaven help us if we decide that all people who previously espoused racist views are "evil"! It wasn't until the 1960s that the KKK became wholly synonymous with unfettered racism and blunt violence. --140.247.250.175 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Byrd was indeed historically a member of the KKK, but as I recall he currently scores 100% positive ratings from the NAACP. Which would indicate his views might have changed. Subtly. --Mnemeson 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

David Duke served a term in the Louisiana state legislature. Corvus cornix 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed he did. (?) Loomis 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Febuary 3

poetry

i am looking for a poem that has the line : from whence we came. i think it is from yates or keats and was used in a documentary some yrs ago done by peter graves in reference to all of life coming from the sea. any help is appreciated. thanks

Garryowen by W.B. Yeats? You can see it on this page, a little way down, to see if it's what you're looking for. I found it by putting "from whence we came" Poem Yeats into Google, but it also turned up without using the word Yeats in the sear

thanks but that's not it as it referred to the ocean any other ideas?

It's possible that you are thinking of a quote by John Kennedy:

"I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it is because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change, it is because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going back from whence we came."

You can find the entire speech here. Carom 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The pedant in me most point out that the word "from" is needless in the phrase "from whence". "Whence we came" says as much. Pfly 07:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Botched University Application

I applied to an M.Sc. at a Dutch university but one of my three references hasn't been sent in. I was already aware of this when I sent my application in but expected my application would not be processed until after all my rerefences has been recieved. What I wasn't counting on is that the deadline is earlier than I expected (due to an error on the university's website. I want to ask if you would check these two paragraphs that I was planning on sending to the admissions person that has just contacted me:

Dear Mrs. Anonymous,

Thank you for your letter regarding my application to the Biomolecular Science M.Sc. course, dated 2 February 2007. Unfortunately, my third referee, Ms. Anonymous, has not yet completed my reference on account of the fact that I gave her an incorrect deadline. The University of Anonymous webpage, http://www.anonymous.nl/prospectiveStudents/degreeProgrammes/mastersProgrammes/masters/croho60616 gives the application deadline for EU/EEA citizens as 1 May and thus I was unaware that the correct deadline is in fact, 1 February.

I have already emailed Ms. Anonymous, to alert her to the situation. Would it be possible to delay the processing of my application until my third reference arrives? Of course I understand if this simply is not possible.

Yours sincerely,

Sean Smith

I've replaced any (albeit remotely) sensitive information with anonymous. Should I send this or just let it go? If you go deeply enough into the website, you descover their "alternative" deadline, 1 February, but I only discovered this today and kinda feel (or at least would like to) that it's not really my fault. --Seans Potato Business 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am an American. It sounds as though it is a good try to me. I don't know how competitive the program is. The worst that they can do is to say no. You can apply again next year. 75Janice 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 3 february 2007

I agree, go ahead and send the letter. Either it will make no diff or it will help, I can't see how it could possibly hurt. StuRat 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've sent it. Thanks for the advice. :) --Seans Potato Business 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proper Term in U.S. for black Americans, African-Americans

75Janice 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)I use the terms black or African-American interchangeably. NPR, National Public Radio, programs dealing with black culture appear to also use the terms interchangeably. I could not discern any particular pattern but I am a Northern-European American. My nephew has been reprimanded several times for using the term "black." The school district has a policy. The New York Times also appears to use both terms. Am I not seeing a pattern? My sister could not tell me the school district's reasoning or even who decided the policy.75Janice 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice 2 February 2006

I happen to edit social studies textbooks professionally. We use both "black" and "African American", but we probably use the latter more often. Both, to my knowledge, are acceptable. The company's goal is to maximize sales, so we certainly wouldn't use a term that would cost us a sale. Are you sure it's the school district's policy? Marco polo 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. When the teacher admonishes him, the teacher states it is the official policy. The teacher further states that it is racist to use the term black. My sister would speak to the teacher if it were the teacher's policy. If it were my child, I would want the transcript of the board meeting at the very least. I am an extremely "blue" person. Manhattan is my home. I practiced civil rights law. I am afraid I am misusing the terms.

This question comes up periodically. The primary difficulty in answering is the assumption that there *is* such a thing as a "proper term." The very notion that an arbitrary subset of the human population has a 'clinically sanctioned appropriate name' could be considered offensive by some, or at least simplistic. Therefore, no matter what "term" you may choose, it won't please everyone. For example, what about someone who is half African descent and half French Candadian descent? What is the "proper term" for that, African-French-Canadian-American? And how are you supposed to know this in advance? It's definitely a sensitive issue for some people, and a non-issue for others, but unlikely to be resolved with a trite answer from any single source. In fact, the only "simple" answer I have heard that ever made sense was "treat other people as you'd want to be treated yourself." Best wishes to you and your nephew. dr.ef.tymac 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. Also note that it has recently become fashionable to claim that races don't exist. This, of course, makes discussing things like Affirmative Action programs with quotas based on race quite impossible, if one accepts that races don't exist. Another problem with the term "African-American" is that not everybody who comes from Africa is black. There are many Arab nations in North Africa, for example, such as Egypt, Libya, Algeria, etc., so is it proper to call an Egyptian-American an African-American ? Perhaps we could come up with a new term, such as "of Sub-Saharan African descent" (OSSAD) ? StuRat 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I love these policies. Wait until the day they have someone who is black but not American; they'll find that "African-American" can actually itself be considered racist. --Charlene 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "Negro" is used by the United Negro College Fund ("A mind is a terrible thing to waste") [9] and the term "colored people" is still used by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [10], so those terms must still be acceptable. Some American blacks have claimed that to be a "African American" you must be dark skinned and have ancestors who came from the West Coast of Africa and were slaves in the U.S., thereby excluding caucasians born in Africa who moved to the U.S., recent immigrants from Africa, and Barack Obama, whose father came from Eastern Africa and who had no slave ancestors [11]. A white boy at a U.S. high school who was born in Africa was suspended after nominating himself for a "Distinguished African-American Student of the Year" prize, and his friends who put up campaign posters for him were also suspended, per the Telegraph. [12]. Edison 03:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost story from 2004 also mentions that he was expelled per policy WP:POINT. [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 05:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I once actually saw an advertisement for a G.I. Joe doll of an SAS trooper. You could buy it in either "white" or "African-American"! Obviously in their efforts to be politically correct the company hadn't realised that black British people are not generally referred to as "African-American". -- Necrothesp 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that it all depends upon your tone of voice, the relationship between you and the subject, and 'the strength' of political correctness in your social environment. If you using the word "African American" with a sarcastic tone of voice, it becomes an insult. If you are a true friend you can use the "Nigger" (notice, in a joking tone of voice with a fast old friend). In the presence of a large group strangers you are basicly screwed because whatever word you care to use, someone is going to take insult regardless. Flamarande 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it only me who see the distinction between "nigga" and "nigger"? 惑乱 分からん 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Since perhaps the late 1960's, "black" was generally considered the appropriate term in the United States. Since the mid-1990's, "African-American" has pulled up alongside "black" as the term in common use. See African American#The term "African American". But as noted above, "African American" can never completely supersede "black" because are people of African descent from many places besides the United States; to pick a random example, Oona King is not an African American. (I remember a reviewer's description of a Star Trek:Voyager character as "the first African American Vulcan", which was ludicrous, although the actor who portrayed the character could properly have been described as the first African-American to portray a Vulcan.) Newyorkbrad 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sister needs to ask for a copy of the policy in writing. If the teacher cannot provide it, she should tell her to stop making things up. If such a policy does exist she should contact the school board. Obviosuly the school district idiots don't know that Black is Beautiful. --Nelson Ricardo 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that the term "African-American" seems to be largely a "White" invention. Between the Black people and the Whites I know, it's the Whites that are far more prone to use the term "African-American" than the Blacks, who seem to be completely comfortable with the term "Black". Very similarly, the term "Oriental", which is simply the Latin for "Eastern", seems to be shunned by "Whites" as shameful and derogatory, preferring the term "East Asian". Yet when I explain this to my Oriental friends, they're bewildered by the whole thing. "Oriental is Latin for Eastern, right"? "Yes, it is". "So why do White people think it's so insulting to call us "Oriental"?

In fact, I'd say it's rather condescending and patronizing to Black people for Whites to determine the proper term for them. To expand on Nelson's point, during the civil rights movement of the '60s, the Black people of the US made it as clear as possible that "Black" was their term of choice. Phrases like "Black Power" and "Black is Beautiful" were in abundance. Black people have clearly decided on the term "Black" to identify themselves. I actually find it rather shameful for Whites to so paternalistically reject their term of choice, and replace it with the geographically ridiculous "African-American" designation. I'd say the school district's "policy" of discouraging the term "Black" is a pathetic cop-out on the part of the school district designed to satisfy their consciences and feel that they're somehow doing their fair share to eliminate racism, by means of an overly simplistic, ridiculous, terminological policy. The elimination of racism is far more complicated and requires far more effort than a silly name-change. Loomis 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language author

hai wikipedians im a tamilian and im eager to learn about G.U.POPE, who had written tamil literature and wished to be buried with the words:"this man learnt tamil"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veekayvee (talk • contribs)

Hello, Veekayvee. Wikipedia's article on George Uglow Pope is rather short, and I wasn't able to access the first external link. The second link gives quite a bit more information, and the third link is A Letter to the Tranquebar missionaries, Regarding "Their Position, Their Proceedings and Their Doctrine." by Rev. G. U. Pope., published in 1853 ---Sluzzelin 09:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How much concourse was there between Persians and Europeans in the 13th century?

I'm writing a story set in Italy in 1240 AD, and in my total ignorance have had included an affable meeting between a Persian astrologer and a Franciscan Friar - how likely was this to have happened? What with the Crusades and all, were Persians allowed to wander Europe on, say, diplomatic missions, or am I totally reaching here?

Thanks Adambrowne666 11:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be a Persian, or would others from the Muslim World do? I'm not sure how common it was for Persians or Muslims to be in Italy in the 13th century, but it probably not totally unheard of. THe Republic of Venice and the Republic of Genoa were doing brisk trade with the eastern Mediterranean world. Moorish Spain still held on in Granada. Marco Polo made his journey across Asia in the late 1200s (he was from Venice). I couldn't find much on a quick look for Persians scientists traveling in Europe, but some did apparently travel quite a bite. The 13th century Persian poet Saadi (poet) went to Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey, and could have easily encountered Italians there. The Arab astronomer Ibn al-Banna live in Morroco. Maybe some of those links will lead to a definite answer. Pfly 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite within the realms of possibilty - if I read such a book (a historical novel I suspect) - such a meeting wouldn't raise any eyebrows - as long as both were 'clerics' or similar - given that such people often had the role of ambassador/travelling scientist in those days.. As to the question of being allowed to wander - I'm not sure - I think such meetings may have been by invitation to a royal court or papal palace - but there's no reason why a person might not meet various other people - by chance or otherwise on the way to their audience...213.249.232.136 20:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The story of Fibonacci might be of help here. His businessman dad took him to Persia, where he met this girl .. and they tested themselves at math ;)

Also, you might look into the true elements of Michael Chrichton's 13th Warrior. It is based on the true account of a muslim scholar meeting some Vikings, and liveing a year with them. It provided the only written account of Norse lifestyle from a viewpoint of someone liveing among them. Vikings didn't write much. DDB 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the very prompt and extremely useful answers. Adambrowne666 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If a man born near the Alps can turn up at Stonehenge in 2600 BC, you may plausibly have a great many Persians in Italy in the 13th century AD. Edison 05:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Persian may have been visiting Moorish Spain. Where does this meeting take place? Corvus cornix 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

world war 1

how many countries went to world war one? who was Germanys leader in world war one? why did world war one start?

Those are simple questions, so I suggest you to search first. Our article World War I provides all the answers you need. --Taraborn 12:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This article may provide you with a more complete answer to your first question. Carom 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

May I assume that this user is from the USA? Just because he or she wrote "went to war". Believe it or not, some countries are actually attacked (on their very own soil) when war breaks out and they don't go to war, they get pulled in...Evilbu 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The terminology "went to war" is common in the English language to describe soldiers leaving their homes (or bases) to go to the front, regardless of where, precisely, the fighting is taking place. Incidentally, the IP address appears to belong to a user in the UK, although I'm not entirely sure that this is relevant. Carom 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes those who are attacked are in countries which have mobilized and are preparing to attack the neighbor who atacked tham preemptively.Edison 05:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A la Florentine

I would like to know what's the relation between Florentine and spinach dishes. I've been told it has to do with a woman named Florentine, whom I find no relationship with spinach, and the city of Florentia, which isn't exactly known for it's spinach. Thanks----— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.139.247 (talk)

This very question has intrigued the reference desk before Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Language/May_2006#The_word_.22florentine.22 meltBanana 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Interpolitical Marriage

Thomas Jefferson is said to have suggested that interracial marriage (American Indians and newcomers from Europe) could break down the interracial barier through marrigage. Does this apply to having offspring only and could this be a solution for reducing if not eliminating political and religious differences represented by different cultures? For example could Brits and Americans, each descented from their respective groups of soldiers who fought on opposite sides during the American Revolution marry or just have offspring to help reduce, if not eliminate, any remaining differences between the two sides? -- Barringa 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have brothers or sisters? Do they share the same political and religious views as you? Human nature being what it is, people will always find ways to differentiate themselves from each other. Just guessing, but it may even be some sort of evolutionary trait. Clarityfiend 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Brothers and sisters are restricted from marrying each other in most cultures with few exceptions (Hawaians). Brits and American already pride themselves on the different starting point of their respective heritages since the Revolutionary War, not the evolutionary war. -- Barringa 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Clarityfiend was suggesting you marry your brother or sister. He was merely pointing out that many brothers and sisters, although descended from the same parents, have radically different beliefs than one another. Thus, having children with your spouse does not guarantee that there will not be important differences between them. GreatManTheory 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my response. Hmmm...I may have to change my name. Clarityfiend 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Since brother and sister can not marry legally as a way to test whether their descendents would from their biological descendency represent both biologically and psychologically by their inherent melding of both sides of the arguement be able to resolve any political or nationality difference their parents had (unless of course you might be thinking of inlaw brothers and sisters or adopted males and females who have no parents in common and can legally marry or have offspring) then it is a special case and does not answer the question I am asking. Putting it another way...would you be able to completely take one side over the other if you regarded both parents with equal esteem regarding any national or political difference either might have or would you find taking only one side impossible? -- Barringa 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to keep in mind that there is a great deal of regional variance within a country - cultural practices are not uniform throughout either the United States or Great Britain. Additionally, proposals to intermarry white Americans and various indigenous persons were intended not simply to "break down racial barriers," but to assimilate the indigenous persons into "white" American culture by "civilizing" them. If you're interested, Jim Fergus has written a well-recieved novel on the idea of white women marrying Cheyenne men under a (fictional) US government program; the title is One Thousand White Women, although it appears that we don't have an article... Carom 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Familial groupings have diversity as well as similarity. Any group tends to throw up certain characters, so that there is an over achiever, and an underachiever, or a giver and a taker or any of many demarcation styles. One interesting fact is that a father of daughters is more likely to vote for leftwing political parties than a father of sons, or a man with no children.

What many fail to appreciate is that skin color is an environmental thing. There is some reason why Sub Arctic peoples are white/pink, but tropical peoples black. There have been white families living in South Africa for some five hundred years, but they aren't getting more dusky. What might happen is that environmental factors favor skin colors for survival, but don't change genetic determinations. If that is so, then Thomas Jefferson's theory fails. We can best become good corporate citizens not by being like everyone else, but by sharing corporate values. It may well be that family is the key, but not in the way Jefferson envisioned, but Adams. Maybe we can't change our families, but improve them. Morally.

I recently heard the difference between a moral man and an ethical man described as:"The ethical man knows it is wrong to cheat on his wife. The moral man won't do it." Thomas Jefferson achieved great heights in wisdom, but at times, he was as a thoughtless child. DDB 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is it said that Jefferson suggested marriage between European immigrants and Native Americans? The wikipedia article on Jefferson has info on his apparent condemnation of miscegenation, at least between whites and blacks. It is hard to answer this question without a source for what Jefferson actually said.

For what it is worth, there were many marriages between Euro-Americans and Native Americans long before Jefferson was born. The people who married generally got along and liked each other, having broken through cultural and racial barriers to that degree at least. Often the marriages were between white men trading with and living with Indians, and Indian women. Indian children take the clan of their mother, so such children would, by Indian culture, be Indian. A great many Euro-American frontiermen "turned Indian". A famous example is Sam Houston, who was adopted by a Cherokee chief, married into the tribe, and lived among them for years.

By Jefferson's time, many Indians had rather non-Indian names like Alexander McGillivray, William McIntosh, William Weatherford (all Creek leaders), John Ross (Cherokee chief), Elias Boudinot (Cherokee), James Vann, George Gist (Cherokees), Joseph Brant, and John Norton (Mohawk chief) (Mohawks). Jefferson's suggestion thus sounds more like an observation. The offspring of Euro-American and Indian parents often became diplomats and leaders in US-Indian political issues. It wouldn't be hard to argue that these intermarriages and children did in fact reduce differences. The Cherokee famously adopted many Euro-American practices before the Trail of Tears. The mixed-blood Cherokee were often the strongest advocates of adopting these new ways. Of course the imbalance was far too great to avoid calamity in the end.

Also, what is the "interracial barrier" that Jefferson suggested could be broken down through marriage? He apparently didn't think this about white and black relationships. And on whites and Indians, there were plenty of people crossing the barrier already. Perhaps more Euro-Americans "became" Indians than vice versa -- but then again, every other American family with roots in the south has some story or other about Cherokee ancestors. If a mixed family was "American" rather than "Indian", it would behoove them and their children to downplay their Indian ancestry, especially when, for example, voting or responding to a census. Indians were not citizens.

It seems to me that cultural barriers were the trouble with Euro-American and Native American relations. I'm sure there was racism as well, but if you look at, say, John Ross, the Cherokee leader before the Trail of Tears, he was 1/8th Indian descent and 7/8ths European. It wasn't the color of his skin that was the problem. Pfly 05:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we may be taking the OP's assertion a bit too far. I doubt s/he was speaking in any sort of "genetic" sense, but far more likely in a "sociological" sense. In the Americas, countries like Canada, the US, and perhaps Argentina actually stand out with regards to the whole "white/black/red" racial issue. Many if not most other American countries hold a rather opposite view. Now this is purely anecdotal, but I have a certain Brazilian friend. She happens to be pretty much exclusively of European descent and therefore "white". Now this may sound odd to the rest of us, but from what she told me, Brazil prides itself on its tri-racialism on the individual level (i.e., the fact that the vast majority of the population, as individuals, can claim part African, part European, and part Aboriginal American descent), to such an extent, that being of tri-racial ancenstry is actually an asset, in the sense that you're regarded as more truly "Brazilian". Of course that's just her take, and shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. Loomis 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I´m Brazilian and I have one Russian grandparent, one Polish, one Portuguese and one Italian. The Italian one is half Jewish. The Portuguese one is most likely descendent from Portuguese Muslims, which occupied the Iberic Peninsula for more than seven centuries. In Brazil we always talk about how almost no one can claim to be belong to any particular "people" or "race". Everyone has multiple genetic and cultural backgrounds in their families, as I do. This miscigenation, however, has not put an end to discrimination against black people. The census has the categories white, black, yellow, red and "pardo", and people choose to which they belong. People who are "pardos" tend to say they are white and people who are black tend to say they are "pardos". Even people who are clearly not white and don´t regard themselves as being white treat white people as if they were superior and treat people like their own like inferior people. Of course this is just my point of view and I am making extreme generalizations. Nonetheless, it happens, and shows that miscigenation alone doesn´t make a difference when it comes to discrimination.A.Z. 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration on the situation in Brazil, AZ. To be honest, after submitting my above post I had second thoughts about whether an anecdotal reference from a single Brazilian friend of mine had enough validity to be posted here. Thanks again for the elaboration. Loomis 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

history

Why is the Drawing Room called a Drawing Room?--- Tim84.70.39.40

If you take a look at the article drawing room, it says "the name is derived from withdrawing room." Chickenflicker---♣ 19:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And, although it doesn't say so in the article, the room was called the "withdrawing room" not because the lord or lady of the house would withdraw there to get some privacy, but because that's where the ladies went after leaving the dinner table. It used to be that after the last course of a formal dinner was over the women would rise and withdraw from the dining area, and after they left the men would bring out the cigars and brandy. The women would meanwhile sit in the drawing room and chat; after a suitable interval, the men would join them.

One of the great scandals of pre-World War I society was that the ladies stopped withdrawing. Some older people were shocked, shocked! but nobody else paid much attention. --Charlene 01:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

...post-World War II society, actually. --Wetman 04:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyramid Robbery

What is the most widely accepted scientific theory for how the Great Pyramid of Kafre was robbed? And when did this robbery occur? I am sorry to ask an obvious question, but I can't find any information on this, and I have been searching for about an hour and a half. Can anyone give me a website which treats this subject? Thanks plenty!David G Brault 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Khafre's Pyramid, apart from modern archeological investigations, most of the pyramid robberies took place many hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago, and I doubt whether anyone knows the details. I don't believe any scientific theory is required; brute force would have sufficed. And they wouldn't even have had to keep it secret: what few local people there were could have organized quite a systematic operation. They probably didn't even think of it as robbery any more than modern archeologists do.--Shantavira 11:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading that somehow the robbery was accomplished in the pharonic era, less than a hundred years after the treasure had been placed in the pyramid, with the help of priests or former workers. I don't know how they would know this, but somehow they seemed to. I just want to know, where did they make the hole to get in?David G Brault 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Family name Cornelius

I realize Cornelius is a name most commonly found in Ancient Roman history, but was it actually used in the Middle East some 2000 years ago? --Doug ^talk 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC):

Very possibly - the Romans had a presence in Syria and Judaea from the early 1st century BC. --Nicknack009 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and the Origin of the white race

Wikipedia and numerous websites state that the nation of islam believes that whotes were created by Yakub. Are there any primary sources from the NOI themselves where they explicity state this? --Dinotro 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Elijah Muhammad's book http://www.amazon.com/Yakub-Father-Mankind-Elijah-Muhammad/dp/1884855342 and a transcript of an interview with Louis Farrakhan where he is asked about the subject http://www.finalcall.com/national/mlf-mtp5-13-97.html meltBanana 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Febuary 4

SOMEONE ANSWER MY QUESTION

Someone please answer my question here:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Antagonism_vs_Inhibition_.7C_Enzymes_.26_Neurotransmiters

&

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Dopamine_reuptake_inhibitor.7C_Antidepressants_.7C_NEED_REFERENCES

--Parker007 00:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Parker007 - With all due respect, it looks like people have been answering them, and you put them in the right place to start off with. SHOUTING on the Humanities RD is very unlikely to gain you extra assistance - the folks on the Science desk really are best placed to help. --Mnemeson 00:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is for science, not humanities Pernambuco 16:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Parker007 - please take a moment to review the How to ask a question section, found at the top of each reference desk page. In particular, the guidelines

• Be courteous
• Be patient
• Please don't write in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Do not double post

I hope someone has been able to help you by providing the information you were seeking. -- dpotter 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on political titles

Hi! It's me--again; sorry if I'm bothering you, but I have another question about political titles. In this site, there is a delegate by the name of:

H.E. The Rt. Hon. Lester B. Bird

(Lester Bird is from Antigua and Barbuda)

What does The Rt. Hon. mean?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rt. Hon. is an abbreviation for The Right Honourable. ---Sluzzelin 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Two things politicians rarely are: right and honourable. Clarityfiend 05:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, those entitled to the title are not necessarily politicians. JackofOz 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Right" in this case means "very". I don't have an OED where I can look up the derivation, but http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right says, —Usage note 47. Right in the sense of “very, extremely” is neither old-fashioned nor dialectal. It is most common in informal speech and writing: It's right cold this morning. The editor knew right well where the story had originated.. Corvus cornix 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright law regarding photographs

If I take a photograph of a celebrity, say, at a premiere or something, wherever it doesn't violate privacy laws, and then stick it on a T-shirt and sell it, is that legal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking the photograph isn't illegal, but I think that unauthorized use of a celebrity's image to sell a product is illegal. GhostPirate 14:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think the celebrity's lawyer or image manager would say? Carcharoth 01:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't a copyright one -- you own the copyright, you are fine with that. Depending on how it is used, it might be analogous to a trademark one, though. See personality rights. --140.247.250.175 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Heroic Roman fashion - Asterix 'shield' inspiration?

"Messrs. Victor Hugo and Emile de Girardin try to raise Prince Louis upon a shield [in the heroic Roman fashion]: not too steady!" Honoré Daumier's: satirical lithograph published in Charivari, December 11, 1848

I recently saw this picture here (see right), and was reminded of the Asterix comic books, where a common running joke in one of the books was the Chief Vitalstatistix being raised on his shield in an uneven fashion like this. I am wondering whether the similarity is entirely coincidential, or whether there is a possible connection? How common was the motif of later times depicting people raised on a shield like this in the "heroic Roman fashion"? Carcharoth 12:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You might try: Teitler, Hans (2002). "Raising on a Shield: Origin and Afterlife of a Coronation Ceremony". International Journal of the Classical Tradition. 8 (4). ISSN 1073-0508.—eric 15:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow! Just wow! :-) Wikipedia's Reference Desk comes up trumps again. That is just amazing. I was resigning myself to thinking that this might be a "no answer" question, but that is incredible. Thanks for that. The next challenge I guess is how to work that reference into a Wikipedia article somewhere... Carcharoth 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's any help: the authors of Astérix were certainly familiar with Daumier. There are lots of references to Daumier's cartoons in Astérix. Chl 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! It gets better! Are these references documented anywhere? I'd be really interested in reading up on them. We have to try and get them, along with the PD Daumier cartoons, into the Astérix articles! Uderzo (who is still alive) was the illustrator, while Goscinny (who tragically died at the age of 51) was the writer. I guess the illustrator would be more influenced by the Daumier satirical cartoons. Carcharoth 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After some searching, here's where I read about this: Stoll, André, Asterix, das Trivialepos Frankreichs : Die Bild- und Sprachartistik eines Bestseller-Comics, Köln: DuMont Schauberg, 1974, ISBN 3-7701-0773-X. Only available in German, I'm afraid. The book details all the cultural influences and hidden references in the comic. Chl 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

German is a problem. But many thanks anyway. Carcharoth 00:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I always liked the variations, such as when the chief Abraracourcix (or Vitalstatistix) was interrupted while taking a bath and was carried off, topless, tub and all, and presented to the visitors. Another one I remember is after the chief fired his carriers and Obelix is forced to "serve" him alone, balancing him on one hand over his head, like a waiter balances a tray (even carrying a towel folded over his other arm, if I remember correctly). ---Sluzzelin 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I remember all those. Maybe it is time to re-read my Asterix books? :-) I see, with glee, that there are three new ones I haven't read yet, though I seem to remember the later ones (post-2000) not being that good any more. :-( Carcharoth 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, "not that good anymore" is the understatement of the day. My POV. ---Sluzzelin 01:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're revealing WAY too much about yourself, Sluzzelin! I thought you chose to be a complete mystery. I'm still trying to figure out the meaning of all those black balls, with one conspicuous green ball on your user page! Loomis 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Sluzzelin is trying to tell us he's related to Shri Dattathreya Ramachandra Kaprekar. Having 6174 balls on the page would have taken up too much space, but 297 is ok. JackofOz 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

footpath

How do I make a footpath that runs by the reservoir that is owned by the water company into a public right of way so I can walk down it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Assuming you live in England or Wales, the short answer is that you can't. The law is complicated, and keeps changing, and access rights have improved a lot over the past few years, especially within National Parks. It used to be the case that if you could prove someone had used a path every single day for more than a year, you could claim a right, but that may have changed with recent legislation. If there is a notice telling you it is private property, that remains the case. See rights of way in the United Kingdom for more information.--Shantavira 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but you might contact the water company and express a concern that the lack of a footpath is an environmental hazard. You might claim that quality inspectors and/or children have been seen misbehaving as a result of there being no footpath. I would avoid suggesting vagrants need bathing access. DDB 06:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You may not be a lawyer DDB, but you're sure sounding like one! :) Seriously, without a mental picture of the property, and the history behind its usage, the question is impossible to answer. Still, I'd definitely disagree with Shantavira's short answer that you simply can't. There are too many different varieties of easements to list here. But take the simplist possible of examples: say you own a piece of land that is completely surrounded by that of another. By operation of law you'd have what's called an easement by necessity. After all, if your property is completely surrounded by someone else's, how can you possibly get to it without trespassing on your neighbour's property! And by the way, even if you plan on airlifting yourself in, you're still technically trespassing, according to the maxim cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos, the Latin for for whomsoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to the sky and down to the depths. Loomis 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Soco and Vancette

I hear references to Soco and Vancette and would like to understand who they were. I thought they were WWII spies in the Boston Mass area but can not find a connection when I search that phrase. Your help will be appreciated Everett Hastings```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.184.11 (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

It's Sacco and Vanzetti. They were anarchists who were executed by the U.S. government. Here's the article: Sacco and Vanzetti. -GhostPirate 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They were executed by the government of Massachusetts, not the U.S. government. - Nunh-huh 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, eight German spies/saboteurs did get captured in the U.S. during World War II, of whom six were executed, but that wasn't in Boston and didn't involve Sacco and Vanzetti (whose execution was in 1927). For the story of the German saboteurs, see Ex parte Quirin and follow the links. Newyorkbrad 16:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctorate in "Krishna"

i wish to do PhD on the topic "kRISHNA" .How can Wikipedai help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.128.141.142 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

The answer is - not much - a PhD is usually original research - of which wikipedia has none.

You could look at the article krishna and see if this is the same thing - though in terms of a PhD thesis it would only contain very basic information. Other related topics may have articles on wikipedia that would serve as background and the links may be of more use to you for obtaining more detailed information.213.249.232.179 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Wikipedia can give you some information on what is already known about the subject, but what is unknown and how you could approach that is completely up to you. Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, by reading up on the subject, but further research should take place elsewhere. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the others. We're very proud of the work we do here, but no one should write a high school term paper based on Wikipedia articles without checking out the sources, much less a Ph.D. thesis. The articles should cite some sources you could start with, though if you are ready to approach the subject on a doctoral level you should already know many of them. Newyorkbrad 16:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address indicates you are in Kerala, India. If your question is, where can you find information about earning a Ph.D. on the topic, it is still hard to answer the question since Krishna is a subject of interest to several disciplines. If you would like to become expert in the Sanskrit sources, for example, then you may wish to inquire further of the Department of Sanskrit at Kerala University (Kariavattom, Trivandrum, 695 581) or the Department of Sanskrit at Calicut University (673 635). Wareh 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about Stonehenge

There is something I've always wondered about Stonehenge, but no one can seem to answer it. What I'm wondering is this: what is so damn great about it? I mean, it's nice collection of rocks... must have been hard lugging those around... but still, it's just a bunch of rocks. It's not the Great Pyramid of Giza or anything. Some people say it's because it's so old, even ancient! But come on, they were building far more impressive ziggurats in Sumer half a millenium earlier. I think it's very strange that so many people worship this thing that isn't all that impressive, when down in the fertile crescent there was a whole civilization, with writing and taxes and churches and dynasties and things. So again; why is Stonehenge so damn famous? 83.250.192.118 04:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a pretty impressive effort, considering it was not the Egyptians or Sumerians who did it. Like when your kid does a fingerpainting. Edison 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it some sort of clock, with rock from far away, and large rocks laid on top of pillar-like rocks, which is harder to explain than ramps for pyramids? Personally, I agree though. I don't see much in Stonehenge. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Stonehenge is famous to some extent because it isn't entirely clear exactly what it was used for - not knowing why it was built adds to the allure, particularly as humankind seems driven to produce explanations and causes for everything we encounter. Our article also touches on another topic, which is the otherworldly feeling that many vistors experience (even those who, like myself, are skeptical of the mystical, etc.).

There is also a case to be made for ethnocentrism, but I'm not entirely sure that I want to go down that road...Carom 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that those lovely pieces built elsewhere were done through the support of enormous civilisations with impressive organisation and drive. Not only did some stone age group build Stonehenge, they've disappeared without trace. This wasn't built by afterthought, but with considerable forethought over centuries. Sci fi writers would not write such a script, because it is too strange. DDB 06:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying! Why is this collection of stones more interesting than the enormous civilizations with the impressive organization and drive? It doesn't make any sense! I would make the case for ethnocentrism, I think it's a slam dunk. It's deplorable, really. 83.250.192.118 12:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right - there is really nothing that great about stonehenge (I agree and don't get why it gets so much publicity - TV programs etc). There's a lot that's good or interesting about it though - looks nice on postcards etc. One of the reasons for it's fame amongst other megalithic structures is it's obvious organised structure - most other megaliths just look like stones in a field - in some cases it's difficult to tell that they were actually man made - stonehenge however is obviously man made. It's also a source of pride to british/european people - who maybe couldn't give a shit about what some jews or arabs have built in the middle of a desert - there are many reasons..it's overhyped - because it's an obvious visual symbol.87.102.8.103 11:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to make a related point about the pyramids etc - why so many books/TV programs.. There's practically a different TV program on the pyramdids every day - yet the story is always the same - big rocks, big pyramid, lot of people, primitive tools, dead guy, stars.. Once would be enough yet every TV company seems to think that they simply must make another program about the Pyramids - whilst the rest of civilisations accomplisments go completely unfilmed - why?87.102.8.103 12:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. More documentaries on ancient China, the middle-east and and the Olmec people (even though we know basically nothing about them, it's more than we know about the henge-people). 83.250.192.118 12:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As an American, I was wondering what all this fuss was about. But it just occurred to me that Stonehenge might get a great deal of media and textbook attention in Britain. It does not get such attention in the United States. Most Americans have probably heard of it. It is after all one of the most ancient monuments in the world. However, it does not get the same degree of attention in the United States as the Egyptian pyramids or the Great Wall of China. The pyramids and the Great Wall are covered in our textbooks; Stonehenge generally is not. To me, Stonehenge does seem worthy of the same kind of attention that is given to other very old monuments that were engineering feats in their time and place, such as the heads of Easter Island, Macchu Picchu, and the Mayan temples. I think that this is about the degree of attention that it gets in the United States and probably in other countries outside of Britain. Marco polo 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Avebury Henge and Village

It's mostly those people from Avebury that go around trash-talking Stonehenge :-). Seriously, the interesting part for many of us is the "why" aspect: Why were all these various, obviously-related megalithic structures built? What purposes were they used for?

Atlant 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always blamed gypysies or bored farmers - if I find one on my land - I'll blow it up.87.102.8.103 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Irish Traveller "...suggests that Travellers habitually defraud their neighbours, demanding high prices for substandard day labor" - would that form the basis of an explanation?87.102.8.103 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Although less well known beyond the British Isles, Stonehenge does seem to be part of the "canon" of wondrous ancient ruins. Why? Because it is an impressive feat of engineering for the culture that probably left it: small communities without writing, unlike the great empires of antiquity. Because it is visually striking and easy to recognize. Because of the astronomical information it contains--solstice alignments, at minimum. An astronomer, Gerald Hawkins, proposed a theory that it was evidence of sophisticated astronomical knowledge, and that it was a solar eclipse calculator among other things. His theory has been challenged, but it received alot of attention, not least because he used a computer to analyze possible alignments. At the time he wrote (1960s), doing anything with a computer was a real novelty to the general public. Katherine Tredwell 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rate of Ink Usage in Quill Pens

This is an art question, not a humanities question, but it seemed to fit better here than Miscellaneous.

When writing with a quill pen, how much ink (by volume) is consumed per unit written? (page, line, word, any useful measure.) Wikipedia pages on pens and ink give a lot of good information, but I couldn't find this. Gnfnrf 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I find I write about five hundred a4 size papers for each pen I use .. just an approximation. I estimate 10ml of ink per pen. These are ball point (naturally). Quill's probably use more ink because they are useful for art, as well as writing ;) DDB 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, quill pens use more ink. But how much more? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Gnfnrf 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched a bit but found nothing conclusive for quills. Several variables that also affect the rate of ink consumption are the width of the quill, the paper's absorptive qualities, the writer's touch (stronger or softer), and the ink's viscosity (which also depends on the temperature). ---Sluzzelin 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

disimbursement of loans in India

--Tshireen 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out whether I am an Australian citizen or British. I was born in 1959? or 1961 in Madang on Karkar Island. It was known then as New Guinea and I believe under the British New Guine? a subject of british colony. Now Papua New Guinea. Since PNG Independence my parents remained as British Subjects until there their death. Does that mean that are British citizens. If so am I also a British citizen.

You would be best to contact the British High Commission, Kiroki Street, Port Moresby for an answer to that question. Go with Birth Certificates, Passports for yourself and your late parents. --Trieste 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

British laws are quite complex on the issue. British subject and British citizen are not the same legal category. And where you were born on New Guinea makes a difference for eligiblity for Australian citizenship - see Australian nationality law#Papua New Guinea. If Madang was in the Territory of Papua, there is considerable difficulty as the issues regarding Australian citizenship are legally unsettled. Rmhermen 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

yakshi concept ,Kerala,India

Sir,

I am journalist. Now I want to write about the origin of Yakshi concept in Kerala.It is a myth but investigating the origin is an interesting subject.If you can give me maximum details. my e-mail:(email address removed) faithfully sunil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.17.221.175 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

I've removed your email address. Questions are not answered by email - please see the guidelines at the top of this page. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Difference

Sir, Can you please tell me Difference between Mirzae and Ahmedi according to our Islam Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.160.8 (talk)

This isn't a computing question, so we won't be able to help you here on the Computing Reference Desk, but the Ahmedi and Mirza articles may be of some help. Wikipedia in Arabic may also have some details. --h2g2bob 14:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#difference 87.102.8.103 15:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage engagement in non-Western cultures?

Our article on engagement is very Western-centric. Does anybody have any information to add to it from other traditions, religions or cultures?--Sonjaaa 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Betrothal--Wetman 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Arranged marriage Clarityfiend 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Child marriage, cousin marriage (although the article itself is also highly Western and doesn't mention engagement.) Rmhermen 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

blockage

hi. im jesse king. i'd like to know how long i will be blocked on this sight from editing articles? just out of curiousty?Jk31213 19:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You could ask at the Wikipedia Help desk rather than the Reference desk. But I do not see that you are blocked. Why would you think that you are? You had a vandalism warning last June, but no current block. Edit away. Edison 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the Wikipedia:Blocking policy page for more info. - Akamad 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you were blocked, you wouldn't have been able to ask this question. Please direct questions about Wikipedia to the help desk. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Myths

I'm having a lot of trouble thinking of 'original source' or as close as possible of different mythologies (i.e. The Prose Edda, Metamorphoses, etc.) What are some? 64.198.112.210 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Having trouble figuring out what your question is. Perhaps you should try rephrasing it more clearly. Loomis 01:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the closest possible things to primary sources for different world mythologies. Examples would be the Prose and Poetic Eddas, Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Mabinogion...and there I fail at thinking of more. I need to make this list bigger. 71.220.127.97 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Iliad & Odyssey? --The Dark Side 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost any ancient text would fit the bill. Think of the text related to the culture. Gilgamesh? Zoroastrianism must have something. Ireland has Cúchulainn. I'm sure China and India have stuff, eg Baghavad Gita. Australian Aborigines famously talk of the dreamtime.

However, first stories are as easy to locate as first cities. They predate writing. DDB 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bible contains many "myths" common to other cultures such as that of Noah and the great flood. Yet "myths", by their very nature, tend to have no commonly agreed upon origin. Whether the Bible account is the "primary source" is anybody's guess. Loomis 13:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: I would like the names of books that contain as true as possible translations of ancient texts of myths, rather than 'retellings'. 64.198.112.210 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the you're probably going to need a Time Machine. Before the Printing press all literature was copied by hand, allowing for accumulated errors, and often the outright changing of important story elements (for example, Judaeo-Christian versions of earlier myths would always 'correct' the number of gods referenced in the story), it has only been since relatively recently that the idea of respecting the original author's intentions have come about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.32.8 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Giovanni Boccaccio's "Genealogia deorum gentilium"

I see in the Wikipedia article on Giovanni Boccaccio information on this in relationship to meeting Petrarch in 1351: Although unsuccessful, the discussions between the two were instrumental in Boccaccio writing Genealogia deorum gentilium — the first edition was completed in 1360 and this would remain one of the key reference works on classical mythology for over 400 years. Translated into English? Is there a list of mythology names this involves someplace? Did Petrarch and Boccaccio work on this together then? Did these two work together on other works also? Did Giovanni Boccaccio work with Petrarch on Petrarch's epic poem Africa about the Second Punic War and Scipio Africanus?--Doug ^talk 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can get a sense of the work, especially the names it mentions, by consulting the original, even if you don't know Latin. It's available online here (PDF) and (HTML) and probably easiest to search via here. As far as I know, all that's been Englished is Boccaccio on poetry: being the preface and the fourteenth and fifteenth books of Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum gentilium in an English version with introductory essay and commentary by Charles G. Osgood (Princeton Univ. Press 1930, reprinted in the Library of Liberal Arts, Bobbs-Merrill, 1956). Wareh 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for those leads, I will follow up on that. --Doug ^talk 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where can I found procommunist resources about the establishment of East Germany??

Where can I found procommunist resources about the establishment of East Germany?? Partiuclary I'm looking for information about grasroot campaings and the redistribution of Juker lands. --Jacobin1949 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you want current resources or contemporary to the establishment? 惑乱 分からん 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to find, but aside from histories published in German in the GDR, there is the illustrated English-language Difficult years bear fruit, published in East Germany. If you read German, there are many more possibilities. Marco polo 23:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying to identify a painter

Hi, good Wikipedians

I'm trying to remember the name of a painter, who I'm pretty sure is a man. I think he was mostly active around the 1950's. Unfortunately I don't know the titles of any of his paintings, but I'm hoping if I describe a few someone might be able to point me in the right direction.

His style is realistic, but slightly caricatured, the faces, expressions and poses somewhat stretched or exaggerated

I think one of his most famous paintings is Thanksgiving themed, with a whole family gathered around and somebody bringing a turkey to the table

Another one, from just after the Jim Crow laws were overturned depicts a black girl walking to school looking very proud, and a egg smashed on a wall behind her.

The other one I remember has a girl with a black eye and a kind of dopey grin sitting outside a principle's office at school.

As I recall a lot of his images featured children and/or family settings.

Sorry if this isn't much to go on, but any help would be appreciated. Much thanks :) --Cryptess 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You must be thinking of Norman Rockwell. ---Sluzzelin 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! Thats him. Many thanks ^_^ --Cryptess 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

superbowl 41 2007 pregame show

Apparently, the pregame show featured the "Elements of Life Orchestra" featuring vocalist "Anane." Does anyone know the name of the actual song/composition that was performed? dr.ef.tymac 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals and The Law

Is vandalising of Wikipedia covered by the UK computer misuse act and analogous laws of other countries?

Incidentally, if someone punches me in the face, and I don't want to press charges, they can get away with it whereas if someone murders me, if I'm not mistaken, they are charged regardless of my wishes - is there a name for the distiniction of two offences in the respect of whether or not the victim may decide whether or not the offender should be subject to justice? --Seans Potato Business 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your second question, you are referring to the difference between the civil and criminal sides of the law. If you want to "press charges" against someone for punching you in the face, you are bringing a civil action against that person. Under the criminal law, the government brings charges against the offender. As you noted, usually this is for a crime of serious public concern (murder being a good example). However, I believe the state could still press criminal charges against the person who punched you in the face, regardless if you wanted to press charges on your own, if it really wanted. However, limited resources mean that lesser crimes such as this are rarely prosecuted. GreatManTheory 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what GreatManTheory was referring to with the civil/criminal distinction, but the term "press charges" has an interpretation that has nothing to do with any kind of civil/criminal distinction. The interpretation you seem to be referring to in your question has more to do with whether you want to *help* the government to pursue criminal charges against someone, which is a factor they may consider when deciding to whether to prosecute. Another factor is the seriousness of the criminal charges (Battery vs. Homicide in the example you gave). Even in cases of Homicide, the government may opt not to prosecute (for example in a plea bargain). In some jurisdictions, an action against you may constitute a both Crime and a Tort, which is where the "civil/criminal" distinction may arise, but this has nothing to do with the definition of "press charges" that you seem to be asking about. DISCLAIMER dr.ef.tymac 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is my understanding that the criminal/civil distinction is very appliable in the present situation. If the government wants to bring a criminal charge for battery, homicide, or any other crime, it does so on behalf of the people (as in the community), and not on behalf of the victim. Thus, whether the victim wants to see the person punished or not is not legally binding, although I'm sure it is a factor in the decision making. Of course, the willing help of the victim is helpful in obtaining information, but it is not required. The goverment can always force the victim to testify if necessary. However, if the person wants to bring a tort action against someone for battery, he would file a civil action against the offender. In this case, it is the individual bringing the case, and not the government and so the individual himself makes the final and only decision on whether to proceed with the case. And yes, "press charges" can mean either a civil or a criminal suit, but I didn't see that as the crux of the question. GreatManTheory 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lint on the television

I've tried googling it but I have had no luck. I distinctly remember a "shocking moment" in which the president at the time, Lyndon Johnson, picked a piece of lint off Lady Bird's dress on national television. I remember that it embarrassed her greatly and that she told the story for decades afterward (probably how I heard about it). Can anyone give more insight into it and tell me if it's of use to cite in the trivia section of their articles? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lint picking pales in comparison to showing reporters his surgical scar or licking his dog up by the ears. I would not even mention lint picking. Edison 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Culture and the internet

what might be the ramifications of the hypertext on culture? The hypertext transforms a text, which no longer has a set meaning, but how can we look upon a text as a unit when it is led into different directions by "links". There are no authors any more(in the sense that nothing new or amazing can come from an online publication), only writers and users, most of whom do not write very well. What is the future for culture when it is being degraded as it is? Also, does anyone know of any idea of where we are headed with the hypertext? What's next? Thank you for any comments on this you might have, it would be greatly appreciated. Henry Adams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.124.63 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I disagree with your comments that "there are no authors any more" and that "nothing new or amazing can come from an online publication". I have come across many things new and amazing online, and there are many authorial voices. Bloggers, especially those with a broad following, are an example of this. I am also not sure that culture is being "degraded". It is true that the internet allows many to publish without meeting the quality standards typically required by print publishing. But there are also people online who do meet those standards. I think that what we have instead with the internet is a migration of conversational culture into a (sometimes poorly) written format and forum. While the quality of the discourse is often not up to the level that might have been found in an edited and printed magazine, there is a compensating advantage in that a much greater number of people are able to participate actively as producers and not just consumers of content. This has allowed a degree and volume of exchange and cross-fertilization that did not exist in the days before the internet and that, in my opinion, has enriched global culture. Marco polo 14:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, plus I would put fourth that MTV, or reality television are far more damaging and degrading to culture than the internet could ever be. Cyraan 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response- very helpful. Please consider that the author I was thinking about was the person who writes a set text, and that text is left to be as it was- hence, he has an identity that cannot be changed, apart from by the individual reader at the time of reading(who might add his own interpretations, personally). With the internet, however, the author writes a piece and it is taken apart by anyone who wants to add to it, links that move away from the original text, and other online pieces. Because of this the author's identity is changed by the other authors online. The hypertext does not allow the text to remain static for long enough for the readers own interpretation. Clearly, the significance of this on culture (and difference between individual cultures)is effected on the global scene. Any thoughts? Henry Adam

Your analysis seems to rely on a shaky and debatable premise: the notion that "fixed" text is somehow the historical antecedent to "hypertext," and that the encroachment of the latter is somehow influencing the definition of "authorship," which depends on the "fixity" of print media. This premise shaky because: 1) traditional print media already has many examples where the definition of 'authorship' is not trivial or obvious (see e.g., Bible, Work_for_hire); 2) print media are subject to revision, republication, redaction, sometimes even *requiring* frequent and unpredictable change (see e.g., West American Digest System); 3) some philosophers and scholars would debate there even *is* such a thing as the "fixity" that you imply in your premise (see e.g., Deconstruction, Operationalization). Just some thoughts, I hope this question was not a substitute for doing homework ;) dr.ef.tymac 15:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

--Henry, the same complaints were made in the early part of the age of print, in the rise of popular culture in the 19th century, and over and over again in the 20th century. Certainly in my youth, I heard the same complaints about TV and commercial arts. If you take "meaning" to mean "reference", then texts have never had set meanings. If you take "meaning" in the Derridean sense of internal structures of opposition, then texts have always had an indeterminate number of meanings open to exploration. Consider the constant process of discovering and rediscovering different meanings in the works of Shakespeare - a process that has been unquestionably fruitful and productive, and has gone on for several centuries. This undermines any claim that a lack of set meanings is something new. I don't see how hypertext is ever going to change any of that.

And there most certainly are authors. Postmodern authorship is perhaps more explicitly about repurposing other works than in the past - it is maybe more aware of its self-referentiality than in past ages. I like to use Quentin Tarantino's films as examples, but it's a pervasive phenomenon across not only the arts, but practically all text production. Blogs are almost a trivial example. But greater self-awareness is really about all that's changed. It's not as if the fact of repurposing and self-referentiality have changed, merely our awareness of it. Shakespeare's plots and characters were old when he stole them, and any theory of culture that dismisses the Bard for unoriginality or denies him genuine authorship is boldly going nowhere.

As for the "degradation of culture" - that's been a line used against novelty in media since... I don't know, isn't there some kind of bitching about the degradation of culture somewhere in Plato? Egads, if there's been a time in the history of man when there haven't been complaints about the degradation of culture I'm hard pressed to think of when it might have been. Most writers suck. Most writers have always sucked. If you think authors of the past were better than those today, it's because the sucky authors of the past are forgotten, not because they didn't exist. Access to writen media is more democratic these days, so more people are able to become authors. But limited access to media in the past didn't mean that only the best authors had access to it; more often, it kept the most original works from gaining distribution in favour of mediocrity. At least the present offers more works a chance at distribution.

If I were to put my finger on some real change that hypertextuality is bringing to text production, I would look at the way it undermines social cognition by segmenting informational ecologies and restoring a type of communitarianism that people in the 19th and 20th centuries worked very hard to abolish. And, remakably, it is able to do so without ever challenging the hierarchial and undemocratic structure of western culture and media. Blogs, and other micromedia like the Washington Times, mean that any news story you read is spun a dozen or a hundred different ways into radically incompatible different texts, and then redistributed among people who use them to reinforce existing cognitive structures within their communities. A New York Times article on how the war in Iraq is going badly becomes an indictment of the President in one community, while in another community it's just more proof of how the "liberal media" is losing the war. The importance of texts published in the Times is never questioned, but their significance is impossible to ascertain. The same applies not only to news, but to popular culture. Is South Park about liberal values or conservative ones? Has the show ever taken a discernable stance on anything? Or The Simpsons? Or The Sopranos? It depends on whose blogs you read.

I would suggest that the future of culture is therefore the construction of still more limited, hierarchial, undemocratic and information-poor mass media, along with a vast system of writers and rewriters, constantly reconstructing and repurposing its output, until people who try to become well-informed about issues are even less well informed than those who make no effort at all. Ultimately, it means the restoration of a culture of bad information reinforcing bad social structures, just as existed before the liberal revolutions of the 19th century. The reduction in international correspondents in the major media, the increasing use of wire articles and pre-packaged news texts from outside sources, the consolidation of the media in the west - these are all phenomena that would fit such a theory because they turn major media outlets into little more than big budget bloggers, commenting and rewriting rather than seeing and reporting.

Of course, it may not turn out that way. There is some evidence of a contrary trend as well. The most popular shows on American TV are - for the first time in my life, if not the first time ever - routinely the best, most original and most intelligent shows on TV. Even film is slowly improving. Those media are every bit as hyperlinked as the web - The Sopranos is as hyperlinked as any blog, just chock full of references to Mafia and cop films and other media. People do seem capable of recognizing sources of creativity and information. This change hasn't yet reached the news media, or print at all much. But it may yet be coming. --Diderot 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Diderot, merci de vos points, ils clarifient beaucoup pour moi. Mais que tout cette parole au sujet d'originalité ? La culture contemporaine s'amuse avec le repitition et l'intertextuality- mais où ce fil nous ? Combien de couches doivent là être avant que ce tout devienne inaccessible et unoriginal. Et vous êtes un traducteur ? L'Internet peut vous mettre hors des affaires avec ses fonctions immédiates de traduction ! Quelle, en effet, est une bonne traduction ? Henry Adams

Yes, thanks Diderot for the excellent discussion, and thanks Henry Adams for your question. Could you please keep discussions on this page in English though? It helps maintain the continuity of the "text" and also makes it possible to search and find your question in the future if anyone else has the same or similar questions later. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and while I am (or at least was) a professional translator, I'm a much better writer in English than in French, so I'm going to stick to answering your questions in that language - not to mention that it makes the conversation more accessible. And I'm a specialist in machine and computer aided translation doing a doctorate in computational linguistics, so I know a lot about that subject, and no, there is no chance the Internet will put an end to the business of translators.

Yes, contemporary culture amuses itself with repetition and intertextuality, and at so many layers of remove, the original substance is often at quite a great distance from the media consumed. However, this stems from a very different source than hypertextuality or any new media. Media is - and always has been - a consumable product. The public has never been content with a handful of great, unchanging classics that are recirculated over and over again. As far back as the classical Greeks, we see the emergence of not especially original plots and characters, used over and over again. People want and will pay a great deal for new cultural texts even where there's precious little originality in them. The arts as an industry have always responded to this demand. Repetition and intertextuality are the backbone of the business of the arts - a multibillion dollar industry that brings more colour into people's lives every day than all the religions of the world combined. One of the functions of text production - one of its most legitimate and necessary functions - is bringing that kind of colour and feeling into people's lives.

Even if we were to do as the Marxists always suggested and abolish capitalism and with it abolish the text as a commodity, this need still would exist every bit as much in a post-capitalist society as the need for food and shelter. Demand for texts as consumable products far, far exceeds the capacity for original production. A social order must exist to meet that excess. Hypertextuality has changed none of that. Indeed, one of its most interesting properties is that it places in the people's own hands the means for text production. Postmodern text production is, in a very limited sense, a kind of Marxist economy of abundance. There is no monopoly on the means of production, and the result is enormous surpluses beyond the capacity to consume. That is one of the great changes of the age, but as I highlighted, it has a downside that should be obvious to any economist: inflation, the collapse of value, and an informational and cultural version of Gresham's law where bad texts chase away the good, and a reduction of people's text consumption to a few "junk foods" like Fox News.

But if you step away from the idea of originality and see text production as meeting social needs, the importance of hypertextuality fades away. Repetition, intertextuality, commentary on commentary on commentary - all of this is designed to meet demands and none of it represents much of a difference from the past.

As for what constitutes a good translation... a lot of ink and occasionally a bit of blood has been spilled over that topic. I am inclined personally to a sort of Marxist conception of practice as being at the root of meaning. A text is communicative when it produces the intended effect, and learning to do that in one's native language is challenge enough. A translation is the same. The only question is whose intention is should guide the judgment. This was always a burning question for Bible translators - that answer for them was God, but God's intent was always hard to agree about - and a lot of modern translation theory takes its cues from the Bible translators. In a strict sense, since I hold to a somewhat modified version of Derrida's theory of meaning (which he always attributed to Saussure) I would judge a translation on the basis of its maintenance of the original structure of oppositions within the text. Under realistic circumstances, however, this can be a poor guide for a lot of reasons that I haven't the space to go into. --Diderot 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Romans

What Roman presented a treatise that philosophically pointed to the existence of God monotheistically? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gowillitay (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Augustine of Hippo? Or do you mean Roman as in "born in Rome"? Should be plenty of examples. Pfly 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

February 6

How many Representatives are required to "compel the attendance of absent members"? Senators?

Hello. Article One, Section Five of the U.S. Constitution states, "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

What exactly is "a smaller number"?

Thanks for taking the time to look at my question. --Db099221 15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"A smaller number" means less than a majority. Each House decides, in its own rules, how many that is. Corvus cornix 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The House rules say a majority of at least 15 members can compel the attendance of absent members. The Senate rules say a simple majority can compel absent senators to show up. -- Mwalcoff 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Finance for Seniors

Can a person age 66-1/2 file for social security, receive benefits and still maintain employment for full salary of upwards of $70,000/yr? Will their place of employment be notified of this filing for social security benefits?

Napoleon`s two sons

What happened to Napoleon's son, Alexandre by Marie Waleska? When did he die? What was the cause of death of Napoleon`s son, the Aiglon?

Alexandre Joseph Colonna Count Walewski (4 May1810-27 September1868) married twice [1] (1831) Catherine Caroline Montagu (daughter of the 6th Earl of Sandwich, by whom he had a son and a daughter (both died in infancy), [2] (1846) Maria Anne Alexandrine Catherine Clarisse de Ricci, by whom he had three daughters and a son (one daughter died in infancy), and had an affaire with the actress Rachel which resulted in a son, who has living descendants. The Aiglon died of tuberculosis, though as usual, some people claim he was poisoned. - Nunh-huh 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was "rumored" that "Aiglon", Napoleon II, Duke of Reichstadt, was poisoned by Metternich's spies, rather as Salieri was "rumored" to have poisoned Mozart.--Wetman 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Judaism is/was polytheistic?

is there anywhere in the j. old testament where yahweh specifically says there is no other god but him, or does he just command his followers to only worship him and not "those other rubbish gods"? i know people say judaism is monotheism but is it really?

Interesting question. The Shema, one of the most important prayers in Judaism, is a simple statement pronouncing and reasserting the oneness of God, taken from Deteronomy 6:4. "Shema Israel, Adoshem [sic] Elokeinu [sic], Adoshem [sic] Echad" ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is ONE"). It seems clear from this seminal prayer of Judaism that there is but "one" God.

Additionally, the first words of the Torah or the Christian Old Testament speak simply of "God". Specifically, they are: "Bereshit barah Elokim [sic] et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" ("In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth"). It would seem by this statement that it was considered as a sort of given that only one God exists. Otherwise, it would only be logical to first identify just which God is being referred to, before going into just how He went about creating the universe. Loomis 05:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Henotheism#Israelite_beliefs_and_Judaism, perhaps. --Shirt58 09:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I read that there was some serpent which could be assumed for a staff if it was hypnotized stiff, or something, and you could wake it up by throwing it to the ground. I read it in the Danish comic Nofret, though, so I'm not sure on how accurate it is. 惑乱 分からん 12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You could also check out the Ten Commandments, which according to the biblical text, were spoken by God to all of the Jewish people. It must've been quite a show. Avoiding the usual debates about "were there 10?" and "are they all commandments?" depending on your take on religion, the first or first/second commmandment is/are taken as a commandment/including a commandment to monotheism. Sorry that's complicated - biblical interpretation often is. Check out our article. --Dweller 14:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some interesting passages in the Pentateuch or Torah that suggest that the early Israelites recognized the existence of gods other than their own God. For example, Exodus 15:11 asks "Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?", and Exodus 18:11 states "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly." Deuteronomy 4:7 reads "What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him?" Deuteronomy 6:14 commands "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you." Deuteronomy 10:17 states "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes." This seems to me quite close in sense to the questioner's scenario in which the Israelite's God commands them to worship only Him and not those other "rubbish gods" (such as the Canaanite gods who accepted bribes). This however, does not exactly mean that the Israelites were polytheistic, since they worshipped only their God. Marco polo 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of interpretation, of course, but the passages can be read as acknowledging that other nations have their gods (lower case g) which are not to be worshipped, but that they're not really God (upper case g). In a similar way, one would call a child's toy car "a car", even though it doesn't really work like the car parked outside your home. The most famous allegation of polytheism in Judaism actually stems from Genesis 1:1 where the name used for God ("Elohim") is plural. There are many ways of debating this issue, a simple one being that the verb form tied to it ("bara", created) is singular, therefore referring to a single entity. Elohim famously is a common usage for God's name in the early chapters of the Bible. --Dweller 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

jesus crucifixion = odin on world tree?

is there any reason to suggest that the jesus crucifixion story is a rehash of the norse odin death-and-rebirth on the world tree story? they seem very similar. is there any way norse teachings could have reached the middle east?

Have you read our article on Odin, particularly Odin#Odin_and_Jesus? It discusses your question quite fully. --Mnemeson 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps the other way around, like middle eastern teachings reaching the north? There are some who believe that religions simply influenced each other during the millenia (some may even say copied from each other). This is easy to follow with the gods of classical Antiquity; the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and Germanic gods. There is always a female god of Beauty: Venus, Aphrodite, Hathor, Freya. A big mighty boss: Jupiter, Zeus, Amon-Ra, Odin. ETC There might be big diffrences amongst them but also great similarities. Even our modern religions are not immune. Notice how the story of Horus and his mother Isis is in some ways similar to the story of Jesus and Mary. How about Aten, the only God and the Jewish-Christian-Muslim God? How about the Genesis and the ancient Greek mythology, both say more or less that: "at the beginning there was only Caos". How about the similarities between Loki, Seth, Judas? There might be mighty differences but many ideas are in many fascinating ways the same. Basicly almost all religions try to answer the old eternal questions: Where do we come from? What are we doing here? Where are going? How can I reach "enlightment"? (damned if I know what that really means) Is there a life after death? If everybody is asking the same questions then the answers (religion/mythology) are bound to be quite alike. Flamarande 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Greek myth of Prometheus could also be compared to Christ (though strangely the article doesn't mention it). Prometheus brought fire from the Gods to humans, and for this he was punished (pretty harshly, too!) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Herodotus in his History mentioned the similarity of all religions. Everyone seemed to worship Zeus. There was one tribe that only worshipped Zeus, and no other .. ;)

The question of who was first goes to the heart of credibility. Not many today worship Odinn. American religions and Asian religions seem quite different from European/Middle Eastern, so, I would say that if the Norse mythos was older, then they would be the influence. I suspect Babylonians might have had more influence, though. DDB 11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo Davinci

I was reading your article on Leonardo Davinci, and I just wanted to let you know there was an error "In 1882 Leonardo, whom Vasari tells us was a most talented musician, created a silver lyre in the shape of a horse's head." Shouldn't that be 1482? Otherwise, he would have lived 400 years.

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it in the article. For future reference, did you know you can edit the articles yourself? - Akamad 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What score does a hole in one give?

In golf, how much is a hole in one worth?--70.129.200.128 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The score in golf is determined by the par of the hole. So if it's a par 3, and they get a hole in one, their score is -2. If it takes them 2 shots, then it's -1 and so forth. - Akamad 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be more correct, the score in golf is determined by adding up the number of shots a player takes on each hole. Although scores are generally reported in relation to par, they exist independently. A hole in one indicates that the player needed only one shot to get the ball in the hole, and is consequently worth one stroke.

Other golf terminology, such as "birdie" or "bogey" are depndent on par for determining their precise value. A hole in one is always worth one, regardless of what par is. Carom 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist schools in Vietnam

Which is the main Buddhist school in Vietnam?

Per our Vietnam article, Mahayana Buddhism is the predominant version of that religion in Vietnam. Marco polo 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist schools in South Asia

Which Buddhist schools does India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have? I read the article but it didn't specifically say which is the main school of Buddhism. Thanks.

In Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, Theravada Buddhism is the predominant school of that religion.

The article Buddhism in India does not give enough information to be certain about relative numbers. However, the article states that, prior to about 1900, Buddhism in India was confined to tribal groups along the borders with Burma (present-day Myanmar), who, per the article Buddhism in Bangladesh would be predominantly Theravada and in the Himalayas, who would adhere to Tibetan Buddhism. Since 1900, there has been a Buddhist revival in India, facilitated by Buddhist monks and religious figures from Sri Lanka, where Theravada Buddhism is practiced. Presumably, these converts are also Theravada. Also, there has been an influx of Tibetan refugees into India. Ethnic Tibetans mainly practice Tibetan Buddhism. Marco polo 02:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics is the language of God

How old is this idea? I understand the Egyptians believed in a kind of divine geometry, and that the Pythagoreans had a kind of mystical mathematics, but when was the first time someone suggested that mathematics was not only a divine science, but also a language in and of itself?

Thanks very much - I realise this is a bit of a curly question - any responses would be appreciated Adambrowne666 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the history of ideas, mathematics as a language was a conception of the mid-17th century: see this review of Einstein's Heroes: Imagining the World Through the Language of Mathematics by Robyn Arianrhodat, at American Scientist Online. Not really a question for us humanities folk. --Wetman 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics, as we understand it, did not exist until recently. Descarte linked geometry with algebra in a special way. Lord Napier gave us decimal numbers. Fibonnacci brought Hindu Arabic numbers to the West. Ancient Greeks thought in terms of number and geometry, making discoveries linking modelling and observation, but not necessarily practise. Thales of Miletus made some fabulous discoveries, according to Aesop.

However, for your question, there is an assumption of a singular god? That is a modern concept. The middle ages saw the Christian church (with monks) link with learning. The statement is suggestive of a renaiscance figure. Possibly Kepler, who wrote of the Harmony of the Spheres, or Isaac Newton, who wrote Principia Mathematica. Kepler would be sincere, Newton more wry. Unlikely to be Galileo, who was hostile through experience, to the church. DDB 11:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Galileo stated that mathematics is the language in which God wrote the universe. DDB 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Galileo_Galilei#Scientific_methods . ---Sluzzelin 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sects In Sikhism?

Does Sikhism have sects or schools like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism?

The article Sikhism lists several Sikh or Sikh-related sects (near the end of the article) whose practices or beliefs differ from those of mainstream Sikhs. This implies that there is a mainstream, or orthodox, sect, and some non-mainstream offshoots. Marco polo 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Independent Eastern Christian Church

Is there such sect as Independent Eastern Christian Church?

I cannot find evidence of an organized sect with that name. There are, however, a number of independent eastern Christian sects or churches. Marco polo 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In Eastern Orthodoxy, some state churches are autocephalous, "self-headed". --Wetman 07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

nudism religion

Is there such religion where people worshipped their god in nude?

Lots, probably, but Wicca and its sky-clad rituals pop most readily to mind. - Nunh-huh 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion is a relative term. Nudists may claim religious inspiration if it is convenient. So any examples are fluid.

Early Mormonism may have had some devotees, though I doubt it mainstream. Sects like of Jonestown or Koresh had liberal views on sex/marriage. Thing is, religion is termed that because of certain laws guarenteeing freedoms, including tax relief. They mightn't exist in some cases if they were treated as mere corporate bodies. I have heard interesting stories regarding J Edgar Hoover. Sorry I'm not more helpful. DDB 10:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Many fertility religions would have involved sexual intercourse in their worship. See Dionysus (particularly the link to Livy's description of the Bacchanale) and possibly Astarte. --Dweller 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Some early christian sects were synchretisms between christian doctrines and pagan or hedonistic traditions. Some of their rituals would end up in orgies to celebrate fecondity. I'll let you guess what such sects as the "spermatophages" got up to in order to celebrate their union to the god(dess) of fertility. Keria 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

War outcomes and troop levels

Of all of the large-scale international wars in modern history (let's say after American independence), what percent have been won by the side that committed the most troops to the conflict (with technological advancement, other resources, etc. ignored)? C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be a large research project, which may be beyond the time that most Reference Desk editors have available for this sort of thing. The first task of such a project would be to determine what constitutes a "large-scale international war". For example, does the current Iraq War qualify? Once those parameters are determined, you might want to search for figures for each conflict in The Encyclopedia of Military History by Trevor and Richard Dupuy, though this covers only the period up to the mid-1980s. For more recent conflicts that meet your parameters, you might be able to find troop numbers in the relevant Wikipedia articles. Obviously, you would also need to record which side won each conflict. Then record the conflicts in which the side with the greatest troop strength won, tally the number that meets this criterion and compare it to the total number of conflicts meeting your parameters. Sorry not to answer your question directly, but I have laid out for you a way in which you might be able to find the answer yourself. Marco polo 02:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of cultural reference in Love Minus Zero by Bob Dylan

Firstly, please note that this is not a question about a Bob Dylan song per se, in case someone wants to move it to the Entertainment desk. In the song "Love Minus Zero/ No Limit," there is a line that goes "Madams light the candles." What is this referring to? Do they place the candles in rooms where the prostitute is still available? The Mad Echidna 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it's sometimes fruitless to search for meaning in Dylan lyrics. A lot of it's just there because he thinks it sounds good. I have no answer to your actual question about candles and prostitution, though. Sashafklein 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Macbeth help

So I'm acting out in my Shakespeare class tomorrow Lady Macbeth's famous "unsex me" soliloquy, which can be found halfway down this page. I've went through it to understand it fully, and had no trouble on anything except for the lines "you murdering ministers/Wherever in your sightless substances/You wait on nature's mischief!" I just don't get what/who she's referring to. What, do you think, could "substances" mean here? And "ministers?" I guess those are the two words that shake me up here. I just can't figure out what LM is literally getting at, and I want to understand the speech completely before I act it out. So any help to that end would be greatly appreciated. Sashafklein 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the sudden craziness of her ambition for Macbeth, Lady Macbeth is summoning up hellish spectres like the Erinyes to give her the nerve for her purpose. "Murdering ministers" here are "fell agents" who will "minister" to her in her plans, which are half-forming. Their incorporal "substances"— like ectoplasm— are sightless because they're ghostly, and because they are without reason or moral rightness. She is conjuring imaginary helpers to screw her courage to the sticking point. --Wetman 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. So she's in a way already hallucinating here, or going crazy? Sashafklein 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

She's in an extremity, on the edge. Others might scream the lines: why not try a hoarse whisper? --Wetman 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome in literary fiction

I'm looking for literary fictional portraits of people suffering from Tourette syndrome. The character doesn't have to be the protagonist, but should be a recurring character. Also, I'm interested in more recent fiction where the author was or could have been aware of the condition's existence. (Not Pushkin's Mozart and Salieri, for instance). Thank you in advance. ---Sluzzelin 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Motherless Brooklyn by Jonathan Lethem. Maybe Icy Sparks by Gwyn Hyman Rubio. And Skull Session by Daniel Hecht. Lowerarchy 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you very much, Lowerarchy. ---Sluzzelin 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this comic says it all. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it'd suffice, but there was a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode with a coprolaliac (is that a word?) chef. 惑乱 分からん 13:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

common law marrige in ohio

if a couple married by common law in ohio took place before 1991 does a grand father law exist

vincent howard

• "Common-law marriage (or common law marriage), sometimes called informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute is, historically, a form of interpersonal status in which a man and a woman are legally married. The term is often mistakenly understood to indicate an interpersonal relationship that is not recognized in law. In fact, a common law marriage is just as legally binding as a statutory or ceremonial marriage in most jurisdictions — it is just formed differently." A grandfather clause exempts people from a new law. For example if the legal age to drink is raised from 18 to 21, such a clause means people between those ages at the time it is implemented will retain their right. After explaining all that, I don't see why a grandfather clause would be needed. What would it exempt the couple from? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The questioner asks this question because common law marriage was disallowed in Ohio after 1991. However, according to this site, common law marriages contracted in Ohio before October 10, 1991, are still legally recognized and fully valid marriages. Marco polo 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)