Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities
| |||||||||
How to ask a question
| |||||||||
|
| ||||||||
After reading the above, you may
. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page. | |||||||||
How to answer a question
|
| ||||||||
April 28
China
I've have two questions to ask you about China:
In an article in a Time magazine, called 'Mother Nature:Political Reformer', it said that "China's government wants to make China a wealthy and economically advanced country without making it a democracy.But it is realizing too late that the two go together." I don't understand -the two go together?But how and why do they go together?
Also, I've heard that China's government says that China is not suited to be a democracy.Do you think that's true?If not, then why do you think China's government said that?
User:Bowei
- It seems to me that what you got here is two points of opinion, one pro-democratic the other anti-democratic, neither explaining their opinions, but going by the classic "I'm right, your wrong" approach. --Eivindt@c 06:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- There are two sides to the first point. Firstly, it's a common conception (especially in the US) that the only countries which will become prosperous are 'democratic' countries (however you define that term). When asked for examples, Americans will usually point to themselves, Western Europe, Australia and so forth as good examples of this. The argument goes that capitalism and tight control by the people over the government (so no dictators, and steep penalties for abusing power) are necessary prerequisites - the list of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, a decent (if by no means perfect) measure of wealth seems to support this claim, as most countries at the top of the list are western-style democracies. The converse argument is also stated - that most countries at the bottom of the list are either dictatorships or failed states. But there are, of course, exceptions - Brunei, for instance, #26 on the list, is an absolute monarchy and doesn't quite fall under 'democracy'. Qatar may be a nominal democracy, but it keeps a very tight lid of freedom of expression and the like, and stands proud at #11. Tanzania, virtually at the bottom of the list, could count as a passable (if somewhat corrupt) democracy. So you can see that there is a problem defining 'democracy' - is it a democratic (free and fair and regular elections, division of power...) system which is key, or is it the freedoms the population enjoy, or what? Take Singapore, a very wealthy and successful country, which is democratic but with a very heavy-handed judiciary where personal freedoms are more restricted than in most Western countries - but it's still a democracy! So while the theory may hold more-or-less true in general, it seems that there is (as always) more going on.
- Secondly, something else to consider is that cause and effect may be reversed - economic properity leads to democracy. The argument goes along the lines that more wealth for the people means the people demand a better and freer lifestyle, which the government may or may not wish to grant them. Also, a better-off population has better access to information and more ways of making their voice heard, and so are not so easily misled by government propaganda designed to keep them complacent. The problem, of course, is how to define 'wealth' - if a country is exceedingly wealthy (I take Brunei again as an example), but that wealth is concentrated in a few people (I mean, the Sultan has enough money to buy one of our planes as a toy, and those babies aren't cheap), then the vast majority of the population remains poor. Also, there is no compelling reason why more wealth to the people means more democracy - historically, it seems that the populace is perfectly happy with their government unless that government is seen to radically restrict take away that wealth. China is one of the crux examples of this, as its population is becoming ever wealthier while the government is still seen as being relatively restrictive (from an outside view). Witness the success of the The great firewall of china in keeping 'undesirable' information out of the country - for the moment, it appears to be working. Only time will tell if it stays that way.
- So, to sum up, it seems that neither explanation is completely true - there are trends in that direction, yes, but as any good scientist would say, correlation does not equate to causation. Just because most of the wealthiest countries are capitalist democracies does not necessarily mean that capitalist democracy either leads to or is caused by prosperity. For a more detailed explanation, you'll probably have to ask an economist... hope this at least went partway towards answering your question!
- Oh, and I can't really comment on the second - sorry, don't know enough. — QuantumEleven 07:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- In an interview on NBC, CBS, or ABC a couple years ago, President Hu explained the political system in China as follows: People elect their local leaders in a fully democratic way. Federal law prohibits a person from one area to run for office in another area. The leaders of local areas vote for the offices above them in a fully democratic way. The regional leaders vote for federal office in a fully democratic way. The interviewer said it wasn't a democracy like the U.S. if the people weren't directly voting for their leader (he obviously forgot about how the U.S. votes for the President). Then President Hu explained that the education system in China is very poor. He is working to improve it. Without education, democracy will not work. People will be easily tricked into voting based on things that do not matter. Then, the government will exist to take advantage of the people instead of help them. After that explanation, I thought that President Hu did his homework. Without stating anything about the U.S. directly, he jabbed our government for taking advantage of our uneducated people. Best of all, I doubt more than 10% of the viewers got it. --Kainaw (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-Its also worth noting that democracy isn't nessarily preferable -althogh as liberal westerners we like to think it is. aristotle said that the best form of governement was a benign dictatorship and i have head about india that, when people cant read, things like growth in GDP are meaningless(becuase they, presumably, dont know what GDP is), so people are elected on what might be considered trivial bases. I only say this because it may well be that, in comparing themselves favorably to india, the chinese middle classes may not WANT democracy, almost independantly of how repressive the governement is...andrew.
wagner labor regulations act of 1935
Please explain the Wagner Labor Regulations Act of 1935 and its purpose.
- Do your own homework here: National Labor Relations Act --Eivindt@c 06:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will explain it to you, by the way in about a week from now I will be earning a Doctorate in Laws, and labor law just happened to be my best subject?
The wagner act gives workers a company the write to form a union, and engage in collective actions in order to get the company negotiate. (Such as strikes). It also regulated what both the union and company could do to counter each other.
It's purpose: 1. To satisfy Unionist members of the Democratic parties new deal coalition. 2. It order encourage industral peace. Prior to this law their was much blood shed between unions and management. This bloody battles which put workers agaist security details employeed by the company occured and where over issues such as whether management will reconize the union, and it would grant union economic demands. The process laid out mandated an orderly process that governs how unions and management should behave towards anouther, and thus promoted industrial peace. 3. A final reason involved the depression, New deal planners hoped the Wagner would result higher wages, which would be spent by the worker,a and trickle into the general economy, thus helping to end the depression.
Setting of Huckleberry Finn
I haven't read the book in years and I can't find the answer in the article on the book: in which state does The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn start? I'm working on a synopsis of the musical Big River, which is based on the book, and my source doesn't mention it either. I know when I get the answer I'll feel like a moron, but, you know, there it is.... -- MusicMaker5376 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, but it's said to be a sequel to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer which is set in St. Petersburg, Missouri. The e-text is available so you could try searching in that for the names of various other states that the Mississippi flows through. --Shantavira 08:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Project Gutenberg has lots of Twain, including Huck Finn: [1]. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- it is missouri alteripse 10:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure if it was Missouri or Mississippi. Thanks! -- MusicMaker5376 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I also haven't read the book in years, but I know that Huck and Jim started out in Missouri and headed down the Mississippi River. They were aiming for Cairo, Illinois but inadvertently went past it. I don't recall how far they got after that. If they went much further down the river than Cairo, they would've been south of every point where one bank of the river is in Missouri. JamesMLane t c 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
US Citizen/Naturalization Requirements 1880 - 1945
What were the mandatory requirements for immigrants to become US Citizens between the years 1880-1945? Was learning English one of the requirements?
- I don't think being fluent in English was a requirement. I know people like Jane Addams created workshops and classes for immigrants who wanted to learn English. Maybe someone else can chime in with a better answer. Mike H. That's hot 09:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- In the 1906 novel of Upton Sinclair The Jungle, the main character, Jurgis, becomes a citizen in less than two years. Based on my own experience, I can tell you that after nine years in the U.S., I don't even have a green card. In addition, immigrants around me are
distrungled[disgruntled] for the toughening of immigration laws. I can tell you that the CIS is the most incompetent bureau I have seen. They keep telling me to wait forever and my complaints to the ombudsman are ignored.Patchouli 11:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- distrungled? Is that a variant of disgruntled, or is it a cool new word? JackofOz 11:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was distrungled once, but I'm now fully trungled again. Feels great. HenryFlower 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was planning on saying, "Don't execute me. It was just a typographic error." However, I am a teachable person and do not like to justify any of my errors - even if they were inadvertent. Thus, I thank very much you for drawing me attention to the misspelling, and I take the blame.Patchouli 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's got nothing to do with blame, Patchouli. I really like the sound of "distrungled". Obviously other people do too, as it gets a significant number of Google hits. Pity it's just a mistake for "disgruntled", which means I now can't use it for anything else. In my next life, I'm coming back to Wikipedia as "Distrungled Splinge". You heard it here first. :--) JackofOz 12:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Deliberate evil?
Is there (or was there ever) a religion which advocates doing deliberate evil? That is, where the adherents of the religion know what they are doing is radically wrong, in some sense, and yet deliberately strive to do it anyway? A religion that consciously tries to make the world worse, not better? The evil they do should be considered evil by their own standards, irrespective of what outsiders may feel about it. So something like ancient Kali worship where the adherents may feel destruction is good to preserve the world order or some such would not qualify. Sorry this is kind of a weird question, and I fully expect there is no such religion... however, seeing how there may well be some experts on obscure religions here I thought I'd ask. -- noosphere 06:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm nowhere near an expert, but it seems like a logical impossibility to advocate doing deliberate evil... as it would be advocating that evil was indeed good, thereby turning it on its head. In other words, as an example, say that Evilism posits that its adherents should "always strive to do what is wrong." The implication, though, is that it is right to do a number of things, explicit or otherwise, which are "wrong." Therefore, the adherents aren't actually doing wrong (according to their ideology), but something that is right — it's just considered wrong by others. Ahh, the relativity!
- About the only way to answer your question positively would require the existence of objective evil, in which case, there's probably some ideologies may at least partially fit your description. Of course, a complete embrace to said evil would seemingly destroy the adherents to that ideology rather quickly. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 08:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't want to confound the concept of "good" with "desirable", and "evil" with "undesirable". Just because something is desirable for someone doesn't mean its good. For example, if you read some confessions by certain serial killers and some schizophrenics, they'll sometimes talk about how they knew what they were doing was "evil" or "wrong", yet they felt they had to do it anyway because God told them to, or they felt they couldn't help themselves or something along those lines. So what I'm looking for is a religion that advocates actions judged in a similar manner. That is, one that actually advocates doing evil, while being clear that the acts themselves are evil and are both not immediately good, and not done for the sake of some eventual good. I am particularly interested in what their justifications for such action would be, and also interested in what the mythology of such a religion would be. But I could do that research on my own. The hard part is finding such a religion. -- noosphere 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a trick question because everything that a religion advocate is by definition a good action. IE. religion is the ultimate authority by which good and evil is defined. Ohanian 09:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Tantric Buddhism advocates that there is good and evil for those trapped in the worldly cycle of rebirth. To prove that one is beyond this cycle, acts of deliberate evil are allowed. A popular story is a woman who offered a bowl of her urine and feces as a dinner to a buddhist priest to show that she was beyond the concept of good and evil. The priest, therefore, had to eat it to prove that he too was beyond it. --Kainaw (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can't find anything in the Tantric Buddhism article to suggest that's true. It sounds like an urban legend to me. --Hughcharlesparker 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... The Tantric Buddhism article has absolutely nothing about the Twilight Texts. I'll have to dig up my religion studies books so I can ensure what I add is properly referenced. Anyway, the Twilight Texts are the ones that discuss the indistinction between good and evil. --Kainaw (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's an interesting example, Kainaw. But it's not what I'm looking for. Maintaining that there's no difference between good and evil, or that they don't exist is not the same as acknowledging there is evil and performing such an action would be radically wrong, but striving to do it anyway... which is more what I'm after. -- noosphere 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ohanian, a religion would indeed be the authority on what is good and evil. However, I maintain that there is no contradiction in branding something evil and admitting it will make the world worse, and yet at the same time pronounce it to be desirable and even mandatory or laudable. And even if it were contradictory, I don't see why a religion couldn't take that stance anyway... many religions have apparently contradictory doctrines. -- noosphere 16:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Tijuana Brass and Ohanian. If you say something is "good", that means it's something you "should do", and vice versa. On the other hand, do you consider Discordianism a religion? I'm no expert, but I think Discordianism might actually advocate doing evil (even though that's a contradiction). —Keenan Pepper 17:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I think Discordianism is pretty clearly a joke, like the Church of the Subgenius. And I think what they purportedly advocate is more disorder-causing mischief than outright "evil". I could see a Discordian hiding a friend's car keys or performing some other practical joke, but not murdering people for his religion or otherwise causing great suffering. -- noosphere 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, one obvious answer would be that a number of religions advocate doing evil, but only if it is the lesser of two evils. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a textbook example of a false dilemma. It only seems to be a contradiction when cultural mores are perceived as universal rules. The problem is confusing because the words in which it is presented (i.e. "evil" and "should") are loaded. They require a belief in a universal morality. Without such a belief, the concept of moral obligation is meaningless.
This becomes more evident when one considers a moral law that has lost the illusion of universality. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that a person has been instilled with the belief that dancing is evil. If he retains this conviction while wilfully "committing dance", then he may perceive himself as a wilful agent of evil. Most of us would disagree, arguing that his desire to dance is innocent, and that he simply lacks the knowledge that his cultural mores are mistaken. If this person were to reject his culture and form his own moral code, would he declare dancing a sin? Obviously not. Only by aknowledging the validity of his culture's morality is he able to view himself as a sinner. Evil is culturally determined, not set "by [one's] own standards". If it were, there would be no self-loathing gays and guilt-ridden masturbators.
- Whether evil is culturally determined, relative to the individual, or absolute is really a seperate issue. So I'll just say this: one could, concievably, set one's own standards of morality and still go against them. In fact, I personally believe these are the only kinds of standards there are, despite people pretending otherwise. So yes, even the guilt-ridden masturbators are making themselves feel guilty over failing to live up to a standard they've set for themselves. But, again, this is really tangential to the question at hand. -- noosphere 04:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If we restate the creed of deliberate evil in objective terms, the fallacy becomes obvious:
If one believes "X is evil", one believes that non-X is a moral obligation. If one believes "I should do X", one believes that X is a moral obligation. If one believes that "I should do evil", then one believes that X = non-X. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument commits the fallacy of begging the question. It already starts with the premises that good actions are morally obligatory, and evil actions are morally prohibited; while those are themselves the conclusions to be proven. My whole question is about finding an instance of a theology where the morally obligatory act is evil, so I will not join you in assuming a definition of good and evil that would render such an act logically contradictory from the outset.
- Good and evil can be definied in any number of ways, and while I grant that good acts are usually morally obligatory and evil acts usually morally prohibited, I am not willing to grant that they must always be so.
- Anyway, this is not the place to argue about the definitions of good or evil. I am just looking for a religion that fits the requirements I specified. Perhaps there isn't one. But I'm not ready to toss in the towel quite yet. -- noosphere 04:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps this isn't the place to argue about good and evil, but that very matter is central to your question. If I believe good and evil are absolute rather than socially-conditioned distinctions, my answer to your question will be very different.
- If you can tell me of a religion that encourages the doing of evil, ("evil" by their own definition), then I'll be happy. This really has little to do with whether you or I would consider the act evil, or whether it's absolutely evil or not. It has to do with how the act is percieved by the edicts of the religion in question, whatever those edicts or norms happen to be. So the rest of this argument is pretty moot. -- noosphere 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- But I think we can all agree that the definition of evil is some form of moral prohibition, the enforcement of which is attributed to some kind of absolute force, whereas the definition of good is some form of moral obligation (or at least the absence of prohibition). This doesn't reject your premise -- it simply reframes it. I think there are many belief systems that match your description, for example Satanism. That is to say, they believe that they match your description, although I would have to argue that they do not actually differ from the followers of other religions.
- No, I don't agree that evil must be morally prohibited. That's the entire crux of my question. I'm looking for a religion where it's morally obligatory. Satanism is an interesting example, however... as, in a sense, they're rejecting what is good in the Christian religion (though it can be argued that Satanism is just another Christian sect) and substituting their own notion of good... presumably believing that the world would be better off with Satan ruling it. They still seem to believe they're doing good. It's just not the traditional Christian notion of good. -- noosphere 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically, the point I wish to make is that such belief systems are, at their core, just as moralistic as normal religions, and are distinguished by the fact that they base their morality on a rebellion against the morality of the mainstream religion. While they may consider themselves "deliberately evil", they are simply giving a different name to their moral obligation. They consider themselves evil because they choose to behave in a fashion that their society considers evil. They still believe they should do something, so they must have a morality. They simply believe that they should do "evil" rather than "good". These are, in the end, just names. If you ask a Satanist "What is evil?", his answer will probably be the same as that of a Christian. The Satanist accepts the underlying Christian defnitions of good and evil, but chooses to respond to these definitions in a different manner. Bhumiya (said/done) 22:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you that they're redefining the good. But not because their new definition of good is morally obligatory. It's because they believe what they view as good (ie. what traditional Christianity views as evil) would make the world better, or perhaps earning them a reward or some such, which they do not view as evil. I think they do pretty much reject the traditional Christian notions of evil. -- noosphere 22:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- If your definition for "good" and "evil/bad" is what is normally considered nowadays, in other words, Christian values, then in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche you will have a set of moral rules opposed to them. Of course, Nietzsche "agrees" that you should not kill your mother, but for very different reasons people are in modern times accostumed to. I guess this is not what you are exactly looking for, but from where I stand it's the closest we can get... since a psycopath moral code is, almost by definition, antisocial. Therefore it would destroy any society would it become widespread. --GTubio 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, in my understanding of Nietzsche, he believes there really is no such thing as good or evil, so any acts he may advocate could not by his own standards be considered "evil". Anyway, I am looking specifically for a religion, not a philosophy (though I know the boundaries can sometimes be a little blurry, as with some of the Eastern religions). -- noosphere 04:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sufic Mysticism may articulate your interest in a relgion that encourages acts, which it paradoxically defines as evil. Whereas the sober school of sufism is much more well behaved, The intoxication school of Sufism condones actually acts, which orthodox Islam condems. The goal is to experience divine esctasy and thus any act which compells one to enter that state becomes permissiable. Many muslim scholars have rejected this logic.
- You say traditional Islam would condemn these acts. But Sufism is not traditional Islam. Therefore, by its own standards Sufism does not consider the acts they encourage to be "evil". Or do they? -- noosphere 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The writings of the mystic Mansur al-Hallaj may be of particular interest to you. He writes "whoever does not know vice will not know virtue."
- But is "vice" actually encouraged? Or is it seen more like an inevitable part of the human condition by way of which one will come to know virtue? -- noosphere 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
In his writings he also retells the koranic story of Iblis, the devil in the Koran. In the Koran, Sura 38:71, he is punished for his arrogrant refusal to bow down before Adam. Al-Hallaj retells the story and actually valorizes Iblis because the good muslim should only bow down before god. Here Iblis disobeyed and suffered and did what looked like evil because of his connection go the divine.
- It sounds like the phrase "looked like" seems to be key. While it "looked like" he did evil, he actually did not, since "the good muslim should only bow down before god." What I am looking for is not a religion that encourages acts that appear to be evil but are actually good. I am looking for a religion that encourages acts it itself thinks really are evil. -- noosphere 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
In this same context he retells the story of the crossing of the red sea from the book of exodus. He valorizes Pharoh because he blindly followed his faith into the sea, never doubting, and drowned.
- It sounds like here the story is praising the doing of a lesser evil (that of killing oneself, or allowing oneself to die) in the service of a greater good (that of having faith no matter what). What I am looking for is not a religion that will tolerate a lesser evil for the sake of a greater good but one that, encourages unmitigated evil (judged to be evil by its own standards).... evil not justified by any greater good... nor done with any hope that some good may come of it. -- noosphere 04:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
As Mansur al-Hallah pens "My friends and teachers are Iblis and Pharoh. Iblis was threatened with Fire but did not go back on his proclamation. Pharoah was drowned in the Sea but did not go back on his proclamation and did not affirm any mediation at all."
The Wiki articles do not articulate this conent. Here is the source from my college course, to which this entry refers. Michael Sells. Early Islamic Mysticism. "Hallaj: Iblis as Tragic Lover." New York: Paulist Press, 1996, 266-280.
I am having trouble activiating my e-mail adress with the Wikisystem. You may contact me at [email protected]. I could e-mail the PDF for the cited article if you are interested.
- Thank you. I appreciate your effort. But this does not seem to be what I am looking for. -- noosphere 04:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Free Market Capitalism. Next question?
Chernobyl Nuclear Station after the disaster
I was reading about the accident and began wondering, exactly what did happen to the other units of the Chernobyl plant? By searching I couldn't find any references to what happened to them, except "now closed". So, can anyone enlighten me about this tidbit of information? And yes, it is obvious that they were shut down, but how fast, normal shutdown or emergency, when and so on. Thank you. Shadikka 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what happened in the immediate aftermath of the meltdown of reactor 4, if the other three reactors were turned off or not, but I suspect not -- it's very expensive and time-consuming to start a reactor back up after it's been running for a while. In the long run, the other three reactors were kept running, as the Soviet Union (and later the Ukraine) needed the electricity. According to the article Chernobyl disaster, reactor 2 was shut down in 1991 after being damaged by fire, reactor 1 was decommissioned in 1996, and reactor 3 was shut down in 2000. --Serie 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Theres still an exclusion zone around Chernobyl anyway. Jameswilson 23:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Judith Martin
Dear Lady, dear Sir, I came across a newly published bookklet "My Autobiography" by Judith Martin (2005, ISVN 1-4208-7552-3 (sc). Assuming the name refers to "Miss manners", I bought the book via Amazon, but it has evidently nothing to do with the well known "Miss manners". I did, of course check the key-word "Judith Martin". Have you got any idea who this person is, as she evidently misuses a public name? I would be gratful to get an answer. Very sincerely yours Dr. Helmut Sauer (Germany) E-Mail: [redacted to reduce spam]
- A Judith Martin is the person who writes the Miss Manners column for the Washington Post. (BTW, are we all supposed to be hating on WaPo now? That's the feeling I get from some quarters. I thought it was the WashTimes that was dodgy.) "Miss Manners" as a fictional person dates back much further, eg in the phrase "leave one for Miss Manners". But of course the Miss Manners Judith Martin doesn't have a copyright on her birth name, so any other Judith Martin is perfectly free to publish an autobiography, as one clearly has (looking on Amazon, apparently some non-notable person who went through AuthorHouse, one of those publishers that exists in the borderland of the vanity press industry). But there's no real "abuse" here. --Bth 12:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- But you may not have a complete right to your own name if you share it with a public figure and try to get into the celebrity's line of work. Bill Wyman, former Rolling Stones bassist, sent a cease-and-desist letter to a music columnist also named Bill Wyman, threatening a lawsuit if the columnist didn't include disclaimers telling readers he (the columnist) was not the former Rolling Stone [2]. Mwalcoff 23:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Tourist Gaze(John Urry)
What is tourist gaze? I have limited knowledge about this term and would like to know more about it. The idea of the "objectification of place for tourist consumption" doesnt make sense to me because isnt "place" already an "object"? -- Paul 28 April, 2006
- I'd check out our Gaze article, especially the "Effects of gaze" section; it defines "gaze" in terms of feminist theory - which is where the idea originated, in my understanding - but perhaps you could see how the same idea could be relevant to unequal power relationships between the wealthy, outsider tourist and a poorer person whose home is being visited. Also check out Objectification. ...of course, I'm not actually familiar with Said's use of the term - with luck, someone smart will come along and fill in the details before too long. CDC (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly don't qualify in that regard, but think of "objectification" in this regard as a form of commodification and subjection. To reduce a place to an object is to make it into an Other (the distinction is not between objects and actions but between subjective and objective; objectification is to make something entirely not part of the self, to make it inferior and uninvolved, to take it from the responsibilities of common humanity). Geogre 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm way out of my depth on this one, as well, but when I was thinking of objectification/commodification for tourism purposes, I was reminded of the Padaung, a group of the Karen people living in northern Thailand; I seem to recall that their custom of neck-lengthening had largely died out, until day trips from Chiang Mai to their villages became a popular attraction, and the neck-lengthening is now done pretty well entirely to attract tourists. The ethics of this sort of seem to be something that might help understanding. --23:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly don't qualify in that regard, but think of "objectification" in this regard as a form of commodification and subjection. To reduce a place to an object is to make it into an Other (the distinction is not between objects and actions but between subjective and objective; objectification is to make something entirely not part of the self, to make it inferior and uninvolved, to take it from the responsibilities of common humanity). Geogre 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I had made a mistake. John Urry should be the one who conceptualized the "tourist gaze", while Edward Said should be the one who coined the term Orientalism. I have changed back the heading. Anyway the two concepts are a little interrelated (in my understanding). But I still don't fully understand, what's wrong with this "tourist gaze" afterall? If "male gaze" reflects an inequality of power distribution between the sexes(if I am correct), what does "tourist gaze" reflects? A hindrance of the local people's way of living? (Regarding the Padaung example) Anything else? --Paul 23:02, 29 April 2006
And could anyone so kindly create an article on tourist gaze? -- Paul 23:15, 29 April 2006
Further small correction: I think the above jargon usage of "gaze" originated with the French theorists (Foucault, Lacan, Derrida) and was later (70s or 80s) adopted by American feminism and university English departments. alteripse 16:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Lacan and Foucault have a different form of "gaze." Feminists who derive their language from the one mean something very different from those who derive it from the other. At any rate, if you entirely encapsulate a place in the Other, then it loses any claim on your shared humanity. If Cairo is not only "not London" but is, in fact, "some place to go and do" and "some place with wogs in it," then you can behave differently than you would at home, have no regard for its abilities to have laws, have no concern for the welfare or rights of the people, etc. By turning it into a commodity, a thing bought and sold, you make it property. This is an antagonistic expression of power difference, it seems to me. (Then again, I'm so heavily Marxist in my criticism that I may be painting their analyses red.) Geogre 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
civil war
can you please tell me some african american units that were around during the civil war and please tell me what type of stuff they would do in an all black unit.
- The most famous is the 54th Massachusetts whose story was told in the movie Glory. See also the Civil War section of Military history of African Americans. Note that the army was not integrated - there were only all-black units, not mixed ones. Rmhermen 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- You (or someone using your computer) asked this question yesterday. Try using the scroll bar and moving up to see the answers that were given - especially the one about Glory (film). --Kainaw (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In these units they would fight the confederacy, snd perform other military duties. These units where considered above average, espessally in terms of discipline. What individual units did varied, however at the begining of the war most of their activity involved menial work.
- As I also answered in the previous question on this subject, the article Buffalo Soldier, and its associated links, is also probably quite useful. Grutness...wha? 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Buffalo soldiers were after the war though. Rmhermen 03:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- True, but the article gives some details of the history prior to the formation of the Buffalo Soldiers in 1866, specifically the role of black soldiers during the ACW. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Angel" at the Ambassador Hotel
Which episode(s) of the TV show 'Angel' was shot at the Ambassador Hotel in LA? - Redgie
- "Parting Gifts", according to The Buffy Trivia Guide, though this conflicts with our The Ambassador Hotel article, which claims it was a third season episode, without any cite. I've amended the article on the grounds it's probably a third/first mishearing or something. --Bth 09:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
April 29
Vietnam War Draft
Based on my reading of Wikipedia articles, I think that the Vietnam War draft lasted for four years, 1969-1973. Is this correct?Patchouli 02:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Actually that is not correct, almost continously from from WWII to 1973 the U.S. had a draft. What changed in 1969 is the draft was reformed. These reforms involved removing most deferents that had helped parties such as college students get out of military service, it also took draft system and changed from locally controlled to nationally controlled. These reforms where put in place mainly to take away the perception that the draft favored the rich and affluent. The old system was viewed as bias because the people who get deferents where usually more affluent, in addition the control by local draft boards increased likely hood of chacanary.
Tablature/Chords to Farewell to Nova Scotia
I'm looking for the tablature or chords to the public domain song Farewell to Nova Scotia. According to this Wikipedia entry it's in the public domain, but I can't for the life of me find the tabs/chords. Thanks! --Silvaran 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
differances
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF PREMELINIAL AND AUMELINIAL OF THE BAPTIST FAITH
- Premillennialism is the belief that Revelation (specifically Chapter 20) is a literal prophecy foretelling future events, and specifically within that context that the Second Coming will happen before a literal 1000-year-rule by Christ on Earth. Amillennialism is a belief that Revelation should be taken more symbolically than literally, and that the church already represents a spiritual kingdom ruled by Christ from heaven.
- There's also postmillennialism, which teaches that we're already in a more subtly interpreted "millennium" (not necessarily of exactly 1000 years), which will culminate in the Second Coming. --Bth 08:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
UNITAS?
Can someone give me a short definition of what UNITAS is? Best I can make out is that it is some type of military designation in South America--a coalition between the U.S. and other countries' militaries?. "Since 1959 UNITAS has been instrumental in improving working relationships among U.S. and Latin American naval forces. Promoting friendship and understanding between participants and people, this year’s exercise focuses on engaging nations to face their common threats and devise multilateral responses"[3]. I am translating a Spanish Wikipedia article where the term appears and it has me stumped. There is no article on it here or there.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Great. Much appreciated. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The Government,The Environment, & Human Rights
In the official website of Amnesty International[4], there was an article which said that many people in the world have been persecuted,arrested,imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed,etc for speaking out and campaigning for the environment and against environmental damage.
I don't understand.First, I thought governments are supposed to care about the environment.(I mean, making environmental laws,controlling pollution,funding convservation programs, and educating people about the environment,etc.)If governments care about environment and environmental issues, then why would they persecute or imprison people for telling them about environmental problems and the need to solve them?I mean, how come they're doing that?
Second, traditionally, it has been businesses and industries, not governments, who don't like environmental concern and campaigns, because it means having to stop doing things that provide some of their profits.So why would governments don't like people campaigning for more attention and solutions to environmental problems?
- Many many governments view industrial and economic growth as very important, and thus are on business's side to at least some extent (note that the US govt's stated reason for not signing Kyoto is not that it's not going to fix anything -- a proposition I actually agree with -- but that it would unfairly inhibit their growth). Many governments take large donations from industrial concerns, but I'm sure they wouldn't let that affect their decision-making. More fundamentally, all democratic governments do poorly when looking at things on timescales beyond the next election, especially in "short term pain for long term gain" situations -- unless the public is fully behind the need for the long term gain, they'll get voted out because of the short term pain, so it's not in their interests to do it even if it is in the country's interests. This is why we need political leadership, something sorely lacking in these days of focus groups and exquisitely tailored messages for tiny minorities of swing voters.
- This is changing, slowly, lagging public attitudes by 20 years or so -- the Greens are becoming more successful in continental Europe, especially Germany and Scandinavia, and almost everyone else is at least paying lip service to the problems.
- And in several non-European countries. The Greens came within a gnat's whisker of being a coalition partner in the current New Zealand government, and have six seats in the 122-member parliament (and ISTR that WP editor User:Alan Liefting was one of their candidates, too!) Grutness...wha? 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Next time User:Mac Davis logs in, I'm sure he'll be along to tell us that it's all a myth. --Bth 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't completely understood. Have you really gone on to that website and read it? Actually, I'm also asking about why governments would persecute,arrest, and imprison people who speak up for the defence of the environment, not just why governments would dislike it.
- Are you referring to any specific government? In most western countries, the government will not imprison, persecute or arrest people who speak up in defence of the environment, unless they are breaking the law by doing so (for instance, blowing up an oil terminal in protest at excessive use of oil is a criminal offence, even if you are doing it 'to speak up in defence of the environment'). In some of the more autocratic countries of the world, people can be imprisoned etc for speaking up in defence of the environment, but that is almost never the 'given' cause - for instance, holding a rally to protest deforestation in a country where unsanctioned public gatherings are forbidden could well land you in jail - but only because you held an unapproved demonstration, not because you were protesting deforestation. In some countries, if you speak out in any way against the government, it's a punishable offence - so if the government is doing strip mining and you say strip mining is bad, you can land in jail - but, again, only because you broke the law.
I personally don't know of any countries which persecutes etc people for the sole reason of supporting environmental causes - no more than it would persecute people who hold views incompatible with theirs. The Amnesty website is a bit misleading in this regard. (unless, of course, someone gives me a counter-example! :))— QuantumEleven 09:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC) - Sorry, a bit of a clearer explanation - that was too general. There are some countries which rely heavily on exploitation of their environment (for instance, a country which is polluting its countryside to tap the oil fields underneath). If someone speaks out against this, they can be seen as harming national interests and so could be 'silenced' - however, this generally happens only under autocratic or corrupt regimes. But companies do this somewhat more regularly - they have business interests to protect, and those pesky environmental regulations just make them lose profits, y'know? So they try to discredit anyone who makes such ridiculous claims such as their dumping of their waste into a nearby river. And, in some countries, the government is so closely linked (or even controlled) by business interests that they become an extension of company policy. Does that satisfy you as an answer? — QuantumEleven
So you're saying that some governments try to stop people from speaking up for the defence of the environment becuase they listen too much to businesses. But why? Why would governments (both democratic and autocratic) listen too much to businesses, I mean listen much more to them than to environmentalists and environmental groups?
- No, I said that that could be one of the reasons - since your question addresses the whole world, it becomes very difficult to make a statement without an awful lot of qualifiers or some gross simplification and generalisation. But let's assume that there is a country where environmental views are repressed by the government because it goes against business interests which the government 'listens' to. Businesses help to make a country prosperous, and governments generally aim to make their contry prosperous, so a government may decide that short-term wealth gain is more important than long-term environmental damage (especially if there is an election coming up - environmental effects usually take a lot longer than the time between elections to manifest themselves, while monetary gain or losses happen a lot faster). Or, another reason, businesses (and the people who run them) may be wealthy, and that wealth may stem from producing without heed for the environment, so in order to maintain their profitability, they either bribe or indirectly influence (through lobbyists or campaign contributions) the government to silence people who speak out against their practices. The party/person in power gets money and influence, the business keeps its profits, so they both seem to win - but the environment loses.
- Please note carefully that I am making an example for the sake of illustration, and am certainly not saying that this is the case everywhere, far from it. But it's a scenario to answer your query - does that help to explain it? — QuantumEleven 10:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You say that businesses(e.g. Esso) lobby governments(e.g. the Bush administration) to listen to them.But what about non-democratic governments which aren't elected and which therefore lobbying and campaigning aren't very effective to?You also say that businesses sometimes bribe governments and politicians to stop people speaking out against environmental damage.But then, couldn't environmentalists also bribe governments to protect the environment and stop environmental damage?
- Speaking as an environmentalist, I can assure you that big business has more money than we do. Lots more. Also, outright bribery is only part of the picture. Anti-environmental forces use their superior money and access to media to persuade many people that environmental protection will hurt their short-term interests, e.g. by reducing the number of jobs. JamesMLane t c 09:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
american indian citizenship
Are american indians citizens of the United States? Does it depend on where they were born? How do they accquire citizen's rights and obligations such as the right to vote and to pay taxes?
- As far as I can see, if they are born in the US, or have US parents, they are American citizens, with the same rights as all US citizens. Why shouldn't they be? --Shantavira 11:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Careful. The questioner is right to ask, as the Indian nations have some forms of sovereignty. I think the question's answer may be somewhat complex. (Remember: the various Indian nations were negotiated with by treaty, not by law.) Geogre 11:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Some Indians weren't U.S. citizens before the 1920's, but all of them are now if they're born inside the U.S., or meet other general citizenship requirements. AnonMoos 15:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Does being born in a sovereign Native American state such as Navajo Nation count as being born inside the US though? -lethe talk + 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note for example, that people born in American Samoa are not US citizens, but only US nationals, and American Samoa isn't even a sovereign state, it's a US territory. Citizens of Guam were only granted US citizenship in 1950 by the Guam Organic Act of 1950. The article Native Americans in the United States says
- There are 563 Federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. The United States recognizes the right of these tribes to self-government and supports their tribal sovereignty and self-determination. These tribes possess the right to form their own government, to enforce laws (both civil and criminal), to tax, to establish membership, to license and regulate activities, to zone and to exclude persons from tribal territories. Limitations on tribal powers of self-government include the same limitations applicable to states; for example, neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or coin money.
- which leaves me wondering. And the article Political divisions of the United States says
- Indian reservations are a separate and special classification of political division of the U.S. Under U.S. law, Indian tribes are sovereign nations, meaning that their legal authority to exist derives independently of the state and federal governments. However, under this definition of tribal sovereignty, they cannot act independently of the federal government, but they are immune from regulations under state law. Until the late-19th century, agreements between the U.S. government and Native American groups were generally called treaties, however these are now considered domestic legislation despite their name, and, since the passage of the Dawes Act in 1883, no new treaties with Indian tribes have been concluded.
- Which still doesn't answer. Finally, I find in the article Tribal sovereignty:
- Though Congress on June 2, 1924 extended national citizenship to include members of enrolled tribes, the court concluded two Oglala Sioux defendants convicted of adultery under tribal laws did not enjoy legal protection afforded to other citizens by the US Constitution. The court cited case law from a pre-1924 case that said, "when Indians are prepared to exercise the privileges and bear the burdens of one sui juris (not under the power of another), the tribal relation may be dissolved and the national guardianship brought to an end, but it rests with Congress to determine when and how this shall be done, and whether the emancipation shall be complete or only partial ..." (U.S. v. Nice, 1916). The court further determined, based on the earlier Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock case, that, "It is thoroughly established that Congress has plenary authority over Indians." The court held that, "the granting of citizenship in itself did not destroy ... jurisdiction of the Indian tribal courts and ... there was no intention on the part of Congress to do so." The adultery conviction and the power of tribal courts were upheld.
- So, in 1924, citizenship was granted to the sovereign tribes, but it's somehow not equal citizenship. They do not get full protection of the constitution, they are somehow independent. -lethe talk + 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note for example, that people born in American Samoa are not US citizens, but only US nationals, and American Samoa isn't even a sovereign state, it's a US territory. Citizens of Guam were only granted US citizenship in 1950 by the Guam Organic Act of 1950. The article Native Americans in the United States says
- Last time I read about this, it was still a sensitive and ambiguous area. American Indian tribes have traditionally wanted more sovereignty, and this they eventually received, but where does this leave American Indian individuals? Since the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. states cannot legally violate the civil rights of residents of their states (of course, this took about a century to enforce, but I digress). But does this limitation apply to tribes? Tribal governments do not want the U.S. Federal Government interfering in their internal affairs. Therefore, if a tribal government violates the U.S. civil rights of their Native American members, can the Federal Government intervene, as they do with the states? Last time I read, this was still ambigious. I don't know the current interpretation, and my information may be out of date, but this was the state of affairs ten years ago, when Fergus Bordewich's Killing the White Man's Indian was published.
- Note that—if I'm not mistaken—this complication does not apply to American Indians who do not live in Indian Country or are not enrolled members of a federally recognized tribe—and this includes lots of people who who identify as American Indians. Before the law, those folks are ordinary American citizens.
- Bordewich noted, by the way, that American Indian tribes are, by definition, race-based governments. Non-Indians who live on tribal lands (there are many) are not represented in the tribal government, cannot serve in the local government, and do not enjoy equal protection under tribal law. --K
Thanks: I know the Chamurro Indians of Guam are citizens and the Puerto Ricans are and I'm glad to learn that we (the gov't) does not discriminate against the native Americans
- The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act made citizens of all Indians born in the US (or of US citizens). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
congregation
in hinduism, sikhism and buddhism, which day is their congregational prayer?
- Buddhism does not have a "special" day of the week (or "prayer" as such, though most Buddhists "worship" their ideal). Many Buddhists (certainly all "traditional" Buddhists) meditate at least once a day, either alone or, especially if they live in a Buddhist community, with other Buddhists. The full moon day once a month is traditionally a time for meeting together for talk and study, but most Buddhist groups in the west meet up at least weekly. In my own school of Buddhism, there are activities of some sort at the Buddhist Centre every night of the week and at weekends. --Shantavira 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Congregation comes from a latin root meaning sheep. They have less sheep East of Jerusalem. --DLL 12:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Australia is east of Jerusalem and they have A LOT of sheep. - Mgm|(talk) 08:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's from the Latin word meaning "crowd" or "flock", but not specifically of sheep. "Ovis" means sheep. :--) JackofOz 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Congregation comes from a latin root meaning sheep. They have less sheep East of Jerusalem. --DLL 12:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Star Wars
Can you tell me which person lost out on the part of Han Solo when Harrsion Ford was given the part?
- Harrsion Ford? Never heard of him. To find out who auditioned for the role of Han Solo, you might want to check Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It was Christopher Walken. This was back when he'd just done The Deer Hunter, and people took him seriously. Brian G. Crawford 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
English Renaissance
What period came after the Ren period? I know it was preceded by the Middle Ages....
- I don't know that there's a single commonly-used term guaranteed not to overlap with "Renaissance", but "early modern" and "Counter-Reformation" are sometimes used. In English history, there's "Stuart". AnonMoos 21:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Labels fall off most things. The glue on historical labels is pretty strong. Generally, after the Ren. we have Interregnum. After that, we have English Restoration. After that, we have either "18th century" or "Augustan" or "Enlightenment." After that, we get "Georgian," "Victorian," and "Edwardian," in England. For the world of the west in general, folks use the term "baroque" to go after "renaissance" and preceed "enlightenment." Also, before "renaissance" is not just "Middle Ages," although "medieval" can be used. After all, there is the Gothic period after the Dark Ages (a really not-used term these days), and then a number of breakdowns, like Tudor for the Henry VII - Henry VIII period in England. Geogre 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, the Interregnum is occasionally referred to as the Cromwellian or Commonwealth period, too. But yes, each country has its own history, so each country has its own set of labels for slightly different times. Grutness...wha? 03:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- If the question refers to England (which is not at all clear to me, but that's the drift the answers have taken), I'd say that most historians would call the period following the Renaissance "Early Modern"...certainly that was what it was called when I was in grad school specializing in that narrow little field. If we're referring to other countries in Europe, my sense is that "Early Modern" is catching on, but no doubt the situation varies a lot depending on who's talking and in what context. Jwrosenzweig 04:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- (I went to a very traditional place. "Early Modern" bugs me endlessly, because it suffers from the teleological fallacy, because it seems to be a way to make history "sexy" by doing a bait & switch to get students, and because I've heard and seen Chrétien de Troyes and Geoffrey Chaucer and John Milton and Matthew Arnold all called "early modern.") If that's really caught on or dominant, then I'm sorry to hear it. Geogre 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, the Interregnum is occasionally referred to as the Cromwellian or Commonwealth period, too. But yes, each country has its own history, so each country has its own set of labels for slightly different times. Grutness...wha? 03:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- What about Reformation, that's a period after the renaissance, though slightly overlapping by some reckonings. AllanHainey 13:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- In my school the bit after the Middle Ages was called "The Tudors and Stuarts" Jameswilson 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
hitler
hitler
Hitler. David Sneek 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Godwin's Law. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Himmler has something similar. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Adolf Hister, of Essex. Geogre 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Historically, Taunton has always been part of Minehead. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I heard on the radio last week that there is just one Hitler in the Berlin telephone directory today, so if you speak German, you could make a call and ask him/her. --Shantavira 08:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yellow clay coats the exterior of most buildings in Masouleh. This allows for better visibility in the fog.. --DLL 12:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Please suitly emphazi your question. Brian G. Crawford 19:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Whaling
I have looked at Japan's plan for whaling. They say the want to kill the whales to research the recent changes in Antartica. Why would you need to kill a whale to research it? I mean, what would they do...look at the whales brain and hope they figure something out? And if they are concerned about population changes, killing whales isnt going to help anything. What is the reasoning for this besides commercial value as whale meat?
- If you want to find out what whales are eating, and how well they are eating, you don't have the usual zoologist options of getting a sample of whale poo and analysing that. Therefore, you might possibly argue that killing whales and looking in their stomachs is the only way to get this information. Whether this is really Japan's motive for doing so is pretty dubious. But then, I'm an Aussie, and I think kangaroo (cooked properly) is very tasty; I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd regard me as a barbarian for eating the stuff. --Robert Merkel 00:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is relevant info in these articles: Whaling#Japan_2, Whaling in Japan, and International Whaling Commission. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, they may be researching the effect on stocks of a certain level of culling. If this is sustainable, then the original, stated, reason for the International Whaling Commission total moratorium is perhaps no longer valid. It's difficult to study the effect on whale population of killing whales unless you kill whales. (Remember, the IWC was set up, and whaling countries joined, because of a loss of stocks, not because of a popular view that whales should not be hunted. ) Notinasnaid 11:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What were the votes for Vatican II document Optatam Totius?
Can you show the votes for these documents by their titles?
- Optatam Totius shows the vote; what do you mean by your second question? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
April 30
The Number of People per car in Switzerland
On average, how many people can be found in a car in Switzerland? 65.101.68.120 02:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Heather
- According to this page, there were 476 passenger cars per 1,000 people in Switzerland in 1998. Which is of course about 1 car for every 2 people.--Pharos 03:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I greatly appreciate it!
Heather
- You may also be interested in the English website of the Swiss statistics office. Sandstein 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Request for information.
There is a situation that has me baffled: it seems that there is some duplication of effort going on with a pair of articles. Can anyone explain the difference between the Lincoln Center and the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts articles?
Perhaps I am missing something... Folajimi 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You aren't missing anything other than maybe the fact that anyone can be bold and write and edit articles, and where that is true, this sometimes leads to situations where two articles on the same subject are created under different names without the author(s) of the one, even knowing the existence of the other. Thanks for catching this. I have placed templates on the pages of each article suggesting that they be merged (the less complete one into the more complete).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- What makes it worse (actually, what is often the case) is that two principles of Wikipedia naming collide. Our overall practice is to locate an article at its most used name. Thus, the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts is most often called "Lincoln Center." However, we must also use the most precise and accurate name. Therefore, because dozens of cities will have a Lincoln center, we have the article at Lincoln Center for Performing Arts. The way that this is supposed to be avoided is that whoever makes an article at a location should think of the alternatives and create redirects. Had that been done, neither author could have been ignorant of the other. Suppose that -Performing Arts was the first one. Had that author created a redirect from the most-called name, then no one would have typed that in, seen "no article" and gone to create it. If "Lincoln Center" was first, then the author should have investigated the topic at least well enough to know that's not the legal name and then to have created a redirect at the legal name. Word to the wise article author: anticipate redirects and create them in advance. Geogre 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Statutary Derivative action under Part IVAA of the Companies Ordinance
Can someone please explain the Statutary Derivative Action Undeer Part IVAA of the Companies Ordenance(Hong Kong) in simple English? I know it is about minority protection but I don't understand some of the tecnical terms. Because the legle language is quite tough and the sentences are long.
Thanks.
- Do you have a link to its text? Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Famous Westerner in Chinese History
Help! I am really stuck, trying to remember a name that is stuck in my head but I can't get it out. It's the name of a famous doctor who travelled to China in the early 20th century; he was noted for founding something, possible the modern Chinese Health care system. He might have been Canadian, and he might have been from Quebec. If anyone has any idea who I am talking about, I will be very happy to know. Thanks in advance. Duomillia 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean Dr. Norman Bethune, a Canadian doctor who worked in China in the late 1930s (where he helped design a functioning healthcare system), invented the first practical method for transporting blood, surgical instruments and was an advocate of universal heathcare.
Yes! That's the name! Thank you! Duomillia 16:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
beautiful women
I know theres no real right answer for this, but by common concencus or word of mouth or tradition or whatever- which country has the most beautiful women in the world? Id imagine it's russia or some other european country.
- Using the Miss Universe article as a guide, either the United States or Venezuela. The US has had seven overall winners and the most semifinal placements, but Venezuela has the best overall performance. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 07:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I am not going to discuss who is the most beautiful woman in the world but hats off to Power of powder lols there seems to be tons of them.
But back to the topic for me my mom. She truely was the most beautiful in every way. She was a great woman.
- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course. The eventual person selected will depend primarily on the system by which they are judged and whom is making the decision. The idea that there could ever be a "common consensus" on something like this is somewhat silly. --Fastfission 17:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- And Paris had to make a definitive ruling on the subject, with the result that a war broke out. Geogre 17:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
According to lore, in the early years of French settlement in Nouvelle France (that territory later conquered by the British and known now as the Canadian province of Quebec) the French sent their most attractive women to encourage their men to settle in this new colony. These women were known as Les Filles du Roi (The Daughters of the King). This is how some people explain why French Canadian women are among the most attractive in the world. Of course, being from Quebec I'm biased, but I can tell you with complete honesty that when I visit other cities in North America and mention to guys I meet that I'm from Montreal, those who have had the chance to visit almost always point out how they were totally blown away by the women. Of course I'm used to them, so if you ask me, I'd say the most beautiful women are in Scandinavia. Loomis51 22:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Some say the Filles de Roi were women without dowries, others say that at least some of them were prostitutes that the government wanted to get rid of from France... AnonMoos 07:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you're looking for stereotypes or tradition, in my neck of the woods it's definitely not Russia, who in old U.S. jokes are stereotyped as manly or matronly: the stereotype of the Russian female Olympic athelete pumped up with testosterone is a familiar one -- Anna Kournikova may have eradicated this image, however. Swedish women traditionally have a high reputation in the U.S. for beauty -- it's mentioned on the talk page of the Swedish Bikini Team. Latin American women also have a reputation for beauty in the U.S. -K
- Ignoring cultural preferences it'd probably be the country with the most women as it'd be most likely to have the most beautiful women (& also the most ugly women). AllanHainey 13:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Bengali women are extremly attractive!
casulties
in ww2 did more italians die on the eastern front or western front and can i have statistics? and did more germans die on the eastern front in world war 1 then the western?
- Overall casualty figures are still debated today, but a good start for your answer would be at World War I casualties and World War II casualties. Neither divide casualties according to geographical location, but perhaps one of the references listed would. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note that they also had significant casualties on the African front. StuRat 12:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
BIBLE
Why do people beleive jesus as a God?
- Also, no one does. No orthodox Christian faith believes Jesus is "a God," but all believe Jesus is one of the three persons of God (see also trinity). Geogre 12:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You're making a bold statement there, Geogre. What exactly do you mean by "orthodox"? As for "all believe Jesus is one of the three persons of God" that's definitely not true. Many Christian faiths do not believe in the trinity. As for the statement "no orthodox Christian faith believes Jesus is "a God," what then, is the meaning of the commonly used phrase: "Our Lord, Jesus Christ."? Just so you know, I'm not a Christian at all, and I have no bias toward any one version of Christianity over another. Loomis51 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's right. To give one example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which I once was an adherent of, believes Jesus as "a god," but not the God. Trinitarianism, while widespread in Western Christian thought, is by no means representative of Christianity as a whole. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually Trinitarianism is very representitive of Christianity as a whole, since the vast majority of Christians adhere to it. What you meant to say is that it is not adhered to by all who call themselves Christians. DJ Clayworth 15:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I was using the terms technically. Orthodox Christianity is trinitarian. Anti-trinitarians are non-orthodox. The orthodox do not regard the Church of Mormon as Christian; they are ex communicate. In the west, the orthodox churches are all of those who have the Nicean creed. This creed requires a belief in the trinity and that Jesus was of one essence with the Father but not of one person with the Father. Therefore, Jesus is and is not God, but Jesus is in no sense whatever a separate god. Furthermore, from Moses onward, Judaism and Christianity and Islam have insisted that there is only one God. Therefore, Jesus can't be "a god," if there is God, and I would be very surprised if the Mormons actually saw Jesus as a god. So, among the orthodox, we can include Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and Coptic Churches, as well as their offshoots. The non-orthodox are the smallest of small percentages of the general run of "Christian." Thus, Christians (except for the heretics of antiquity, the neo-heretical movements like the recreated "Albigensians" who sprang up in the wake of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and the churches that the rest of Christianity rejects as not being Christian (Latter Day Saints) do not believe that Jesus was "a god." They have to believe that there is only one God, and that Jesus was of the same essence as God. (Incidentally, a lot of the heretics also don't deny that Jesus was of one essence with God, but they usually reject the holy spirit as a person of the trinity. The gnostics, on the other hand, reject the Father and the Spirit and regard Jesus as being Himself spirit only wrapped in the illusion of flesh, or imprisoned in flesh.) Geogre 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- George, once you start making distinctions between true believers and "heretics", your opinions no longer belong in an encyclopedia. Again, I'm not a Christian, so perhaps I may have some perspective that you may lack. Once you begin speaking of ex-communication and such, again, your opinions don't belong in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia on Christianity is merely an as objective as possible description of the various forms which Christianity has taken.
- For example, I am a Jew. An encyclopedic description of my faith, with regards to Christianity, is that my people reject any and all divinity, whether as a God or as one of the three persons of God, of Jesus of Nazareth. According to Judaism, Jesus was a misguided man, who misguided his followers into believing he had Divine attributes. But that's just Judaism. You may indeed believe me to be a "heretic", but that designation does not belong in an encyclopedia. Should you wish to write a treatise on Christianity, by all means, go ahead. But here is not the place to distinguish between "true belivers" and "heretics". Loomis51 03:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Without an interest in going even further in depth on theology (mostly because I'm in the middle of finals on the same subject, blah); Geogre, you're speaking mostly of Nicean Christianity when you say "orthodox" (with a list that is far, far from complete), and in several generalizations — which does not represent Christianity as a whole, but only a particular branch of it (albeit the largest by far). To back up to a specific, Mormonism does indeed regard Jesus as a god, and a brief inquiry into their doctrine will show that to be so. And while they do not define "God" in the same sense that Protestantism and Roman Catholicism do, they aren't polytheistic either... in any case, the point I'm trying to get at is that Trinitarianism does not equal Christianity as a whole, regardless of its popularity. While I personally consider it an essential for understanding God, hey, that's my own personal belief, and it doesn't sum up the opinions and faith of all Christians by any means. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 08:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well said, Tijuana. I'd just like to add that I in no way meant to offend Christians by decribing the Jewish understanding of who and what Jesus was. I merely used it to make the point that as an encyclopedia, wiki does not and should not take ANY position on the validity of one faith over another. When it comes to religion, Wikipedia is meant only to describe different faiths, and their respective tenets. Nobody here is distinguished as being either a "heretic" or a "true believer". Loomis51 10:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Both of you, I'm afraid, are confusing the usage of "orthodox" and "heretic" with "I like it" and "I hate it." As I said, I was using the terms in their technical sense. Since I myself am semi-Pelagian, I would be considered heretical in that belief. The Christian Church was established with a formal structure around 100 AD. As a formal structure, it declared some beliefs heretical, others orthodox. This official structure has split off a few times (the Great Schism, then the Reformation), but each of those splitting structures has remained based on the Nicean creed. Each has maintained generally the same list of heretical views, although some have added new ones, some have changed the way that heresy is determined, etc. Secondly, if I were not using the term technically to refer to "those dogma officially endorsed by the structures of polity from 100 AD," it would still be accurate to call anti-trinitarianism as non-orthodox (not "regular," literally), due to the percentages involved. Finally, I think the questioner was posing either a trollish question or a very simplistic one. Finally finally, it is entirely encyclopedic to distinguish orthodox (those things belonging to the official structures of theological approval and judgment) and heretical; these are statements of fact, not value, and one can calmly recognize that a given belief has been denounced as irregular and even excommunicate without condemning it. If you don't believe me, I can cite NPOV encyclopedias of Christianity that speak frankly of Arianism and Socinianism and Jansenism as heresies, and therefore the Bogomil dualists and dualism are flatly discussed as heresies. One must distinguish, in fact, the encyclopedic use of the term from the popular use, as the term is popularly used for condemnation and is encyclopedically used to recognize a past condemnation. Geogre 10:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ is God, He's God's Son. It can be hard to grasp, but that is the truth. Many believe many things, some things everyone thinks to be true. The Trinity, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. God the Father sent Himself(His Son)as Jesus Christ-in some words, Emmanuel, meaning "God with us". God sent His Son to die on the cross for our sins, and therefore be able to go straight to God with our prayers. His Son, Jesus Christ rose three days later and showed many that He did rise. Him rising is showing that whomever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. So, the spirit of Jesus Christ still lives in us if we have accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. Archeology has actually proven most of what the Bible tells us. babygirl1 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Whoever wrote that last paragraph, it would be greatly appreciated if you signed it. In any case, I'm fascinated by people such as yourself who, simply, don't understand that their beliefs are just that, beliefs. You have every right to believe as you do. I have my own beliefs, and they happen to be quite different from yours. But I recognize them as beliefs. Not facts, but beliefs. I recognize, accept and respect others who do not share my beliefs.
- My belief is that Jesus is NOT God. But that's just MY belief. I have no proof either way. But that's the essence of a belief. A belief is different from a fact because a belief, by definition can't be proven, whereas a fact, by definition, can. I would only hope that you would express your belief in the form of a belief, and not a fact, because the way you've presented your belief, as a fact rather than a belief, makes you sound like a fool. Loomis51 02:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- In response to babygirl1's comment: "Archaeology has actually proven most of what the Bible tells us."
- Archaeology has not proven much of the Bible. It has contradicted as much as it has proven. It contradicts Adam, Eve, and Eden. It contradicts Noah and the Flood. As for proof - note that proof is absolute. Guesses are not proof. There is no proof of Moses or a voluntary exodus from Egypt. There is no proof of the Ten Commandments. There is no proof of the blood line to Jesus or of a religious leader named Jesus. The only proof is that there were some guys named Jesus around that area at the time (which is expected because Jesus was a popular name). There is no proof that Jesus was crucified or that he rose again. There is no proof that the world will end with a rapture. The problem with archaeology and religion is that people want to find proof for their beliefs. So, when an archaeologist says, "A pool like this was used by people in the time of Jesus," religious people hear, "Jesus used this pool." --Kainaw (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI
A search on "Moussaoui" shows there is not yet an article posted for him. However the following link Moussaoui Trial Phase II special Verdict Jury Ballot is to a .PDF file of the jury ballot for the Phase II Special Verdict. Where can I post this link in absence of an article on Moussaoui since I have no other information about him? -- PCE 09:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
History of phrase "Pearl of the Orient"
Hi! My class was asked to do research regarding the history of the term "Pearl of the Orient" or "Perla del mar de Oriente", currently used to describe the Philippine Islands.
I've so far found that it was used in 1896 by Philippine hero Jose Rizal in his farewell poem "Mi Ultimo Adios", and thought this is how the phrase was coined. Apparently, it was used previously already, by who exactly is what I need your help for.
Thanks in advance for any information you can provide!
the royal family
What is the surname of the royal family
- There are many royal families in the world. Which one are you interested in? JackofOz 13:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The current official "house name" of the British royals is "Windsor" ("Mountbatten-Windsor" when any of the Queen's children becomes monarch) -- but some claim that it should properly be "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" or "Wettin"... AnonMoos 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Properly? The house of Wettin was renamed Windsor in 1917. Does the house not have the right to rename itself? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC) This question is a grey area. Looking at Royal military enlistments, the Charles uses the last name Wales, ier lt. Wales.
- The current official "house name" of the British royals is "Windsor" ("Mountbatten-Windsor" when any of the Queen's children becomes monarch) -- but some claim that it should properly be "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" or "Wettin"... AnonMoos 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no single answer to the original question. Some of the above answers are confusing the name of the royal house/dynasty, and the surnames of individual royal persons.
- The name of the royal house has been Windsor since it was adopted by George V in 1917.
- The queen's personal surname is also Windsor.
- Her husband Prince Philip's personal surname is Mountbatten.
- The personal surname of Prince Charles was Mountbatten at his birth, but was changed to Mountbatten-Windsor in 1960. Princes William and Harry have always been Mountbatten-Windsors.
- The personal surnames of Princes Andrew and Edward (and all their children) has always been Mountbatten-Windsor.
- The personal surname of Princess Anne was Mountbatten at her birth, and changed to Mountbatten-Windsor in 1960. It became Phillips on her marriage to Mark Phillips, and it changed again to Laurence on her 2nd marriage, to Commander Timothy Laurence (as he then was). Between her divorce from Mark Phillips and her remarriage, I assume it reverted to Mountbatten-Windsor, but I'm not sure. Should she and Rear Admiral Laurence (as he now is) divorce, I assume it would revert to Mountbatten-Windsor, but I'm not sure. Should they remain married but Laurence predecease her, she would remain Anne Laurence (unless she were to marry for a 3rd time). Princess Anne's children have the surname Phillips. Zara Phillips (aged 24) may change her surname when and if she marries.
- When Prince Charles accedes to the throne, some experts say the name of the royal house will change to reflect his father's surname, Mountbatten. Others say it will reflect his own, Mountbatten-Windsor. Others say he will choose to decree it remain as Windsor. We'll just have to wait and see.
- No matter what happens to the name of the royal house, Charles III (or George VII perhaps) will still have Mountbatten-Windsor as his personal surname (unless he also decrees it be changed to something else).
- Aren't you glad you asked now? :--) JackofOz 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I should add that it's only of academic interest as to what their personal surnames are. I think English law requires them to call themselves by their full name including surname when they marry, but that would be virtually the only time they ever use their surname. In the armed forces, Charles et al have been known by the surname "Wales", but that's just a convenience, it's not their actual surname. JackofOz 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is even more complicated than that. [5] has more detail. Anne signed her name as "Anne" in the marriage registry but the Queen insisted that the registrar add Mountbatten-Windsor; however, Charles signed as "Charles P" at his wedding and the registar added not Mountbatten-Windsor but "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George The Prince of Wales". And Prince Harry is now 2nd Lt Wales, not 2nd Lt Mountbatten-Windsor. Rmhermen 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I should add that it's only of academic interest as to what their personal surnames are. I think English law requires them to call themselves by their full name including surname when they marry, but that would be virtually the only time they ever use their surname. In the armed forces, Charles et al have been known by the surname "Wales", but that's just a convenience, it's not their actual surname. JackofOz 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Tupou. HenryFlower 16:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- And it's probably worth pointing out that members of the royal family who hold the titular dignity of Prince or Princess may not have a surname, and certainly don't have any legally well-defined one. - Nunh-huh 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Commonwealth of California?
Why doesn't anyone say call California a commonwealth like Massachusetts?Patchouli 13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Because the official name of Massachusetts is the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts", whereas the official name of California is the "State of California". Most U.S. states are "states", only a small number are "commonwealths". JackofOz 13:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- They are not true commonwealths, as is Puerto Rico, for example. They are states that have "styled" themselves as commonwealths. You would not be wrong to refer to the State of Massachusetts, although people of the state may take exception. The other three "commonwealths" are Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. --Nelson Ricardo 16:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Out of interest, what definition of commonwealth are you using? I can't find any meaning of commonwealth in our article that would apply to Puerto Rico but not to Massachusetts. HenryFlower 16:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- They are not true commonwealths, as is Puerto Rico, for example. They are states that have "styled" themselves as commonwealths. You would not be wrong to refer to the State of Massachusetts, although people of the state may take exception. The other three "commonwealths" are Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. --Nelson Ricardo 16:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure if it has any official terminological status in U.S. law, but the word "Commonwealth" in "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" basically means that PR is an almost fully self-governing U.S. territory which is not a state... AnonMoos 16:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- See political divisions of the United States for a discussion of insular areas such as Puerto Rico. — Lomn Talk 15:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
USA PATRIOT Act, Title III question
Hi all. Apparently anti-money laundering regulations are defined for insurance companies in 31 C.F.R. § 103.137. However, I can't for the life of me find it in the Federal register for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005! It seems to skip it. Can anyone provide me with a URL to the actual regulations? The U.S. Government doesn't seem to have any issues in discussing the CFR, but seems to be reluctant to produce the actual final rule online for people to review! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Where's the problem? It's here. (Found via the first external link in the Code of Federal Regulations article.) Lupo 07:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Flora Ida Ortiz
Hi all, trying to find history on Flora Ida Ortiz, retired Prof. from UC-Riverside, specialized in latinos and/or women in Education. What I need to find is where she got her degrees and what universities she worked for and when. For a presentation I'm trying to do on one of her many articles, but I'll probably end up doing an entry as I've amassed a good amount of info on her out of interest.
- Have you tried contacting UCR or Dr. Ortiz personly, I'm sure they would give you the information you need. I was able to find Ortiz' old phone and fax number, and e-mail adress [6], they might forward an inquiry to her. --Eivindt@c 17:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Mass Media and Prejudice
Hi!!! i need information regarding "Role of mass media and prejudice" or "Effects of Mass Media in increasing and decreasing Prejudice"... i shall be grateful !!!
- Try Ethnic stereotypes in American media and Racism in mass media. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hara
Does anyone know Tameichi Hara's death date (it's unlikely he is still living). Japanese name is also needed, please. Brand 19:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can't find his death date but I have added his name in kanji and romaji. --Kusunose 13:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
NAACP
I need informatiom aboutthe 65th NAACP Nationlal Convention............Can anyone help me locate ...
- Try the NAACP website's contact page; there's a section called Questions for Youth & College that has a number of contact emails and phone numbers that would be able to tell you plenty. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
geography question about areas of countries
Hi, the intelligence of this question might turn out to be dubious but here goes: I've looked up the areas of countries in different sources, and found different values for eg. the area of Mongolia. Now it's not rocket science to guess that if you include a wide perimeter fence you'll get a different area than you would if you excluded it. But: is this the only basis for the discrepancy, and why isn't there some UN body to decide the exact area of each country once for everyone? Also while I'm here, should geography questions go in the humanities section of the ref. desk or the sciences? The Mad Echidna 22:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nations care about this specific place near the border that the neighbour disputes, and UN should care about that. The exact area is theoretical (take into account mountains and the surface grows) and matters only for geographers ans statisticians. Now isn't it up to you to tell if your question is about geography or humanities ?--DLL 07:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- A common reason for these discrepancies is whether you include inland water or not. Jameswilson 23:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
introspective diarists from the middle ages
Are there any real diarists from the Middle Ages (before about 1500)? I'm not referring to anyone like Anna Comnena, who could be referred to as a diarist, but is probably really an historian. I want to know if anyone actually wrote about their thoughts and other such waffle. The Mad Echidna 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Writing material was pretty expensive in the Middle Ages, so no one really had that kind of luxury. Guibert of Nogent however wrote something that is pretty much an autobiography, and I'm sure there are more examples like that that I am forgetting. I guess another example would be correspondance, between Abelard and Heloise for example (although I can't think of any other medieval correspondance between non-monarchs). Adam Bishop 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Augustine of Hippo predated the middle ages by a fair stretch, but certainly qualifies as "before 1500". See Confessions (St. Augustine). Phr (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to be clever and suggest the razor's edge of the 1500 and go to Thomas More, but the problem with him and Erasmus is that both of them were aware of an audience and were always wearing a mask -- more of a mask than would allow "diarist" to fit. Also, I'd think of Latin literature primarily. Vernacular diaries would be quite limited, but Celine and Leonardo Da Vinci both kept diaries. For "daily life around the monastery" in English, I'd say that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles get very local, but they were not in any way personal reflections (unless you make some assumptions about the authorship of the second continuation of the Peterborough Chronicle). Geogre 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Pockets in historical costume
Hi - I was wondering, would a character in 17th France be likely to have pockets in his breeches. Was there any such thing as pockets? If not, what did one carry one's snuff etc about in?
Thanks Adambrowne666 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there were pockets in breeches (though there was certainly abundant room for them in some styles!), but what I do know is that there were pockets in the coats (sometimes outlined by rows of buttons), and that often the coat (which could be close to knee length) would have been more easily accessible from the outside than the breeches. Of course, the beginning of the 17th century was a continuation of the Elizabethan. We do have articles 1600-1650 in fashion and 1650-1700 in fashion... Churchh 15:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pockets in the coats - yes of course! Thanks very much, Churchh. Adambrowne666 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
X's of the Cold War
I am doing a project for an AP European History class, and I would like to know if anyone could think of a word beginning with "X" that pertains to the Cold War or the Cold War era. Any help would be much appreciated, cause I can't think of any!
- Xenophobia? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not a word per se, but X Article is extremely relevant to the Cold War. --Metropolitan90 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about xenocracy? Many "3rd World" governments were (and some still are) xeoncracies. --Kainaw (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- So what's a xenocracy? Rmhermen 23:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about xenocracy? Many "3rd World" governments were (and some still are) xeoncracies. --Kainaw (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- A xenocracy is a government consisting of people from outside the country. Hong Kong and South Africa are two examples of xenocracy that recently ended. The countries absorbed by the Soviet Union were labeled xenocracies by the U.S. during the cold war - implying that they were not Russians even though they had a Russian government. --Kainaw (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The only constituent republic (albeit by far the biggest) of the former Soviet Union that was Russian was Russia. The other 14(?) republics - Ukraine, Moldavia, Kazakhstan, Byelorussia, the Baltic republics etc - weren't Russian ethnically, even if they had the Russian language imposed on them. Their governmental leaders were not Russians either. But given the central power exercised by the Kremlin and the Moscow party machine, these republics were undoubtedly subjected to immense Russian influence. In many senses, they may as well have been governed directly from Moscow, by Russians. This is, I think, what the US meant when they referred to them as xenocracies. JackofOz 06:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- A xenocracy is a government consisting of people from outside the country. Hong Kong and South Africa are two examples of xenocracy that recently ended. The countries absorbed by the Soviet Union were labeled xenocracies by the U.S. during the cold war - implying that they were not Russians even though they had a Russian government. --Kainaw (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, Kainaw, how was South Africa a xenocracy by your definitiion of the term? It was certainly not a democracy since it was ruled by the minority white population, but why call it a xenocracy? However cruel and undemocratic the Apartheit regime was, it would be a hippocrytical stereotype to label all white South Africans as equally racist. The minority whites in South Africa were still South Africans, unless you want to revert to the Mugabe brand of reverse discrimination whereby it is legitimate to harass, abuse and marginalise certain South Africans simply because they happen to be white. Loomis51 00:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Apartheid is an exention of Eurpoean rule in South Africa. The government was not originally formed by whites who were born and raised in South Africa. It was formed by whites who moved to South Africa to be governors. The children of the original settlers were born and raised in South Africa, but that doesn't change the government's origins as a government of foreigners. 00:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
May 1
Railway Length in Malaysia
Dear Wikipedia,
I went through the link of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Malaysia to find some information about transport in malaysia, especially regarding to the railways. Here's the data i've got (mentioned that the page was last modified 14:59, 25 April 2006) :
Railways There are a total of 2,418 km of rail tracks, of which, 207 km are electrified.
But i also checked through the Source link mentioned on your site : The World Factbook, which its last update was on 20 April, 2006(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html), and the data they provided about the railtrack length was :
total: 1,890 km (207 km electrified) standard gauge: 57 km 1.435-m gauge (57 km electrified) narrow gauge: 1,833 km 1.000-m gauge (150 km electrified) (2004)
Please kindly advice which one is correct and most updated. Your prompt reply / feedback upon my question will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks & Rgds! Beatrix Indonesia
- If there's a conflict between Wikipedia and a published, reliable academic source, then always go with the other source. After all, the CIA factbook doesn't allow people from the internet to wander on and change track lengths... or add "M4l4yz14 iz d4 b0mb!!!!111" I'll update the article to reflect what you've found. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Need two citations in French
I'm in a bit of a mess here...my girlfiend's MA thesis is due on Tuesday, and I foolishly promised her to check a couple of citations. I was able to track down almost everything, but the last two are giving me serious headaches...our uni library does not have French editions of these books (they're either stolen or taken out until the end of next year), and online searches have proven fruitless. If anybody has either of these two books in French and can look up something for me, my eternal gratitude plus the Barnstar of Tireless Research will be yours. Here's what I'm looking for:
- In the first chapter of Bataille's L'Abbé C., "éponine", there's a passage that starts "Dans ce calme tendu, à travers les vaperus de mon evresse" and ends with "le vent avait soulevé le manteau qu'au monent ou le rire l'avait désarmé elle n'avait pu maintenir sermé". I'd need a complete citation with page numbers for that.
- Genette's "metalepses" (in discours du recit) starts with (roughly translated from my German-language edition): "The transgression form one level of narrative to another can only be accomplished by the narration itself". I'd need Genette's exact phrasing in French of that sentence, plus a complete citation.
Heaps of thanks in advance...whoever manages to look up these citations will be included in my nightly prayers for years to come -- Ferkelparade π 01:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- My library's only version of Abbe C. is translated, but it has a "OEuvres complètes. Présentation de Michel Foucault." by Bataille, so I'm guessing it should be in there. It's only copy of "Métalepse : de la figure à la fiction" is checked out, so I can't help you there. I'll try to get you the first citation soon; the second I can't help you with. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I popped into the University of Melbourne library and managed to find these two books: Bataille and Genette.
- Bataille, Georges (1950). L'Abbe C., Paris: Éditions de Minuit. (no ISBN)
- The text you quote here contains numerous spelling errors, and is not from the first chapter "Éponine", but rather from the second chapter "La tour". The text should read: "Dans ce calme tendu, à travers les vapeurs de mon ivresse ... le vent avait soulevé le manteau qu'au moment où le rire la désarma elle n'avait pu maintenir fermé." This passage begins on page 54 and ends on page 57.
- Genette, Gérard (1972). Figures III., Paris: Éditions du Seuil. ISBN 2020020394.
- The translations of Discours du recit seem to extract and publish that section separately (I found the English and German versions). The French version is part of a book called Figures III., the section is entitled "Discours du récit : essai de méthode", which is divided into five chapters. The link above says the book was published in 1969, but the version I looked at was a 1972 edition. I finally found what looks like the text you are after in Chapter 5 ("Voix") on pages 243-244 under the heading "Metalepses": "Le passage d'un niveau narratif à l'autre ne peut en principe être assuré que par la narration, acte qui consiste précisément à introduire dans une situation, par le moyen d'un discours, la connaissance d'une autre situation. Toute autre forme de transit est, sinon toujours impossible, du moins toujours transgressive."
- Hope this helps. I can send you scans of the pages if you require, or if you need any more information, just send me an email, or message on my talk page. --Canley 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks...the second one is indeed just the passage I was looking for. Your answer arrived just in the nick of time - I forgot to mention that it's due on tuesday European time, which is in just about twelve hours (don't ask about the night that lays ahead...) Thanks also for correcting all my typos, although that wouldn't have been necessary (my girlfriend is a native speaker of French - I, on the other hand, am not, as you could probably tell. I was just jotting down notes as she dictated and did not really understand the text I was searching for :P ). Your Barnstar is on the way...thanks again! -- Ferkelparade π 22:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I popped into the University of Melbourne library and managed to find these two books: Bataille and Genette.
Tense
What is the past tense of the verb "to mislead"? "Misled" - or is "mislead" correct as well? zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Misled —Seqsea (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- As a boy, I would read "misled" and think it was the past tense of the verb "to misle". It took me a while to work out why "misle" was not in any dictionary. JackofOz 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- heh :) At (probably) about the same age I thought that Canadians came from Canadia and wondered why I couldn't find it in the atlas. Grutness...wha? 13:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
pendants, medelations, coins of NAPOLEON III EMPEREUR
Was there ever two coins from 1870 ever made into pendant surrrounded with copper ? How much would it be ?
front of pendant back of pendant NAPOLEON III family crest EMPEREUR
EMPIRE ERACAIS
5 F.
1870
B
- This is a 1870 5 franc coin. There is one for sale on Ebay here for about €5. --Canley 10:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Wermacht casualties
How many KIA and MIA suffered Wermacht on east front in 1945? Vess
- See Wehrmacht. It lists the battles there and all the major battles have a casualty count. --Kainaw (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Dynomite Lyrics
Does anybody know where to find lyrics for the song "Dynomite" (Going Postal) by rapper, Rhymefest? 150.250.84.241 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The way I normally find lyrics is by typing into google something like "Lyrics (artist) (song title or snippet of lyrics that I know)". Most of the time this works like a charm. Dismas|(talk) 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oldest non-admin Wikipedia account
I was wondering if there are many people who are active Wikipedia users, have been for a very long time, but are not admins. Then, I thought, who has the oldest non-admin Wikipedia account? I couldn't find any way of detecting age of accounts. Even then, it looks like I'd have to view every account until I find the oldest one. Surely, someone with db access could answer this with one query. Of course, it doesn't matter - just something that popped into my aching tired brain while I was staring off at the clouds and trying to muster up the energy to do some real work. --Kainaw (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The question of what Wikipedia's first edit was occasionally comes up, but it seems that information has been lost somewhere along the way. I suspect the same is true of the first accounts. HenryFlower 19:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival may help but some of the very old history is lost due to software changes and "features"? Rmhermen 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Harold Lloyd, silent film comedian
Perhaps Harold Lloyd's most famous movie scene is when he dangled from that large clock, above a city street. Where (probably in Los Angeles) was that filmed, and where is a photo of that location today?
- Did you try looking at our article on Harold Lloyd? It was indeed Los Angeles, according to this article. And the photo is there too. --Shantavira 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I meant pictures of that street as it is today.
Fictitious legal pleading
The local newspaper had an article today about someone pleading guilty to a crime he very definitely didn't commit, and which all parties involved knew he didn't commit, instead of going to trial for the crime he did commit.
Apparently, since the victim was uncooperative, the prosecutor wasn't certain he could get a conviction for robbery. He could get a conviction for theft, but that didn't have the sentencing range he wanted. The end result was a guilty plea for "criminal copyright infringement".
What's the legal theory behind this sort of thing, and how common is it? --Serie 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is called jumping to conclusions. Everybody thinks he is innocent but he pleaded guilty. Everybody gets confused. General Eisenhower 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It is based in practicality. The vast majority of crimminals are dealt with through plea bargaining. Without the system would become over loaded!
- Yes, but isn't plea barganing based on pleading guilty to a lesser version of the same charge, such as manslaughter instead of second-degree murder? Despite what the RIAA says, criminal copyright infringement isn't a lesser version of robbery with violence. --Serie 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- My first impression is that this would be a case of simple plea bargaining, But I'd just like to make mention of two other legal concepts. They may refer to the case you're talking about or maybe not. The first is the no lo contendre or no contest plea. In this case the defendent accepts the consequences of a guilty plea, while technically not admitting to any guilt. The second is very similar and is known as the Alford plea. In this case, the defendent also accepts the consequences of a guilty plea, but refuses to allocute (i.e. confess to the actual details of the crime). Loomis51 00:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Queen for a day
Anyone know where this expression came from? A little Googling finds a 1950's radio/TV show and a movie of the same title, but I have the impression that it goes back a lot further. There's no Wikipedia article, which seems like am omission. Phr (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet that it dates back to May Queen traditions and festivities. Grutness...wha? 04:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
From 50 years of neuronal storage: Queen for a Day was an American black-and-white television game show in the 1950s. A live studio audience would listen to the brief hard-luck stories of 3 women contestants narrated by an unseen voice. After hearing the 3 stories the audience would then clap their hands to indicate the "most deserving". The "applause meter" would indicate the loudest response, and the lucky contestant would be immediately crowned "Queen for a Day" and draped with an ermine-edged robe by the host/master-of-ceremonies. She would stand at center stage with the host, crying tears of joy, and be presented with several gifts, usually major appliances such as a washing machine, while the announcer voice described them. There would be lesser consolation prizes for the two other women. The phrase suggests ironically that someone deserves a brief expression of pity for their hard-luck story, followed by a quick return to her original plight. Could the show really have been as appallingly tasteless as I remember it? alteripse 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- There was a 1910 French film called "Roi d'un jour", which I presume means "King for a Day". Same basic concept. But I also seem to remember much older stories about a boy-hero who gets this kind of gig. JackofOz 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that it does go back, at least to popular literature in the 19th century. I don't know Hans Christian Andersen very well, but I would look at a story/fable like that. There were Lords of Misrule and carnival traditions, as well as other 'lord of the day' sorts of traditions (e.g. the May Queen), but the phrase was popular when it was appropriated by the radio and then TV show. Once it was taken over, it got huge. I suppose Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and Patridge's Dictionary of Slang would be the logical references to search. If those fail, go to the Oxford English Dictionary. (That's third because it will be less descriptive.) Geogre 11:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
dust bowl
What was the Dust Bowl of the 1930's?
- It was, and still is, well described in our Dust Bowl article. (Of course, the far more famous Dust Bowl of 1987 was the football game between USC and UCLA where pranking CalTech students used 300 gallons of Freon to remove all of the water in the turf, resulting in a huge cloud of dust obscuring the action.) --ByeByeBaby 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Brunelleschi's dome
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunelleschi) Got a HW question: What Roman building may Brunelleschi have been inspired from for the dome in Firenze? Thanks! (Santa Maria del Fiore, that is)
- Just consider the other buildings you have covered in your course. Think especially of the ancient Roman buildings you covered. Notinasnaid 10:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Olympic Gold Order
What is "Olympic Gold Order"? Which was the first Indian Prime Minister to be awarded the Olympic Gold Order? There is no article in Wikipedia on the "Olympic Gold Order". Thank you in advance for your help.
- There is an article on the topic under Olympic Order. The PM was Indira Gandhi. See this pdf file Tintin (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank You. You gave the accurate answer. Is the pdf file available in HTML format.
- Here. Not very readable though. Tintin (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have read Tintin's link. Does some one has other information on the Olympic Order except the article in Wikipedia--Olympic Order. --Siddhant 10:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Christian Churches
There are many different churches within Christianity. My question is this: How can any one be true? And if you answer 'each person must find the church that is right for him,' then I wonder how they can all be right. --165.139.198.19 12:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- They can't all be right/true, and not all of them claim this anyway. It's not even a question of any one of them being right/true, and all the others being wrong/untrue (to the extent of any inconsistency in their teachings). Most churches speak some truths - some more than others - but no church has access to all truths, and no church speaks nothing but truths. This is true of all faiths, not just Christian churches. :-) JackofOz 13:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- You are making a big mistake in your assumptions. First, we have to distinguish between "churches" as denominations and "churches" as beliefs. Most denominations in Christianity differ on interpretation of the implementation of agreed upon truths. The absolute truths they espouse are largely the same, and therefore they are all "true" according to each other in that regard. However, how to understand the implications and put into practice these truths generates two sorts of disagreements: disagreements of polity (church organization and regulation) and dogma (what the facts or words of the agreed upon truths mean). You should look at the article on Richard Hooker and Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. It was his argument, and the argument of all latitudinarians in all churches that matters of polity are "things indifferent" to the moral value of a believer. As for different interpretations of the meaning of dogma, it depends. They can't all be "true" and "correct" in that regard, but whether these disagreements in interpretation amount to damnation vs. salvation, sin vs. perfection, is, to say the least, up in the air. The answer is not therefore "find what's right for you," as that implies trying on faiths as if they were clothes, but understand that the disagreements between churches do not amount to a difference in religion. Geogre 13:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I might argue that Infant baptism vs Believer's baptism is one of those lines where folks tend to have a hard time seeing anything less than an absolute truth, and where they can't all be right.
- As for the original question, the mainstream theological response is that they can't all be right, only my church can possibly be right, and my church is the one that is truly right for you, although I might, maybe, grant that the people going to the church across the street may not all be going to Hell for their serious theological mistakes. This, however, makes a weak basis for the kind of interdenominationalism that has been popular and necessary in these fallen, fallen times when Christians have to circle the wagons and protect our omnipotent God from the grubby unbelievers who deny Him. So alternative logics have been deployed. Arminius offers up one of the better justifications of more tolerance: The Bible should be used not only as a guide to truth, but to distinguishing which truths are more important than others.
- Me, I'm an agnostic, so this whole line of argument - "only one can be right" - does little for me, especially since I should think it far more likely that if there is a single, uniform, heaven-sent truth, then nobody actually has access to it. So, let me offer up a different defense of "each person must find the church that is right for her (or him)": The things that you actually need from a church, the reasons why you would want to go to one, maybe even the reasons why God would want you to go to one, have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not its theology is really true. --Diderot 20:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have some documentation that "mainstream theological response" is "I'm right, and they're wrong?" You have some proof that they're all either bigots or weak-minded fools? You have some citations that Christians feel beleaguered and therefore are interdenominational? It couldn't be, after all, that they have any sincerity, can it? Please try not to dismiss hundreds of thinkers and thousands of years of tradition with snide comments, just because you don't like what they have to say. Geogre 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, let's start with Google: "errors of Luthernism", "errors of Calvinism", "errors of Methodism", the list could go on. Or we might mention the copious literature on Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Or perhaps the history of Arianism, the Cathars, filoque and the Great Schism, the Reformation and the several centuries of religious warfare that followed, the history of Anabaptism (a gang which tended to display its unity in the Trotskyist way, by splintering into grouplettes at the slightest theological disagreement), or the current risk of schism in the Anglican church over women at the pulpits and gays in the pews. These disputes are not marginal. The history of organised Christian theology has been the demonstration, over and over again, that God can only possibly agree with whoever is doing the theologising. The great breakthough of Protestant interdenominationalism is finally conceding that perhaps all the other people might not simply be doomed to hell because they sing different hymns.
- I have yet to see a statement of theological doctrine that said: We think this is what God wants, but hey, we could be wrong. Show me that the major doctrinal statements of most churches include, at least implicitly, something like that, and I'll concede the point. --Diderot 13:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- So, because a person believes himself to be right, he has to be intolerant? Because a person sees flaws in the reasoning of others, he simply must be ready to spill blood? That's nonsense of the first water and a simplification that would lead you to not only be an agnostic but a hermit. After all, each government believes itself to be right, and each government has been in wars. Further, you must similarly reject all philosophies, as the far east has been at war. You must similarly believe that all economists are on the verge of murdering each other. After all, they believe themselves to be correct. Or is it only in religion that you feel you have to dismiss all rationality, all compassion, and ignore the fact that people disagreeing is not people killing. Geogre 13:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
enquiry about ancient india
india now in modern days once called as jambudweepa at bharathavarsha.because while chanting mantras purohits chant as jambudweepe bharathavarshe.
- What exactly is your question? JackofOz 13:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- You might like to study our articles on Jambudvipa and the History of India. --Shantavira 16:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Girdle
What does a girdle look like? Not a modern girdle, but one like in the Illiad, with Hera and Aphrodite, an ancient one. 64.198.112.210 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was basically a belt, though often including the means to carry a sword or purse etc. --Shantavira 16:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Girdle" was more or less just the way that earlier translators into English rendered ancient Greek and Latin words for "belt", such as ζωνη; to see depictions of ancient Greek women's belts, you can look at illustrations such as commons:Image:Greek-womens-attire-Regency-Empire-influence-hypsizonos.gif &c. Churchh 01:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Female Populations in US States
Hello, I am wondering which US state has the smallest female population. Thanks. Kim
- In absolute or relative terms? — QuantumEleven 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wyoming has the lowest population period and presumably would have the lowest number of females in absolute terms. States with high immigration intake would tend to have higher relative male populations. Marskell 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- According to the last census, using estimates for 2004 populations:
- -Wyoming: 251,473 (49.6%) female
- -Alaska: 316,525 (48.2%) female
- -Montana: 464,600 (50.1%) female
- In all other states, women make up very close to 51% of the population. --Kainaw (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thanks, that's what i was looking for!
Pro Nuclear Weapons
I am due to participate in a public debate on whether or not the UK should disarm its nuclear weapons. I will argue that no, the UK should not disarm its nuclear weapons. So, in preparation for the debate, I would like to find some arguments that would aid my side. Can anyone help with this? I would like as many arguments as possible, and if this is not possible, helpful web links would be great. Thanks Chachu207 ::: Talk to me 18:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Standard argument: Nuclear weapons are a show of force. There is no intention to use them. They are there only as a warning that they could be used if absolutely necessary. There is no defense against them, so using them on an enemy who did not have nuclear weapons would ensure a victory in war. However, you lead the opposing argument about using them against someone who also has nuclear weapons. The show of force is lost because using them guarantees both sides will be destroyed. Then, you get into anti-missile systems to defend against nuclear weapons (if you have a defense and the enemy doesn't, you gain the show of force again). --Kainaw (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- See Nuclear strategy, Mutual assured destruction, and Deterrence theory. The first two have lengthy See also sections and the last some external links.
- Specifically regarding the UK, a strong argument as follows: by disarming its nuclear arsenal is the country forced (further) under the American security umbrella? Tacitly, it could be suggested "we don't have them, but the U.S. still covers us", which significantly undermines any pretence to independent global stature. This thinking has certainly played very strongly in France, which not only has nuclear weapons but has always insisted on independent global launch capability and has a defence industry that produces basically any kind of armament, ideally with a minimum of U.S. supply. Canada is an opposite case: the first country that could have developed nukes but chose not to; all well and good, but of course its a much easier decision to make with the American umbrella overhead. Marskell 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Going down that line of thought... it was recently asked why the UK doesn't produce their own nuclear weapons instead of purchasing them from the US. Assuming that assumption is correct - does the UK continue to purchase nuclear weapons from the US? If so, would it be cheaper to stop buying them and still keep the 'threat' of them in place knowing that the US would cover the UK? --Kainaw (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- We do produce our own nuclear weapons, but we put them on top of missiles leased from the US: Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom#Trident. HenryFlower 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Going down that line of thought... it was recently asked why the UK doesn't produce their own nuclear weapons instead of purchasing them from the US. Assuming that assumption is correct - does the UK continue to purchase nuclear weapons from the US? If so, would it be cheaper to stop buying them and still keep the 'threat' of them in place knowing that the US would cover the UK? --Kainaw (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Way simpler argument: Nuclear weapons have been used in exactly one war, and the side that had them won. Not quite as simple argument: Nuclear weapons keep the Americans from invading. I think those are pretty good reasons for Iran to want to have nukes, so I should think it'd be worth something for the UK. --Diderot 20:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- In most studies, when n=1, the conclusion is generally that it isn't enough data to go on, not that the fact has been proven. ;-) --Fastfission 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- And generally, in warfare. one doesn't get a lot of second chances. The doctrine of better safe than sorry predominates in weapon purchasing decisions for a good reason. --Diderot 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Only if you already buy into the logic of it, which isn't necessarily mandated. One could also point out that Hiroshima did not just involve a simple dropping of a bomb to end the war, but was a highly specific situation relating to the end of World War II, the organization of the Japanese government, their inability to retaliate in kind, etc. etc. All I'm saying is that there are many arguments one could make, but Hiroshima by itself is not an argument. I don't think most weapons purchasing decisions are made with a "better safe than sorry doctrine" anyway -- there are many more factors which get put into a much bigger decision, relating to expected benefits and expected costs, relating to actual use, to unintended consequences, etc., and some of this can be seen in the different nuclear strategies pursued by different world powers (i.e. Britain and France primarily use small, sub-based forces; China uses a small, ICBM-based force; Pakistan and India have very small but highly ambiguous forces; and Israel does not advertise their weapons capability at all). There are many ways to play the game, many ways to interpret Hiroshima in terms of policy. --Fastfission 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- And generally, in warfare. one doesn't get a lot of second chances. The doctrine of better safe than sorry predominates in weapon purchasing decisions for a good reason. --Diderot 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- In most studies, when n=1, the conclusion is generally that it isn't enough data to go on, not that the fact has been proven. ;-) --Fastfission 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- One of the main reasons the UK decided to pursue its own, independent deterrent is because they didn't want to be reliant on the US. Why not? Because the UK was a lot closer to the USSR, and would feel far more effects from a nuclear confrontation in Europe than the US would. Because of the imbalance in potential effects, they didn't want to be dependent on the US to make decisions for them, since the US is, like all good nation-states, going to put its own interests first in such situations. Now a big question is whether the situation has changed significantly since then, since Russia is no longer the enemy and China is a big trade partner. Does the UK really think that the US or France or India or Pakistan or even Russia and China is likely to launch a nuke at them? Probably not. It makes one wonder what the point of having a nuclear force is at such a juncture. The UK has a relatively small nuclear force, it should be remembered -- only a few hundred, enough to guarantee that they will have the ability to respond to a nuclear attack and hopefully thus deter them from happening (as opposed to the US, which has far more weapons than it would need to effectively respond). --Fastfission 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Quick things: as far as I understand, UK does have its own nukes and does indeed afix them to US missles. France has the triumvirate: nukes, missles to carry them, global launch capability. The UK basically has independent capability, and France truly does. I'm with Fastfission on his first point: one data point is just that. You can't take Hiroshima as a decisive argument for or against nukes.
- The second point is partly repetition and partly "accurate conjecture", but there is an interesting add-on I think: the US may superficially appear to have "more weapons than it would need to effectively respond" as second-strike capability. What is interesting with the US though, is that it is arguably the only country that can carry out a completely effective first strike as of now. That is, the US could, in a "one-on-one" nuclear exchange, eliminate any other country's capability (see the Foreign Affairs source at the end of Mutual assured destruction); I'd guess you need nukes in the low thousands to do that. The nuance regarding the UK question to start is that the UK arsenal can only be (merely) deterrence. The US-USSR build-up was at least partly based on one achieving decisive first-strike ability—a duel the US has arguably won. UK and France never had that pretence. It was and is: we have this few hundred, we can kill millions OK? Not "beat you" but rather "fuck you over significantly enough that you won't attack us" (to crudely sum it up). Marskell 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neither the US or the USSR achieved first-strike capability, and most of their efforts as I understand it were based on assumptions about what was needed to achieve second-strike capability. There are a lot of uncertainties in there, of course (i.e. whether either the US or USSR missiles would actually hit what they were aimed at, if it came to it), but both built up arsenals of such size and diversity that I don't think either would have at any point post-1960 thought they could have first-strike capability. France, UK, China, etc. don't even try for first-strike, counting on second-strike as deterrent enough. Even if the US was to attack a country with a far smaller arsenal (say, the UK), the fact that the UK's missiles are all sub-based introduces a high probability that at least one of their subs would not be eliminated by the US and could retailiate with grave consequences. The only way you could have a totally successful first-strike capability in such a situation is if you had an anti-missile system, which is exactly why a lot of people argued that the Strategic Defense Initiative was actually something which would encourage war (make the Soviets think we were going for first strike) than discouraging it. At least, that's how I understand it. --Fastfission 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The second point is partly repetition and partly "accurate conjecture", but there is an interesting add-on I think: the US may superficially appear to have "more weapons than it would need to effectively respond" as second-strike capability. What is interesting with the US though, is that it is arguably the only country that can carry out a completely effective first strike as of now. That is, the US could, in a "one-on-one" nuclear exchange, eliminate any other country's capability (see the Foreign Affairs source at the end of Mutual assured destruction); I'd guess you need nukes in the low thousands to do that. The nuance regarding the UK question to start is that the UK arsenal can only be (merely) deterrence. The US-USSR build-up was at least partly based on one achieving decisive first-strike ability—a duel the US has arguably won. UK and France never had that pretence. It was and is: we have this few hundred, we can kill millions OK? Not "beat you" but rather "fuck you over significantly enough that you won't attack us" (to crudely sum it up). Marskell 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Debate about whether, and how, the UK should replace its Trident missile subs (the ones that carry its nuclear deterrent) has been occurring in a low-key way in the UK papers for months. If you do a search for "Trident replacement" at, say, The Guardian's website, you should find a lot of useful articles, most of which argue for no replacement but this one carries some arguments about why it should be retained. In practice, the real argument is that retaining the arsenal gives Britain international prestige and clout in international affairs that it wouldn't have otherwise; this would be particularly embarrassing, in some views, if France had an arsenal and Britain didn't. Finally, there is the political angle, which has as much to do with it as anything. Tony Blair's game all along (like Bill Clinton, and several other nominally left-wing leaders around the world) has been to largely take committed left-wing voters for granted (who don't have anywhere to go under the British electoral system) and chase more conservative voters. Basically, the argument goes that Labor can't win votes by not replacing Trident, only lose them. --Robert Merkel 22:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps the Entente cordiale should run it's full course... A merger of the British and French nuclear capability? You read it here first :) Marskell 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, this time the decision is mostly about prestige and keeping our leaders' place on the top table at summits along with the French and ahead of comparable counties like Germany and Italy. Regrettably, having nuclear weapons counts more than other things in achieving that. Jameswilson 01:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Born in the United States
Part of the controversy over immigration from Mexico is that babies born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, according to the 14th Amendment. But are there any limits on that rule? Consider this hypothetical: A citizen of Sweden comes to New York to visit relatives. Her baby is born in New York, weeks before she expected it. Is that baby a U.S. citizen? This result seems absurd, but that is what the Constitution seems to say. Is the baby a citizen of Sweden? Does it have dual citizenship? What am I missing here?
- Whether or not it would be a citizen of Sweden depends on their own policies. Technically it can claim citizenship in the U.S. but wouldn't be likely to.--Lkjhgfdsa 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are limits on the 'born in the US' rule, but not many (children of diplomats is one). See US citizen. The dual part is far from unusual. A friend was born in Zambia to Canadian parents; she had the rights to citizenship of both countries until she became an adult, and then had to choose one. DJ Clayworth 20:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- (After edit conflict, so it overlaps with DJ Clayworth's answer)
- Answers to your questions: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. A narrow conception of citizenship, endemic to Europe, formed from 19th century quasi-feudal notions about loyalty to the state.
- Offering slightly more explanation: A child born on the territory of a US state to a person subject to US jurisdiction is a US citizen. This means everyone except foreign embassy staff with diplomatic immunity. So, a baby born in the US to someone on a tourist visa, or for that matter to an illegal immigrant, is US citizen, then and forever unless renounced specifically and voluntarily, or by the commission of a very small and unlikely number of acts showing intent to disavow citizenship. Take a look at Yaser Esam Hamdi. So yes, your hypothetical Swede who gives birth in the US is the mother of a US citizen. And, Sweden does, as I understand it, generally automatically extend citizenship to the foreign born children of Swedish citizens. This is the policy of most nations. Ergo, this hypothetical child is a dual citizen of Sweden and the US unless he or she specifically disavows one citizenship or the other after reaching the age of 18. And lastly, you are missing the point that this situation happens all the time and is no big deal. Within Europe, there are treaties forbidding dual citizenship in most cases, preventing this situation from occurring. The US, however, is not party to any such agreement, and has no laws or policies regarding dual citizenship except to ask duals to disavow US citizenship if they plan to take high office in a foreign government. --Diderot 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The technical term is Jus soli. AnonMoos 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing unusual in having multiple citizenships, either through place of birth, jus soli as AnonMoos said, or through having mixed nationality parentage, jus sanguinis. I knew someone who held British, Irish, and Swedish passports through being born in Northern Ireland to a Swedish mother, and I once shared a train compartment with a British citizen who was returning to his Belgian home after spending his annual two weeks' military service as part of a Swiss Army tank crew. Some countries will require multiple-citizenship people to choose which one to keep at age 18, and particularly in the case of males may require a short period of military service (in Sweden's case I think it's something like 4-6 months; Switzerland is rather more onerous as apart from initial military training there's an annual commitment until your early 30s, then you're in the reserves with occasional call-ups until about age 50). Some people who never intended to claim citizenship find themselves in trouble if they visit their ancestor country - Greece is well-known for drafting young foreigners of Greek parentage, and Italy was known to act similarly while it still had conscription. -- Arwel (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The United States, however, does not recognize dual citzenship, and if you are a US citizen, the US government expects you to act accordingly. If you obtain a passport as a citizen of another country, or vote in another country's elections, or run for office in another country, the US government considers this tantamount to renouncing your US citizenship. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, that's not true anymore. Nowadays, about the only way you can lose your citizenship is by going up to a counsel and voluntarily denouncing it. See [7]. -- Mwalcoff 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a total myth that many Americans still seem to believe. The Hamdi case ought to show how false it is. I don't think any natural-born US citizen has been stripped of citizenship for any reason for at least 70 years. Valdas Adamkus, for example, I think retained his US citizenship until he announced his run for president of Lithuania, and even then, he wasn't stripped of citizenship, he gave it up voluntarily after it caused him problems in Lithuania. --Diderot 06:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is true that the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship. That does not mean that they remove your U.S. citizenship if you claim another one. They simply will not recognize your foreign citizenship and your U.S. citizenship at the same time. That is the misconception. Some people believe that if you claim you are half-Mexican/half-American, the U.S. will say "Oh no you ain't!" and remove your U.S. citizenship. They don't want to do that because each citizen is tax money. They want ALL of your tax money. So, they will try to make you be 100% U.S. citizen and collect all your income. --Kainaw (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think any of these answers is quite correct. The answer here is that the USA does recognize dual citizenship, but only for people who are born as such. If you actively aquire a citizenship of another country, then you forfeit your American citizenship. Most other countries have similar laws, although there is a trend (as in Germany) to expand the dual citizenship idea to also encompass people who aquire a second citizenship. To answer the particular question here: The USA applies the territorial principle that if you're born in the USA, you're a US citizen. Sweden applies the principle that you are a Swedish citizen if your parents are citizens. A child born in the USA to Swedish parents is therefore a dual-citizen. However, a Swede who moves to the USA and chooses to become nationalized will lose his Swedish citizenship, because, like the USA, they do not permit you to aquire a second citizenship. As noted above, not all countries allow either form of dual-citizenship, and force their citizens to choose. As far as the USA's half of the deal is concerned, that is not the case, though. Dual citizens of the USA have to abide by certain rules as well. For instance, you must always enter the US using your American passport, failing to do so can be grounds for losing your US citizenship. Participating in the armed forces of the other country that considers you a national is OK though, as long as they're not at war with the USA. If someone doesn't believe this, read the text in a US passport. --BluePlatypus 19:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is not true. Take a look at the US state department pages and you will see that the US does not consider taking another citizenship to be (automatically) renouncing US citizenship. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html 165.254.38.126 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
East Germany, 1948
Currently doing a project regarding East Germany after the Potsdam Conference, when it [Germany] was originally didvided. Speed up 3 years to the Berlin blockade, June 22, 1948 and that is where I am. Was there a stipulatoin in a treaty that specified that germany be treated economically as one unit? and what was the name of that treaty or stipulation?
what went on with trade unions in EAST germany in 1948
- They were to some degree economically one unit until different currencies were introduced into Western and Eastern occupation zones... German mark AnonMoos 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Elizabethian Era
HEllo...
We would like to know the elizabethian view of:
a) The (king) divine right to rule Queen Elizabeth took a moderate position this unlike Here father (Henry) and Her nephew (James) she do not go out of her way to push this principal and generally speaking tried to rule from a middle ground.
b) elizabethian Women
Thankyou :-)
- Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.
- I am no historian, but maybe the articles Elizabethan Era (including associated articles) and Divine Right of Kings will help you? Sandstein 04:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that there was one single "Elizabethian" view? The views of James VI of Scotland on the divine right of kings and John Knox on women having power or authority might have been very different from the views of others on these matters... AnonMoos 16:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
May 3
School of thought
Is Islam the only religion with schoolof thoughts within their division?
- Of course not. Every religion has different schools of thought. Have I misunderstood the question? —Keenan Pepper 02:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It definitely looks like it needs a bit of suitly emphazi'ing. My take on it is "Is Islam the only religion with separate branches or sects", which is again a clear "No", as any glance at the history of Northern Ireland will make very clear. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The history of virtually any part of the British Isles, for that matter. 165.254.38.126 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It definitely looks like it needs a bit of suitly emphazi'ing. My take on it is "Is Islam the only religion with separate branches or sects", which is again a clear "No", as any glance at the history of Northern Ireland will make very clear. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
American Consuls
who was the american consul in malaya in 1948 during the malayan emergency?...i don't think the misc. desk was the right one to ask this.
- I was hoping my 1948 edition of The World Almanac and Book of Facts would answer this, but sadly it only lists U.S. Ambassadors, and not consuls. I suspect that British malaya, as it was then, would have fallen under the ambassadorial area of the ambassador to either India (Henry F. Grady) or Siam (Edwin F. Stanton), but who the consul representing the U.S. in Malaya would have been, I can't say. Even more annoyingly, Political graveyard.com only lists consuls in Malaya to 1932 and ambassadors to Malaysia from 1957. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thanks - i went there...perhaps i justs wont metion him by name
- William Blue, according to these two sources (both pdfs). We don't appear to have an article on him. --Bth 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Simpsons Episode
Does anyone happen to know which episode of The Simpson's features newscaster Kent Brockman stating that David Crosby's liver was discovered living in Scranton, PA? I know its a wierd question, but I'm putting it here with a small hope that someone knows what I'm talking about. --Chris 02:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Our article on Scranton narrows it down to "a 1994 episode" (Scranton, Pennsylvania#Scranton in popular culture), but doesn't give the episode title. You could try looking at the capsule episode summaries in The Simpsons season 5 and The Simpsons season 6 to see if anything triggers your memory. Crosby appeared as himself in Season 5's "Homer's Barbershop Quartet", but that episode aired at the beginning of the season, in 1993. Of course, it could be that the dating of the line to 1994 is an error. JamesMLane t c 13:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Crosby is in two episodes that I'm aware off. Homer's Barbershop Quartet and Marge In Chains. I watched both episodes and cannot find the reference. I'm trying to find this because I read it in the Scranton article, and I am a student of the U. of Scranton. I'll keep looking. --Chris 14:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The Simpsons Archive maintains a mailing list. [8] If no one here can help you, perhaps you could join that list and post this question. If you find an answer, you could edit the Scranton article to link to the precise episode. JamesMLane t c 15:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe that's the best thing to do. Thanks.--Chris 17:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
reganomics/thatcherism
In compiling context notes on 'Bladerunner', I was wondering how Reganomics and Thatcherism was an influence on the underclass working poor? thankyou in advance
- Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.
- Have you looked at the articles Reaganomics and Thatcherism? Briefly, my guess is that proponents of these policies would say that everyone, including the poor, was better off because of the general prosperity and economic boom they brought, while their detractors would say that they increased disparities of income and reduced social justice. Or did you mean another (non-economic) type of influence? Sandstein 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
photograph based on El Greco's Fabula
El Greco did a painting known as Fábula or fable, an allegory with a boy lighting a candle in the company of an ape and a fool. [9] I saw somewhere on a poster a photograph which I suppose was somehow based on this painting. It was a photograph of a monkey lighting a candle. There was no boy and no fool. The caption read "el greco to goya", which seems to be the title of a book [10]. Does anyone know the photograph? Is it from the book? -lethe talk + 07:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The book is a history of Spanish painting from 1561 to 1828, so I doubt very much that there is a photograph of a monkey in it. David Sneek 10:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Grwyne Fawr Reservoir
Can anyone find any information at all on the construction of the above named reservoir in the Black Mountains, Wales UK? I've tried searching the web myself but maybe i'm asking the wrong questions (ie. When was it built? by whom? what's it made of? etc.) And maybe i'm just looking in all the wrong places...
M. Marshall.
- It's a bit of a myth that you can ask questions of the web to find stuff. Really you need to think in terms of the words you would find on a page that answered the question. I searched Google for
"Grwyne Fawr Reservoir" construction
- including the quotes, so I only found the phrase rather than the odd words, plus "construction" anywhere. One of the first hits tells us that there is even a book written about the 18 year project. Notinasnaid 09:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I kind of got the idea that there was a book written on the subject from my searches. What I was looking for was information on- line, which seems to be in short supply. Thanks for your help anyway.
M.Marshall
- You're not reading Notinasnaid clearly. He was helpfully teaching you how to successfully use Google and noting that the pages he found even included references to a book. Those pages also contain the information you're looking for. Because I'm in a very generous mood, hereare some links you could have got simply by cut and pasting Notinasnaid's suggested search query into Google. --Bth 15:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being in a "very generous mood". My error was to limit my search to google.co.uk rather than google.com. Thank you again. You are "very generous". And thanks again to Notinasnaid for being helpful.
M.Marshall.
Voting rights to women. Issued recently.
Which Gulf country recently issued voting rights to women in perhaps 2005? Please mention your source of answer. Can you also give me a report on this. --Siddhant 10:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is an unsolicited answer that is tangentially related. In Iran, boys and girls who are 15 years old can vote.Patchouli 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was Kuwait. The source of my answer is the article Elections in Kuwait. David Sneek 10:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanx for the answer. You have mentioned the article but it is too big. Can you name the section, please? --Siddhant 11:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- A quick search within the page for "women" using your browser's search function would have found it for you in the very first section, "Suffrage". --Bth 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
But it mentions that --"Kuwaiti women have not yet voted in an election." Than what about your answer being correct. Perhaps you can give me an external link. --Siddhant 11:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is no contradiction here. Women have been given the vote in Kuwait, but they haven't been able to use it yet because there hasn't been an election there since it was passed. When there is, they'll be able to vote in it. (To satisfy your desire for an external link, here's a Radio Netherlands article.) --Bth 11:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I have read the link and it is perfect. I suggest that the information in the link should be added to Wikipedia. It will enrich the encyclopedia. Inform me when it is done. --61.1.18.61 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
US Code Sections Unique?
Are the sections of the United States Code unique? For example, is it enough for me to just write "USC, Section 1030?" Or do I need to write "Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, USC, Section 1030?" More specifically,
- Are there other titles with the same section number?
- Is it possible to just say "Section 1030 of the United States federal government laws?" That is, do the section number of the US Code differ from the section numbers of the C.F.R.?
If you have any more insight on the idea of sections as it is related to law, then please elucidate.Patchouli 11:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer you read the text "How to ask a question"--last point at the top of this page.
--Siddhant 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a legal question in the sense of "do I have a case to sue X" etc., it's a usage question. Each title has its own section numbering, so yes, strictly you need to specify, and your specific example phrasing "Sectino 1030 of the United States federal government laws" doesn't make much sense. However, the Title 18 computers-and-fraud Section 1030 is famous enough that "Section 1030" by itself is a common shorthand for it. --Bth 11:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- You need to specify, but only title and section, not the part and chapter. You also asked about CFR, which is different. The United States Code assembles laws (statutes) passed by Congress. The Code of Federal Regulations has the regulations adopted by various government agencies. JamesMLane t c 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- At the federal level, are there any other set of laws other than the USC and C.F.R?Patchouli 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Going back to the beginning, "5 USC 2091" or "20 CFR 1093" should be all you need, providing the people you are writing for are familiar with legal citation. Regarding the second question, the USC and CFR make up most of what we think of as federal laws, but there are also executive orders, internal department rules and guidelines. Also, you may have to think about statutes passed by Congress but not yet codified in the U.S. Code (which you can refer to as P.L. 109-103 or whatever) and regs that have appeared the the Federal Register but aren't yet in the CFR. -- Mwalcoff 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Prohibition
I just found out that prohibition was enacted, not just with the passing of a law, but with an actual constitutional amendment. Why was this? Was it because that they feared the Supreme Court would find some sort of protection in the constitution for alcohol, or was it because the court would strike it down because of the whole federalist thing (ie. the tenth amendment)? Or was it something entirely different? Oskar 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- First, they wanted it to be national. They didn't want one state wet and another dry. Second, the product was not ruled illegal for any health reasons, and therefore there was no way to legislate against it, so no law could have worked. Third, this was before federal regulatory powers had grown to what they are now, so, without something like the DEA or EPA or Department of Health, there was no body that could have had oversight of alcohol. Therefore, they needed a constitutional amendment as a form of establishing national law in contravention of the constitution's provisions of free enterprise. Geogre 16:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is interesting to consider whether modern commerce clause interpretations would tend to permit a nationwide proscription of the manufacture or sale of alcohol (that is, absent the Eighteenth Amendment, might the Volstead Act be constitutional?). A similar question is whether the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments are necessary in view of the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that, absent any relevant federal law, were a challenge to be essayed to a bar of voting rights on the grounds of gender or race today, a court would, in consideration of the Fourteenth Amendment and irrespective of the Fifteenth or Nineteenth Amendments, uphold such challenge and strike down the voting scheme as contrary to the Fourteenth. Such questions help us to see how constitutional interpretation has evolved (or, as some would put it, devolved) over the past 100-plus years. Joe 17:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Some have argued that the current federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is unconstitutional for the very reason that unlike prohibition, it prohibits certain drugs (marijuana, for example), through federal statute alone rather than through a constitutional ammendment. The argument seems to have been decided by the courts in favour of the constitutionality of the CSA, but the debate is an interesting one and is discussed at length on the talk page of that particular Act. Loomis51 23:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
History of California question #1
quest Please describe California's four regions and its natural resources.
Who where the first Californians to arrive in CA?
Can you please give me one of the tribes that would have existed during that time and if possible please briefly describe their way of life?
- Try the article on California first. Then come back if you still need someone else to do your homework. --Kainaw (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Also <pedant> the first Californians to arrive in CA would have been ones who left there and then returned, since they wouldn't have been Californians until they'd been there a while. Unless of course, by CA you mean Canada... </pedant> Grutness...wha? 07:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- 1 - North California, South California, East California &, wait for it, West California. Natural resources are sand, sun, cacti & coyotes.
- 2 - The first Californians to arrive in California would be the ones who decided to name it California.
- 3 - During that time the Yanomamo tribe would have existed, not in California though. AllanHainey 07:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually finding information on California Indians on Wikipedia is not all that easy: California Indians, Indians of California, Tribes of California, Native Americans in California. We have two very short paragraphs in the prehistory section of History of California, a two-thirds blue-linked list of tribes in the California section of Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas but with no text (the Category:California tribes has only a fraction of those), and a good map and a couple sentences in the Greenland, Canada & USA section of Indigenous languages of the Americas. That's all I found. Rmhermen 17:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Laws in California, USA
What are California's equivalents for the USC and C.F.R? I searched for "California Code" and found nothing in Wikipedia.Patchouli 15:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- At the most general level, it seems to be referred to as "California Law", comprising the state constitution, various codes, and statutes. This website from the California state government offers a searchable database of the various codes. --Bth 15:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's a little confusing, because California appears to have 29 separate "codes" (all searchable at the page mentioned above) of statutes rather than a single code like the U.S. Code. The regulations are in the California Code of Regulations, available here. -- Mwalcoff 01:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Community,City, and Town rights vs. constitution rights
Hello, Am having trouble finding information regarding our community/city rights. I need to compare them to our consitutional rights. Want I need help on, is finding a site, or if anyone knows, our rights in our city. Thanks you for any information.
- Your question is not very clear to me, but under the U.S. system, cities are completely the creatures of the states -- each individual state passes what laws it thinks best regarding the legal status of cities. AnonMoos 17:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- AnonMoos is right. Specifically, a city is actually a corporation. If you want to know the "bylaws" of your particular city then you should go to your city's city hall and ask for them. These would be your city's "rules and regulations" as passed by city council. However, as a city, your city has no constitutional rights, and by extension, whatever is contained in your city's bylaws can be changed at the whim of the state/province within which it is located. Perhaps if your question specified which city/state/country you're refering to, and what "constitutional" rights you're speaking of, we can be of better help. Loomis51 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Folk music font?
Can anyone suggest a font that they feel represents folk music? I'm doing the program for a folk festival, and need some suggestions. -- Zanimum 17:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
How about one of those fonts that look like tree branches (crude wood)? You can probably find one online to download if it isnt in your collection. alteripse 22:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
From State to Federal
My qestion is how would someone get an issue from a state to a federal level if anyone has any information on this it would be greatly appreciated thank you.
- Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.
- As a technical legal matter, that quite depends on what federal republic you are in. Generally, write to the federal member of parliament that represents you, or to other persons of influence at the federal level, e.g. members of the government or media representatives, and ask them to do something about whatever concerns you. At least, that's the civic-minded way to go about this... Sandstein 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your quetion is very vague, it doesn't mention what country you're talking about, and what you mean by "issue". In any case, in federations (not all federal states are republics!), as a general rule, "issues," if I understand what you mean by that that you're referring to heads of power, are meant to be divided between the state/provincial level and the federal level, with as little overlap as possible. So as a preliminary answer to your question, under normal circumstances, getting an "issue" from a state to a federal level is, in theory at least, supposed to be impossible.
- Take, for example, the issue of crime in the United States. According to the US constitution, criminal law is a state issue. However, there do exist certain federal crimes, but these are meant to be exceptional. In any case, as a general example, if someone is murdered in one particular state, that state has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and has ultimate authority in trying the accused. Under most circumstances, you simply can't make it into a federal "issue". But again, there are exceptions. I'll stop here, because without further information, such as, once again, what country you're talking about, and what you mean by "issue", it's simply imposible to give you any sort of informed answer. Loomis51 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Desk copies
How do I order a desk copy for future adoption?
- Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.
- You want to adopt a what? Sandstein 19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- He seems to think that the Wikipedia site is an advertisement for a book... AnonMoos 02:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are people working on putting together a so-called Wikipedia 1.0. It's a long-term project, though, so the questioner shouldn't hold his breath. And in particular, the exact method of publication is yet to be decided so ordering "desk copies" isn't going to be possible for a long time to come. --Bth 08:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia 1.0 has been in the works since 2003 at least. If it materializes, it'll probably be the Featured Articles and maybe a few others, if print. If not print, it'll probably be on DVD-ROM. If it does materialize, I want a free copy. (I also want a hot fudge sundae for lunch.) Geogre 15:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hate Crimes
I recently heard an excellent argument that laws against hate crimes are punishment for improper thoughts. I think the logic was irrefutable. Here is an example: In the evening, a businessman leaves his office. He is well-dressed and carrying a briefcase. He is set upon by several thugs, who steal his money, watch and briefcase, then beat him to death. Obviously, first-degree murder deserving of the most severe punishment under the law. A few days later, it comes out that this businessman was a homosexual. Was that a hate crime? What if the thugs did not know he was gay, but just saw a promising target? What if they knew the man, knew he was gay, but attacked him just for his valuables? Now let's suppose a bystander heard the attack. She heard the killers yelling taunts and obscenities, but could not make out most of what they were saying. Does the anger of the killers make this a hate crime? What if the witness says that she heard the thugs yelling anti-gay epithets - a hate crime? What if she says she heard the thugs yelling anti-French epithets - a hate crime?(yes,he was of French lineage). The point is, punishment for a hate crime of murder is more severe than punishment for a simple murder. Therefore, the added punishment is for the improper thought - hating someone, not just coldly killing them. Can anyone disagree? Can anyone say that the government should punish improper thoughts?
- Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.
- I am not familiar with the U.S. hate crimes issue and this is not a political discussion forum, but governments frequently do punish "improper thoughts" if they are made manifest in some objectionable way. See e.g. libel, slander, pornography, censorship and more generally the category of aggravating circumstances for a crime, which can include motives like greed. Sandstein 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Every legal system of which I am aware (and I strongly suspect, every legal system) varies the punishment for crimes according to the motive of the criminal. Punishments for killing someone for fun are generally more severe than punishments for killing someone in anger. Hate crime legislation is simply a codification of this process in one particular area. One can debate whether this codification is helpful, but arguing that it's something new and unusual will not get you far. HenryFlower 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that hate is not only a thought. It really drives you to acts such as killin' someone. Those are made more reprehensible than just love of easy money : which shows that the law protects us and not only our money. --DLL 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is that public lynchings disrupt society to a greater extent that garden-variety murders and as such are viewed more unfavorably by the judge. Dr Zak 23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good grief, by this argument governments publish improper thoughts every day. The only difference between manslaughter and murder is the thought in the mind of the perpetrator. Improper intent is (ideally, though actually only in theory) necessary in order for an action to be criminal. - Nunh-huh 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh is right on track. The argument was clearly not made by a lawyer, as any lawyer will tell you that for ANY crime to be committed (at least in western criminal justice systems), there must be (at the very least) two fundamental components: the actus reus (the criminal act) as well as the mens rea (the criminal mental state (i.e. the criminal "thought")). In other words, ALL crimes, to be crimes, MUST, by definition, involve "improper thoughts". Loomis51 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
...heres my take, using your example. if they attacked him just for the money, then their motive is clear, almost rational. the poor french, gay business man was in the wrong place and the wrong time. if however, they attacked him BECAUSE he was gay or french then their motive is a whole lot more sinister. attacking someone beacuase they're gay is surely no different in principal to the anti-semistism in germany in the 30's, to name but one of countless examples. its surely right then that motive is taken into account when punishing a crime
Nuclear Exchange
We all know about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I heard that in the early 1970's there was an exchane of nuclear wepaons between the USSR and China around the Mongolia region during their border conflict. Is there any truth to this? If so, where can I find information about the subject?
- Who did you hear this from? It's certainly untrue, as governments and other organisations all over the world would have noticed the effects of a nuclear war taking place. It seems unlikely that they would all have conspired to cover it up. (Unless of course they were being controlled by the Illuminati). HenryFlower 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It didn't happen. There have been no purposeful nuclear exchanges since 1945. (There were a few accidents in which nuclear weapons were dropped on other countries, but did not detonate in full explosions.) --Fastfission 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
islam
Is Islam the only religion with separate branches or sects
- You already asked this question, and the answer was "obviously not". Every religion (possible exceptions... Scientology?) has separate braches or sects. —Keenan Pepper 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- See the earlier discussion: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#School of thought — QuantumEleven 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Scientology doesn't have any branches??? I see a plan:
- 1. Create a branch of Scientology.
- 2. Get a bunch of weird Hollywood types to join.
- 3. ???
- 4. Profit!
- Yes. That should work. --Kainaw (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- They'd sue you for copyright and trademark infringement. Scientology's not just a religion, it's a business! --Fastfission 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Underpants Scientology? - Nunh-huh 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Scientology has many breakaway sects, most of which are lumped together into the Free Zone. Since the CoS would like to create the impression that Scientology is "unified", the Free Zone is relentlessly hounded and coerced. Nevertheless, it continues to exist. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- So I was right, all religions have sects. —Keenan Pepper 01:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Dictator Quotations
I am looking for quotations (if they exist) for certain historical rulers. Specifically Vlad Dracula, Ivan the Terrible and Caligula. If you know of any sources for quotations from these figures or any other bloodthirsty dictators please help. Thank you very much for your time. ------kVox
- Try looking these characters up on WikiQuote.
Thanks! I didn't know about Wikiquote. I found a couple Caligula quotes, but nothing else. If anyone knows of anything Vlad Dracula or Ivan the Terrible said or is alleged to have said I woud be very grateful... --kVox
- Dracula is a fictional character so you might want to read the book Dracula by Bram Stoker for any quotes. AllanHainey 07:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Vlad III Dracula (aka Vlad the Impaler or Vlad Tepes) was a real historical figure, though. Can't find any quotes from him though. --Bth 08:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Any quotation from him not from something he wrote himself is likely apocryphal, though. The guy has too much mythology around him. (Since the same goes for the other's it's presumably why this is being asked in the first place). --BluePlatypus 03:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I am definitely referring to the real Vlad III Dracula, thanks for your help. I would be happy to hear quotes from ANY historical figure that has been perceived as a blood thirsty tyrant. Thanks... --KVox 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Try Napoleon. --DLL 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
If all you're looking for is quotes from figures "been perceived as a blood thirsty tyrants", then go to WikiQuote and start typing in names like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, "Papa Doc" Duvalier... If you wan't ones of the level of Caligula, then try Queen Ranavalona as well. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
May 4
Which Civilization Is Older?
Who existed on the earth first, Caucasians or East Indians (from India)?
Thanks,
Vikram
- Well, "Caucasian" is not really a "civilization". If you look at our page on Civilization#Early_civilizations, it should give you an idea of what is currently known about early civilizations. --Fastfission 01:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The Indus River civilization is among the oldest known, up there with the ancient Egyptians and the Mesopotamians, when the Indoeuropeans were still in the stone age. Note that most of the people living in India today are also Indoeuropeans, and have the same forebears. -lethe talk + 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the false title, and thank you for your answer. --Vikram
Physical Outline Map of Europe
Hello. I need help finding a digital verison of a map of Europe, without borders, which I can print and practice with. Thanks, --Vikram
- Try Commons:Europe, Commons:Category:Maps_of_Europe or Commons:Category:Maps of the European Union which may have what you need. Sandstein 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for leading me in the right direction, but I can't seem to find a map of Europe without the borders. --Vikram
- I occasionally use the Online Map Creator for making quick maps - you can select things like projection, area, and which features (borders, cities...) should be included. It's not too shabby, it's online and it's free to use. There is also a more advanced (but still in beta) system at planiglobe.com. — QuantumEleven 06:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sexual Orientation
There are many sexual orientations in the world:heterosexuality,homosexuality,bisexuality, and asexuality.Well, if one doesn't like or is not happy with one's own sexual orientation(as if that person is a homosexual who wants to become heterosexual, or a heterosexual who who wants to become asexual) then what should that person do about it?
- Read choice and sexual orientation and some of the linked articles. This is an enormously controversial area, partly because many conservative religious groups make an a priori assumption that sexual orientation is a choice and that homosexuality is a bad one. But there is some evidence to suggest that for many people homosexuality is a very strong, deep-seated preference that, even if not genetic, emerges very early in life. Think of it this way: assuming that you're happily heterosexual, how difficult do you think it would be to become exclusively homosexual? --Robert Merkel 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just to provide a POV balance, there's also a number of theologians, philosophers, scientists (albeit a minority), historians and others that would disagree with some of the above assertations. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 08:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. Humans are complex creates, and we've only scratched the surface in figuring ourselves out :) --Robert Merkel 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, there is probably no such thing as "human nature." Nearly anything you can attribute to it, someone will defy (meaning human "essence" -- a thing that all humans must have in their minds/souls to be humans). However, I can say this: I never recall having any temptation to homosexuality, and therefore I never had to make a choice. Therefore, I cannot take any credit for being heterosexual. I have difficulty, therefore, in ascribing blame to someone who is homosexual. There is, of course, a big difference between desire and action, but the desire appears to be what matters in the moral debate. Geogre 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- It depends, Geogre. The range of attitudes I've encountered includes:
- It's ok to have homosexual feelings and it's ok to act on them.
- It's ok to have homosexual feelings, but not to act on them.
- It's not ok to have homosexual feelings, and you have to do all you can to change the way you are.
- It's not ok to have homosexual feelings, but as long as you keep it your own dirty little secret, nobody will ever know, so we'll just say no more about it, eh. JackofOz 03:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It depends, Geogre. The range of attitudes I've encountered includes:
- Furthermore, there is probably no such thing as "human nature." Nearly anything you can attribute to it, someone will defy (meaning human "essence" -- a thing that all humans must have in their minds/souls to be humans). However, I can say this: I never recall having any temptation to homosexuality, and therefore I never had to make a choice. Therefore, I cannot take any credit for being heterosexual. I have difficulty, therefore, in ascribing blame to someone who is homosexual. There is, of course, a big difference between desire and action, but the desire appears to be what matters in the moral debate. Geogre 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, indeed. What has been interesting to me is that people who otherwise emphasize the intent suddenly switch to the deed, and those normally interested in the deed switch over to the intent. For example, the official line on homosexuality in the Roman Catholic seminary is that celibacy is the important thing, not the type of sex one is celibate from (or at least it was -- I'm not sure if the recent papal bulls are changing this). On the other hand, radical protestants, who have traditionally been caught between penalizing the desire and the act, seem to have much less concern over whether or not a person acts upon the desire, for the desire itself is horrific. This is much less clear in their discussions of male homosexuality than of female homosexuality. In the US, the hoi poloi are probably not concerned with either the desire or the act: they are concerned with the seeming. If a person "acts gay," they are gay, whether they have any same-sex attraction or same-sex action. Geogre 12:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Drawings of court proceedings
I was reading the article on Zacarias Moussaoui's sentencing, when I noticed something: In an American (and perhaps other countries too) court, I have never seen any photographs taken while the court is in session, is that always the case? If so, why is that? And is that why someone (who?) draws a picture of the proceedings (such as the picture in the BBC article I linked to) - for what purpose? Thanks in advance for any help on this - I'm curious! — QuantumEleven 06:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know about America (though I'd presume its the same) but in Britain it is illegal to take photographs of a trial in process. I'd suspect the reason is because people are innocent until proved guilty & to show photos of them in court could reflect badly on them, lower peoples opinion of them & make people think their guilty. Also if photos were allowed in courtrooms it could lead to witnesses being identified & make reprisals for testifying easier. The use of sketch artists is basically just a way to get around the photo ban (though I don't believe they sketch witnesses whose identity needs to be protected). AllanHainey 07:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just realised you asked who too, the sketch artist is employed by news organisations (usually TV) who want to have some pictures to show. AllanHainey 07:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that US federal trials (like this one) work under the same rules as Britain, but state courts are often televised (the OJ trial, for instance). --Bth 08:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Does Judge Judy's court have any real legal status? Hard to tell from the article. JackofOz 09:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, though the people on it sign waivers agreeing that her judgement is binding. It seems to be essentially a form of arbitration dressed up with courtroom superficialities and taking place in public on television. Because if you've got an embarrassing personal situation, the way to make it better is to tell the entire country about it. (The article used to be clearer; User:Nails3jesus0's only edit ever was to remove a reference to other courts as "real" on the grounds that Judge Judy's court is not dissimilar to real small claims courts.) --Bth 10:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Does Judge Judy's court have any real legal status? Hard to tell from the article. JackofOz 09:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm always amused by TV reports that show the court room drawings, but pixilated, so we can't identify who the drawing is of anyway. Adambrowne666 11:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you everyone! — QuantumEleven 06:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Oldest women alive today in Britain
Does anyone please know who is the oldest woman alive today in Britain? Thank you.
- Up until March 1 of this year, it was Edith "Judy" Ingamells. It doesn't look like there are any supercentenarians currently alive in the UK, though, and I can't find any lists for people between the ages of 100 and 110. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
But Edith Ingermells is no longer alive TODAY. The question is "who is the oldest woman alive TODAY in Britain?"
- Hence my qualification "Up until March 1", and my explanation that information on living people between the ages of 100 and 110 is difficult to obtain. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems odd to me that we should expect to be able to find this out. Who would release such information? Doesn't it breach the privacy rights of the individuals concerned, if done without consent? What if they didn't consent (or weren't considered mentally competent to make informed consent)? Notinasnaid 10:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- There's enough interest in this from news media (and particularly the Guinness Book of Records) that people tend to know, though I suppose a particularly reclusive oldest-person could avoid the limelight. But registers of births and deaths are public record. Using them it would be trivial but immensely time-consuming to find the oldest living person who had been born in a region with good public records. The media however tend to tell us about them when they die or celebrate a particularly milestone-y birthday so Google doesn't tend to show up current ones so much as the recently-deceased. The oldest woman living in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records is Maria Esther de Capovilla of Ecuador; if she was a Brit we'd automatically have the answer but as it is we'll have to keep searching. --Bth 11:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Interest or not, it is still an issue of privacy. I felt sorry for a women I saw on CNN a while back. Her family threw her a 100th birthday and CNN was there to cover the whole thing. When they asked her what she thought, she said that she was upset because she had been telling her boyfriend she was only 90. --Kainaw (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Land Revenue in India.
I have three queries regarding to Land Revenue in India:
1. What is the origin and history of Land Revenue in India? 2. What are the diffrent state laws relating to Land Revenue in India? 3. Is Land Revenue prevelant all over the world? --Siddhant 07:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Try here and some of the other links at the side, though beware of POV as it's from a website about a new computerised system for doing it.
- Sorry, no idea.
- It seems to be a form of property tax, which is common worldwide. --Bth 08:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank You Bth. The first link was extremely useful. If some one has answer to the 2nd and the 3rd answer please answer. --Siddhant 13:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Wives of Biblical Adam
I have done countless searches and have only discovered one. Lilith, Adams first wife. The adam I am refering to is the Adam from Adam and Eve. I was told that he supposedly had two wives before Eve. If anyone could help me figure out who the second wife is I would greatly appreciate it.
- Erm... your research seems to have turned up some strange results. According to the Bible (not that the Bible is the only reference book in this case, but it's probably the most well-known), Adam had only one wife, Eve (imagine the upheaval if Adam, the patriarch of all patriarchs, had been married more than once without his previous wife dying! Either divorce or polygamy! Aarrgh! ;) ). Where the "Lilith as Adam's first wife" story comes from, see Lilith#Lilith as Adam's first wife - the story is somewhat apocryphal. However, as we're dealing with mythology here, the question of "did Adam have a wife before Eve" can, by definition, never be settled. You may be interested in our comprehensive article on Adam and Eve, it should answer many of your questions. — QuantumEleven 08:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, the Adam and Eve article includes this between-Lilith-and-Eve wife, in the "Later Abrahamic traditions" section: apparently the story is that God didn't put Adam to sleep before creating her, and having seen how she was made Adam was too disgusted to go near her. This story is attributed by the article to The Alphabet of Ben Sira, a Midrash from early medieval times. --Bth 08:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict - Bth got there before I did!) Some further reading turned up the source of your "two wives before Eve" story - The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, a medieval manuscript. According to Adam and Eve#Jewish traditions (about a page down), this manuscript mentions the two wives of Adam, but doesn't give a name to the second (the reasoning being that one account in Genesis says Eve was created from Adam, while the other says humans were created (implying at the same time). Some scholars interpreted as saying there were humans created other than Adam and Eve...). This is a nice example of the trouble one can get into if one relies on a text which has been passed down orally, translated, retranslated, split apart, mashed back together, combined with other texts, and translated a few more times. — QuantumEleven 08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time. It was a big help
Gallipoli Campaign
The two questions i need help with are:
How did the Gallipoli Campaign come to an end (accurately)
Why did the campaign become so significant for Australians.
The impact these developments had on Australians and Australian Society.
≈≈≈≈
- See Battle of Gallipoli and August Offensive.
- See Landing at Anzac Cove and ANZAC Day. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Mussolini and the Italian Jews
Is it true that Mussolini did infact start to persecute the Jews and established racial segregation? If it is true, could I please have a source. Thanks.Skittles7841 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- This topic came up in Italian politics a couple years ago. There's an article on CNN about it here. Summary: Mussolini and his fascist party did not round up Jews, put them in concentration camps, or kill them. However, they did assist the Germans with locations of the Jews and supplies for building and maintaining their camps. How much of that is fact and how much is revisionist history is up for debate. --Kainaw (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I should have also pointed out that Mussolini's fascist party was very brutal and killed the opposition. Many Jews were part of the opposition, but it is a rationalization to claim that Mussolini killed them because they were Jewish. He killed them because they opposed him. --Kainaw (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is pure speculation on my part, and far be it from me to stand up for a brutal, murderous dictator like Mussolini who was probably, in any event an anti-Semite, but the facts of WWII would seem to imply that Mussolini's fascism was its own independent breed, and shared very little if anything in common with Hitler's racially based Nazism. The two madmen were merely allies of convenience, and indeed, before the war began Hitler had to take several deliberate steps to get Mussolini onside, and even then, their respective outlooks on the war and what it was about must have diverged heavily. Otherwise, it would be extremely difficult to understand why Mussolini, the leader of what Hitler would no doubt describe as a nation of swarthy, lazy, non-Aryan and therefore sub-human people, would buy into Hitler's racial theories of the dominance and superiority of the German-Aryan "master race". Loomis51 22:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Mussolini was an anti-semite. So was Franco, so was Horthy. Both Hungary and Italy had, from the late 30's anti-semitic legislation. (See, e.g.: it:Leggi razziali fasciste, in Italian). As Kainaw points out, there's a revisionist tendency to try to whitewash these guys from all antisemitism - a blatant lie. But it's also overly broad to say they were full-out participants in the Holocaust. Italy did not send their Jews to the death camps until Mussolini was de facto deposed in the Saló Republic, the same went for Hungary where Horthy was booted in an SS-backed coup by the Arrowed-Cross. Fascism is not inextricably linked with antisemitism, though. No other facist regimes (antisemtic or not) ever "bought into" Hitler's racial theories. The alliances were not built on that, but on fascist ideology and megalomania. (although Franco was perhaps not so megalomanial, which is why he stayed out of the war) Also, the Nazis were themselves prepared to abandon their racial theories when convenient to do so. --BluePlatypus 03:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Civil War The United States in 1800
Why does the flag of the Confederate States of America have 13 stars when there are only 11 states in the Confederacy?
- Did you consider looking at flags of the Confederate States of America? --Kainaw (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just curious, why does the questioner make reference to the year 1800? Loomis51 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect he means 1800s. HenryFlower 22:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened to Mouschi?
According to the play Diary of Anne Frank, the beloved cat Mouschi somehow ran away from the secret annex. My class is reading the play with me and we are all wondering if it was foul play on someone's part, since some didn't like the cat. Any ideas if it was an accident or intended? Is anything known about what happened to it after it left, if it made it back home or someone took it in? Not a big concern, but my class would like knowing, since we know so much about the people involved.
- Did you read the book ? It might be more accurate than the play. --DLL 21:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- According to this, Hermine Gies looked after her after the raid.--nodutschke 13:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- @DLL: How would looking at the diary of Anne Frank answer this question? I mean, it is a diary and it ends before Anne was captured, so there is no way that one would find anything about the whereabouts of the cat after Anne was gone, right?--nodutschke 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Swiss watches and chocolates
Can anyone tell me what makes the Swiss watches and chocolates so special? And why are they so famous? thanks
- Advertising and product recognition. --Kainaw (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- For a good starting place to learn about why swiss watchmakers are so famous, take a look at Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Rolex, Audemars Piguet and my favorite Ulysse Nardin. (The rolex article is the only good article but check out the offical websites too.) --Chapuisat 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- For watches, see also COSC. Their chocolate is not special. --Shantavira 06:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Logic
I guess this question should be on the math section maybe, but anyway... 'is truth a tautology'? I have read the tautology article but found nothing to clear this question for me.--Cosmic girl 20:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- According to our truth article, truth is a naked dame. More seriously, in logic a tautology is a statement that is unconditionally true: "All men are mortal, or not." Since most of us hold some non-tautological statements to be true (e.g. "all men are mortal"), I think the answer to your question is no. David Sneek 21:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting question, and I think you've asked the it in the right section. I don't think "truth" would qulify as a tautology. But I suspect there's a lot more to your question, and it would be helpful if you provided the context, as well as a more detailed definition of what you mean when you say "truth". In any case, from what I understand a tautology is more of a classification of a particular type of logical argument. For example, the statement "truth is truth" would better fit the description of a tautology. Another thing is that you may be confusing what is logically valid with what is true. The two are not necessarily the same. For example, the statement "little green men from Mars = little green men from Mars" is a tautology, regardless of the fact that "little green men from Mars" (probably!) don't exist. But I feel that don't have the full context of the question, and that perhaps my explanation may be lacking in certain areas, so I open the question up to others who may be able to provide a clearer answer. Loomis51 21:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- A tautology says what it says. Truth says more : that the opposite is untrustworthy. --DLL 21:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. thnx. but hey, truth says what it says also, otherwise it'd be false, that's why I say truth is a tautology since, little truths can contrast themselves objectively with the 'outside', but for example, any absolute, can not...so it's subjective, so, according to my weird line of thought, it's a tautology, but may be missing something, so correct me if you see the mistake. --Cosmic girl 15:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
ASSIGNMENT
WHAT SHOULD I DO MY ENGLISH SPEECH ON
On latin americas socialist crisis.--Cosmic girl 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
On why writing only in capital letters is extremely annoying. Loomis51 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
On what writer is a combination of Jorge Luis Borges and Mark Twain. — QuantumEleven 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
On a keyboard that can type in lower case. -- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Or on a dream you have. Or the endangered pastatutes and what steps we must do for their survival. Get some ideas from existing speaches: wikisource:Wikisource:Speeches or commons:Category:Speeches. – b_jonas 23:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
A dais. MeltBanana 00:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The pros and cons of suitly emphazing. СПУТНИКССС Р 02:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- How Walter Shandy was correct and whatever name a person has does determine that person's future personality. Use various "Herberts" and "Margarets" for examples. Compare them to "Johns" and "Beths." Geogre 12:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
John Keneth Galbraith
In July or August 1971 Galbraith wrote an article that appeared in a Pasadena Ca. news paper in which he said " Women who marry beneath their station in life ARE INVARIABLY CARTED OFF TO SOME GOD-FORSAKEN PLACE LIKE GALLUP, NEW MEXICO AND NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN ". My wife definitely married beneath her station in life and was stuffing our nine children into our second hand Studebaker to join me in Gallup, NM where I would be studying to become a permanent deacon in the Catholic Church. If you could help me in locating the article, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Deacon Bill Starrs, Clarkdale AZ Ph. [removed, please check back here for responses].
What country has never been in a civil war, or had a threat of aggression.
What country has never been in a civil war, or had a threat of aggression. Any new country that as been formed recently, consider the history of the geographical area.
This is a homework project that my 9th grader came home with yesterday. We spent all last evening trying to figure this one out and find a referance to of support.
Can someone lead us in the right direction for help?
Thanks
<email removed>
Robert
- Well, "never been in a civil war" (in the strict sense) includes lots of countries and probably a majority in the world. Countries may have varying levels of civil conflict, protest, and even separatist movements, but not actually experience a civil war. A civil war is in part defined as a country in which at least two armed groups/organizations can claim a basic "monopoly of violence" over different areas. A bomb in a market place is not necessarily a civil war (and many countries have those now and again); a country in which there are provinces in which the (supposed) central gov't cannot operate may indicate a civil war, by contrast.
- (Never) "had a threat of aggression" is very difficult. I think you could argue that it is impossible to be a country in this world and have had no threat of aggression. My first thought is Micronesia--perhaps you could find one country in there that would fit your criteria. But no "threat of aggression" for the globe at large may be fanciful. One way to look at it this is: European colonialism covered virtually the entire globe with very few exceptions (Thailand and Antarctica...). Thus, at least within the last four centuries everybody has been threatened with at least that form of aggression. Marskell 22:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, as you state I find this homework assignment has too many varablies. Many which you have mentioned. The teacher did tell my daughter that Antarctica wasn't the correct answer. Any more input will be thankful.
- Are you being set-up ;)? A question like this, particularly the last part ("no threat of aggression"), likely doesn't have a "correct" answer. Marskell 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Was there suposed to be one "correct" answer? If so, my guess would be Vatican City. To my knowledge, the Vatican, at least in modern times, has never had anything that can be described as a civil war, and has never been the subject of a threat of agression. Loomis51 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Although its predecessor, the Papal States, certainly did. How about Costa Rica? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What about the Bahamas? Barbados? Belize? Fiji? New Zealand? Singapor? Zambia? Great, Now I so confused, just trying to help my daughter with her homework and look what I've got into. Thanks for ya'lls input. Mike
- The Caribbean is out. During the early European occupation, those countries were formed, reformed, overtaken, formed again, overtaken... then the slaves revolted and eventually things calmed down to what we have today. You may look into Bermuda. It isn't in the Caribbean.
- New Zealand's out too - see New Zealand Wars Lisiate 00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- You beat me to that one, Lisiate. Bermuda had an abortive coup back in the 1980s, ISTR, and Fiji's been on the brink of civil war several times since the early 1990s. Zambia's probably out, too, though it is one of Africa's more stable countries. Iceland, maybe? Grutness...wha? 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Those don't sound like proper Civil Wars though. A coup is a coup, pretty much. All those countries have been subject to Colonialism though. Iceland too, just earlier than most. :) --BluePlatypus 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm.. Civil War is somewhat subjective, but under most definitions there are plenty of countries who've never had a Civil War by their own definitions. I'm not sure at all what is meant by "Threat of aggression"? Do you mean threatening other nations with aggression, or being threatened? And to what extent? I think it's safe to say every country has been threatened with aggression either through conventional or colonial expansion. For a European country, Sweden is somewhat unusual in never having had a Civil War (in the sense of armed factions controlling territories) or been occupied by a foreign power (somewhat disputable, but I'll not get into that). They were, however, both the agent and patient of foreign aggression almost constantly for three centuries. --BluePlatypus 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- One of the things about a civil war is that there are many states created by a civil war. Therefore, those states have never (yet) had a civil war. Only by misunderstanding "nation" and "region" can we disallow, for example, South Korea from the list. Similarly, a failed revolution is a civil war, while a successful civil war is a revolution. Again, the distinctions only work if you consider a region as a nation. Has Mexico had a civil war? Well, was Mexico's formation a civil war? Further, threats of aggression are meaningless. I can threaten to go to war against Baffin Island right now, but it's not a credible threat. A threat becomes a real threat only when an army is mobilized and an intent announced or confessed. Have any nations threatened the US? Well....sort of. Have any threatened Canada? Well, that depends on whether Canada was a nation during the War of 1812 or part of "England." You see what I mean: the more you think about the question, the fuzzier it gets. Geogre 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
May 5
NATO Summit 2006
If the Nato 2006 summit is to be held in Latvia towards the end, why am I hearing about something having to do with a NATO summit in Vilnius? — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Confusion? I once saw an intriguing graffiti reading "Riga is Latvian!" (as if that was contested?). I always imagined it was spray-painted by some frustrated Balt who was tired of folk confusing them. Anyway, the November NATO summit is going to be in Riga. Which is in Latvia. :) There's currently a conference in Lithuania, which is a summit of sorts, but not an official NATO summit. --BluePlatypus 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Law of Returns
Define Laws Of Returns
- Why not look it up in your textbook? Dismas|(talk) 04:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- We have an article on law of return. --Shantavira 06:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The Alphabet of Ben-Sira
The article on The Alphabet of Ben-Sira quotes Lilith as saying the following:
"'Leave me!' she said. 'I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days.'
The article on Lilith says:
A Hebrew tradition exists in which an amulet is inscribed with the names of three angels and placed around the neck of newborn boys in order to protect them from the lilin until their circumcision.
So, since circumcisions are normally done about 7-8 days after birth and this matches the figure mentioned above, is there a similar rite/tradition/whatever that female babies go through after 20 days? Or was there at one time which has gone out of vogue over time? Dismas|(talk) 05:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- (This is all from Google; I have no expertise in this area but given the intersection between the Internet and Jewish minutiae someone somewhere will.) Girls don't seem to have as much ritual attached to them, so different traditions have evolved in different ways. On Wikipedia, zeved habat explains various customs, but none of them seem to be done at specifically twenty days. This page at about.com lists fourteen different times after birth for naming girls that have been used in various times and places, none of which is twenty days. So it looks like not. (Also note that other sources for the Lilith-is-out-to-kill-your-baby legend have it that she can only get boys within the first night of their life, so it doesn't necessarily tie up with circumcision that closely.) --Bth 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
director of a pvt ltd company
can a director of a pvt ltd company can start his own business under his proprietory Anilsana 06:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- By "pvt ltd", do you mean "private, limited"? And do you mean a second business, apart from the one he is currently a director of, or was that referring to the start-up? Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 10:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also, do you mean in the UK or the US or Canada or Australia...assuming it to be Anglophone at all? Geogre 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Apartheid
The notorious system had created unimaginable consequence, yet i wonder if it brings along any positive impacts to the world.
- positive impacts to the world,...... nope, sorry I can't think of anything that apartheid did that made a positive impact on the world. People affected or living in South Africa during this period did the best they could and some went on and made a impact on the world. --Jcw69 08:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It provided a rich source for prizewinning literature. Nadine Gordimer and John Maxwell Coetzee both won Nobel prizes for novels based on the apartheid era. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Playing advocatus diaboli here... Boer autocracy did prevent the establishment of the sort of "socialist" dictatorial kleptocracy that characterised the Africa of the de-colonisation era (and often still does). This sort of government might otherwise have been difficult to avoid at the time, and, while hardly less unpleasant than Apartheid, it would certainly have left South Africa far less advanced and prosperous once it gained democracy. Apartheid would thus be a sort of lesser evil, if you will. Sandstein 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- That was the argument put forward by the South African government at the time, and it was echoed by Richard Nixon, who put a premium on S. Africa as a bulwark against Communism. In fact, the anti-Communist line was the justification for ignoring everything about S. Africa. I shouldn't say that that was a good, though. At most, it would be a different sort of evil, but I'm not sure it's even that. After all, the South African Defense Force was also used, in the name of anti-Communism, to intervene in other nations, so the single element supposed to excuse apartheid (anti-communism and a strong military) was also an evil in interventionism. Geogre 15:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It provided a rich source for prizewinning literature. Nadine Gordimer and John Maxwell Coetzee both won Nobel prizes for novels based on the apartheid era. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It has been argued that Apartheid rule was harsh enough to keep the crime rate low and the labor force working. After Apartheid, crime (especially the murder rate) increased drastically as well as unemployment. The counter-argument is that at the end of the Apartheid, the murder and unemployment rate were already rising. In 2004, the South African govt refuted those statistics by showing that the murder/unemployment rates were not as high as estimated. Interpol refuted that report with one of their own reporting double the murder rate. Also, there is the lingering argument that crime and unemployment were underreported during Apartheid. But, if you want to believe that Apartheid kept the crime and unemployment rates low, that would be one positive influence of the government. --Kainaw (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Freddie Mercury
Please can you let me know what the name of the last album made by Freddie Mercury is called.
Many Thansk
- Barcelona, in 1998. A quick glance at Freddie Mercury would've pulled this up in less than the time it took to add your question here, so try checking things like that out first. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 10:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Abolishing the armed forces
(sorry for the earlier post, this ought to be here, not at Misc)
I was browsing through Wikipedia and came across Costa Rica and list of countries without armed forces. This got me thinking - the countries on the latter list are, with one or two exceptions, either very small states whose defence is assured by a neighbour (eg Andorra), or have historically rarely had armed forces (several Caribbean islands). Have any larger countries (say, Germany) ever considered abolishing their armed forces and only having a civilian police force? Its defence would be provided under the NATO treaty (although, I'm sure that it would, by the same treaty, be obliged to come to the defence of another member... so that might not work), and they have no engaged in offensive warfare for a while. I suppose peacekeeping in third countries would suffer - but, on the upside, the money that goes into maintaining the armed forces could be channeled elsewhere. The threat of invasion of a western country is negligible (although, it could be argued, that's because they have both their own army and the world's largest toyshop backing them up). Has this sort of move ever been considered by some of the more major players in the world? — QuantumEleven 11:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- While neither a "major player in the world" nor a NATO member, Switzerland did hold a popular referendum over the abolition of its then 600'000-strong militia army in November 1989. GSoA, a left-wing group, had collected the 100'000 signatures needed for a referendum on a constitutional amendment in 1986. While only 36 percent of voters did in fact vote for abolishing the army, this was seen, at the time, as an absolutely shocking amount of opposition to one of the country's most respected institutions (although the then-in-progress fall of the Berlin Wall probably played a part as well). The Swiss Army has since been progressively reduced to around 180'000 soldiers. Sandstein 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- On the merits, I would argue that there can be no such thing as a state without an armed force, as a matter of definition. Without an army, an air force and (as the case may be) a navy, a government cannot comprehensively enforce its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, which is an an essential attribute of statehood itself. Without an armed force, there is no state, just a bunch of people and buildings waiting to be collected by the next band of hairy guys with weapons (a very common feature in history). Sandstein 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Except that under your deifnition even many states with armed forces are not technically "states" since their armed forces would likely pose no great difficulty in other states gaining sovereignty over them. Sovereignty and political autonomy are more complicated than guys with guns, though guys with guns are certainly part of the equation. --Fastfission 15:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- And 'armed force' in this sense is a term of art: it means 'army/navy/air force', not just 'group of people with some kind of weapon'. I'm sure that at least some of the police in Costa Rica, for example, have weapons of some kind. HenryFlower 15:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree that it's not a black-or-white issue - having a large, well-equipped police may help somewhat. But there's a difference in not being able to repel 10 armoured divisions rolling over your border, and not being able to deal with even some dozen AK-47-wielding armed men who decide they're going to take over your capital as their private fiefdom. Can you see donut-munching police officers going up against even your typical brand of RPG-blasting warlord henchman, now a dime a dozen in Africa? Sandstein 16:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Lead actor playing himself.
Can anyone one think of any films where a lead or supporting actor (not just a cameo) played himself/herself? On my list at the moment I have:
- Audie Murphy in To Hell and Back
- M. E. Clifton James in I Was Monty's Double
- John Malkovich in Being John Malkovich
- Brad Pitt is supposed to star as himself and a guy who looks just like him in Chad Schmidt after he finishes filming Oceans 13. --Kainaw (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff Goldblum recently played a character called Jeff Goldblum, but he claims he wasn't playing himself - whatever that might mean. It's called Pittsburgh. Rmhermen 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Julia Roberts played a character impersonating herself in Ocean's Twelve. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Odna, a classic of early Soviet cinema, features a main character called Yelena Kuzmina, played by the actress Yelena Kuzmina. Like Goldblum, however, she was not really playing 'herself'- the character in the film was a teacher, not an actor. HenryFlower 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Julia Roberts played a character impersonating herself in Ocean's Twelve. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff Goldblum recently played a character called Jeff Goldblum, but he claims he wasn't playing himself - whatever that might mean. It's called Pittsburgh. Rmhermen 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about Pancho Villa? He played himself in movies about himself. --Kainaw (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- You could also include pretty much every single gonzo documentary film/pornographic film. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Mendi
Are there any other naval warships, other than the SAS Isaac Dyobha, who are named after a cleric? --Jcw69 15:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
what is certeris paribus
Hi In a correction of my paper my professor wrote at the end certeris paribus. I am talking about logistic regression, but the terms seems out of content, unless he means"holding everything else constant"
So, just in general terms what exactly does certeris paribus mean? thanks, Olh.
- Just about what you said! "All else being equal." It's actually spelled ceteris paribus, and we have a lengthy article about it. FreplySpang (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
gasoline prices
Without a biast answer from Bush haters, or Bush promoters, what is the main reason for high gasoline prices?
Probably no one outside of the industry knows. What we can know is what the various sides say is responsible. The main factors cited are instability in the Persian Gulf, the nationalizing of the oil industry in Venezuela, and the disruption of supplies in the Gulf of Mexico in the US after Hurricane Katrina. Each of those factors can be easily debunked, but those are the factors offered. On the other side, people suspect collusion and blame oligopoly and lack of reinvestment. A third side argues that prices are up due to increased demand from China, although that, too, is very easy to debunk (the Chinese didn't decide they wanted oil all in the course of 3 months). So, no one knows whether legitimate disruptions caused speculation and price gouging, collusion resulted in a planned shortage, or actual market pressures have suddenly and drmatically driven up prices. In any case, the president of the US would have very little to do with it now, except for exercising or failing to exercise the ability to investigate collusion. (If a President could affect oil prices directly, Nixon, Ford, and Carter would have done so when the US suffered through stagflation.) Geogre 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Supply and demand. Supply has not increased (in fact it periodically decreased). There is theat that Iran will cause a decrease in supply. Demand has increased. The U.S. has really stepped up demand with a continuing fad for driving larger and less gas efficient vehicles. Other countries, like China, have also drastically increased demand. It is normal to point your finger at one man (like Bush), but the numbers are very clear. If demand keeps going up and supply stays the same (or decreases), prices go up.
- Compound that simple fact with the oil company practice of raising prices when there is a foreseen problem, but then not lowering them when the problem goes away and you can see how prices are stairstepping up. When there is a good excuse (Hurricane Katrina), they go up $2. Then, they go down $1 to appease the masses. Then, there's another excuse (Iran) and they go up $2 again. --Kainaw (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- You might be interested in checking out the data from this graph. Adjusted for inflation, the jump in price really hasn't really been that bad. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
what are the five most popular photos.....
what are the five most popular photos of the civil rights movement around the world?
- this has got to be near the top, if not #1. --Kainaw (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- While it isn't just one photo, MLK's "I have a dream speech" photos are high in the list. --Kainaw (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
