Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

September 28

What if???

What would happen if the Queen of England should die (may that day be far away)? Who would suceed the throne? And, above all, if it is a man, what would happen with the English national anthem? Would it be changed to "God Save the King"? If any knowledgable person, (or Brit), should know the answer to my questions, please, for charity's sake, help a poor, lost, and utterly ignorant American. (Even so, I'd rather be American than British :-)  ! | AndonicO 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The articles on Queen Elizabeth and British royalty should answer the first part of the question. With you being a registered user, I'm surprised that you didn't first check the article on the current Queen to see her infobox where it says who the heir to the throne will be. I have no idea about the national anthem. Dismas|^(talk) 00:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The anthem changes according to the sex of the monarch. When George VI, the present Queen's father, was alive it was 'God Save the King'. The alteration is simple enough. White Guard 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But "God save the king" doesn't rhyme too well with "..it's a fascist regime". 惑乱 分からん 01:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It improves the rhyme with "...(s)he ain't no human being", though. And given Mr. Rotten's, shall we say, unique diction, he'd make it rhyme. As well as any of the song rhymes. --ByeByeBaby 06:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh well; well just have to stop being Fascists. White Guard 01:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

AndonicO, you might have been reading breathless media speculation (which has been going on for decades - those people really need to inhale) that the throne could pass directly to Prince William, rather than to his father Prince Charles. That would only happen if Charles died before his mother the Queen did. Unfortunately for those who peddle such stuff, there's no law that says an heir gets displaced just because some people don't like him/her. JackofOz 02:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion has been made on a few occasions that Charles might step aside and let William be king on the Queen's death. Very unlikely, but it's a possibility. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, this suggestion betrays the public (or, I suppose, the media)'s ignorance: he couldn't simply "step aside" — the throne doesn't require the consent of the heir to pass to him. He'd become King the instant the Queen died, and would have to abdicate formally, which would require an Act of Parliament. And even then he'd still have been King, even if only for a relatively short time. Proteus (Talk) 07:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it was Terry Pratchett who postulated the existence of elementary particles called "kingons" or "queenons" which automatically travel from the monarch to the heir on death :). Inheritance is like that, there was an aristocrat - Lord Stamp, chairman of the London Midland and Scottish Railway - who was killed in an air raid in the second world war together with his son and heir; the courts ruled that the father had died an instant before the son, and therefore the Treasury collected two lots of death duties (inheritance taxes) from the family! -- Arwel (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That album is well known for rhyming anarchist and antichrist, one more atrocious rhyme would not go amiss. MeltBanana 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information, and I'll look harder next time for my question before asking. | AndonicO 09:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes, titles of other things in Britain - like, for example, Queen's Counsel, change according to the Monarch's gender. One of the things that doesn't - conveniently - is the abbreviation HRH. It doesn't matter whether it's His or Her Royal Highness. Same abbreviation still goes! Strictly speaking, the Monarch actually needs to ask to abdicate, but parliament would never refuse. That's as useless as a North Korean Human Rights Act. 82.152.197.131 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Point of order here. First, the king or queen is not HRH, that is for lesser royals. The sovereign is His or Her Majesty ie. HM Queen Elizabeth. Secondly, the British National Anthem is not God Save The Queen (failing whom, King). It is God Save our Gracious Queen (failing whom, King).

Agree with the first bit. No to the second bit. The opening line is "God save our gracious Queen", but the title of the song is "God Save the Queen". JackofOz 09:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

forklift drivers ed

I want to learn to drive a forklift,get the license etc. that they need to have these days. But I can not find any training outfits that will work with a unemployed person. I.E. You allready have to have a job that the employers will arange for in house training. There used to be training in the local Jr. college here in the Dallas Texas area but they gave in up. Thanks

The company that I used to work for trained me, though I already had a different job with the company when I bid on the forklift driver job. So, will the companies that you're applying to not even consider you without being first trained? Seems like an obvious Catch 22 for the company. Dismas|^(talk) 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

my previous employer refused to train me because I was on the night shift and the trainers refused to work nights, so I was left out on training. Now I am unemployed and I can not get trained to be employed.

Crossover of political ideologies

I was reading part of wikipedia's extensive series on political ideologies when an idea struck me. Most people would agree that Communism is more left then Socialism. But Libertarian socialism seems to be more left the Christian communism. How can that be? The only answer I can think of is that Communism isn't a political ideology in itself.

Both "communism" and "socialism" are words that have a whole scala of meanings, and what is more left than what is open to debate, for lack of a good definition of "left". The original meaning of "communism" was to describe a form of socio-economical organization with common ownership of the means of production, not necessarily applied to a whole society but usually to a commune, many of which had an idealistic religious basis. As such it is essentially originally a descriptive term, just like hunter-gatherer society and capitalism, or post-industrial society. Socialism, on the other hand, originally was a political philosophy and movement. Marx considered himself a socialist, part of a larger socialist movement, who aspired to achieve communism as the economic form defining society. In his definition that also included the "withering away" of the nation state. Engels also used the term "socialism" for a kind of halfway communism. Largely, however, the terms were used interchangeably at the time, and represented a wide spectrum of doctrines and visions, from rather radical to quite moderate, and many religiously inspired. This changed when the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, after the October Revolution, changed its name to Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). The term "communism" came to refer primarily to the socio-economico-political system of the Soviet Union, and internationally to a political ideology of subservient orientation on the Soviet Union. However, not all movements that traditionally used to call themselves "communist" ceased to do so. You mentioned Christian communism. Anarcho-communists saw the developments in the Soviet Union with horror (the lack of love was mutual) but kept their name. Many people (and particularly anarcho-communists themselves) would agree that this movement was at the far left of the socialist spectrum and definitely to the left of Soviet-oriented communism. Then there is Left communism and Council communism, and countless parties with "Communist" in their names, all sharing the conviction that the use of the term "communism" for anything having to do with the self-serving nomenklatura of the Soviet Union was a form of Newspeak.

I do not agree that Libertarian socialism is more left than Christian communism, or, in any case, most forms of the latter are more radical than most forms of the former. But as a movement, Christian communism tends to be less political than Libertarian socialism, less operating from an aspiration that all of society be organized a certain way.  --Lambiam^Talk 03:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

With the totalitarian control of State Socialism (what they had in the USSR and which is often referred to as communism), one could argue that it is actually rightwing. Like Lambian said, the terminology is either rather vague or has become vague by misuse. One could also say that pure communism (do what you can, take no more than what you need), is based on the goodness of the people and therefore makes politics obsolete and is thus not a political ideology. Btw, when reading about communism in the English Wikipedia, be aware that it is written mostly by US citizens and other westerners and therefore heavily biased. I tried giving input but that got reverted so often that I gave up. And I won't be the only one. Wikipedia is quite reliable when it comes to technology and teh hard sciences, but the social sciences are largely either under- or mis-represented. DirkvdM 09:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a much simpler explanation. Political philosophies are not beads on a string, where the position of every bead can be designated in a 1 dimensional array. It is your mental model that is defective. alteripse 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

International Relations/Diplomacy from Sept. 2001 - May 2003

Hello, I am looking for some specific information and I wondered if anyone here could point me in the direction of a site/link/articles etc. with this specific information: I am interested in knowing in terms of presidents/prime ministers/etc. about who said what to whom and when and where they (or important representatives of them such as Foreign Ministers etc.) met up for the period from the 9/11 terrorist attacks up to the fall of Baghdad April 2003, if possible in chronological order, ie: ALL the international diplomacy taking place in this period. I have read 100s of pages (and wiki-articles) so far (incl. UN resolutions too) but am not really getting the info I need, if there were something specific, that would be great. I am particularly interested in 1) meetings/conferences with participants, and 2) press releases with official & unofficial/hear-say statements from as many governments as possible, 3) international diplomacy chronological timelines both multi- and bilateral (apart from the UN). Thank you very much. ==ALang==

That's an awful lot of information you want to know. My recommendation would be that you find a good library with newspaper and magine archives, and spend a couple of weeks perusing those. Several better newspapers let you consult their archived articles online against payment of money, but that does not seem a reasonable option here – unless you have unlimited resources, in which case you're better off hiring some historians to do the research for you. If you have a more specific request, we might be able to give a more specific pointer.  --Lambiam^Talk 03:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I´ve combed through archives of cnn.com & wikipedia & many news/political sites (and many weeks) but I only get a fraction of the info, I want to research myself and have limited (regular worker) resources, also only online in internet if possible. I would need to know the detailed movements and – more importantly - statements of country leaders/foreign ministers especially of key figures (Chirac,Blair,Powell,Putin,Taliban etc. etc.) right down to periphery players (such as, say, Uribe or Fox too), specifically in terms of the current global conflict in this period Sept. 2001 – April 2003, especially appertaining to 9/11, Afganistan and Iraq. Within this context also agreements/conclusions/speeches etc. For example, free online sites like: [[1]] and [[2]], relating where possible but not necessarily exclusively to the above-mentioned thematic. Hope this makes more sense, thanks again. ==Alang==

Finding specific court cases from the subject of law

Is there any way to find the names of related court cases from the subject of law I'm studying?

The preceding message was brought to us through SBC Internet Services.

From the IP provider I infer that you're probably more interested in U.S. law than for example the Law of Papua New Guinea. But what is the subject you're studying? And isn't the state relevant? Or are you primarily interested in Federal law?  --Lambiam^Talk 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See Westlaw. Your TA, teacher, librarian at the law school,or classmates are a good place to ask procedural questions like this. You may need a password or used ID to use this service. Edison 04:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Findlaw.com is also sometimes useful for this sort of thing. --Fastfission 18:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The equivalent in Canada is called Quicklaw. Yet either way, unless the questioner is a law student at an eligible law school, both Westlaw and Quicklaw are extremely expensive. (They provide it free to law students to get you "hooked". But once you graduate it's something crazy like $3 a minute). Loomis 06:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION ABOUT BIOGRAPHY OF FRANSISCO GOYA

Re: QUESTION ABOUT BIOGRAPHY OF FRANSISCO GOYA

What was the cause of death of the painter Francisco Goya. The Wikipage doesn't list a cause of death.

The painter suffered with deafness when he became older. He was diagnosed with Saturnism. This is lead poisoning. One of the symptoms is deafness. It was common to add lead powder to wine during wine making. Educated people drank wine as it was believed to be safer than water. I have also read that Goya had syphallis.

Perhaps he had syphallis & Saturnism, but what ultimately was the cause of death?

Here's an article from the NY Times. It also doesn't talk about cause of death. Can you research this and update the page? Can you let me know if you find an answer?

Gonzalez in Margate, Florida 66.239.212.31 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[3]--Light current 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, the link you posted does remark on the artist's death, but still doesn't give a cause of death...will there be more help or...am I out of luck? thank you, Gonzalez in Margate, Florida 66.239.212.31 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There may be more help later. Or if you cant wait, you could try to follow all the links that we would follow. And then follow the links given in the links etc. thats all we do!--Light current 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

1828 Goya's health worsens, and on April 2nd his right side becomes paralyzed. He dies on April 16th, and is buried in France.

22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What's with the ticket number? Also, I've removed the separating lines. They're very confusing because they normally separate threads. DirkvdM 08:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait for a response. This was my first time posting at WIKI. I have researched the issue of the cause of death of Goya a great deal on my own already. WIKI was my last hope. I can wait. Hopefully, you'll have more success that I have had. Sorry about the segmented lines. I didn't know they weren't allowed. Regarding the ticket #. I have removed it. Originally I emailed WIKIPEDIA because I didn't know about this forum. 66.239.212.79 13:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Gonzalez in Margate...

There won't be a definitive response. It's impossible for us to know what Goya's illness was, but as in so many cases, it's also impossible for us to refrain from guessing. Goya's biographers seem to have opted either for syphillis or lead encephalopathy. You may find this article of interest. Note that other diseases have been suggested (in the article abstract for "What ailed Goya?" PMID 10541154,

At age 46, Francisco de Goya (1746-1828) suffered from a severe illness that lasted several months. It caused loss of vision and hearing, tinnitus, disorientation, weakness, abdominal distress, and general malaise. After a few months he recuperated but was left deaf forever. In addition to the physical effects, his emotional health and artwork were affected. The precise cause of this illness has long been debated. One early, but unlikely, hypothesis was that he had syphilis. Later conjectures have included Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease and lead toxicity. Cogan's syndrome and vasculitis are additional possibilities, although neither is likely to have been Goya's diagnosis. An infectious disease such as meningitis, encephalitis, or malaria is far more likely. Quinine toxicity (cinchonism) may have complicated the illness.

.) Of course, whatever this illness was, it doesn't seem to have been the cause of death! - Nunh-huh 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to know because there is no definitive diagnosis attributed to his death at the time he died?

It seems likely to have been a venereal disease. His talent was world wide and I doubt that anyone who knew him or admired his art would want to admit to anyone that he died of a venereal disease.

Of course, that's just conjecture. I thought WIKIPEDIA would have found the answer where I failed to fine one.

I think it rather unlikely that syphilis is the cause of death, since there was apparently no deterioration in Goya's condition from age 47 to his death at 82. Syphilis doesn't work like that, so it's peculiar to suggest that syphillis was the cause of his neurological problem at age 40 and also killed him at age 82 with no new problems in-between. That didn't stop nineteenth century biographers from saying it was syphilis, of course. All retrospective diagnoses are questionable, and Goya's is no exception, which is why a definitive statement would be false. But additional historical information on his cause of death may exist, and it may be unrelated to the illness at age 46. - Nunh-huh 01:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some sort of medical training? I came to this site to find definitive evidence, not congecture.

Well, then, I suppose you're entitled to a full refund. - Nunh-huh 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was a professionally run organization. Thanks for the insight as to how small minded and mediocre your staff is.

Moleosophy

Does anyone know what it means if a man has a mole in the section of lower jaw (right side). Is it good or bad?

I tried 'moleosophy' in wikipedia and followed the link

http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/astdiv/melampus.html

but they only have given generally that if a man has mole in his chins, he will get gold and silver, and nothing said about jaws. Thankyou

See a doctor for medical advice. Moles can be melanoma.Edison 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would a mole on your jaw be bad? I have two there. Don't be a Hypochondriac~ — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)01:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh moles! Could they be the new funny animals we have allbeen seeking?--Light current 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

oliver twist

find the impact of industrial revolution on children through charles dickens works oliver twist

• Sounds like a fun homework assignment. It will call for some thought, as well as reading the book. Enjoy! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You could watch the video instead. A lot easier and quicker. 8-)--Light current 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"My research into the impact of industrial revolution on children shows that singing and dancing were extremely popular with the underprivileged child classes. Even when obviously malnourished and existing only on a diet of 'grew-ell' a simple dance routine accompanied by a sombre song was obligitory in all orphanages and workhouses. In the criminal underclasses singing was more popular, with battered and abused wives using song to cheer themselves up after particularly vicious attacks, often using the song as a justification for remaining in the abusive relationships. Subsistence workers, such as flower sellers and knife grinders would announce their presence with a song, always ensuring that they harmonised with the other sellers they were in competition with. Presumably some form of training was established to standardise the harmonies." DJ Clayworth 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oh lordy,I've appeared in "Oliver!" and it's so true(hotclaws**== 20:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC))
  • • Five stars for that one. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

More help please

http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5yo6.jpg

and this manuscript. Preferablly the language. Only a few are in existence.

http://www.sortitoutsi.net/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=6296

this piece of music.

Cheers

That is a fascinating manuscript. It appears to have some elaborate nontextual notation, with lines of apparent text scribbled between the lines of nontext. The main point of the document seems to be the nontext notation, which I am guessing might be some kind of musical notation. I believe that the text uses a medieval European script derived from the Roman alphabet, but beyond that, I can't really identify it. There are a few words that could be Latin. While I have some knowledge of Latin and of medieval script, I could not parse much and don't think that it is Latin after all. My next guess would be Old Irish, but I don't know Old Irish and therefore can't confirm that it is Old Irish.

Can you tell us where you found this document? Marco polo 15:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It`s being used as a question in a quiz beyond that I haven`t the foggiest where it came from.

Apart from all the ciphers included, it appears to possibly contain examples of tengwar letters, such as the ones J.R.R. Tolkien used for writing "native" Quenya. Does this make any sense? 惑乱 分からん 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really...I don`t think anyone will get that Question..hopefully someone will get the music piece.

Image:Book of Ballymote 170r.jpg Ogham MeltBanana 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaahh, ogham is "old Irish", indeed... ;) 惑乱 分からん 19:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I am embarrassed to discover that what I thought were nontext notations are in fact the Ogham script. Marco polo 19:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

well, from what I can see this is actually centre about some minor shifting in an action/object or movement, this could be musical of some sort but that seems unlikely to me. also you should remember that in medieval times pages were bewritten multiple times because papyrus and other scribematerials were expensive. about the text added, it seems to hold some connections to the ancient/greek/russian/arabic languages.Graendal 20:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but the question is answered, already... =S 惑乱 分からん 21:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This type of question comes up here very often. I used to answer the questions, but I've been unable to get the questioner to answer my question: What quiz? Until the questioner can tell me what quiz this is that asks people to name imageshack images, I will not provide an answer as to what the images are. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter? The reference desk if for reference, not to cross examine the questioner.

It would have been polite to tell us... 惑乱 分からん 09:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Imageshack is just the website that the questioner uploads the images to. It's not a quiz about "imageshack images". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a quiz of some sort. Every week, we get the same thing: "What is this image on imageshack? Please answer fast so I can beat everyone else!" What is the quiz? Is it a radio contest? It is a television contest? Is it a school assignment? The questioner never answers. We just get more random images every week and no explanation. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It`s just a simple quiz where the quizmaster uploads the pics to IS in order so that we can figure out what they are. They`re are a lot more than this and I just ask about the ones I can`t answer. Is it really such a huge deal? You can live safe in the knowledge I won`t come to here for help again. I abhore high and mighty people.

Sorry, then. We'd just like an explanation. If it was a competition, you would have used our combined knowledge unfairly. You have come back here several times, already. Would an explanation of your reasons be too much to ask for? 惑乱 分からん 16:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

information organization

I have a plenty amount of information which i have to remember everyday.I have many many office paper files about which i quickly forget.Would anybody suggest simple and polpular ways of organizing information ?

I'd start at Library classification. Although the first part of that article lists popular types of classification in use at libraries, which may or may not be useful for your office files, the part of the article called simply classification gives a more general overview of classification systems, and following the various links in that section may help if you decide to devise your own personal classification system. Chuck 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Florida south of Georgia

What country owned florida before the United States

See our article History of Florida. -- --Lambiam^Talk 18:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Define 'country', define 'own' and define 'Florida'. For example, one might argue that the Indians inhabiting the region now known as 'Florida' still have the greatest title to that piece of land (in as far as one can call it 'land :) ). DirkvdM 08:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Election posters

There's a general election coming up in Austria, and as a result there are political posters everywhere. The thing that strikes me is that almost every poster, for every party, features a large photo of one or other of the candidates. This phenomenon seems to be widespread in continental Europe (not sure about North America), but it's very rare in the UK. There, election posters invariably feature some fancy graphic design or piece of symbolism (e.g. the Tories' famous 'Labour isn't working' poster in 1979).

What is going on here from a semiotic perspective? I suspect that British political parties, or their ad agencies, realise that the British people are so cynical about politicians as a breed that they are unlikely to be swayed by a picture of the candidate, no matter how photogenic they are. Indeed, they may be turned off voting for someone if they are particularly ugly. Are voters in continental Europe somewhat less cynical? Are they more likely than the Brits to vote for someone on the basis of a perceived trustworthiness in their personal appearance? Or are European politicians just more attractive than British ones? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can add that in the United States, this kind of poster is almost unknown. Sometimes you will get a flyer in the mail that includes a photo of the candidate, usually surrounded by his smiling family (see, he's a regular guy, his wife loves him, you should too). But posters tend to have just the name of the candidate, design elements or colors from the U.S. flag, and maybe a slogan. Marco polo 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I once read that British election laws don't allow for campaign ads on television. If this is true it might help explain the UK's less personalized approach. On a sidenote, I've hardly ever seen lawn signs used in European election campaigns. ---Sluzzelin 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Election posters with photos are very common in Australia. What's just as common, despite being illegal, is for posters to be left in place long after the election is over. JackofOz 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've often thought about collecting all of the old posters and dumping them on the candidate's lawn, but I'd probably be arrested for littering. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What you want to do is find those huge 4 x 8 foot signs that are backed with plywood. We lived on a major thoroughfare back in the 70s and had about four of those signs on our front yard. My dad used the plywood after the election to build a new clothesline stand. It's still standing. --Charlene.fic 10:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on where you are in the US. When I was living in Missouri, nobody put their picture on their posters. In southern California and in Hawaii, it was sporadic. Now, I live in South Carolina and it is expected that if you are white and you aren't a household name (like Thurmond), then you put your picture on your poster so people know you are white. If you are black, you leave your picture off so people don't know you are black. Yes, it is racist. But, you are dealing with a state that is always pushing for the worst education award (thank God for Louisiana). --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaflets will generally have a picture of the applicable candidate on them in the UK - one of the things about posters is that they tend to be national posters, rather than individual constituency ones, so the only person it would make sense to show is the party leader. Similarly with our lawn signs, if you're driving past you don't want the big thing to be a photo - the electorate will have a hard time figuring out who that person is, which party they are, or anything else, if all they see is a happy smiling random face - far more useful is the well known party symbols. So leaflets == photos good. Posters == photos rarely applicable. Lawn signs == photos bad. --Mnemeson 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(answering the original question) To the best of my knowledge, the ppl in continental Europe are as cynical as the ppl of the UK in regards of politicians and political parties. I suspect that the posters show the candidate (normaly the symbol, the name, or the initials of the party appear somewhere) so that the potential voter never confuses anything: "Aha, Mr X is of party Y, so to vote for X I have to make my mark in the box besides party Y". This seems really easy, but the easier you make it the less the voter has to strain his poor brain. In many European countries the campaigns are also highly personalized (i.e. focus upon the candidate and less upon the party) therefore you show his face more often, ad nauseam. Flamarande 21:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't really have election posters in America. Most Americans don't live in places where you could reach them with a poster -- they drive from parking lot to parking lot and live in detached homes surrounded by lawns. We do have the above-mentioned election lawn signs, but they almost never have photos on them -- only names and party affiliations. TV ads, though, do show the candidate -- not only because they have to by law, but because American elections are heavily personality-focused. There are generally two kinds of campaign ads in the U.S.: The kind that show the candidate surrounded by a loving family, and the kind that misleads people into thinking the candidate's opponent is a child-molesting devil. -- Mwalcoff 02:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have all those ugly signs at every intersection from home to work? Man, I wish they'd pass some law to ban those here. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but they're plastered on the bumpers of cars until they fade and peel or get replastered four years later. Political posters do appear in the States, but they're usually in urban areas and tend to be low budget plugs for liberal causes that get wheat pasted to telephone poles where they remain until they rot. Durova 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, it depends on the part of the US. I have generally lived in urban areas of the US. We have political posters in addition to lawn signs. They tend to be similar to the lawn signs and get placed in windows, often prominently overlooking intersections where drivers can see them. Also, candidates schedule "visibilities" during the week before the election where volunteers stand in mass around major intersections actually holding the posters. If two or more candidates schedule a visibility for the same intersection, you get the spectacle of their supporters jostling for position. Marco polo 14:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In this part of the US (Spokane area), lawn signs come in two sizes: the 18"x30" "standard" signs that pop up everywhere, and the just-this-side-of-being-regulated-as-a-billboard signs that are used in particularly visible locations. Both sizes have the same content: the candidate's name (last name in much larger type than first name), party affiliation, and usually either the word "elect" or the position they're running for. --Serie 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We certainly do have lawn signs everywhere during election time in the U.S. What we don't have a lot of is wall posters. -- Mwalcoff 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If photos are forbidden in the UK, then there'e at least one thing that is good about the UK electoral system then. Voting should be about ideals and parties, not people. In the Netherlands, if I remember correctly, photos aren't uncommon for municipal elections, but they're never used for national elections. Not sure if that is a result of the law. Btw, the lawn signs article says they're placed near a polling station, which seems a bad thing (not just aesthetically, but also politically). In the Netherlands, political ads or campaigning are forbidden near polling stations, and that makes a lot of sense to me. DirkvdM 08:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate that lawn signs are necessarily near polling stations. They are anywhere and everywhere that supporters of the candidate live, preferably in places with high visibility due to traffic. I will go and fix the article. Marco polo 14:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, as a general rule we're not allowed to campaign within 100m of a polling station (although that rule can alter depending on local bylaws) (e.g. in Birmingham, campaigning is only forbidden inside the polling station itself) --Mnemeson 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Roughly the same rule applies in every state where I've lived in the United States, though the limit might be closer than 100m. Maybe 50 yards, since we don't use meters. Marco polo 14:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In the UK the candidate's election address, which is usually delivered free by post to each voter, will usually contain the candidate's photo (often also a photo of him/her with the party leader or another bigwig, though in the 2005 general election it was commented how few Labour candidates sullied their election addresses with a photo of Tony Blair). In the 1997 General Election so many Labour candidates won who were not expected to, and thus were unknown outside their locality, that they were told to bring their election address with them the first time they went to Parliament as their proof of identity! The free delivery of the election address is one reason why there are usually so many "fringe" candidates at by-elections - they often use the address as free advertising for their businesses! -- Arwel (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In California, the election ads for Phil Angelides have more photos of Arnold Schwartzenegger campaigning for George W. Bush, than they do of Angelides. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

10 Downing Street

Heres an interesting question I can't find the answer to anywhere - who actually owns 10 Downing Street (or the White House for that matter). Do they have some special status? I doubt the Prime Minister (or President) actually takes ownership of the houses while they're in office?

EAi 21:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

According to our article on 10 Downing Street, "In 1732 King George II offered 10 Downing Street and the "house at the back" to Robert Walpole (often called the first Prime Minister) in gratitude for his services to the nation. Walpole accepted only on the condition that they would be a gift to the office of First Lord of the Treasury rather than to himself personally." So, the office of the First Lord of the Treasury owns it (not the First Lord him/herself) --Mnemeson 21:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok. So, who could sell it if they wanted to? Would it take an act of parliament to do so if they wanted to? EAi 22:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it would take an Act of Parliament - the office of Lord High Treasurer is part of the government, so the government own it, the government could probably sell it. --Mnemeson 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. government owns the White House and the land it is on. It was bought from private landowners and given by the state of Maryland to the Federal Government, when the District of Columbia was created, and the White House was built, rebuilt, remodelled several times, and rebuilt with appropriations from Congress. Edison 03:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The White House is owned by the National Park Service. And it wouldn't have had to have been rebuilt the first time if the British hadn't burned it down. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Year 145

I need to do a presentation for school on what it was like to live in the year 145. I have no idea what was happening in the world at that time & searching for the year just tells me that a few unimportant people were born or died. What was the dominant society at the time? Were the Romans still thriving? Were there any important advances in technology or knowledge in the years leading up to 145? Were there any regime changes or wars around that time? Thanks!

Well it depends hugely on where you're talking about? If you're talking about Europe, then yes the Roman Empire was very much alive then. EAi 21:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Were there other, more dominant societies in existence in the world at the time?

Note: Sign your messages using ~~~~ after them. Well, not that I'm aware of, but my knowledge of non-European history at that time is negligible. The article 2nd century could give you some pointers, but theres not much there. This might help as well... The chinese had quite an advanced civilisation at the same time - see Timeline of Chinese history and History of China. I'm not sure about South America. EAi 21:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See List of empires. StuRat 22:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want something on this specific year, 145 has a bit of information, including governmental changes. Dar-Ape (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to think what it might have been like to travel around the world at some point in the distant past, and so I am grateful for your question, as it offered me an excuse to write about what such a voyager might have witnessed around 145 CE. As others have pointed out, the Roman Empire was at the height of its power in the Mediterranean Basin and western Europe. In 145, Antoninus Pius was emperor. To the north, the Germanic peoples controlled most of northern Europe. Some of the more prominent tribal groups were the Goths, in the Vistula basin, and the powerful confederation of the Marcomanni, centered in the present-day Czech Republic. To the east, a tense peace existed between the Romans and the Parthian Empire, which was about as strong as Rome and controlled Mesopotamia, parts of the Arabian Peninsula, present-day Iran, and parts of Central Asia. In Africa to the south, Rome controlled Egypt and the Maghreb. However, the Kingdom of Kush remained independent in present-day Sudan, and the Kingdom of Axum was a regional power in present-day Ethiopia. To the southwest, the Iron Age Nok culture was near its peak in present-day Nigeria, while the Bantu-speaking peoples, who also had iron technology, had begun to spread from Central Africa into Southern Africa.

This period was a time of thriving trade among different parts of Eurasia. Some of this trade moved overland along the Silk Road, connecting China with the Parthian Empire and Rome. The Silk Road also facilitated the spread of Buddhism from South Asia to China and the rest of East Asia. It was around this time that Buddhism had split into the Hinayana and Mahayana schools. Key to the spread of Buddhism was the Kushan Empire, which dominated present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India, and parts of Central Asia. Another group involved in the spread of Buddhism were the mysterious Tocharians, who lived in the Tarim Basin of present-day China. Elsewhere in India, the Satavahana ruled much of central India, while the Pandyan Kingdom ruled in the south. This was the heyday of Buddhist culture in India.

This was also a time of thriving seaborne trade, particularly on the Indian Ocean. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea offers evidence of extensive trade between Roman ports in Egypt and ports in East Africa and India. At the same time, trade from India to the east across the Indian Ocean was spreading Buddhism, Hinduism, and other elements of Indian culture to Southeast Asia, including the early kingdom of Funan and present-day Indonesia.

At the eastern end of the Silk Road was perhaps the world's most advanced civilization of the time, China, then ruled by the Han Dynasty. The year 145 saw the brief reigns of the Emperors Chong Di and Zhi Di. Much farther east and south, Polynesian culture was gradually spreading east across the Pacific. Around 145, it had probably reached Tahiti but had not yet reached Hawaii.

In the Americas, the Hopewell culture of the present-day U.S. Midwest was near its cultural peak, producing earthwork mounds that survive to this day. In central Mexico, the great city of Teotihuacán was gaining in power and would soon dominate central Mexico. To the east, Maya civilization was developing toward its Classic phase in city-states such as Tikal. Meanwhile in Peru, the civilizations of Moche and Nazca left evidence of advanced societies.

Obviously there was a lot more of interest at that time than the Roman Empire!

Marco polo 01:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a very good summary, except that Nigeria (and therefore its Nok cilization) is better described as west south west of the Kingdom of Aksum, as opposed to south, I think. Picaroon9288 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. Thank you. I have corrected my description. Marco polo 12:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A world traveler in 145 would have had many interesting places to visit.In Roman Britain, Hadrian's Wall across the north of England had just been completed, and Roman forces were battling with the Scots. In Rome, Pius I was the Pope. In the History of Christianity, the martyr Polycarp was living, who may have been a disciple of John the Apostle, who was Christ's "Beloved Disciple." The Han Dynasty ruled China. Japan was in the Yayoi period. The Teotihuacán civilization in Mexico had completed the Pyramid of the Sun and was at its peak. The Kingdom of Aksum ruled Ethiopa. Edison 04:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

One small amendment to Edison's list: the Romans would not have been fighting the Scots in the north of England in 145 for the simple reason that the Scots had not yet arrived in what the Romans called Caledonia and England would not exist for another five hundred years. What you would have found-or may have found-is the Romans fighting the Picts to the north of a wall recently built across the north of Britain. White Guard 04:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's like "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince." I should have said "across the North of what is now England" and ""battling with the tribes in what is now Scotland." All the place names were meant geographically rather than ethnologically. In the article on Nikola Tesla there are nationalists who constantly revert to saying he was born in Croatia, a country which did not exist at the time. I am sorry to be guilty of the same error.Edison 06:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Black Americans: Incarceration vs. Education

I am working on a project where I am comparing the rates of Black Americans (male and female)that are incarcerated vs. the rate of Black Americans that complete high school. Specifically the rates in Minnesota, but also the rates in the United States. If anyone could be of help, it would be appreciated!

You have two choices. You go to http://www.census.gov and get the information you want from the organization with the most money and manpower to produce a comprehensive report - which will not be 100% accurate for many reasons. Or, you can Google and use numbers from some random website that are picked, altered, or completely made up to back whatever the viewpoint of the author tends to be. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Or, you can Google and use numbers from some random website that are picked, altered, or completely made up to back whatever the viewpoint of the author tends to be" hmmz, still.... I would not be that quick to trust those figures of the sensus.gov . even though they might have near accurate figures they are still part of the US-government and therefore their reports are likely to be manipulated(not in general but I have found that this is true in most of the cases). I would actually try to go for UN or development agencies figures since chances are these are less edited Graendal 05:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While the census bureau itself is pretty honest, one problem that does merit a mention is that a significant portion of the poorest Americans refuse to participate in the census. This might happen less among African-Americans than among immigrant groups because more of the latter fear deportation. To address the other part of the original question, does this cover total high school graduation or the percentage that complete high school in four years and graduate at age 17 or 18? It should be fairly easy to locate statistics on how many graduate with their peers - meaning how many received a standard diploma twelve years after starting first grade. The Minnesota state department of education should have that data. What would be harder to uncover is how many of those who didn't finish with the pack got their degrees anyway: quite a few of the people who don't graduate with their peers get the diploma one year later. Others pass the GED exam. Also, a small portion of students who don't graduate with their peers either skipped a grade and finished ahead of schedule or started college without attending their senior year of high school. If you want to earn an A on that paper, then devote some space to these caveats. Durova 07:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. Census includes a question on highest grade attained. Including different choices for having attended 12th grade but no diploma and high school diploma (one of the choices is even 4th grade or less!). Rmhermen 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You can bet that the numbers will be atrocious. Black American males, are incarerated at amazing percentages regardless of education or age.

Minnesota, like most upper midwestern states, does not contain significant populations of Blacks in small communities and therefore your study might also include a comparison of metropolitan and smaller communities.

You might want to visit the U.S. Bureau of Prisons website.

September 29

Photos of the Huang He (Yellow River)

Please,give me photos of the Huang He river in China I have 5 min. please.Thank you.72.148.117.237 00:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Our article on Huang_He_River has a map, a picture of something beside the river, and a picture of the river. Have you tried Googling for others? --Mnemeson 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lanzhou-rio-amarillo-d01.jpg is the only one I could find on English Wikipedia in that amount of time. The French Wikipedia shows [4] and [5], and here is a photo from Google. Picaroon9288 00:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

MIT

What kind of marks would you need to get in to MIT? I guess that also depends on how many people are admitted right? --The Dark Side 02:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Most American universities publish median grade point averages and standardized test scores. What they don't publish at the top level are the intangibles: MIT could fill its class each year with high school valedictorians, but they often select someone slightly lower in class rank (still in the top ten percent) who has something that 10,000 valedictorians don't have, such as a state championship in an engineering competition or part ownership of a patent on an invention or a publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Basically make sure there's no good reason to reject you (all or nearly all As in math and science, nothing much worse than a B elsewhere) and distinguish yourself from the crowd in some way. One of the most straightforward methods to do this is to volunteer as a lab assistant at your nearest university. Durova 07:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dark Side, are you talking about undergrad or graduate school? Different processes for them... Bwithh 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do to get in is win the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair! — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The lower GPA students admitted to the Ivy League colleges are often "heritage" or "double heritage" admits, whose parent or parents attended the school, or athletes who are thought to be capable of helping the team have a winning season, or "development" admits, whose parents are very rich, and who have or who may be expected to donate millions of dollars. The admissions process is not merit based in all cases.Edison 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor is GPA the sole measure of merit! - Nunh-huh 23:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Development" admits don't happen at universities that practice need-blind admission. All eight Ivies and MIT admit on a need-blind basis. Durova 03:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this recent article about a book on this subject in The Economist, the Ivies do admit students for reasons of gaining influence or development possibilities e.g. Princeton admitting Al Gore's son despite average academic performance, as well as President Bush's niece even though she missed the application deadline by a month. The article and book suggests a deliberate favouring of rich applicants at e.g. Harvard as well - quote:"When it comes to the children of particularly rich donors, the bending-over-backwards reaches astonishing levels. Harvard even has something called a “Z” list—a list of applicants who are given a place after a year's deferment to catch up—that is dominated by the children of rich alumni.". The article also mentions Brown giving Michael Ovitz's son a special student place and Harvard and Yale are used as examples of strong bias towards legacy applicants (40% of legacy applicants get into Harvard compared with an overall applicant average of 11%) - both Kerry and W. Bush got into Yale despite being medicore students. etc. etc. (And need-blind is about student needs, not university needs anyway). Bwithh 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Development admits and legacy admits are two different issues. The Ivies certainly do have legacy admits although in practice the amount of leniency granted depends on several factors. The doors tend to be more open toward two kinds of legacy admits: either the incredibly successful alumni whose names are really household names, or the bread-and-butter alumni who have been active in the alumni association for many years. The numbers quoted above are somewhat deceptive. The higher acceptance rate for alumni children is partially due to alumni preparing their children better than average parents. I don't mean merely in terms of sending their children to better schools or hiring tutors, but in terms of nearly two decades of dinner table conversations and museum visits. Think what the child of an MIT graduate would learn about science outside the classroom. Durova 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Argentina

Is the government in argentina honest in dealings with the citizens? ( they tell all info. there is no withholding)

My goodness: is there any government on this planet that is honest with its citizens? That of Argentina is probably no worse than most. White Guard 04:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

true enough, though due to the popular image and street image (of) there the citizens of argentina are far more sceptical than for let's say US-citizens (which imho aren't really sceptical). but what Ithink you might mean is the law system and its upholding. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I hold some knowledge about this subject (my dad had a study/bussenis trip there 2 weeks ago) and as it seems Argentina has like Chile one of the best lawsystems in the world. even if there is a high crimi-rate in both countries.Graendal 05:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Think of the poor people of Hungary. We all know that heads of government lie; but when you hear one admit it, now that really is something. White Guard 05:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they admitted it, but knowing how governments are, that was probably a lie.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A good philosophical point. It depends, I suppose, on the context of the admission. If George Bush said in public that he had always lied to the American people one would also have to weigh up the value of that statement. But if he was overheard saying it, as was Ferenc Gyurcsány, that would be something quite different. White Guard 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Musical qualification

Does anyone know what the letters FIGCM might mean? They were written after the name of a music teacher in England in 1906. Thanks - G N Frykman 06:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything on Google or in the OED, so I would guess it's defunct. FI usually means Fellow of the Institute of. Maybe CM is choir masters?--Shantavira 07:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Fellow I__ G___ College of Music? alteripse 07:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

FAGCM means Fellow of the Australian Guild of Church Musicians. FGCM means Fellow or Fellowship of the Guild of Church Music in general. I don't know what the 'I' stands for. At first I thought it might represent a particular diocese, but none of the Church of England's dioceses starts with the letter 'I'. 'International' just doesn't sound right for a church music title in 1906. Irish? ---Sluzzelin 08:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this: Fellow of the Incorporated Guild of Church Musicians --HJMG 08:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

HJMG - that is incredibly helpful! It is also incredibly likely for this particular schoolmaster. Many thanks - G N Frykman 18:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

canadians in vietnam war

I understand some canadians volentiered to join the american military to fight in vietnam. They were allowed to retain their decorations and badages from canada on their US military uniforms. What ever became of them? Thanks

According to this page [6], 4,000 Canadians served in Vietnam, and about 150 died or are MIA - there is a Memorial Wall in Windsor and Canadian Vietnam Veterans organizations. At least 2,000 of these had dual citizenship or became U.S. citizens - they probably returned to the U.S. Other went home to Canada. (See also Canada and the Vietnam War). Peter C. Lemon was the only Canadian recipient of the U.S.'s Medal of Honor in the Vietnam War. Rmhermen 18:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have an article about a mercurial sword?

I wanted to know if Wikipedia has any information about a mercurial sword, a sword with a hollow blade that has a basin of mercury at its hilt. When swung, the mercury would flow to the tip of the sword, increasing its impact.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 11:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

apparently not. note that this is a concept of Final Fantasy or other fantasy RPGs and should at best figure in Category:Fictional swords. dab (ᛏ) 11:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't sound a very practical idea. Why not just increase the mass of the tip as required? Or perhaps it could double as a thermometer? ("What? Still 98.6?")--Shantavira 11:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This concept has already been put into practice in the real world. Hollow aluminium baseball bat, part filled with water. Replace the water with mercury and you'd have one *fearsome* club... --Kurt Shaped Box 11:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an article yet, but a few of our Warhammer 40K articles briefly cover the subject. Since the concept is quite popular, we should have an article on it, but I don't think "mercurial sword" would be the best name for it. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 11:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I presume having a heavier tip would make it harder to handle, whereas this way the extra mass is in the handle, where it is more manageable, due to the way moments work, and then the extra mass is only transferred to the tip during the swing. --62.6.139.11 14:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

as a regular sword/weaponwielder/master I have to say: Actually a sword with a heavier tip is not harder to handle pur sang. It is only what you are accustomed to. "Mercurial swords" are frankly near impossible to handle though since it's balance keeps on shifting and therefore the basic swinging techniques take much strength and force whereas normally you only guide the sword and even then mainly with your thoughts. therefore I think that the only "Mercurial" weapon there could be possible is a Mace or a morning star or flail(though this one ould most likely be quite useless). And for those weapons adding Mercurial tips on the spikes would be less useless as using poison and acid tips hardened in firewith double chambers that open on impact and then close again. perhaps on swordspear It might be of some use as an added forceswing but then half of it's effectiveness of speed would just fall because you need time to adjust for every new balance (by Graendal on public comp)82.92.184.210 07:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Che Guevara a licensed medical doctor?

The WIKI biography does not say definitively whether or not Che Guevara ever graduated and had a degree. Was he a licensed medical doctor. This is a big bone of contention depending on where some people stand, politically. Most Cubans hate Guevera the way they hate Castro and scoff at the notion that he was ever a real doctor. This is because Guevera was a guerilla fighter in the jungle and killed many people. I say, ok, yes that's true, but wasn't he also a medical doctor? I emailed the University of Buenos Aires and got no reponse. This is something I have already researched quite a bit and still have no difinitive answer...can someone help?

Here's what the WIKI page says:

Some critics also believe that Che failed medical school in Argentina and that there is no evidence he actually ever earned a medical degree. [3] ,[4], [5], [6], [7],[8],

A glance at the current Che Guevara talk page shows that this is a topic of discussion. There are seven more talk pages in the archives linked from that page. Perhaps you will find more discussion, debate, and reasoning for the current wording.(I didn't check.)---Sluzzelin 17:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of Cuban's hate of Guevara, but since you bring it up yourself. Even those who hate Castro generally love El Che. The reason being that they love the fact that they got rid of Batista, but not necessarily what they did afterwards. Che was dead before he could do anything to tarnish his name. (Which is of course not to say that he would have - that's something we can never know.) DirkvdM 11:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What kind of people thank that just because they disagree with someone's politics that person couldn't have earned a medical degree? Are these same people big fans of Josef Mengele, whose medical degree is well-documented? DJ Clayworth 16:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Ernesto Che Guevara: Mito Y Realidad , by Enrique Ros (ISBN: 0897299884), he failed as Argentine medical student. Though he's widely described as a medical doctor by his hagiographers (Castaneda, Anderson, Taibo, Kalfon) no record exists of Guevara's medical degree. When Cuban-American researcher Enrique Ros inquired of the Rector of the University of Buenos Aires and the head of its Office of Academic Affairs for copies or proof of said document, Ros was variously told that the records had been misplaced or perhaps stolen. According to The Che Guevara Timeline by J.A. Sierra, Guevara completed his medical degree in March 1953. According to Britannica Concise he completed medical studies in 1953. According to Encarta Guevara received a medical degree from the University of Buenos Aires in 1953. The evidence would indicate that Che Guevara did graduate, but the records of his graduation are now lost. --Dave 08:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Finding a Poem

Could anybody help me find a poem I read a long time ago with the word \'Oriel\' in it? That\'s all I have to go by, sadly.

Here's one: Nuremberg by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

"On the square the oriel window, where in old heroic days

Sat the poet Melchior singing Kaiser Maximilian's praise." ---Sluzzelin 14:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not very much to go on. Try Googling poetry sites for "oriel" along with the names of Romantic poets such as Scott (eg. The moon on the east oriel shone), Tennyson (eg. Thro’ the topmost Oriels’ colour’d flame), Longfellow (Lo! in the painted Oriel of the West) etc.--Shantavira 14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

....try http://www.bartleby.com/

Home owners assn. vs Property owners assn.

What are some of the legal differences between HOA (home owners association) and POA (property owners association); specifically the rights and responsibilities of the members and the board?

Assuming the property in question consists of a home or homes, aren't these just synonyms? I'd think there is no generic difference; everything depends on the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of each specific association.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it's very much a state by state thing in the US. California is governed by Civil Code 1350-1378, for example[7]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What's English for German de:Notname

Notnamen are invented, conventional names for artists whose real names are unknown. See Master of the furies, Master E. S., Antiphon Painter.

While doing some interwiki linking, I've noticed that there's no equivalent here to de:Kategorie:Notname and de:Liste der Notnamen. I want to start these but wasn't even able to find the correct translation to use.

Pjacobi 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Provisional name? It's perhaps closer to 'Behelfsname' which is also used for this type of name. ---Sluzzelin 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion paper uses the descriptive phrase "descriptive phrase which functions as a name". In fact, the term "descriptive name" is in active use for this purpose: see [8] (said to be derived from the Grove Dictionary of Art), and [9].

The term "provisional name" is also being used: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

This English-language page on a German museum's website uses "makeshift name" as translation of Notname (here is the corresponding page in German).

On this page you find the term "invented name" (in the last line of the first page, referring to Master of the Embroidered Foliage). Another example of the use of this invented name: [15].

Conclusion. While not exactly common, "provisional name" is the provisional winner.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This question belongs on the Language Desk. StuRat 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the references so far. I've put the question here and not at language, as I'm looking for the most common term actually used in art history, which may or may not coincede with the best translation. --Pjacobi 22:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The nearest English equivalent would simply be 'unknown' for painters. I cannot think of any other usage. White Guard 01:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unknown was a quite prolific painter. Maybe we should call him "Master of the Unknown".  --Lambiam^Talk 14:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mallard Fillmore - comic strip

Local paper, Denver Post, has discontinued runnig Mallard Fillmore comic strip. How can I view it daily on the internet??? Thanx. Jim Jensen, Arvada, CO. e-mail address removed

Try this link and click on the archives.---Sluzzelin 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/mallard/about.htm displays the first week of the previous month, if that is enough of a fix. Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artsandliving/comics/?nav=left has lots of other comics daily. Edison 20:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If your local newspaper decided that your favorite strip will duck out of the comics, and if you're not chicken, you should cry fowl, raise a flap, and grouse to them (don't just parrot those other turkeys who settle for flipping them the bird). :-) StuRat 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

20 points to Stu! I could parrot a load more bird jokes, but then I'd just sound like a tit! Laïka 23:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Henry Walpole

I am doing some family history and found out that i am related to Henry Walpole, in the document entitled "Henry Walpole" it quotes "He was born at Docking, Norfolk, in 1558, the eldest son of Christopher Walpole" and in the document above Christopher Walpole has been taken out of your wikipedia please can you update this document so I can research Christopher Walpole and also if you can help me in anyway in finding the rest of he sons/daughters I would be grateful. Thank you

Helen85 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A Google search doesn't turn up any mentions of your ancestor Christopher Walpole, apart from passing mentions related to Henry Walpole. He is apparently not a famous person, even if he is somehow related Prime Minister Robert Walpole and Horatio Walpole, 1st Baron Walpole of Wolterton, along with the above-mentioned Henry. Church records (such as those that might be found on the grounds of this church) in the Docking, Norfolk area are possible the best bet to finding out more; genealogy websites might also be useful. Picaroon9288 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The DNB article on Henry says that Christopher (d. 1596) had a brother John, of Herpley, a sergeant-at-law. CW lived at Docking Hall from about 1558 and later owned an estate at Anmer and Dersingham, adjoining relatives' estates at Houghton (cousin) and Herpley/Harpley (nephew). Henry had a brother also called Christopher - see here. There may be more info in a 19th century book by Augustus Jessopp: One generation of a Norfolk house: a contribution to Elizabethan History about the Walpole family. By the way, I don't think there was ever a Wikipedia article on CW which was deleted. (Red links are sometimes there to suggest a possible future article.) --HJMG 22:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Walpole was lmost certainly not 'taken out of Wikipedia' - he was never there, but the person who linked to him in Henry Walpole thought he ought to be. His article will get created when somebody thinks it worth writing, and is prepared to do whatever research that requires. If you find out anything about him, Helen85, maybe you'd like to write it! ColinFine 21:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

September 30

Song Name

I have been searching for a song, but I can not remember the name of the song or the artist. Its been roughly 8 years since I last heard it, the only thing I remember for sure is a line that went something like "cast your eyes on the ocean, cast your soul to the sea" then a line here which I sadly do not remember, then "please remember me". For some reason everytime I think of this song the words "Dante's Peak" come to mind, although I have no idea if that has to do with song. Anyone out there know anything about this? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dante's Prayer by Loreena McKennitt ---Sluzzelin 13:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me find the song. Its still as beautiful as I remeber it to be. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Indian art

could i have some information on some of the indian schools of arts?

Try learn4good. Good luck! ---Sluzzelin 16:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Companies!

Hi,

Can you find me a hierarchy of companies displayed like a family tree (if possible). What i meen is i want to know which companies own eachother. eg somethin like unilever will be at the top and that owns lots of companies and then the companies that are owned by those companies ect.

thanks, --William dady 09:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Try here or here. You will probably have to create your own tree structure, as (a) these become unweildy very quickly (b) company ownerships etc don't always work in the same way as a family tree. --Shantavira 14:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Navy Stereotype

There is, in the UK at least, a pervading stereotype that people, in effect men, who serve in the Navy are either effeminate or gay. I can imagine that this arose from both the natural consequences of a large group of men being in close proximity for long periods of time without women, or from some idea that sailors need not do any hard physical work as their counterparts in the Army had to. However, I was wondering if there was some other root cause or source for this idea. Any opinions, comments or even answers would be very helpful. Thank you. —Daniel (‽) 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there's the falsely attributed to Churchill line, "the only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy, and the lash." The idea that sailors didn't do hard physical work is rather peculiar -- from what I've read, sailors were worked hard, often at pointless tasks that existed solely to keep them busy (like holystoning the decks.) But yeah, it's probably just the idea of all these men cooped up together for months at a time. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There are self-fulfilling stereotypes as well. You get six gay guys with a big hit like "In the Navy" and people start saying that gays all join the Navy. So, if you are gay, you think that maybe the Navy is a good place to be. Enough gay guys get the same idea and the Navy becomes a place where gay guys can go and answer the question, "Where can you find pleasure?" - or worse, "Oh my goodness, what am I going to do in a submarine?" --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S. where I served in the Navy one sometimes encounters the same stereotype in the civilian world. Of course that part of the civilian world hasn't quite gotten a clue that women serve on ships now. Within the Navy homophobia is pretty strong. I found that the quickest way to stop two guys from horseplay in the workspace is to walk by smiling and say, "Don't ask, don't tell." Immediately they'd stop wrestling and move to opposite ends of the room no matter how obviously everyone knew they were both really straight. Durova 04:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. That's right. However, I have never heard that stereotype. If you ask me, as a citizen of the US, being in the military is one of the manliest jobs you can do, and being gay is not very manly at all. I think this is the same the world over. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)08:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't always everywhere been like that: See Sacred Band of Thebes.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

... or Shudo ---Sluzzelin 12:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't help that they use a "beautiful clean" white uniform in most Navies who is simply completly useless in times of war (as soo much stuff in the military). In the words of Col Jessup in a A Few Good Men: "a faggotty white uniform". Flamarande 13:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, all. —Daniel (‽) 19:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A retired Royal Navy guy who was a tour guide on the HMS Belfast in London made very disparaging remarks about musicians of the Marine Band which once served on the ship having "very soft hands." My thought was the "Laddy doth protest too much." A book on the 20th century Royal Navy mentioned the custom of old salts taking new crew members down to the lower levels to "inspect the brass rivet."Edison 20:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In the States at least, the uniforms most Navy personnel actually wear to do their jobs would barely be recognizable to a civilian. White uniforms would only be daily attire at certain shore commands where people do mostly office work or interact with the public. Durova 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said: "completly useless in times of war". You will notice plenty of stuff everywhere in the military that serves no real military purpose, it is mostly there to look "nice, beautiful, clean, or impresive" (in another word: "faggotty" :). Flamarande 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

...and being gay is not very manly at all. What was that about stereotypes? JackofOz 11:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely being gay is the manliest thing possible - guaranteed to have no women involved whatsoever! --Mnemeson 11:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Watch it, Jack! I hope you don't lose your temper once again over this one! You should try to take these things in stride, as I'm so famous for. :--) Loomis 14:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. (I think). JackofOz 21:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, your first insticts were right. It was a compliment. You're welcome. My post was perhaps a terribly worded, yet genuine attempt at a sarcastic self-deprecatory remark. Besides, I had no idea about the gay-Navy stereotype. According to the village people, which are of course the definitive authority on gay culture, I thought most gay people hung out at the YMCA. :--) Loomis 03:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also important to note that practicing sodomy is not synonymous with homosexuality. You can roger every ensign in service without being gay. Anchoress 03:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Many gay couples don't practise sodomy, and many straight couples do. (One more stereotype smashed. Only about 5 million to go.) Mind you, if you did roger every ensign in the service, one might question your motives - and lack of discrimination. JackofOz 07:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

LMAO@JACK! Seriously. I haven't had such a good laugh out loud moment for a while following that last line! Good on you! :---) Loomis 09:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet-The Meaning of the Masks

I am looking for information on the masks used in the original play of Romeo and Juliet. Pictures or descriptions of what the masks looked like; what the colors of the masks mean; who attended the capulet ball; whether or not the masks were meant to show emotion. I need to have reference from three websites and one book. Any information would be so helpful....I have been unable to find anything! THank you!!!!

I think you should first read the 5th bullet on the left side of this page. schyler 23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

By "original play", do you mean "the first public performances of the play"? The play The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is traditionally dated as being from 1595. I'm afraid no word has reached us across the gulf of history on how the performances were staged. You can read a bit about the mask tradition in our article Masque.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Holiday Traditions

I'm doing a research paper for my nursing class. I need to know what are the traditional food's that puerto rican's give up or eat on Religious holidays and any other holidays.

We don't do homework for you... Read the top of the page. --AstoVidatu 23:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuisine of Puerto Rico#Holiday food? BTW, in your research paper, make sure not to use apostrophes for plurals. —Keenan Pepper 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

October 1

Ancestor

I was watching Dogma on Comedy Central and Bethany is told that she is the Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand neice of Jesus Christ (11 greats and 1 grand). At first I thought nothing of it, but later I was talking to my father on the phone and for some reason or another we got talking about our family tree. He said tht my own great-great-grand father was born in 1856. This is when it hit me that it really doesn't add up that a current day's person's great^11-grand uncle couldn't reasonably be from c.2000 years ago. It would be from more like 1150 based upon my family's average. Could, possibly, Jesus Christ be some modern-day person's great^11-grand neice (going by the movie, not any religious doctrine), or did the writer of the movie just assume that 11 greats souded old enough? schyler 02:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (p.s. I checked with my grandfather if his grandfather was born in 1856 and he said I was correct (after looking it up in his books because computer are too "new age and hard to figure out")).schyler 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the length of a generation is basically the average reproductive age. For many calculations like this in modern times, a generation is often assumed to be about 25 years, so 4 generations per century, and 40 generations per millennium. Median reproductive age in earlier eras might be slightly less, but not enormously so. It would take roughly 80 generations to go back 2000 years. alteripse 02:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So great^79-grand uncle would Jesus to a modern-day person, right? schyler 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Something like that. Of course, some men are capable of having children quite late in life, so you could have as few as around 25 generations down the male line. But 11, generations, no way, that would require an average age of around 180 at the birth of each child. StuRat 10:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Even Moses only lasted until he was 120.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Could, possibly, Jesus Christ be some modern-day person's great^11-grand neice..?" No, unless his gender was other than commonly understood and if we rule out time travel.Edison 20:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that having a character say 'great' eleven times when describing the relationship was considered funny, and having them say 'great' seventy nine times was considered boring. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Truman's letters

After President Truman left office, he wrote a large number of letters to various persons- colleagues, friends and enemies; where he wrote how he really felt about them, and so on. These letters ultimately remained unsent. Is there a good collected source of these collected somewhere other than the Truman presidential library? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this collection contains some of the unsent letters: Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman---Sluzzelin 11:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing posts

Has anyone else noticed posts going missing on these pages? Like you click on an item in your watch list by UserXXXX, and it aint there? Im posting this msg on all ref desks.--Light current 11:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed entire posts going missing, but what I have noticed is that sometimes someone will reply to a question and the text will simplt not show up on the page. You go to the edit page and the text they entered is there in the box, but not on the page and the page needs to be resaved for the answer to be able to be seen. schyler 12:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, but please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Archive dump. No need to post on all desks, just take your question there if you are still missing something.--Shantavira 12:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of India

I'm quite sure that British-India did not have a coat of Arms, otherwise memorials for the coronation as Emperor of India for George V would depict that coat of arms and not the British one. Is that true? But I can't imagine that the Kingdom of India had no coat of arms. What arms were used for this period?--Hannesde Correct me! 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The traditional coat of arms is really more of a European tradition. I see you have already found the emblem of India article. That emblem goes back a long way. I'm not aware of any coat of arms for India as such.--Shantavira 14:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

engagement rings

What is the prime season for buying/not buying engagement rings? I heard that the price can realy drop if you know when to buy them. Thanks

You'd best ask a jeweller. One would expect the spring to be a popular time to get engaged, and the autumn/fall to be slightly less popular, but not by much. Most humans are in the mood all year round. The marriage/honeymoon season is far more pronounced. I would be surprised to see a significant change in price, and I would be surprised if speculative seasonal purchasing could be profitable, otherwise all the jewellers would be doing it themselves.--Shantavira 15:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

actually I think he ment prices as in gold and crystal / other jewels and usually the gold price is down most during the summer season

My opinions:

Some people, both men and women, are legitimately concerned about the political machinations behind the diamond production process, especially in Africa (blood diamonds). Since the only diamonds many people ever buy or wear are in engagement rings, not buying a ring whose diamond comes from one of those areas could be a legitimate political statement. This can be avoided by buying a diamond from Canada (guaranteed cruelty-free and of excellent quality) or a second-hand ring. Most real gemstones are mined in poorer countries, so you have the same problem with them as well unless you buy second-hand or deliberately choose a gemstone mined in a country with a good human rights record.

Some young men, however, are offended by the existence of engagement rings. They see it as a ripoff, and blame stupid (and obviously vastly inferior) women for being brainwashed by TV ads. They sometimes cloak this in a concern for the 'blood diamond' problem. As I said, that is a legitimate concern, but usually these guys don't really believe in it; they're just using it as an excuse. This is obvious when they won't buy a Canadian-mined cruelty-free diamond or a used ring. It's also obvious when they spend $10,000 a year on car accessories, satellite radio, porn, game cartridges, game systems, computer systems, software, etc., but whine that diamond rings are "unimportant".

In my experience, most women see the engagement ring differently than these men do. They may feel that a man who won't buy them an engagement ring, or who (worst of all - I cannot describe the disgust this idea sends through me) insists on one in glass or crystal, is in reality cheap and self-centered, especially if he has money for computers, game systems, etc. They assume he's saying she has no value to him, that his porn collection or his game system are more important to him than she is. It's a huge slap in the face and a huge blow to the ego.

The idea that it has to cost two months' wages is an advertising ploy. If you can't afford a new ring, buy a used one. --Charlene.fic 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And only after posting that do I realize that you wrote "season", not "reason". I have to learn to read better! Sorry! The best time to buy one, new or used, is in the summer. People break up in the summer more so there are more used diamonds on the market, and wedding season is over so retailers are getting rid of their old stock.

Sorry again!!! --Charlene.fic 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about ENGAGEMENT rings, but in the States "wedding season" is June. May through July are some of the most expensive months for any major events due to the high number of weddings and graduations, as well as vactioning families. I would imagine that buying the ring sets would be more expensive in the preceding months, and that prices in engagement rings rise just before Valentine's Day Russia Moore 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the value of an engagement ring is about the same, new or used. It's based on the gold and the value of the stone. Diamonds are not the only stone that can be used in an engagement ring, although twentieth century marketing did make them very popular. Plenty of people buy settings and stones separately - one of my relatives has a beautiful ruby. Durova 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting help for article on Jean-Marie Le Pen : did he speak to(and support) Russian extremists, who went to fight in Iraq in 2003?

Hello, [16] This is a question of mine on the talk page of Jean-Marie Le Pen. I still don't have an answer.

I am quite certain that in 2003 (or late 2002) I saw images of Le Pen in Russia. He attended a conference of Russian (far-right) extremists who wanted to go to Iraq to help them fight the USA (and its allies). He obviously supported their cause. I have never put this in the article itself because I still don't have a source. Can anyone help me out? Thanks!

Evilbu 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Le Pen is a friend of Russian nationalist Sergey Baburin (and also of Vladimir Zhirinovsky). He seems to have visited Baburin in February 2003, but, according to this antifascist website, Le Pen specifically asked that no pictures be taken. I didn't find anything mentioning his support of troops fighting against Iraq's invaders. Le Pen and Baburin criticized the USA and its allies, but then so did Putin and Chirac. For further research, keep in mind that Baburin is spelled Babourine in French. ---Sluzzelin 09:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A comment from Russia. I don't think Baburin is particularly "nationalist". For Western observers, every Russian politican not supporting Bush is a "nationalist". From what I have seen of him on TV, Baburin is not very radical. As for Zhirinovsky, he prides himself on friendship with Le Pen and talks about it whenever possible, but then he's just a clown. I don't think it's helpful to call both "extremists" as both are influential members of the State Duma. They are as "extremist" as the archconservative members of the US Senate. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Привет Ghirlandajo. Sorry if this sounds like a silly question, but I can swear that I once heard that the whole Жириновcкий (Zhirinovsky) thing was finally revealed to be a giant hoax, and that Zhirinovsky was actually working for Yeltsin, and his job was to play on the absurdity of the Russian right-wing, thus scaring Russians into voting for the more "moderate" Yeltsin. I'm the furthest thing from a conspiracy theorist, but as you say, he's quite a clown! His propositions are well beyond the absurd, but rather the pure definition of insanity. Even Hitler, insane and evil as he was, wouldn't dare make such totally freakish proposals as Zhirinovski has, for if he did, he'd lose his credibility among the German people and immediately be labeled a totally insane laughingstock, and stripped of his führer status. Zhirinovsky's proposals were actually so insane that it even got me, a complete conspiracy skeptic, to actually start wondering if he was indeed a "professional" clown hired by Yeltsin. Would you have any information one way or the other? Болшοй cпасибо. Loomis 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unknown Audio

What is this from?

Thanks. schyler 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "from" anything. It is a brief self-contained piece that is a musical form of an exclamation mark, much like the British English "hear hear".  --Lambiam^Talk 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Shave and a haircut.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

New brunswick culture

How was the life style in Nwe Brunwick during the confederation

It was nice. Loomis 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I revel in such magnificent conciseness, Loomis, and I look forward to lots, lots, lots more of it. There's hope for you yet.  :) JackofOz 08:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh shut up Jack! And I say that with the greatest of affection. :-) Loomis 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Most New Brunswickers lived on farms or in small towns. Many more people lived from farming and lumbering than now. The St. John River was an important transportation route. People generally lived less comfortable lives because they did not have modern appliances or cars. People heated using wood stoves that had to be tended daily. Most of that wood had to be chopped by hand. People lived mainly on locally grown foods. During the winter, they lived on food that could be stored for months, such oats (for porridge), dried beans, and potatoes, turnips, and other root crops that could be stored in a cellar. A good way to learn more would be to visit King's Landing [17] Marco polo 14:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cholera

In 1850s Britain, which cures of cholera were there which worked? Computerjoe's talk 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Death or recovery. That's about it. White Guard 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

English in Europe

How many countries in the EU speak English fluently besides the UK & Ireland.

How many countries still depict signs of racism against the asians ?

This'd be better off at WP:RD/L. Computerjoe's talk 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why it be better off? This is an age of freedom & democracy. Recently there was a story that made big news in Russia of an indian medical student being murdered.

What is the cause for such nonsensical acts of intolerance being propogated?

I don't know of any countries in the EU that can speak English fluently. In fact I don't know of any countries in the world that can speak English fluently. Come to think of it, I don't know of any countries in the world that can speak any language, to any degree. Now if you want to ask about the people who live in those countries... Loomis 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a topic to this thread? Or did the original poster forget to sign his post, thus giving others the oportunity to seem to speak in his name? I'll ignore the weird second question and remark that the ability to speak English well (though not quite necessarily fluently) depends to a large degree on having movies (most of which are in English) on tv in the original language (with subtitles). This is the case in the Netherlands and Belgium and I believe also in Denmark. DirkvdM 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, why is that our northern and our southern neighbours don't understand our country.... In Flanders they use subtitles for everything except the Teletubbies, in Wallonia they dub movies, interviews... The consequences are obvious.Evilbu 20:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it you, Dirk, who was lecturing the rest of us about feeding trolls/terrorists? :) The first two completely unrelated questions were clearly the work of the same troll, as was that total non-sequitur of a rejoinder concerning "freedom and democracy". (Huh? What's "freedom and democracy" got to do with Wikipedia's rules? By that same logic, one would be unable to play, say, chess in a "free and democratic" country, as the rules of chess clearly restrict the players' "freedom" to move their pieces wherever they wish). That's why I answered the obviously trollish "question" with a suitably matching disrespectful response.

But as I said last time, even trolls can provide interesting topics to discuss. I agree with what you've said Dirk, but I think you've left something out. It's true that the Dutch and the Danish tend to be quite fluent in English. I just think that the answer has more to do with the raw number of native speakers of a given language. As Evilbu has taught me, there are only a bit over 20 million Dutch speakers in the world, compared to, say, almost 150-200 million French speakers. You mentioned the Belgians, I've never actually done any direct research into it, but I'd bet that the Dutch speaking Flemings are far more fluent in English than the French speaking Walloons. Whereas French-speakers seem to have the "critical mass" to manage to live their entire lives in the western world entirely in French without necessarily ever having to learn English, (though of course it helps,) it would just seem to be impossible to do so in Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norweigian, or even Hebrew for that matter. In such countries, namely the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway or Israel, having a working knowledge of English would seem to be a requirement to get by in the work environment, as well as to be able to sufficiently educate oneself in whatever areas one pleases. Wikipedia is a perfect example. I'm sure the Dutch version is extremely limited. In fact, I've looked around in the French version (the only other language I can speak and understand reasonably well), and even the French version just plain sucks. I could just imagine how bad the Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norweigian or Hebrew versions are. As well, you've mentioned before a few things you've read up on, Dirk, such as Che Guevara's biography, etc. How much should I bet that you've read those works in English, because a Dutch translation just wasn't available? But the reverse is also true, while on the one hand, it's great to be a native English speaker, as you can use English to communicate with more people on the planet than with any other language, on the other hand, it tends to be a handicap when attempting to learn a new language, or even master a second one. (Damn those French! In all the time I spent there, in France, speaking damn good French, (not perfect, but damn good!) the moment they heard the slightest bit of an English accent, they switch to English! How am I supposed to master my French if they keep switching to English!) I got so pissed off in Paris once, at some Burger King I think, that when they switched to English I said quite simply: "Je m'excuse, mais je ne comprend rien en anglais!" ("I'm sorry but I don't understand any English!") I guess the point I'm trying to make here is to all you non-native English speakers who think that English speakers are both arrogant and ignorant for "apparently" not bothering to learn your native language. Trust me! We try! It's just REALLY, REALLY hard to learn a foreign language when everyone keeps switching to English! Loomis 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It was Che's diary and I read it in Spanish. DirkvdM 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Swedish Wikipedia is indeed much worse than the English (although the German generally seems okay). The number of regularly contributing editors is just too small, I'd guess. 惑乱 分からん 10:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Everytime I can explain the complexity of Belgium to someone else, it makes me happy:)(Loomis, I'm still brewing on a sharp polite response to your last writings:)). In my opinion, what you say about critical mass is very likely to be true for both English and French. I think there are many USA-ers who think English is the only real language and therefore don't really bother, and I don't think the switching problem is a major problem in THAT MANY COUNTRIES. Apart from lack of knowledge in countries like Spain, France, there are people who simply refuse to, and those things occur in the highest positions, on the most important occasions:| ! Read all about it here [18]Evilbu 21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You frighten me Evilbu! :) "Brewing on a sharp polite response to your last writings." Why do you always make me feel that I've somehow offended you? :)

Voorgoed, Evilbu, natuurlijk many English speakers, Americans in particular are quite chauvenistic about English (many, at least in the recent past, even insisted that they weren't speaking "English", but rather, they were speaking "American"!) We even joke about it up here, about how some "college" somewhere in the deep south was considering creating a "Department of Foreign Languages". (The joke/story is apparently a true one). The whole idea met with great resistance, with picketers holding signs: "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us"!

But let me reassure you Evilbu. As a Canadian Anglophone born and raised in the unilingual French Quebec, (as well as one who prays in Hebrew and whose father's first language is Yiddish), I certainly realize that English most definitely is not the only language in the world. I'm reminded of it every day. Did you know that (unlike in France, or Belgium, or Switzerland, or any other country where French is an official language), in Quebec, the word "Stop" is considered to be too English to be allowed to be posted on a "Stop sign"? The government here must be the only one in the world that is nuts enough to insist that the word "Stop" on "Stop signs" be replaced with the French "Arrêt". So basically, we're probably the only place in the entire world where "Stop signs" are outlawed in favour of "Signaux D'Arrêt". The whole policy is actually too ridiculous to really be taken seriously.

Of course I can't speak for Americans, only for myslef. And as for myself, the "switching" problem is definitely the biggest impediment to mastering foreign languages. I even remember the short while I spent in the Netherlands and Flemming Belgium. Let me tell you, in all seriousness, that it was IMPOSSIBLE to learn any Dutch whatsoever. Not a word. The one word I learned was "natuurlijk", and that was because while in my hotel watching TV, they kept using that word, and the subtitles kept translating it to "naturally". I wish I could have learned more Dutch, but for that I would have had to run into someone who couldn't speak any English! And as you know, in the Netherlands and Flemming Belgium, those people don't exist! France, French Switzerland and Walloon Belgium were only slightly better. At least there were some people there who couldn't speak English, and so at least a couple of times my French actually came in handy. But the whole thing was disappointing. That whole trip to Europe taught me one thing: If you're an English speaker, don't even bother trying to speak the native language, no matter how good you are at it, no matter how sincere you are in willing to improve your ability in it. So long as you aren't COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY fluent in it in every possible way (French in my case), they'll just ignore your attempts and switch to English.

Another couple of anecdotes if I may: Doing my MBA, many of my classmates were Chinese. Not just "East Asian" or "Oriental" but actually Chinese...from China. On many occasions, though, I came upon a couple of my Chinese colleagues to find they were speaking English to each other! Neither of them were fluent in English, so I asked them: "You're both Chinese, right"? "Right" they said. "So why aren't you speaking Chinese to each other"? "Well", one would say, "I speak Mandarin and she speaks Cantonese". "Ok". I said. "But surely one of you, either the Mandarin speaker or the Cantonese speaker is more familiar with the other's native Chinese language than with English!. "Not at all," they each said. The Cantonese speaker said "I can't understand a word of Mandarin", and similarly, the Manadarin speaker said "I can't understand a word of Cantonese". "The only language we both have in common is English!"

Perhaps closer to home for you, we once did a case study on the Nestlé company, based in Switzerland. As I'm sure you know well, (along with the extremely minor language of Romansh,) Switzerland has four official languages, the other three being German, French and Italian. Now Nestlé, being a company with operations in every part of Switzerland, in all linguistic areas, at its head office, was forced to choose a common language to be spoken at corporate board meetings. So what language did they choose? German? French? Italian? Nope. The language chosen to conduct board meetings at Nestlé was the one language that all the board members had at least some familiarity with: English. Loomis 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as anything, it depends on demographics - last time I was in Berlin, the Germans would listen to one line from me and immediately take pity and switch into English. On the other hand, when in the Black Forest, we would often be dealing with people who spoke no English at all, so my lousy German was all we had (sometimes took a while, but we always got there ;-)). One of my enduring memories of that trip is a coachload of American tourists in some small village, in the sweetest cuckoo clock shop, demanding of the elderly lady behind the counter at ever increasing volume, "Does it take batteries? BATTERIES? TAKE BADD-ER-IES?!". (Unfortunately, not being able to remember the word for batteries, I didn't offer to help). If you leave the beaten track, or even just the major cities, go out into the smaller areas, or more rural, more conservative areas where the locals are less likely to have the inclination, desire, or need to learn another language, and you'll be more likely to be in a position where you have to speak the local one, or else can't communicate.

To get back slightly closer to the original question, the best English as a foreign language countries are probably Benelux and Scandinavia. I did get told when planning to go to Iceland that whilst everyone in Reykjavik would speak English, very few people in the eastern fjords would (unfortunately not something I got to check). It's worth noting that in a small country with a language of their own (i.e. everywhere I've just listed plus the Baltic states), they'll often use school/university textbooks printed in English or German because whilst the courses are taught in the local language, the printing costs mean it's not economical to write a textbook in the local language. Therefore, they have to learn another language just to study. --Mnemeson 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and something else I just thought of - regarding the concept of a common language for the EU - Alex Stubb argued rather nicely that "Everyone would be content with using English, except for the French. Everyone would be content with using English and French, except the Germans. Everyone would be content using English, French, and German, except the Spanish. And so on 'til Maltese", the EU commission on the other hand argued "Which language should we use? German has the largest number of native speakers in Europe. French is an official language of the largest number of member states (France, Belgium and Luxembourg). English is spoken by the largest number of people, but even there only 48% of EU citizens have even a basic understanding of English". English is a well spoken language, but by all means not by everybody. --Mnemeson 23:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If all have to adapt, then wouldn't it make sense to use a language that is easy for all to learn and has less ambiguities (and thus less chance of misunderstandings)? Like Esperanto? I suppose a problem is that there is too much mobility in especially parliament, meaning that people whoc only spend a few years there still have to learn it. Might still be worthwhile, though, given the adavntages and certainly for the more resident civil servants it would make sense. DirkvdM 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah Esperanto, the language of the future, NOT. Face it: is an artificial language which is simply ignored by the wider public. English is being taught almost everywhere and it is THE secundary language for far too many of us. Unless Mandarin somehow manages to gain popularity (quite unlikely, as the Chinese alphabet(s) is quite complicated compared to the Roman one), English is without a doubt THE language of the future, like it or not (being honest I kind'of like it). Every year more and more ppl learn it everywhere, and even if many of us make horrible mistakes (myself included) most of us manage to speak and to write it to a reasonable degree. It is already the official language in soo many countries to be somehow replaced by Esperanto. Blame upon the 2nd WW, Hollywood movies, US music charts, International trade, Globalization, American cultural imperialism (or similar bullshi*) noone can escape this reality: English is already everywhere, and it is here to stay., and don't waste your time longing for a artificial replacement (which in my honest opinion is never going to go anywhere unless goverments somehow impose it). It simply makes no sense to learn Esperanto as English is spoken to such a wide extent. Spare your resources and don't waste your money in learning a language which is simply not as usefull as English. I suspect that almost everyone who learns Esperanto has allready learnt English. Flamarande 09:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC) We are the Imperial Americans. Learn our language, and surrender your culture. We will build a MacDonalds, and sell Hollywood movies to you, besides giving your youth our music to dance for. :)

I was talking about government use, not general use. And don't assume English is the language of the future. Lingua francas have come and gone many times. They always come and they always go. Artificial and other simplified languages heve made it big in various parts of the world, so don't assume no one will ever make it big. DirkvdM 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So goverment employees everywhere should learn Esperanto while the average person is learning English? Dirk, that is indeed a very clever proposal, NOT. And please don't pull the history card, lingua francas come and go, but that notion should never stop us from learning the current one. The impact of English is world-wide and ppl from all classes of society everywhere know it or are learning it (degree and corectness are another mater), this never happened before. The "older" lingua-francas (like latin during the middle ages, or french) were mostly learnt by an alltoo small elite. I must ask you what impact Esperanto had upon the world. Flamarande 13:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced as some of you that the intentions of the questioner are trollish. He may be genuinely upset by, and unable to interpret, what he observes from a distance (a place like Mumbai, say) as a total lack of propriety or care about moral values in Western culture.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer the first question from the original poster: English is one of the two official languages of Malta, along with Maltese. English is also widely spoken in Cyprus. Beyond that, Scandinavians have a reputation in the UK as being likely to speak excellent English. Loganberry (Talk) 12:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And the Netherlands - as we used to say "you know when you've arrived in Holland, because the waiters speak better English than the English". -- Arwel (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside of the tourism sector, where English is virtually a job requirement, fluency in English in European countries other than the UK and Ireland is something of a class phenomenon. In Germany, people with blue-collar or rural jobs tend not to speak much English. There is no need and little use for it. Even in the Netherlands, I have encountered people who do not speak English working in local pharmacies and groceries outside of tourist districts. Oddly enough, I found the lowest levels of English fluency among ethnically non-Dutch people on the southern outskirts of Amsterdam. These are people whose parents came from Suriname or the Dutch Antilles who are first-generation native speakers of Dutch. Some of these people speak Dutch and Sranan Tongo or Papiamento but not English. Marco polo 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

well, as a dutch citizen I have to say that over the average taken our english is on a high level. especially compared with countries like France or Germany. and everyone over the age of 12 has basic knowledge about english and can be understood by anyone who speaks english. But even better ; everyone over the age of 18 is SUPPOSED to speak English fluently here. sure we have those people who are natural talents at speaking other (foreign) languages fluently and those who can't no matter how hard they try but as said before over the average we do. And about those groceries and pharmacies. they do speak english but prefer not to since it may or may not be as fluent as that of the others. and it is mainly the generation(s) of the last 2 decades that speak english fluently. Graendal 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC) .

Well, :) even though Dirk was wrong about the subtitles in ALL of Belgium, he was right about the major correspondence, subtitles are used in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Flanders, Finland,.... and their inhabitants are all more or less fluent in English :).Evilbu 17:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop callng dirk and come to the point loomis! There were two independent questions which need to be dealt with independently.

If so, why weren't they asked independently? And please sign your posts (with four tildes; ~~~~) so we can see who is saying what. DirkvdM 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think all of those unsigned comments, including the first two questions, are from Kartikv47...........Evilbu 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask a thoughtful, respectful question, and I'll be glad to give you a thoughtful, respectful answer. However, ask a ridiculous unanswerable question, and the best I'll (we'll) do is discuss the issue in general, hoping that WE, can learn from EACH other. "How many countries in the EU speak English fluently besides the UK & Ireland". Now how can that question possibly be answered one way or the other? Each country has a differing level of English fluency among its population. There are no yes or no answers. Only varying degrees. England: Fluent (although visit some neighbourhoods in London and you might wonder about that one!). Elsewhere in the UK and Ireland, fluent, although the various Scottish, Welsh and Irish Celtic languages are encouraged and taught in the schools of those respective countries, along with having bilingual street signs etc...in the hopes of at least holding onto at least some degree (and as a distant hope, perhaps even reviving) their native Celtic languages. The Benelux countries and Scandinavia: Strong tendency towards fluency in English by a large portion of the population. Germany: Less so. France: Even less than Germany etc... (and we haven't even adressed Mnemeson's point about rural vs. urban dwellers). Loomis 07:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Going back to "English is the language of the future", I doubt the latin or South Americans like English much, their leaders like Chavez or the Brazilian dictator (can't remember his name right now) absolutely HATE America and our language. They consider English to be an American invention, and that, therefore, makes it odious and imperfect. Even though they will probably learn it, they resent it (their stop signs don't say stop either:)). | AndonicO 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't hate America, they are simply envious and cheap politicians always want to gain easy votes. Therefore, they like to blame the USA for the all problems of their country and always bang upon the drum of patriotism. The voting masses like to hear that crap and like to blame "somebody else" for all their woes. Just ignore the corruption and incompetence of their national politicians and poor education. NO, the fault of everything bad happening HAS to be of the USA (current religious and political Dogma of so many of us). Ok, it isn't as easy as that and the USA is indeed guilty of many things but you can get the drift.

If I were Hugo Chavez, I'd hate America, the country which tried to have me killed. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, you can notice that English is so powerful that almost everywhere politicians are choosing a side (Yes or No, depending upon the pools and votes) and are unable to ignore it. Spanish is one of the most wide-spread languages on this planet but, as far as I know, it isn't spreading to other countries. If you don't agree please show me another language who is considered the language of international trade and politics. Show me another language who is being taught in soo many countries (as a secondary language). Just look at Wikipedia: the English Wiki has almost as many articles as all the others combined, and I believe the English articles are normally much more improved. This is achieved not only by "native-English-speakers", this is mainly achieved by soo many users from "other-than-English-speaking-countries" who have learned English as secondary language in school (myself being one of them). It is the same in World of Warcraft. STUFF cheap patriotism, and Anti-USA rethoric, I like English because it is the best language to know if you are interrested in traveling, and communicating with ppl from other countries. Flamarande3:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A PBS program a few years ago pointed out the origins of English on the continent, and said "Good milk and good cheese is good English and good Fries." Is this true? What other Friesian is similar to English?Edison 15:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree about Esperanto. How much of the world population has any understanding of Esperanto whatsoever? I'd estimate a fraction of one percent. So the decision rests upon: which is more likely? Having 99+% of the world learn an entirely new and unfamiliar language (which by the way, is far from culturally neutral, it's a heavily Eurocentric language), or have approximately 50% of the world use a language they're already somewhat familiar with to varying degrees, (English), and have the other 50% gradually accustom themselves to it. I hope this isn't taken as anglocentrism, just plain common sense. It makes no sense to me to expect the entire world to adopt a completely foreign, artificial, Eurocentric language, when English is already becoming the clear, world, lingua franca (possibly temporarily, but I don't see how its longevity is relevant). In a sense, Esperanto is actually quite similar to Marxism: Sounds great in theory, but in reality it doesn't stand a popsicle's chance in hell of ever working. :-) Loomis 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, they can defend Esperanto as much as they want but English is simply winning everywhere (simply stating a fact). It is the same with kilometers versus miles or kilos versus pounds, we already know which side is going to win, with some ppl just delaying the inevitable. About the charge of Eurocentric might I remind that it was Europe (Portugal, Spain, Great-Britain, the Netherlands, and France, etc) who discovered and linked the world? We live in a heavily Europe-influenced world like it or not (I am not discounting the current political and economical influence of the US, China, India, and Japan). The current victory of English is also due the Britsh Empire and not solely of the USA. Flamarande 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By pointing out that Esperanto is Eurocentric, I wasn't attempting to charge its supporters with any sort of racism or sense of cultural superiority or anything negative like that. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "Eurocentric" when what I meant to say was that Esperanto is made up almost exclusively of languages having originated in Europe. Therefore, I meant to include all of the Americas, as well as Australia, since these places too are "European-language-speaking". (Mainly English, French, Spanish and Portuguese, with a dash of Dutch for flavour). I was merely pointing it out for reasons of pragmatism. With over a third of the world's population living in India and China alone, I just don't see how an artificial language based on a combination of several European languages could have any hope of taking off, especially since most Europeans themselves have absolutely no familiarity whatsoever with Esperanto. Loomis 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Are eyeglasses considered a machine?

nt ChowderInopa 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the opening sentences of article machine:

A machine is any mechanical or organic device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of tasks. It normally requires some energy source ("input") and accomplishes some sort of work.

So I would say no. Picaroon9288 18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On another note, this page is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Your question should've been in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. If you want a better answer, you're more likely to find one there. (We're more likely to tell you who was recorded using eyeglasses first - Nero, and other things relating to humanities.) Picaroon9288 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition seems a bit broad. since by it anything is a machine, and nothing is a machine. Matter transmits energy to varying degrees, so any matter solid, liquid or gas is a machine by it. Vacuum transmits energy, as in radio messages from the International Space Station to earth, or solar energy from the sun to the ISS, so vacuum is a machine. Edison 15:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud and Nathaniel Hawthorn

can sigmund freud's theory of repression relate to the short story of Nathaniel Hawthorn's "Young Goodman Brown"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.126.94 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2006

If your professor has asked the question, the answer of course is "of course", but the how is up to you. alteripse 22:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC) PS, no one but English professors takes Freudian theory seriously these days (see Frederick Crews's book on the topic. alteripse 13:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it can. 24.193.106.197 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the proper pronunciation for...

Moved to the Language reference desk.

Who painted this and what is the piece called?

Knight

I'm looking for the artist and title of this piece. I first saw it in an Honors English Literature text at my high school back in 1995 alongside a story about Sir Gawain. No one I know still has the book and all I have been able to figure is that it may have been painted by a pre-Raphaelite (from an art friend of mine)

I'm looking to have a tapestry made of it by the people at www.purecountry.com, and appreciate all the help you might offer.

Thank you in advance!

Joe

Your friend's right, it is Pre-Raphaelite. It's La Belle Dame Sans Merci by John William Waterhouse - see this link. --Nicknack009 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict!) I won't repeat the info! Here's a bit more: painted in 1893. Currently in Hessisches Landesmusuem, Friedensplatz 1, Darmstadt, Germany.[19] Based on the poem of the same name by John Keats. Tyrenius 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Waterhouse was not a member of the original Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (he was not born till 1849, the year after it was founded) but was a follower in style and content of the original PRBs. Tyrenius 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

October 2

Religion

hii... Does any one know the nature and significant of public worship in a Synagogue for individuals and for groups

• Your teacher or instructor might. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jews do. Try clicking on synagogue.--Shantavira 08:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably "significance". As with many questions pertaining to Judaism, the answer should begin "It depends..." Check this out:

• Are you talking liberal, orthodox or ultra-orthodox?
• If the latter, do you mean chassidim or misnagdim?
• Ashkenazim or Sephardim?
• Most importantly, religious or irreligious?

(And I'm just warming up) --Dweller 16:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis of this question is rather difficult to decipher as it can pertain to so many different aspects of Jewish worship. But I'll take a shot in the dark here and assume that the questioner is asking specifically about the role of the synagogue and praying in groups vs. individual private worship.

First off, the actual physical structure known as a "synagogue" is rather insignificant, except for two things that come to mind regarding what is contained within it. First, most synagogues have an "ark" where the Torah scrolls are kept, and are extremely important for certain rituals (most importantly, for reading from them); and second, many rituals and prayers require a minyan, that is, a "quorum" of ten adult (over 13 years old) males (at least according to Orthodox Judaism they must be male, as I'm quite certain that certain other traditions, such as Reform Judaism allow for females to count as part of the "minyan"). Other prayers and rituals do not require a "minyan" and can be done in private. But as I said, the actual physical structure known as a "synagogue" is rather irrelevant. So long as there is an ark and a minyan is present, for what it matters, the services can just as well be performed in an open field. But then again, I'm not sure of the emphasis of the question, so I'm not really sure if this is the aspect the questioner was getting at. Loomis 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis covers the "significance" angle pretty well. "Nature" is a big question and is again very variable. There's everything from the solemnity of Yom Kippur through the sadness of Tisha B'Av to the madness of Simchat Torah. Re the latter, read Samuel Pepys diary. Of all the days in the year for him to choose to visit a synagogue (Bevis Marks?) he chose Simchat Torah, with predictable results. --Dweller 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

neuro-esthetics

Hi,

My name is Erik Dormaels and I'm preparing a dissertation on the subject of neuro-esthetics. I would like to contact Oliver Elbs who seems to have done the job already. Can someone help me? Oliver Elbs is mentioned in the bibliography of the Wikipedia article about Neuro-esthetics: Elbs, Oliver (2005): Neuro-Esthetics. Mapological foundations and applications. Munich. (Dissertation).

Thanks in advance,

Erik Dormaels (e-mail address removed)

You can find Oliver Elbs's e-mail address on this website (scroll down a bit).---Sluzzelin 09:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Place name in Nepal

In a partly illegible text, there's a mention of a place name at the source of the Kali Gandaki River. It appears to be something like "Naipul" or "Neipol" (? – only the "N" and "L" are clear). Nothing similar appears on the List of cities in Nepal or the Category:Cities and towns in Nepal, or in the Geography section of the Nepal page, and I've found nothing relevant in any Google search. It's possibly a geographic (place) name rather than an inhabited settlement, so I don't know where/how else to search further -- I'd appreciate your help! -- Thanks, Deborahjay 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The only semi-fitting place name I found near the source was 'Nyi La', which is a mountain pass (altitude: 3950m or 12,959ft) above the valley a bit downstream from the source. I also found 'Namghyat', further north, but it lacks an 'L'. Here's a google image search of 'Mustang' and 'map'. Maybe you, or someone else, can locate it. (My computer takes forever to load some of the maps).--- Sluzzelin

More about the place: it's (initially, at least) accessible by bus and serves as the starting point for [amateur] rafting trips down the Kali Gandaki. If a climb to a mountain pass would be involved, as web descriptions of treks including Nyi La show, that's not quite consistent with the description in the text I'm reading -- so I'm not sure it's the same place. -- Deborahjay 14:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nilgiri ? Actually a mountain which seems to be the source of one branch of the river. MeltBanana 14:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

... and here it is: Nayapul! :-D Deborahjay 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Short form for engineers

What is the internationally accepted abbreviation for engineers? Is that Ing.(as in european countries) or Er.(as in India and neighbouring countries).Is there an internationally accepted logo for engineers or civil engineers?

That was asked before, about a month ago, and I believe the answer was that there is no international standard. Every country has its own abbreviations. It also depends on which level of engineer. In the Netherlands, a university engineer is 'ir' and a HTS enigneer is 'ing'. DirkvdM 18:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, 'engineer' is still not an occupation which garners much honour in England, so the word simply does not occur as a title. I don't know how far the same is true in other English-speaking areas. ColinFine 23:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In Australia, I think it's a listing of their qualification after their name, so someone with a Bachelor of Engineering Degree would be "John Smith, B.Eng." --Canley 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US one might see "John Smith, BSEE, PE" indicating Smith has a Bachelors in electrical engineering and is a Professional Engineer, having attained experience and recommendations and having passed special exams. Without it , he can't be a consulting engineer or sign plans.Edison 04:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, B.Eng exists in England too. I thought toriginal poster was asking about titles, but I can see they might have meant in degree abbreviations as well. --ColinFine 08:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S, putting Ing. or Er. after your name would not tell people you were an engineer, unless they were from India or Europe.Edison 15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In India and Nepal almost all engineers put Er. before their Name eg Er. Rajendra.amrahs 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Replacing your victim

I'm trying to remember or find a story I once read. The details are a little hazy, so I can't easily search for it. In the story, a story is being told to someone else about a man who kills someone's son. That person (the killer) then has to replace the victim, go and live with the family, become their son in all respects.

Any idea where I pulled this from in my memory? TrekBarnes 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not positive, the short bit of plot you supplied sounds strangely familiar to The Talented Mr Ripley by Patricia Highsmith. Could that possibly be it? --Hunter85014 02:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In what key did Victoria originally write his "O Magnum Mysterium"?

Thomas Luis de Victoria's motet "O Magnum Mysterium" is in the Dorian mode. It appears to be transposed in the versions I have seen, which are mostly in B flat, with a key signature of four flats. What key was it originally performed in?

What voices originally performed this piece? (As, men and boys, for example.) Were the voices in the same vertical position, or have any of the voices subsequently been placed in a different octave. Thank you very muchy. BillWhite 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

According to [20], a choral music wiki, it is SATB. Looking at the time it was written (late 16th, early 17th century?), I thought sacred music of the time would be sung entirely male voice, but I wouldn't be sure of that. Skittle 21:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Frankly, I haven't a clue. Now, on the question of what was the original key for this motet, let me attempt to answer my own question as best I can, in the hopes of spurring a further response. Editions of the motet in B flat (ecclesiastical dorian, with four flats) are described as transposed. We have more freedom today in choosing the written key, whereas perhaps Victoria had more freedom in choosing the realised key. Furthermore, concert pitch has risen considerably over the centuries. The assumed limitation on available written keys in Victoria's day presents us with D (dorian, no flats or sharps), G (one flat) or A (one sharp) as the likely, perhaps only, possibilities. The greatest range difficulty for the D version is the high A appearing throughout in the Tenor, which is far more difficult today than in Victoria's day even assuming he was particular to deliver it in the written pitch. On the other hand, the setting in G might present the biggest difficulty in the Bass line which descends to F a great deal. A transposition from G to B flat gives freedom to all parts. But in truth I do not know the original key, and hope one day to see the answer here. BillWhite 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gambling in the US

Why is gambling illeagel in so many US states, and now online gambling aswell, even when based outside the US (does your government have that kind of authority!?). I mean surely something as popular as gambling that causes no harm to the stability of society by comparison to many things that you are allowed to do, by making it illeagel, surely all the US gov't is doing is not hindering gambling (as people who want to do it, will find a way) but just criminalising all gamblers, and meaning that all of the money goes into crime, i.e. gambling surely could be used as a gang front, much as alcohol was during your prohibition thingy, so basically, I'm not trying to satart an argument of be inflammatory, or deragatory to americans, I just dont understand the motives for it, and was hopen someone could enlighten me. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking form the UK, we've recently had a lot of discussion on this with the licencing of big casinos and loosening of some laws on gambling. Previously, we have had relatively low rates of problem gamblers and some people fear that making it easier to gamble, and to gamble large amounts, will change this. For example, I think there was a law that in order to go into a casino and gamble, you had to be a member. In order to become a member there was a 24 hour 'cooling off' period. The theory was that if people could just wander off the street and gamble as much as they wanted, on a whim, this would encourage problem gambling.

Incidentally, do we have an article on the US laws on gambling and the recent situation with certain British and Irish citizens unwilling to set foot in the US in case they're arrested for running online casinos? Skittle 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gambling in the United States but no mention of online gaming. Rmhermen 21:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I found some stuff in Online_gambling. Still doesn't make a lot of sense to me (the arrests), but it's there. Skittle 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I heard it pointed out (on BBC radio) today that the new ruling by Congress would hit online casinos (many of which are British companies, though they do a lot of business in the US) but that other kinds of online gambling such as on horse racing - which is coincidentally run mainly by US companies - would not be affected. ColinFine 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The position of most state governments in the US is that gambling is highly immoral and should be totally banned, unless they get a cut, in which case it should not only be allowed, but actively promoted by the government, with taxpayer dollars. StuRat 00:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as the authority of the U.S. gov't mentioned in the OP's first couple sentences... From what I understand, the law they wanted to pass would make it illegal for credit card companies to process transactions for U.S. citizens if the charges were going to the online casinos. In that sense, yes, the gov't does have the authority to step in since they are making laws for U.S. credit card companies and not making laws dealing directly with the casinos. Dismas|^(talk) 01:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Gambling is a bit like cigarettes. Governments know they're harmful, and dutifully insist on health warnings on packets, but still reap colossal revenue by way of excise. JackofOz 04:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, the only difference being, (and I can only speak for Canada here,) that while the government pretty much forbids every type of advertisement for cigarettes, and insists that cigarette companies include huge gory pictures of cancerous lungs and messages such as "Cigarettes Can Kill You"; for gambling, they actually promote government lotteries and government owned casinos with catchy advertisement campaigns on TV, albeit with a small qoute at the end "if you have a gambling problem, please call [the following toll free help-line]". That's where they're being hypocrites. If they truly wanted to provide an outlet for those hard core gamblers who would just go underground and gamble illegally anyway with a legal means of gambling, why spend money on ads encouraging it? I don't know if this is the case in other countries. Loomis 07:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the stupidity tax (lottery) is unique, a way for governments to tax the feeble-minded and have them be happy about it. There aren't many chances like that. StuRat 11:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Gambling is highly immoral and stupid, but so are lots of things, like most adrenaline sports, smoking, gun cultures, car cultures and fast food cultures, america features all of those things, some head and shoulders above the rest of the world, so why do they pick on the gamblers, every week in the UK we hear about another american breaking into a school/shop/office, taking a load of hostages and shooting some of them. So I just dont understand why they see gambling as more of a problem, than so many of the things that they allow. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Philc, the answer to your question is that governments do not act rationally, least of all the government of the United States. Also, U.S. politics, especially internal politics, is rife with hypocritical moralism, particularly regarding anything considered a "sin," such as gambling. Marco polo 20:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Phil, I think you're taking things a bit too far. It's not exactly legal in the US for Americans to break into schools/shops/offices, take a load of hostages and shoot them. In fact nothing could be more illegal. It's true that (in my opinion) the Second Ammendment is ridiculously outdated and I hold such a radical (left-wing!) view AGAINST guns that I actually think the ammendment should be repealed outright. The opposition to gun control from folks like the NRA is, to me, ridiculous. First, "sport hunting", no matter how much "fun" it may be to some, call me crazy, but just isn't a good enough rationalization for the approximately 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US each year (compared to a very, very minute fraction of that statistic per capita in Canada or the UK). Is "sport hunting" REALLY that important? For goodness sake, it would actually, technically speaking, be far easier for the US Government to refuse to grant you a fishing license than a gun permit! As for the "well regulated militia" part, first of all, has anyone ever noticed that the Second Ammendment is the only one that actually begins with a rationale? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". Leads one to wonder if this rationale is still relevant in any sense. All those farmers with shotguns really helped to prevent 9/11, didn't they!

But as always, I'm getting off topic. To pick a few of your examples, sure, adrenaline sports may be stupid, but what do you care? What harm does it do to you? As for the car culture, I think your statement may be rather innacurate. Look at the continent. Look at the Autobahn and all those Mercedes and BMW's flying by at 100+ mph (160+ kph), While the speed limit in the US, Canada and the UK is a far more reasonable is 65mph (100kph). As for smoking, what can be done? Prohibition? That didn't work with alcohol, it sure as hell wouldn't work with tobacco, and it's never worked with gambling. I disagree with the implications of the previous post to some degree that it is the "norm" for governments to act irrationally. To me it's quite rational, as "the lessor of two evils" to allow government regulated alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. The alternative has proven to be a failure. Prohibit it all and you'll only be creating new and profitable businesses for the underworld. I suppose, then, that the next best thing is to impose what Stu calls a stupidity tax (or what we call up here, as a sort of nonsensical pun, a "sintax"). Believe me, gambling can do a GREAT DEAL of harm. Just look at all those poor slobs spending their entire welfare check on legal VLTs the first of every month, with nothing left to feed their starving families. At least tobacco smokers can live productive, responsible (albeit shortened) lives, and don't blow their weekly paycheque every Friday on smokes. So rather than prohibit gambling and have it go underground, where only organized crime would benefit, they do the next best thing and give the poor gambling addicts a government lotto to have their fun with. At least the profit goes into the government's coffers, rather than lining the pockets of gangsters. What still pisses me off, though, is why they have to spend some of that profit advertising it, and actually encouraging all the more people to get hooked. Loomis 21:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the things I listed weren't things I expected the government to fix, but rather bad things which, accepably, do nothing about, and I just didnt see how gambling was any different. I too have a strong anti gun policy, the things are useless if you have no need to shoot anything, which unless you are in a war, you dont. They say guns dont kill people, people kill people,... yeh, with guns. Theres no way these people could hold a whole school of kids hostage with a knife. So yeh...

Fair point, gun crime is far from legal, but making something illeagel isnt all the government can do to prevent things happening, but I suppose as an outsider I dont know if they are doing anything to curtail gun crime, but given the stigma, I would highly doubt they are. But yeh, considering all of this free country stuff americans say, and freedom, and all that rubbish, it seems more and more of their rights are stripped away every day.

Also when I said car culture, I wasnt really reffering to speed, as modern vehicles, with a relatively co-ordinated dfriver can easily handle 100mph+, I was more reffering to the growing attitude that if you have a car, you should drive it if you go anywhere, no matter how short the distance or the alternative transports or anything but yeh. Anyway. I dunno. Cheers anyway. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The recent case of a gunman shooting down 5 school girls in US is a valid case at the point. The shooter was suffering from mental sickness and went on molesting young girls. This shows a clear sign of improper parenting and guidance and to what extent can pornographic content can do harm. When there is abuse of freedom then such are the examples of lawlessness & high degree of insanity. Why is prostitution still illegal in many countries ? Is porn industry and gambling not viewed as options to make money?? Whats the difference? All avenues just being created as a consequence of lack of education???

Reads like an attempted straw man. Note that the porn industry is not illegal, and I have no bloody idea what you're going on about. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, his arguments goes on the basis that prostitution and gambling are the same thing, and therefore since prositution is wrong, gambling is wrong. Curious point of view, but yeh, a straw man. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It also concludes without any logical argumentation that pornography leads to sex-crimes, when many would argue the opposite to be true; that is, that to a certain extent pornography can actually serve a positive societal purpose. Many would argue that pornography can act as a harmless sexual outlet, precluding the need of certain potentially dangerous sex-offenders from actually going about committing sex-crimes. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that sexually repressive regimes that not only forbid pornography, but go so far as to forbid women from exposing most if not all of their bodies in public would have quite a high rate of sex-crimes. Of course there's no way of me checking up on this stat, as I'm pretty sure that the Taliban or similar sexually repressive regimes wouldn't keep reliable records of such statistics. Now if that gunman would only have picked up a copy of Hustler and got his jollies that way rather than repressed his sexuality to the point where he felt compelled to commit such reprehensible sex-crimes and eventually go on a shooting rampage, perhaps all of his horrific crimes could have been averted. Yes, Hustler may be cheap smut, but it's a hell of a lot better than sexual repression. Loomis 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The arguments against pornography would have been undoubetdly higher. Sexual repression is not the point of debate. Stop deviating from the subject and dont abuse freedom. There is a perfect case for abuse of freedom. There are many sex offenders in the US, many gals go missing at young ages. The divorce rates are high. Some get addicted to porn to an excessive extent. The passion behind romance gets lost,there is absolutely no patience. There are various side-efftects to addictive porn. Why is it that the reader is deliberately arguing against taliban & other sexually repressive regimes? Everything has its own limits. Sexual repressiveness is equally bad. It all varies with the state of mind.

I have at least a good half-dozen responses that would all very easily destroy the above argument. (And whatever faults I may have, I'm pretty sure that most editors who know me here know that I'm anything but ever at a loss for words!) Yet I've simply had ENOUGH of the unsigned comments. How am I supposed to know if the above anonymous coward is the same anonymous coward as the previous anonymous coward? How can I build an argument without knowing who said what? SIGN your comments, write a COHERENT argument, and no one would be happier than me to respond to it in a civilized manner. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll be the first to admit it, and in fact, I HAVE admitted it on many occasions. But I've simply had enough of the "guerrilla debate" going on here. Some anonymous coward pops up, makes an abrasive yet incoherent comment, and then scurries off into nowhere, only for another anonymous coward (likely the same as the last, but hard to say) to pop up and do the same. I call it cowardice, because, unlike myself, you have no courage to say what you feel, be it right or wrong, and have the courage to PUT YOUR NAME TO IT. When I'm right, I enjoy the praise, and when I'm wrong, I SUFFER THE EMBARRASSMENT. Like I've said, I'd love to debate the pornography thing, but I refuse to debate with anonymous cowards who refuse to put their NAME on the line. Put YOUR NAME to it, (it doesn't matter if it's a pseudonym like mine, personal privacy is important, so don't feel compelled to put your "real" name. Yet it still serves the same purpose, that of forming a reputation, for being RIGHT or WRONG,) and I'll be more than glad to put MY NAME (and reputation) on the line in responding. Loomis 22:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with the attitude of the youth who indulge in such pleasures(porn) and whats even worse is that the west makes it a question of choice. There clearly reflects the attitude of the west towards the lack of compulsive educational training & Faith isnt practiced on a constant basis and the distractions are simply too much which erodes the necessity of education. Impatience for desires is the root of everythng. The side effects of porn do outweigh the benefits.The laws should put a ban against hard-core abusive porn. The weakness is in the MINDUser:kj_venus

14:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry guys, for feeding the troll, but I'm just too curious). KJ, you speak of the "west". Where in the "east" are you? Perhaps if you revealed that much we'd be able to have a civilized discussion about it. Give us an example of a "better" legal system that apparently prohibits porn, and then we'd have a real discussion! Loomis 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mit Hitler in Polen

I work in a library, and a patron brought me a copy of the book, "Mit Hitler in Polen" by Heinrich Hoffmann and wanted to know how much it was worth. It appears to be autographed by Himmler - I couldn't tell if it was a genuine autograph, of course. I checked Google, but didn't find much. Does anyone out there know about this book, and is there a chance that the autograph is genuine? --Shuttlebug 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick search shows me that the book itself is probably worth about $20 (value may vary depending on condition). I don't know how you would authenticate the signature, but one site I found listed an asking price of $2999.[21] Durova 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I really need to know is, is it even possible that Himmler would have signed this book, since he didn't write it? I didn't have time to look at the book for very long, but the signature seemed similar to ones shown on the internet.--Shuttlebug 01:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some further research on Google, and the only copies I could find for $20 were DVD reproductions. There were only a few copies of the original book, and those were $150 (and already sold). And those had no autograph. Does anyone know how to get an autograph authenticated?--Shuttlebug 05:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Google gave plenty of returns for "autograph authentication." Durova 15:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

i need help!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i need images of different ethnic groups (drawings preferably) for my 5 year old son's kindergarden homework and im completely lost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In Google Images, enter for example [drawing chinese] in the search box, and a few result pages down you'll find this image. Repeat for other ethnic groups.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that ethnic group looks Central European to me, possibly gypsy or something... =S 惑乱 分からん 11:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

your five year old needs to do an ethnographic project (is he in some sort of kindergarden for the super-gifted) and you are doing it for him, and are now asking us to do it for you?? dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Politics and Science

are politics more important than science in decision making

I may just be pessemistic, but this sounds like a homework question. Look it up in your textbook. Яussiaп F 23:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean "Are US national policy decisions made based on political considerations rather than scientific reasons ?", then yes, they are. Decisions on stem cell research funding, RU-486, marijuana legalization, the Iraq War, global warming & environmental policy, NASA funding, national energy policy, etc., are made based on political, rather than scientific, considerations. Those political reasons are, in turn, influenced by the Christian Fundamentalists, and, in the case of national energy policy, the US petroleum industry. StuRat 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean in a democracy, then yes. To get votes you need to do what the people think is right. Alas that is a judgement that is rarely based on actual knowledge. Take climate change for example. The scientific community pretty much agrees that we're heading for disaster, or at least that there is a good chance we are. There is more certainty here than politicians usually have to base their major long-term decisions on. However, if the scierntists don't manage to convince the voters of this, politicians will do nothing about it. Well, some would, but they don't get the required votes. This is the major pitfall of democracy. That said, is there a decent alternative? I have thought of giving people different voting rights, depending on their fields of expertise. Still thinking on that, though. And if that would mean that most people would have to relinquish much of their voting powers to others (people with a higher education), wuold they be willing to do so (ie vote for a party that proposese that)? DirkvdM 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of direct democracy to solve this issue. Presumably, most voters would only vote on items in fields which interest them. For example, teachers and parents would be more likely to vote on issues related to the education curriculum. You could either rely on apathy to keep voters away from issues in which they have no interest, or limit the number of votes each voter may participate in, say to 10% of the total votes, with them making the choice. This might be better to keep extremists, like Christian fundamentalists, from having a disproportional influence on society, as they do in the US currently. StuRat 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a political issue we agree upon. Late reaction (been away for a few days), so I hope you will still read this and witness this incredibly rare event. This would have to be a neighbourhood democracy, though, which would have the added advantages of bringing politics to the people and letting alienated city people get to know their neighbours. Do you agree with me on that too? DirkvdM 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a "neighbourhood democracy" means. I'd set it up so everyone can vote online or by phone (with computers and phones provided in libraries for those who don't have them). StuRat 20:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My idea was more of a Greek type of democracy (without the exclusion of women and slaves, that is), where people get together to discuss things. I've experienced this at a rainbow gathering, where it worked quite well. Even kids could join in. But since a consensus had to be reached discussions went on for a long time and only those who sat through an entire discussion could vote. This guaranteed that only those who were interrested and listened to all the arguments were part of the decision process. Of course the kids didn't hang around long enough for that, but they did get a good example of how a proper discussion was held. And I noticed that the kids there were much more reasonable (literally) than kids usually are. And because everybody could have joined in the discussion they were more willing to accept the decisions.

Of course it would be nice if this could also be done on the Internet, but then there would be no guarantee that people had read all the posts, so a different selection criterium might be needed, such as expertise. Other people could still read the entire discussion, though, which might be a good idea. Also, the neighbourhood dsicussions will also require some outside expertise in certain fields and maybe the decisions should be restricted to neighbourhood issues. This could, however, lead to the election of a neghbourhood representative who takes part in the city counsil and functions as a communication channel between the city and the various neighbourhoods. All this is part of my idea of societies going more small scale, focusing on local abillities and initiatives in stead of the big companies and governments making decisions without any 'grassroots' knowledge (I think that's the term). DirkvdM 06:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And in a dictatorship, it's whatever the dictator thinks is right. B00P 08:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See also public choice theory, rational choice theory, and social choice theory.---Sluzzelin 08:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

October 3

Symbols on a WWI French artillery shell decorated as "trench art"

Hello and thanks for reading this. I hope you can help as I have been working on this deciphering project for a good while. On this heavily embossed and hammered 75 mm shell there is a sheild-like shape that has three sets of two horizonal bars (pipes) that are stacked in a measured way on top of each other...Like this:

                   ll
                   ll
                   ll

This shell is dated 1918 and has been authenticated as being a piece of trench art made by French and American soldiers to send home or bring back as souveniers. I have deciphered many of the symbols that appear on several shells from the same period that seem to come from the Lorraine region of Eastern France. I have not been able to find any material that explains these marks. Can you help? Willow Pittman

Could they be trenches ? Trench warfare was widespread in WW1. StuRat 10:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To me the obvious answer is that they are celebrating the Armistice that ended World War I in 1918 on "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month." Marco polo 00:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for that answer. JackofOz 08:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too; it would seem to be blindingly obvious. White Guard 23:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting ages

Is there any country that does not have a voting age?

You mean a country that lets 5-year olds vote in national elections? I seriously doubt it. (Not that there's anything wrong with 5-year olds, I hasten to add before someone attacks me for being a child hater). JackofOz 04:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP's article on voting age, Iran has the lowest voting age of any country (15 years). Burkina Faso's entry is marked 'universal' without referring to any age. The Vatican seems to have an upper limit at 80 years (cardinals only). There are organizations pushing for lowering the voting age to include children, but to no avail sofar. ---Sluzzelin 08:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I hope it happens. Governments decide about kids too, so I don't see why they shouldn't have a say. Choose a children's representative in the government at the very least. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I favor lowering the voting age to 12 in the US. My justification:

• The Senate has the right to declare war.

• Senators are elected for 6 years.

• At 18, people are eligible to be drafted.

• People have a right to vote for anyone who could vote for a war in which they could be drafted and killed.

While voting just by 12 year olds would be frightening (I picture some teen idol winning elections), including teens in the mix should be OK. The effect on teens, by making them feel valued in society rather than disenfranchised, could have many benefits. StuRat 10:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically any country that doesn't allow voting at all doesn't have a voting age. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the former concept subsumes the latter. If I lived in an election-free dictatorship and said "We don't have a voting age in my country", that would suggest it's an exceptionally democratic country - when the truth is the opposite. JackofOz 20:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When people are only 12, they sometimes think explosions are cool, don't know the history of their own country let alone others and believe that inventing hospitals that don't use injections is a top priority. Oh wait, lots of adults are like that too.:)Evilbu 19:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it isn't the US Senate who has the power to declare war but the bi-cammeral United States Congress (i.e. the Senate and the House). At least that is what the article says. Flamarande 00:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats true. According to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, Congress, not simply the Senate has the authority to declare war. But if that doesn't convince you, how about a simple reductio argument: Since congress makes fiscal decisions affecting decades of future generations of Americans, I say they should allow, at the very least, newborn infants to vote as they'll surely be very strongly affected by these decisions. Loomis 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A country without voting does not have a voting age, if you can count that. —Daniel (‽) 19:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth and I discussed this above. JackofOz 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Journeyman painters

Hi - Can anyone tell me the names of the various roles of the staff that would have worked alongside Michaelangelo during the painting of the Sistine Chapel? Sorry for the long sentence. Thanks Adambrowne666 03:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much to offer, but I'll post it anyway: This link only has unspecific mentionings of 'quarrymen, carpenters, and (ornamental) stonecarvers'. Another biography link features English translations of the colorful nicknames of Michelangelo's assistants (e.g. The Little Liar, The Goose, The Anti-Christ). ---Sluzzelin 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Better info might be found in Ross King's book Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling. ---Sluzzelin 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, yet again, Sluzzelin; I think I've asked the wrong question - I don't need the staff specific to Michaelangelo (although I love the nicknames), but the staff that might accompany any such painter. Adambrowne666 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your question was clear, Adam. My answer was fuzzy.---Sluzzelin 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for trying, Sluzzelin. Adambrowne666 22:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

book title

i read a book a number of years ago and now i cannot remember the name or the author so i am hoping somebody can help. the plot basically consists of a handful of children waking up to nobody else existing in the world. cars still work and buildings still stand but there are no people there. they find each other and eventually start to unravel what is happening. at one part they see men in space suits watching them. they break the visor of a helmet of one of the men and they sufficate. it turns out that these kids posses a certain gift that allows whatever they believe to be reality actually be real. they are on a different planet i believe and are being used in an expirament. when they realize this they start to see the truth and it becomes hard to breathe. however a boy and a girl make themselves believe that they are still on earth so they can stay behind and live together. the only specific point i remember is that when they make-beleive this world they forget to believe clothing at the end and are standing there naked. if anybody can help me remember the name of this book i would be very greatful.

I'm afraid I can't help, but this certainly sounds like an interesting premise. I'd be interested as well in finding out the title... -Elmer Clark 01:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

define " non-theist "

most everybody would like to give a quick answer of " atheist " ; but, i know this is not true . my favorite author, erich fromm described himself as a non-theist but he focused on the experience of god, rather than, the conceptualization of him. in other words, fromm was a mystic, of sorts . thankyou, linguists of the world ! laura martin—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.87.178 (talk • contribs) .

See Non-theism.nids(♂) 09:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "Strike Suit"

Dear everybody,

Does anyone know what is called "strike suit" ? It seems to be a type of derivative suit. If someone can give an accurate definition and some cases, it will be great. Many thanks.

Here is answers.com's definition, borrowed from Barron's Law Dictionary. ---Sluzzelin 13:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what would be cool, if someone would create a strike suit article here too. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Marketing

Do you think that all companies need to practice the marketing concept? How can marketing concept apply in public services such as post office services?

Sounds like a homework question to me. All I would say is that, sadly, the notion of public services is slowly being eroded by the operation of the markets. In the UK, the government would love to open up post office services to competition, and will probably do so in the next few years. So, public services are increasingly having to embrace the marketing concept. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Freeza

What is fighting level of Freeza (Dragon Ball Z) in normal situation ad in first, second and third trasformation and on 100%? --Vess 14:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been quite a while since I've seen the Freeza saga, but I think it's about 1,000,000 in form three. Try reading the article located at Freeza. A Clown in the Dark 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

File:240-11.jpg

Evil Buu

Actually, when Furiza went to his second form, he already claimed his power level was over one million. However, I think that they stopped using scanners in DBZ even before that. So we don't know for sure. That's why we will never know how strong Evil Buu really was:).Evilbu 18:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Power levels on Dragonball Z got very silly around that time; they seemed to increase exponentially. Guesses I've seen online put Buu, Level 3 Super Saiyans etc at billions, if not trillions, of power points. Laïka 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Recitative

The question is content-related; it's on the opera talk page ([22]), but I thought someone knowledgeable could turn up here, too. Thanks in advance, --194.145.161.227 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Moral Standarda

Hi,I will glade if anybody can help me answer this question.(HOW DOES MORAL STANDARDS SOLVE SOCIAL CONFLICTS).

Moral standards ensure that people do their own homework. Have a look at morals, ethics and come back if you have specific questions. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See also "How does subject-verb agreement improve grammar?"Edison 17:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Moral Standards: examples set by the Western culture is clearly reflective of the deteriorating quality of culture & insanity .

INsane acts of sexual freedom is another example. Have a look at morals, ethics and come back if you have specific questions

political struggles of the seminole indians?

Im researching a project and can't find anything about modern day political struggles that the seminoles are facing. Can anyone help?

Have you read our seminal article on the Seminoles ? StuRat 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the full 100% Noles? Clarityfiend 04:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Beer Tastes Bad

As a young male, I find myself frequently under pressure from my peers to drink beer. I always argue that beer tastes like crap and that people only drink it to get drunk as cheaply as possible. In all honesty, do most people who drink beer actually like the taste or do they rather become accustomed to the acrid bitter flavour, in the way an insulin-dependant diabetic gets used to the pain of pushing a needle through their skin? In times gone by, would a bitter fruit have not been rejected by hunter/gatherers in preference for something sweet? --Username132 (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I hate the taste of alcohol, and can only stand the bitterness if it's in a low proportion with enough sugar to compensate, like in wine coolers (and I'm someone who can drink straight lemon juice !). There is a lot of difference between beers, however, with some cheap American beers being particularly bad. I suspect different people must taste alcohol differently, as others don't describe it the same way that we do. StuRat 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They genuinely enjoy it. If you really want to have a drink but don't like beer, try something else. Whiskey? - Rainwarrior 17:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See acquired taste, for one. Also, bitter foods in general are less appreciated by younger people than by adults, I think. I disliked beer when I was a kid (which was kind of a pity in retrospect, since I lived in Germany), and developed a taste for it in my early 20s. You might try sampling a good beer -- some are more bitter than others (I think hops is quite certainly an acquired taste.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As an adult, I still cannot stand American beers. I feel they are best labelled as one notch above rat piss. However, when in Norway, Sweden, and Germany, I had much heavier/thicker beers. I do not like the ones that, as far as I can tell, are fermented honey. Far too thick and sweet. But, I found many that I did like. Funny thing is that my favorite one in Norway was Mack-Øl - which the Norwegians considered rat piss. As for other alcohols, has anyone without sever alcohol induced brain damage ever sipped Jack Daniels and said, "Wow! That's smooth!" (read the label on Jack Daniels if you don't get it). But, getting back to the point. If you want to get drunk cheaply, beer is not the way. Get a high proof cheap wine (just see what the local bums are drinking). Thunderbird, Everclear, even a malt-liquer. They are cheaper and will get you drunk much faster. Remember: Beer to hard you're in the yard. Hard to beer you're in the clear. So, slam that thunderbird before you start drinking beer at the party. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To be picky, I think the correct spelling is "Makk-Øl". Norwegian uses the kk-spelling for native words. 惑乱 分からん 08:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

An image of the label is here. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So it's from a name??... These crazy Norwegians... 惑乱 分からん 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of things you dont like when your young, you like when your older. Beer is not an acquired taste, it just tastes good, obviously not everyone will like it, but people dont drink it to get drunk as cheap as possible (im guessing your possibly american, where over zealous drinking laws mean that kids never learn to drink responsibly, and everytime they get near beer, it has to be a piss up), Im 16 and I can honestly say I love the taste of beer, and lager, among other things, and I find extremely refreshing. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm British but I think there are a lot of drinking problems in other parts of the world including France and the Netherlands. I guess I'll just have to put the taste down to a marmite thing. --Username132 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Take this from a person who hasn't (voluntarily, a despicable idiot "spiked" my coke once) drunk a drip of alcohol since 1998, beer does taste good (like the Belgian beer Maes etc...). I still remember the taste and I am often reminded when I smell other people's beer. I'd drink alcohol free beer if I had a guarantee that it contains 0% alcohol (which is definitely not the case). By the way, if the USA has one law we should have too, it's definitely the no-alcohol-under-21-rule. The story about being able to explore is a myth. And no, I'm not an ex-alcoholic or something.Evilbu 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's very complicated. My mum would let me sip her wine if ever I wanted and I thought it tasted bad and thus showed little interest in alcohol until I went to university. On the other hand, in France kids drink with their parents at meal times and the end result is the biggest alcohol problem in the world (I looked it up ages ago but don't have the reference). I think it's sad that society needs to be protected from itself. --Username132 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Over the last few years I have tired a lot of new things, some I enjoyed some not, I think the exploring thing is true, you should learn to drink responsibly when you can, because in the US kids of 17+ will get hold of beer if they want it, and then they will get a kick out of it, they won't understand it, they'll just want to get desperately drunk, where as I am from the deep west country of England, where at my local I can get served, and probably could have since I was 15 if I wanted to, but there not idiots, there not going to serve till I pass out, and I'm not going to drink till I pass out, I enjoy going down the pub, having maybe a couple of pints, and trying something new, with my mates, its good fun, and we dont get terribly drunk, we can still walk in straight lines, and speak, and know what we are doing, but we have more fun. That is something I have rarely seen in my american counterparts. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Something to take into account: Have you tried it with food? Many drinks (and foods!) are terrible without proper pairings. I hate beer on it's own, but when I was forced to try it as it was the only liquid around and my mouth was aflame with spicy Mexican food... I agree with the above, try a good beer, and pair it the way you would wine. Many youngsters drink to get drunk, instead of drinking for ENJOYMENT like responsible adults. Russia Moore 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people really like beer, some people really hate it, some people really like some and really hate others - sounds like you're in the middle category there. Try other drinks - if your aim is to get as smashed as possible as quickly and cheaply as possible (not a view I endorse, just trying to cover all the bases), my experience would suggest white wine as the drink. If you want something with a glorious taste that'll linger in your mouth after you're done, and make ya glad to be alive, go for cider (not shitty supermarket/mass produced crap, but real zider from a good Somerset orchard). A firey spirit to warm you up, grab the vodka (preferably Russian - stronger, tastes better, and if bought in Russia *significantly* cheaper). As with all consumables, for everything we could list there will be some people who love it, some who hate it, some who are indifferent. Assuming you're of legal drinking age wherever you are, enjoy going out and experimenting, finding out what you like. --Mnemeson 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. I don't drink neither beer nor vodka, but I may assure you that here in Russia vodka is significantly more expensive than beer. Russian teens are so addicted to beer that the country is one of top three bear consumers in the world. Now that beer ads are banned from Russian television, perhaps the situation will change. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ghirlandajo - I'm sorry, I was unclear in my meaning. What I meant to say was that if you're buying a litre of vodka in the UK, or the same bottle in Russia, that bottle of vodka costs less in Russia than it would in the UK (I was buying from a tourist shop outside a hotel, and it was still less than half the price it was in the UK). --Mnemeson 10:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought Baileys tasted okay. I don't really like alcohol, otherways... 惑乱 分からん 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Taste non-alcoholic beverages like Red bull..

The wine idea is a good one if you are fixating on getting drunk. but there are better and cheaper! methods than wine and beer. for example GoldStrike (50%, with gold flakes, around $18(local prize(netherlands)) with it's sidetrick(two closed fingers before your mouth(horizontally)and then inhale.

But it is true that there are significant differences in beer. over the average the local beers are counted among the best, same goes for the german(schulten grau), Belgium(Wieckse Witte),Dutch(Alfa,Brand,Hoegaarden(could be belgian though), Spanish (san-miguel) for example. but I can suggest you try that what the locals have. usually it doesn't make you all that drunk and still will taste good. [my favorite beverage is Russian Vodka,which is much better then the european and american crap]Graendal 04:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

political science-international relations+international organizations

i've no. of doubts as don't hav notes of political science.the syllabus goes as- [PART-1]the world community;sovereign states,transnational political parties,& transnational non-official organisation such as churches,multinational corporations,scientific,cultural & other org.EAST-WEST ,SOUTH&NORTH RIVALIRIES.DISARMANENT.

[PART-2]inter govternmental organisations and their constituent instruments.features of the i.l.o. and international financial instituitions.u.n. and its principle organs.

kindly help me out.i'm not getting nething.if possible plz. provide notes of the above mentioned syllabus.i'll b so thankfl 2 u.61.246.242.62 17:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... --82.227.17.30 20:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you must be mistaken. This is the English wikipedia, not the Gibberish one. --The Dark Side 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

George, George, George. *sighs, shakes head* Go get Condi or Dick to help you. Clarityfiend 04:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, Clarity, if you take a look at the, well, the whole situation, and well ... if you really examined ... I mean, if you consider ... OH NEVERMIND! I might as well face it. Everybody hates my good buddy George. I've had a full six years and I've convinced no one.

Oh well ... the world may paint George a fool. Nonetheless I'll continue, for as long as it takes, trying and trying and trying to make my case. In the words of a very similar fool who was never taken seriously until well beyond it was too late; a fool who suffered a level of insult even George hasn't yet suffered: "Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense". Emboldened by that other fool, I'll never give in on sticking up for this one. Loomis 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ALL PROBLEMS SOLVED!

This must seem like a pretty meen question to ask but what would happen if all diseases, poverty and major natural disasters never happen from this day forwards and all the people on earth will live to they are 70-80 years old on average. What i meen is with a world 300% population increase in the last 100 years, and about half of the total population living below the poverty line who are all suddenly not, would there be any space left in 100, 200, 300 years. How would we control global warming. Will we destroy the earth. etc. Im not saying that we shouldnt stop poverty and related things, but what would happen?

One of two things will happen. The first and most unlikely is that we will run the earth dry of resources (we're then screwed). The second and more probable is that the Malthusian limits will kick in. That is to say that the human population will be drastically decimated through a combination of starvation (not enough food), disease (easier to propagate with a high density), and conflict (not enough space). The population will then drop and stabilize. This is because the earth cannot and will not support such a high number of humans (see carrying capacity) --The Dark Side 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It need not necessarily be one of those not so great things that causes the population to stabilize. According to my sociology textbook, Anti-Malthusians say that the population explosion is caused by a decrease in death rates with no corresponding changes to birth rates, but that the birth rates in the higher developed countries has been declining, and now I think Italy has a decreasing population, and only immigration keeps the US from having a decreasing population as well. My textbook says that the Anti-Malthusians believe that third-world countries are in the middle of the decrease in death rates right now, but as soon as industrialization occurs and the birth rate declines like it has in Europe and the US, and I'm going to quote my textbook here, "we will wonder what the fuss was about." --Maxamegalon2000 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also in Germany and Japan the population is slowly declining. To have a stable population the average childrate should be at least 2.1 and some countries simply don't have that. Another possible answer for the original question is that Humanity, faced with too little resources on this planet, simply spreads into space and colonizes other planets until dominating the entire galaxy. Flamarande 10:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How Much Do You Expect To Be Paid?

I was looking a vacancies on a website and along with CV and letter of motivation, they also ask me to say how much I expect to be paid. Is this part of some phsycological profiling? Why do human resources insist on doing things like this? You can't profile someone who is aware théy're being profiled because it interfers with the results. How much do I say? I heard that if you give a lower number than what they think it's worth, then they pay you that lower wage, whereas if you give too big a number, they tell you to hit the road. It's for TomTom customer service (phone and email). Also, what's with companies and the buzzwords they plaster over their websites? It's so insincere it makes me sick. --Username132 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In a way the entire application/interview process is, as you put it, profiling. That is the whole point of it. The fact that you are aware of it matters not. They know when they ask a question that you are going to try to tell them what you think they want to hear, and they know that interviewees are mostly full of BS. It is taken into account. As far as you question about how much money to ask for, there are several sites that will provide an average salary for a given position in a given area. If you are in the US salary.com is a place to start as well as the US Dept of Labor. As far as buzzwords, this isn't something new. It is called marketing and sincerity has nothing to do with sales. Sosobra 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on your language, I suspect that you are from the UK and not from the US. For info on UK salaries, try Reed.co.uk's salary calculator. It may be wise to offer your prospective employer a salary range that you expect, rather than a specific number. The top of the range should be above the number that you get from Reed, the bottom of the range close to the number that you get from Reed. You can offer any special qualifications that you have (prior experience in the field or a related field, knowledge of the product, whatever) as an argument for why you should get the high end of your range. As a fallback, if you would be satisfied with the standard salary or something slightly below, which you have put at the low end of your range, they may offer you a salary at that low end. The range increases your chances of getting a higher than average salary while decreasing your chances of being ruled out as too expensive. Marco polo 00:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Some basic suggestions for all lower level or entry level job interviews, where there are likely to be several applicants and advanced training is not required.

1. They want someone predictable, so someone who acts and dresses like everyone else, and gives the average answers is either predictable or knows what they want and is willing to give it (both are ok). In many instances they would rather have someone average and predictable than someone unusually good and much more hard-working than their average worker. I realize this is counterintuitive but if it doesnt make sense to you have someone explain it from the company's perspective.
2. They want someone reliable. Someone who shows up on time and doesnt call in sick often.
3. They want someone without expensive health or family problems. There are usually rules about how much they can probe or ask about this. Don't volunteer information about stresses, distractions, diseases or possible family problems.
4. Try not to lie. People do it, and they might hire you anyway, but companies are happy to have a reason to fire you for cause and if you lie on the application and they know it you have just given them a perpetual "get rid of me for cause ticket" for as long as you work there. If you dont understand the difference (for the company) between firing you for their reasons and firing you for cause, ask someone to explain it to you.
5. The suggestion about researching the usual pay is a good one so you have a ballpark, but I would also ask, "what do most people start with in this position in your company." Generally the lower the job and more applicants, the less flexibility they will have in your starting wage.
6. Don't be afraid to take a job. It isnt a lifetime contract. If you hate it, quit rather than do things that might cause you trouble getting your next job (like not showing up or mouthing off to bosses, etc).

If these suggestions seem depressing, they shouldn't be. You are usually in a stronger position and less vulnerable if you understand exactly what the other party wants from you. As you get older and get better at doing something that is in demand you can afford to be pickier and more individual. alteripse 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In negotiating situations, the first person to name a number usually loses. Whenever I see a form that asks for a desired salary I answer, "negotiable." Durova 02:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The requirement is that you determine the range of salaries they are willing to pay, and name a price just inside the top of the range. If you name the bottom of the range or below, you will work for less money than they were willing to pay you. If you name a salary above the top, they will not offer you a job because they can't afford you. In essence, it is a test of your networking and data collection ability.~At the same time, it is absolute poison if , in the job interview, you seem obsessed with the salary, how large your office will be, how much vacation you will get, and how soon you can retire!Edison 07:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with these latter pieces of advice is that they apply to upper level jobs where the hirer has considerable leeway with the salary offer. The tactics are pretty irrelevant with lower level jobs like beginning customer service technician where the starting salaries are relatively fixed for a variety of reasons. alteripse 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And in that situation the hiring manager usually doesn't mind discussing it at the interview. A direct, "What's your budget?" usually gets a direct reply. Then after they decide you're perfect for the position they may dig around a little bit for extra money or perks. If it's a small business you might wrangle an extra week's vacation or flexible working hours. 03:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Women and sociology in the 19th century

looking for information on the above subject, am currently studying famlies and communities

thank you

This link seems promising. schyler 00:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

During the 19th-century, the term "sociology" was often associated with what nowadays would be considered rather eccentric anthropological theories which sought to "explain" things like the history of marriage by assuming that such customs or institutions go through a fixed sequence of evolutionary stages, from "primitive" to "advanced" (with European cultures of course representing the most advanced form, and other cultures representing a spectrum of less-advanced forms). Semi-wacky stuff such as Bachofen's speculations on matriarchy were a major influence on some of the writings of Friedrich Engels. Freud's Totem and Taboo was one of the wackiest of all... AnonMoos 07:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

October 4

1920's vs 1930's

Was the New Deal a success or failure? ——12.210.77.57 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)RyaN

Some aspects of the program were successful, and others were not. The program achieved some goals but not others. I don't think that a simple, objective answer to your question is possible. To form your own subjective opinion, read New Deal and judge for yourself. Marco polo 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Success" and "failure" depend on your criteria for judging. If by "success" you mean "ended the Great Depression," then no, it was not successful (it took the war to do that). If by "success" you mean "changed the relationship between the federal government and the individual citizen," then yes, you could argue it was successful. --Fastfission 12:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Straight head to head viewship comparsion (??)

What is the straight head to head viewship comparsion for Bill O'Reiley vs Keith Olberman? All I find is compartive data that avoids a direct comparion.

Audie Price San Diego, CA 92101 (email removed)

???????? JackofOz 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1/10 Jack. Even incomplete sentences require words, not merely punctuation. Eight question marks in a row is not only an incomplete sentence, but rather excessive as well. :) Loomis 13:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the questioner wants to know how many people watch Bill O'Reilly (commentator), and how many watch Keith Olberman, possibly with the proviso that it must be data from when the two are broadcasting simultaneously (so there can't be an overlap of viewership) --Mnemeson 01:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

MLA Citation

I'm not sure if this is the BEST place to ask, but I desparately need to figure this out! How would one cite an excerpt from a book that is a collection of research findings when said excerpt is on a website without an author? Specifically this one [23]

Any help would be much appreciated, after about an hour of searching through all sorts of sources I can't find anything on this! Russia Moore 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have the MLA citation rules and have spent that much time searching, you can either make up new style by adapting the closest ones to this situation, or you can go to your professor and say, "Can you please help me with this? I have been searching the rules for an hour and it doesnt seem to fit exactly." Which way you go depends on the circumstance: if you are submitting a paper to a journal, use the first approach but if it for a college paper, try the second. alteripse 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Try this. It most likely will have what you are looking for. It's a citation maker! --The Dark Side 01:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips :) Sadly the citation maker didn't seem to have quite what I was looking for... I will probably just write in "(excerpt)" or something like tha, as I'm actualy generally considered an authority on the subject, but needed outside sources for a speech. Thankfully my instructor is pretty easy-going and should understand. I'm just disappointed in myself, as I'm an English Tutor hired by the school! Russia Moore 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The site gives a citation at the bottom giving you the proper info. "AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation. [web application]. 2006. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Available: http://amphibiaweb.org/. (Accessed: Oct 4, 2006)." So, based on the MLA handbook, you extrapolate the style. It is pretty easy if you know the style well. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)19:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

cuban culture, specifically calle ocho

does an original calle ocho exist in havana, cuba? the calle ocho listed in wikipedia pertains to the one in miami, florida. if so(ie, a calle ocho does exist in cuba), kindly make abrief mention on its significance in general cuban cultural and/or political life. thank you y muchas gracias.

Calle Ocho is not named after a street in Cuba. It is simply the Spanish name for "Eighth Street," because the neighborhood that carries this name is located along SW 8th Street in Miami. The numbered street grid of Miami dates back to the years around 1900 when Miami was founded. The street got its original, English, name long before it became known as "Calle Ocho" to the wave of Cuban migrants who arrived around 1960 after the rise to power of Fidel Castro. Marco polo 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

...but isn't there an original calle ocho in havana cuba where common folk converge to talk about the issues of the day (political or otherwise), and this calle ocho in havana, cuba sort of gained fame and soon became the place for common folk and important politicos to meet and debate about issues of the day, and by coincidence when cuban migrants arrived in miami in the late 1950s - early 1960s, they somehow converged on 8th street of miami (or somewhre in that vicinity)either by intention or just plain coincidnce to do what they used to do back home in cuba - converge, have coffee, and endlessly debate about politics. kindly enlighten us more, muchas gracias.

The highest IQ

What is the highest IQ ever recorded and whose was it?--Rouge Rosado Oui? 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

High IQs really don't indicate much except narrow talent for taking IQ tests. Durova 02:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn vos Savant (debated) --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So Savant is actually her parent's name? I thought that was a gimmick... 惑乱 分からん 06:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mine. (How's that for concise, Jack?) Loomis 04:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Too concise. An incomplete answer to the question, and an outright lie. 2/10. Must try harder to be perfect. (Note to parents: Please discipline Loomis, he's becoming a bad influence on the other students.) (Lol) JackofOz 05:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is in my bookmarks. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)19:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Once you get above an IQ of 130 or so, most IQ tests stop giving meaningful numbers: a good psychologist will simply score the test as "130+" or "99th+ percentile". --Serie 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This question has been asked before at least once. I know cos I asked it a couple of months ago. 8-(--Light current 04:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

fashion law

can a fashion product's unique design be protected ; say by patent, copyright, or some other means?

Considering that there's a whole mini-industry devoted to producing quick and cheap knockoffs of actress awards-show red-carpet dresses, I would definitely assume that the answer is no. Trademark would protect the brand-name and brand logo. Patents would protect an actual invention/innovation which meaningfully advances the prior state of the art in order to accomplish some specific function or purpose. In the United States, decorative elements used to achieve a utilitarian goal (such as font character shapes) don't seem to be copyrightable in many cases. AnonMoos 07:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be some European countries where those design elements can be legally protected. In the United States the protection is limited to trademarked designer logos. Durova 14:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But see design patent for the sorts of designs that can be protected by patent. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

UK Devolution

Does the UK now have a 'system of asymmetric devolution', or an 'asymmetric system of devolution'? I can find references to both. I can see that either order might convey the thought, but if possible I would appreciate a reference that makes it clear that one version or the other is legally or technically 'correct', rather than just opinions about how it sounds. Thanks if you can enlighten.

I don't think that either expression is legally or technically correct, because it isn't a "system" of devolution, but rather a set of somewhat incoherent laws and policies. Sorry that this is not the answer that you wanted. Marco polo 13:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems like nothing more than a simple semantic difference. They both mean the same thing. Loomis 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are unrelated things allowed to be put on unrelated bills?

In the US Senate and Congress why is things like adding the recent anti-gambling bill onto a bill for port security allowed? Did this always happen or is in a more recent (last 50 years or so) phenomenon?

Well, any senator/congressman who opposes a "port security" bill would be attacked for leaving the country at risk, so they either support the anti-gambling bill, or risk political suicide. This taken to an extreme in the Simpsons, where to pass an airline rerouting bill, they attach it to "Free American flags for orphans" bill. Laïka 15:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There was another Simpsons episode where the bill to evacuate Springfield before an impending meteor strike was defeated due to a "rider to support the perverted arts." StuRat 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its just manipulative, surely to run a country correctly, every issue should be discussed in its own right. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem would be who would decide which issues are sufficiently related to belong in the same bill. Rather than attempt to set up some long process to do that, I'd prefer to give each Congressman the right to vote on each line item, and give the President a line-item veto right. However, this would increase the power of the Presidency even further, so some compensating loss of power, such as reducing the percentage needed to override a veto, would be in order. StuRat 19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your right, lets not set up long boring process that work, and run the country well, lets keep governments exciting and unpredicitable, and run the country fast. I mean want kind of congressman wants to have to vote twice when he can vote once eh? Philc _T^E_C^I 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it is indeed his right.

In Australia, the title of a bill must reflect its contents. So, it's OK to have a bill that contains more-or-less unrelated matters as long as the title is sufficiently vague, such as "Miscellaneous Amendments Bill". But a bill called, say, "Sexual Perversions Approval Bill" could not contain matters relating to customs, defence, tax, health insurance etc. JackofOz 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying is true, Jack, that whereas in the US the act tends to be commonly referred to by the members of congress who sponsored it, as in The Wagner Act or The Sherman Act or The McCain-Feingold Act, in Canada and Australia, the Act is always known by the its official title, which reflects its subject matter. And while what you're saying sounds reasonable and logical, is there actually some aspect of Australian Constitutional law that forbids, say, an act known as the "Sexual Perversions Approval Act" from including some competely unrelated provision? Your reasoning makes perfect sense, but what is the source of the authority in Australian law that prevents such "riders"? Loomis 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian House of Representatives Practice, 5th. Ed. says the following:

• Every bill begins with a long title which sets out in brief terms the purposes of the bill or may provide a short description of the scope of a bill. .... The long title is part of a bill and as such is capable of amendment and must finally be agreed to by each House. The long title of a bill is procedurally significant. Standing orders require that ... every clause must come within the title.

The Standing Orders derive their authority ultimately from s.50 of the Australian Constitution:

• Section 50 - Rules and orders
• Each House of the Parliament may make rules and orders with respect to-
• (i.) The mode in which its powers, privileges, and immunities may be exercised and upheld:
• (ii.) The order and conduct of its business and proceedings either separately or jointly with the other House.

But IANAL, so my opinion is subject to disallowance. JackofOz 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ANAL either, but the legal issue is an interesting one, and so I'll ponder it and take it under advisement. Loomis 04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You speak the truth: Not ANAL = not am not a lawyer = am a lawyer. :) JackofOz 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your generosity, in considering me a REAL lawyer Jack.

What you speak of, the "Standing Orders" appear to me to be what I'd call a "regular" law: A law passed pursuant to a jurisdiction delegated to the Parliament of Australia by the Australian Constitution.

I should mention, though, that even among "regular laws", certain laws have a certain primus inter pares type status. That is, though they may be "regular statutes", they, by their significance, hold a sort of "superiour status" among other "regular statutes". For example, in Québec, we have the Civil Code of Québec, and the Québec Charter of Human Rights, which both, though they may be "regular statutes" tend to be given superiour status over other Acts of the Québec Legislature. The same goes for the Canadian Bill of Rights, a statutory, but non-constitutional instrument that's been since made obsolete by the now Constitutionally entrenched Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's an odd concept, and difficult to explain, but I believe that the Australian Parliament's "Standing Orders" may be of the same sort of law.

Another point I'd make is that I'm not at all familiar with Australia's Constitution, and in particular, if it, like Canada's, is composed to a certain degree by unwritten convention.

In any case, what I'm saying is that your "standing rules" are at the very least statutory law, and probably even, in a primus inter pares way, of the highest status among Australian Statute Law. Further though, it may actually be the case that these "standing orders" may in fact have become part of the Australian Constitution through the process of Constitutional Convention.

To make a long story short, and to go from legalese to English, you're probably right, that an unrelated "rider" in a Statute of the Parliament of Australia, probably just wouldn't fly. Loomis 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Standing Orders of each house of parliament are rules of procedure. To my understanding, and I could be completely wrong, the Standing Orders are not law in the same sense as Regulations made under the authority of an act. That's not to say that members and senators aren't obliged to obey them, but the consequences of disobeying them (eg. being suspended from the service of the house for a period) are parliamentary and political in nature, not legal. There's a link to them at the bottom of here. JackofOz 07:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'll take your note under advisement. :) Loomis 09:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Most U.S. state legislatures forbid these kind of shenanigans. See [24]. -- Mwalcoff 23:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous Sayings

I need a number that connects with this phrase,"For a significant man,the one thought he values greatly,to the laughter and scorn of insignificant men,is a key to hidden treasure chambers;for those others,it is nothing but a piece of old iron.

Errmmm, don't quite understand. What do you mean, you need a number? Maid Marion 13:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

183 MeltBanana 16:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

37 Edison 17:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

183 is correct. 184 is "It is neither the best nor the worst of a book that it is untranslatable." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Holding out for a hero percussion

I heard the Bonnie Tyler oldie Holding Out for a Hero on the radio the other day.

It's years since I've heard it and I noticed something I'd never heard before - from the end of the instrumental break, there was some very odd percussion. So odd that at first I put it down to poor reception or a dodgy CD at the radio station.

Is it there on a "proper" recording? And if so, what is it? And am I the only one who thinks it's really odd and out of place? (I'm not brilliantly literate in music terminology) --Dweller 13:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On amazon's sample the break sounds like good old electronic drums. ---Sluzzelin 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's horrible. What was the producer thinking of? --Dweller 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was yelled at for playing the sample full blast at home yesterday.---Sluzzelin 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, the song was made in the 1980's. It didn't sound too awful to me, but maybe it'd be more annoying in the context of the full song... I remember this song from the Footloose movie, btw. 惑乱 分からん 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

insignia origin and meaning

I am looking for a mechanism to search for the meaning of a specific item that I have an image of. The image of a lapel pin that was my fathers. It is probably from Denmark, but I have no idea of its significance.

There is really no good place for image identification on the internet that I know of unless it is "get humans to look at it" in a place like here. There is http://www.symbols.com but it probably will not get you very modern logos. MeltBanana 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you can upload a scan or digital photograph at a webhosting service like ImageShack or Photobucket and send us the link... 惑乱 分からん 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sourdough History

How long has sourdough been used? How did its use spread around the world? The entry on sourdough says nothing whatsoever about its pre-modern history except that it is ancient. Dfeuer 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a little more on the talk page. AnonMoos 18:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Song

A heard a classical type of song, maybe from the 1800's, that starts out slow and then suddenly leaps into a battle like composition. It was in the show Get Smart one time, when smart was captured by KAOS and a cannon was about to fired at him, but wouldn't by fired at him until the end of the song. I remember it being really long, like around 10 minutes. Anyone know the name of the piece?

It might be Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture as this starts slow, and ends fast and with a cannon. If you remember the melody, you can check it at musipedia. Dar-Ape 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We had the captain for our meal (poem)

I'm looking for a poem I heard recited 53 years ago about a shipwreck, and it contains the phrase, "We had the captain for our meal." Does this resonate with any scholars out there? Jthorson 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)jthorson

The Yarn Of The 'Nancy Bell', perhaps? --LarryMac 19:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did the Netherlands last for so little against the Wehrmacht in WW2?

France's fast fall was the topic of many discussions, but doesn't seem the same case for the Netherlands, a former colonial power and one of the richest countries at the time... So, what happened?

Not sure but, the german army was huge, collosally over sized given the size of the country, and the netherlands weren't prepared for blitzkreig tactics. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tiny country (no more than 360 x 260 km according to one place I looked), big surprise. I mean, you could drive across it in a couple of hours. That makes it hard to defend under the best of circumstances. Clarityfiend 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Small can still be effective, I mean belgium (a smaller country) famously halted the Schlieffen Plan in WW1, and thus all of germanys failings in that war can be traced back to that. As Germany expected to have a closed western front before an eastern one opened, this didnt happen, and they were forced to divide their armies. And the rest is, as they say, history. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Germans were rained out during the Shlieffen Plan and their soldiers couldn't traverse the mud fast enough to surround Paris. --The Dark Side 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Belgium did not halt the Schlieffen Plan; almost all the country was occupied, save for a small strip of Flanders. The Germans were 'halted'-if that's the right word-because their lines of communication were too long, their flanks too exposed, the First army was not strong enough, the troops were exhausted, and because they had run out of reserves. The French forced them the regroup northwards after moving into a threatening position on the River Marne. What followed was a series of flanking moves, known-incorrectly-as the 'race to the sea'. As for the Netherlands in 1940, look at the map: a small, flat country, few defensive positions and a fraction of the German strength. Besides, they were not expecting to be attacked. White Guard 22:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It took them about a month to invade belgium, the Germans expected to be in paris by that time, I didnt say the Belgians won the war, they just severley screwed up germanies plans. If you read the article, which I think you should, as you don't seem to know whats going on, the plan failed because

1. The Belgian resistance delayed them for a month
2. This gave the french time to reloacte their forces and further hamper it
3. The British had time to send over forces into belgium to help defend it
4. The russians had mobilized before the Germans had finished in france

So as you may see, the latter 3 points would not have happened if it were not for the belgians. So yeh, they did halt the schlieffen plan, The war wasnt over, the germans still had troops and a war to fight, but that particular plan had gone to the dogs. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Absoultely, you are quite right; I simply do not know what is going on. I should have understood in my ignorance that when you wrote that Belgium 'halted the Schlieffen Plan' that, of course, meant that Belgium 'delayed the the Schlieffen Plan'(as opposed to the advance of German troops, a quite different thing). I should also have understood that when the German army cleared the Belgian border and advanced into northern France, that the allies were not being pushed south, simply 'relocating'. I should really have understood that Belgian resistence gave the British time to 'send over their forces' to defend them, rather than falling back with the French, as they did, to the River Marne. I'm afraid, however, that the connection between the speed of Russian mobilization and Belgian resistence escapes me-I admit this is probably due to my ignorance of the whole issue. Your clarification has cast light on the fog of my misunderstanding. I'm still puzzled, though; so perhaps you can offer some more illumination? You say it took the Germans a month to invade Belgium? In my ignorance I asssumed they crossed the border on 4 August. The British government seems to have assumed so, declaring war the same day. What a pity you were not around to correct the mistake.

White Guard 23:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be rude or cynical, I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. They did invade belgium on the 4th of August, they just hadnt finished until the next month. They got some forces across the french border before then, but a lot were held up seiging various Belgian fortifications, and they as a result could not advance as intended. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine; but please be careful about expressions like "you don't seem to know what is going on." I could do no more than interpret that as rude and dismissive, particularly irksome because I have a reasonably detailed knowledge of the course of the Great War. White Guard 23:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well I am sorry for causing any offence. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See The Netherlands in World War II#The outbreak of the war and Battle of the Netherlands#The battle.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the Netherlands a small country, but it has no natural geographic barriers to protect against invasion and a substantial portion of its land is below sea level. The Germans could have retaliated by simply flooding the place. Durova 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to respond to Clarityfiend's remark that a country's geographical size is in any way related to its military vulnerability: As everyone here knows, I'm a Canadian Jew. Just take a look at the two countries that are nearest and dearest to my heart: Canada and Israel. Canada is just over 450 times as big as Israel. Now, hypothetically, say the American/Canadian relationship wasn't as incredibly friendly as it happens to be, but rather, that the US denied the very existence of Canada, and let's also say, hypothetically, that the US military was equivalent in power to the combined militaries of Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jordan. Massive Canada, the second largest country in the world, would last, at the very best, an afternoon before being completely overrun, destroyed and conquered by our hostile neighbours to the south. Compare this to the Six Day War. So much for size being a factor. Loomis 21:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats not quite a fair comparison, the Six day war was an israeli offensive, even if justified, they weren't defending against an organized assault from these combined masses.... Philc _T^E_C^I 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they were. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were actually mobilized, in a coordinated effort along their respective borders with Israel. To make the comparison even fairer and more accurate, let's say the US (given the above-mentioned hypothetical scenario) didn't attack Canada, but rather, mobilized its forces along the Canada/US border, about to attack. Are you saying that rather than wait for the Americans to attack, a pre-emptive attack by Canada into the states would make any difference? Please. Even if the US military was as backward and unskilled as that of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, still, we'd be toast.

As for Canada being atypical, I beg to differ. Giant Australia is in the same boat. Just look to WWII. The Axis powers, those of the relatively tiny Germany, Italy and Japan, collectively, actually had a good shot at taking over the whole world! In particular, tiny Japan somehow managed to conquer such massive territories in China, Indochina, southeast Asia in general, and even managed to go so far as to harrass gigantic Australia back then. And the Aussies certainly weren't taken by surprise! They knew well in advance what was coming! And looking back to the 19th century, how was it possible for tiny Britain to have accumulated such a vast empire? The Brits actually conquered India of all places! Not only is India massive in size compared to tiny Britain, but the whole "tiny population" argument doesn't work there either. India's population was then, as it is now, at the very least ten times that of Britain. I hate to put it this way, (and please, don't read too much into it :--) ) but when it comes to military power, (geographical) size really doesn't really matter. Loomis 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Holland was a small country, accessible by land by its attacker (unlike Australia). So it had nowhere to fall back to and regroup after the surprise German attack. France was bigger and the surprise was lessened, so it lasted longer. Russia was huge, so even though its army took a terrific beating at first, it had thousands(?) of miles to work with, so it had time to recover. Size therefore does make a huge difference in a country's defensive capability. Throw in the flat Dutch terrain and the original poster's question is answered. Clarityfiend 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And so that brings me back to my original point. Israel, too, was a tiny country, accessible by land by its attackers. The whole "push them into the sea" line has been repeated so many times that it's unnecessary to point out that Israel "had nowhere to fall back to and regroup..." As for the "surprise" (Surprise! We've been talking about conquering Europe since 1924! SURPRISE!) German attack, well, I can only say that those Dutch who were actually so naive as to not see Hitler as some sort of threat after he took over the Rheinland, Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc, well, if they were THAT naive, (which I don't believe they were,) then of course they'd be no match for the Nazi war machine. But of course I give far more credit to the good Dutch people than that. The REAL reason the Netherlands were so easily overrun by the Germans is because they were a society of good, pacifist people, with no expansionist military ambitions, and as such hadn't dedicated anywhere near as much of their "intellectual potential" or their GDP toward military purposes, and were unfortunately overwhelmed by the massive dedication toward expansionism as well as the sheer inhumane brutality of the Hitler's Germany. It's got little to do with geographical size. Loomis 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It may have been a little hard to read, but I did say "Tiny country, big surprise". The combination of the two was just too lethal. But size does matter. Canada is an atypical case, because it has a small population compared to its size and it is very much concentrated near the border. If it were more decentralized, then its defenders would have more options, i.e. trading space for time. Ask the Germans about Russia. P.S. Don't tell Rummy about Terrance and Phillip.

Dutch border guard: Wehrmacht?

German soldier: HERE macht.

Clarityfiend 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring what is stated directly above I think I will put the real reason why the netherlands didn't "last"(wrong word here)long. First of all we declared ourselves Neutral. just like in the first world war, very much the same as switzerland but we still got attacked: at the first surprise attack we managed to push back nazi-germany to around our borderlines after they penetrated deep into our territory. there we dug ourselves in and put up a strong defensive line across the borders. thus giving our royal family the time to flee to England. even if it did not want to. then, after four days the nazi-germans saw no way to push in and switched tactics. their new tactics were to fly (heavy) bombers over the defensive lines and then bomb the at-that-time second biggest city rotterdam to rubble, and threatened to bombard all the other major cities as well. this made it impossible for general Winkelman to keep going on because as has been said we really were humanists and pacifists. and he capitulated, on rather good terms actually as one ould see in the first period of the occupation. although this had more reasons, one being the fact that dutch people are actually better ubermenschen than germans, which immediately explains the bombing target rotterdam(biggest port and therefore most "polluted") and they saw us as brethren. Conclusion: The Dutch Forces Could Have Lasted On For Much Longer But Due To The Bombing Of Cities And The Threat Of More Bombings The Netherlands CapitulatedGraendal 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

US calling code

hi guys, what is the code I should dial to call the US and then to call Chicago specifically?. thank you.--Cosmic girl 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From where do you call? 惑乱 分からん 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Long gone are the days when a city the size of Chicago had only one area code. You will need to get the specific ten digit phone number from somewhere, and as the person above implies, the dialing instructions from your location. The country code for the US is +1. --LarryMac 20:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See also list of North American area codes. (Searching for "calling codes" or "dialling codes" won't get you far in Wikipedia.)--Shantavira 08:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your profile suggests that you are in Peru. According to international access code, the access code from Peru is 00. Therefore, you dial 001, then the ten-digit local phone number in Chicago. Marco polo 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! :) --Cosmic girl 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus climate

what is the climate of cyprus

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Type "cyprus" in the search box. You will see an article on Cyprus. You will also see a link to extra information on the Geography of Cyprus, which has a section specifically on the climate. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

October 5

First Christian Church

Good Afternoon,

Can you please confirm if the Roman Catholic Church was the first Christian Church??

If is was not, could you please advise which Church was historically the first.

Wowser

Nope. Read the Bible. The first church was formed in Antioch. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "Christian" was coined in Antioch, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that the first church was formed in Antioch. AnonMoos 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Christianity and Christian church were born in Antioch. I find it difficult to dispute this assertion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "Christian" was coined in Antioch, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that "the Christianity and Christian church were born in Antioch". AnonMoos 16:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not an easy question to answer. See History of Christianity to see what we know about the evolution of Christianity (sorry about the bad pun...). The Roman Catholic Church claims to trace its ancestry all the way back to the twelve apostles in an unbroken line. But whether you accept that or not, given the disorganisation of the early Christians, is another question. --Robert Merkel 07:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, each major church claims an apostolic succession. No claim may be documented properly. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. What good would faith be if all this stuff could actually be proven?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW that's why Roman Catholics call themselves "Catholic", whereas non-Roman Catholic Christians add the qualifier "Roman" to Roman Catholicism. The term "Catholic" is greek for "whole" or "universal", and therefore non-Roman Catholics find it innacurate to simply call Roman Catholics "Catholic" without the qualifier Roman, just to point out that they're just as Catholic as the "Roman Catholics", just they're not "Roman" Catholics. Loomis 12:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Orthodox people also call themselves "Orthodox *and* Catholic", whereas non-Eastern Orthodox add the qualifier "Eastern". Your argument may be easily reverted, you see. Unlike four major patriarchates, the bishopric of Rome seceded from true faith by 1054 and cannot claim any sort of apostolic succession (except a succession to Judas). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. I have no "argument" concerning the issue! I'm neither pro nor anti "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic". I just thought I was adding an interesting piece of information concerning the terminology. Loomis 23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all "major churches" claim apostolic sucession. The Roman Catholic church does, as do churches which split away, including the Eastern Orthodox churches who split away by 1054 AD in the Great Schism . The Anglicans and Episcopals likewise started as Roman Catholic bishops, so maintaining apostolic succession, although a 19th century Pope claimed they were not using all the correct ceremonies, so they had lost the historic episcopate. Their reply was that prior Popes had not had all the supposedly required words, so the Papal succession would have been likewise broken; that the extra words were not required. Some Lutheran churches have bishops in the historic episcopate, and the ELCA went the extra step since 1999 of having bishops of the Episcopal church and Lutheran branches in the historic episcopate participate in ELCA bishop ordinations. Methodist John Wesley ordained bishops without being a bishop, except that he may have been secretly ordained a bishop by Erasmus, an Eastern Orthodox bisjhop, at a time when he would have been prosecuted for treason in England for him to have publicly done so, because of the established Anglican church. Manu mainstream protestant churches do not claim any apostolic succession in the sense of their bishops having been ordained with the laying on of hands of bishops who could trace their ordination back to the apostles. It was more like, someone decided to start a church and started ordaining bishops without the benefit of an apostolic succession bishop. An excommunicated bishop retains the sacramental power to ordain priests and bishops, under Catholic theory, although those receiving the extra-canonical ordinations would be excommuicated as well.Edison 13:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You say that the Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in AD 1054. However, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox churches, it was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away. As our article Eastern Orthodox Church states: "The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the original Church founded by Christ and His apostles." Marco polo 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem with answering this question is the extreme shortage of original documents from this era. See List of illuminated manuscripts for a sample. Nearly all of what we know comes from copies of documents made centuries later, which means it may be possible that the copies altered key facts of the originals. Putative arguments that this happened usually hinge on dialectical differences - a later alteration would have been made in a later dialect than the original. From a purely historiograpical perspective it's hard to make a definitive statement on the earliest era of Christian worship. Many people do have strong opinions on this topic because it touches close to the heart of their particular faith. Durova 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

First, let me echo Durova's last sentence. We are dealing with a touchy subject where even simple statements of historical truth easily offend people.

Getting to the heart of the matter, we start by examining the Greek word "ekklesia." Translated as "church" in your New Testament, it actually means "association." Whether you would, therefore, consider the earliest church to actually be a church becomes problematic. In the 40s and 50s of the first century, Paul (very grudgingly) acknowledges some leadership role to the "church" in Jersualem under James the Just. In all Christian dogma that must be considered the first church. All other sects claim to be the successors to, and gain their authority from, them. (The Roman claim, for instance, is that James sent Peter to Rome where he became the first bishop, the Popes - "Bishops of Rome" - being his successors.)

One difficulty is that the Jerusalem church disappeared during the First Jewish Revolt (66-70) against the Roman Empire, and everybody claims that their church follows in a straight line from them. They, however, are not around to dispute the issue. The best we can do is to examine the Epistle of James and to see how Paul regards James and Peter in his epistles. (Be aware that Acts is a secondary source and cannot rationally be accorded as much validity regarding Paul's opinions as Paul's own letters.)

Now, the Epistle of James displays a very different attitude toward some fundamental issues than does just about any modern sect. Designed to refute Paul's elevation of Faith as the ultimate demand of God, it implies that Pauline doctrine was not the original belief of the first Christians. It is, therefore, not surprising that Luther wanted to chop the Epistle of James out of the New Testament.

It is very difficult to even present historical facts in the face of Confessional Beliefs without stirring up instant anger. Let me point out something that was tossed off earlier in Edison's remarks. He mentions "the Eastern Orthodox churches who split away by 1054." (I am NOT picking on him, just using this as an example.) Considering that it was Rome that changed the credo after a thousand years, it might, with some justice, be stated that it was the Roman Catholic Church that split away. (I see that Marco polo picked up on the same point while I was writing this.)

The situation is much more complicated than it is presented to be in most church accounts. For instance, Paul mentions other wandering apostles, like himself, who are teaching quite different gospels (Apollos of Alexandria for one). Paul admits that they are valid Christians, even though their doctrines are different from his. Who sent them out? Was, in fact, the Jerusalem Church under James, Peter, and John the only "first church?" And if not, then where did these others come from?

For a very different "take" on the entire subject, you might try here. Just don't blame me if it upsets you. B00P 23:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor phrasing on my part if it sounds like there was an implication that the Roman church was the True one and the Eastern church was not. There is an old oak tree near my house, about 90 feet tall. I do not see one branch as being the True Tree; no more do I see the Roman church being more truly catholic and apostolic than the Eastern or the Anglican or the Lutheran.Edison 13:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

social work

hello there Could you please assist me in finding out what the western social work models are?

yours sincerely

Sarah193.220.67.61 10:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)←

Have you taken a look at Social work? Natgoo 10:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Left-handed protagonist named "Dexter"

Hi! I've been trying to remember the title of a book I read long ago, where the protagonist was named Dexter. Unfortunately his parents chose the name before realizing their son was left-handed, and rather than changing his name to "Sinister" tried to force him to become right-handed, which merely resulted in making him extremely clumsy and still having the name Dexter... Anyone recognize this? I tried a few web searches and the List of fictional left-handed characters with no luck. Many thanks! 85.226.124.201 11:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dexter in Podkayne of Mars is not a main character, but does match your description, except he only claimed to be clumsy. Clarityfiend 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This came up in a recent conversation about predjudice against left-handers etc., and I remembered that scene so clearly but just couldn't place it at all. Time to go reread Podkayne, its been some 15 years since I last traveled with her!85.226.124.201 16:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Drag 'n Drop

Hello, I'd like to know if all of these confusing licences on Wikipedia allow me to drag and drop images into a folder, which is just for private use (e.g. screensaver). I'm not planning to publish them anywhere, or to claim they were taken by me. If only certain licenses allow me to do this, could you explain which ones and why? Thank You. | AndonicO 12:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That would probably count as "fair use" no matter what, so I wouldn't worry about it. --Fastfission 12:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you actually ask about private use. Personally, I would never have had any second qualms about just downloading in that case... 惑乱 分からん 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just checking I hope the publisher likes the photos :-). AndonicO 13:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Game in cognitive sciences

I am trying to find the source of a game in cognitive sciences.

The game is about a magazine with 50.000 unique readers that proposes a game to them. The reader should submit one number bigger than 0. The reader who submits the smaller non-repeated number is the winner of the game.

The article were I read it was about strategies of how to improve de chances. Submit 10.000 was clearly chanceless, submit 88 has much better chances. So there was a way to improve the chances of winning.

Any hint about the author or source is welcome. Mr.K. 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That game sounds very much like (a variation of?) the Luring Lottery, proposed by Douglas Hofstader in his Scientific American column "Metamagical Themas", June 198385.226.124.201 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry... looking at your question again it's not the same game, though I highly recommend that column and several others in the series (collected in a book, Metamagical Themas, ISBN 0-553-34279-7) for interesting discussion of several similar games.85.226.124.201 14:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yews, the games of Hofstadter have some similarity with my question. Thanks for the suggestion.

See-through Shirt

I can see the pattern of my ironing board right through my white shirt (more so than through a piece of standard office paper). Is this a trait of cheap shirts or common amongst most white shirts? Also my shirt label advises the use of an iron set to one dot but this wasn't removing any creases at all so I turned up to two dots to enable steaming and the creases came right out with no obvious adverse effect on the shirt - why would the label lie to me? --Username132 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Try dampening the shirt before you iron it 8-)--Light current 16:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheapness can be a factor determining how thin the material is that makes the shirt, but the truth is that some types of fabric are less opaque than others, and even some very expensive white shirts can be quite see through. Most summer shirts are quite see-through, something that nobody but I seem to notice at the uniform JHS that I work part-time at. The label "lies" because they don't want to have to deal with customers claiming that their labels don't give enough warning when they crank their irons to the max and burn their shirts. There is a necessary amount of redundancy.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

British Medieval Gilt Plate

I have been reading several books about the British Medieval period. In these books, the authors refer to "gifts of plate" and "gilt plate" which were given as gifts, some noble women were dowered with them and on occasion they were used as money (or sold to get money). Are these actual plates, resembling what I would think of as dinner plates? One author refers to them being displayed on a buffet or china cabinet of sorts. One author also refers to Margaret of Anjou having to sell her plate and replace it with cheaper plate on her way from France to England. Any light you can shed on these ornaments would be greatly appreciated. Thank YouLMONC2004 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Silver, in particular silverware. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

According to my dictionary (American Heritage), "plate" can mean "household articles, such as hollowware, covered with a precious metal, such as gold." Silverware (or eating utensils) is not one of the possible meanings, although silverware could be a subset of the broader category of "plate," which would also include cups, bowls, and what we know today as plates. Marco polo 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm. At least one source includes silverware in that -- plate. And it says it means sterling silver. I've always wondered precisely what it meant as well. I imagine there could be some ambiguity, since plate is derived from "flat", and flatware...*scratching head* --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my wording wasn't clear. I think you are right, JPGordon, that silverware is included in "plate," I just don't think that plate is limited to silverware. By the way, "gilt plate" means golden plate. Marco polo 01:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth clarifying that when a Briton says "silverware" (things made of silver), he probably means something much more akin to the actual meaning of "plate" than what an American means by "silverware" (cutlery). Shimgray | talk | 18:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Middle Ages and later 'plate' was often used to mean household items - bowls, salt cellars, spoons etc. etc. - made of silver or occasionally gold, useful and/or ornamental . As a collection of family valuables you will find plate featured in wills as well as dowries! (But mostly for the élite before approx 1600) 'Gilt plate' is the same as 'silver-gilt': items made of silver which had been gilded: covered in a thin layer of gold. (By the way, in this context I don't think 'plate' means plated metal. It doesn't here) --HJMG 10:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

SIGHTILL CEMETARY

HOW OLD IS SIGHTHILL CEMETARY IN GLASGOW?

Have you searched for "Sighthill Cemetary"? If Wikipedia has an article on it, said article will almost certainly give the year of establishment. Please do not write in all caps, and remember sign your posts. Thanks. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's spelled "Cemetery" in any case. 66.146.62.39 20:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dickens

What is the proper name for the ghost of Christmas Yet to Come in A Christmas Carol by Dickens? I have heard it is Mormacurial, or some such version, although I have just sounded it out from memory, I do not have the correct spelling and cannot find any such referance to that name in my searches. Thank you

He does not seem to have had a name. You can see the text at [25]. Could you possibly be thinking of Marley's ghost, another apparition in the story? - Nunh-huh 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Of the four ghosts only that of Marley has a name; the rest are simply the spirits of time. Scrooge also refers to the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come as the Ghost of the Future. White Guard 23:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

road traffic signs- London local authority obligations.

I would like to know if a local authority is required to give prior and/or post-procedure warnings of change to prohibiting signs on the public highway.Many thanks.DanDangeo 19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. As best I can tell, major roads in London are managed by Transport for London, and local streets by the local borough councils under the auspices of the Traffic Management Act 2004, which give s local authorities fairly broad discretion to manage things as they see fit, until HMG decides that they're not managing with enough fitness and can make them do what they want. So, therefore, policies about changes to street signs appear to be a matter for TfL and the boroughs. So go take it up with your local council. Also, contacting your local member of parliament may be helpful. If it's related to some kind of traffic incident, you may wish to consult a solicitor. --Robert Merkel 07:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear what sort of signs you mean. Do you mean prohibition signs, e.g. parking restrictions? These require prior notice in a local newspaper, and these are generally tucked away somewhere with other legal notices.--Shantavira 08:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Moe Kauffman

I don't know much about Moe, but I thought I'd propose a new article about him here at Wikipedia. Maybe there are music scholars out there who might be able to add him to your data base. :)

I hope this is the right place for a suggestion like this; I've never used Wikipedia before, I know that usually when I Google something up, there's *always* a link to Wiki somewhere. ;) So when I didn't see a Wiki link for Moe, I decided to see if a Wiki user might like to take on the challenge of writing up a page about him. :)

All I know about Moe is that the three vinyls I have of his are great. :) Swinging Shephard Blues is an especially wonderful song. :)

Take care, Jennifer

)

Is this the same person as Moe Koffman? - SimonP 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

School Year Calendars for Latin American Countries

Hey- I'm considering studying for a year abroad next year. I am trying to find out the school year for a couple Latin American countries. (ex= USA is sept. to june) anyone know the following countries' school year calendars?

Mexico Costa Rica Dominican Republic Argentina Bolivia Chile Ecuador Venezuela Peru Paraguay

Thanks!

You really ought to investigate particular schools. Many schools in the US do not adhere to the Sept-June approximation, why would schools elsewhere adhere any better? — Lomn 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. However, I have no way of knowing which schools to look for :( Most of our schools have our summer months off, and I was just wondering which countries have their summer months off- like january to february. Lamava 20:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Westboro picketing at Amish funerals

Okay, so we have freedom of speech and everything, and the KKK is allowed to obtain permits for parades through urban streets etc. (right to assemble; and though I have to wonder if the shops along the street would appreciate being closed down for a KKK parade that's a discussion for another time). But why is it legal for Westboro to picket funerals? Freedom of speech is only allowed insofar as it does not violate the rights of other citizens, and doesn't picketing funerals violate the right of people to mourn in peace and in private? 24.154.169.193 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also, this was my post; I forgot to log in. =) Corporal 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The "right to mourn in peace" isn't a legal or constitutional right. "Insofar as it does not violate the rights of others..." is a nebulous concept (and again, not specifically constitutional as best I recall) and is only narrowly enforced, such as in the case of libel. — Lomn 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Westboro is picketing the Amish?! Yet another reason why I hate Westboro... Anyway, Lomn has a point. In most places the "right to mourn in peace" is not a legal right. In most jurisdictions Westboro would still have to obtain a permit to stage a protest or rally. They are normally granted because of the right to assemble peacably. Though many states right now are drafting laws to keep protests a certain distance away from funerals. This is mainly due to their protests at soldier's funerals. Dismas|^(talk) 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been a proposal to ban them from picketing at military funerals. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't there laws against disturbing the peace and such? Making noise during a quiet funeral could be interpreted as such. I have no idea how ambiguous the laws around that are though. You'd think they'd be able to pull some obscure law or by-law out to nail these idiots. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it's actually true ([26] , [27], among numerous others). Not that I'm surprised. When hate becomes that malignant it tries to propagate itself. Maybe they were offended because the Amish showed they had the capacity to forgive. Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, it's even more disgusting than that. They're saying that that nutcase murdered those children because the governor of Pennsylvania criticized the hate group on television. I'm not sure who is sicker, the murderer or the "church". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • They picket the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because, according to them, they deserve to die for fighting for a country which allows homosexuals to live. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up to this question, it turns out that Westboro did not end up picketing the Amish funerals, because a local radio show host made them an offer, that he would invite them on his show for an hour if they agreed not to picket the funerals. See the second link above. DJ Clayworth 21:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Underage Drinking

Let's say that I go to a party where there is underage drinking (and I am underage). If I personally don't drink, can I be arrested if the party gets busted by the Police? --AstoVidatu 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Kinda depends what jurisdiction you're in. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll probably get arrested, but you didn't break any laws (depending on where you are) unless you did other things? ;) — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)03:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If requesting medical, dental, or legal advice, please consider asking a doctor, dentist, or lawyer instead. If you have zero blood alcohol level, and you were not seen in posession of booze, and you admit NOTHING and demand a lawyer, and your old man can afford a good lawyer, and you claim you did not even see anyone drinking, and the others will swear you didn't drink or supply the booze, common sense would say the lawyer might well get you off.Such things have happened.Edison 04:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that while so many people ask for medical and legal advice, from my experience here, no one has ever asked for dental advice? (Well, see, I've got this pain in my lower left bicuspid and I need your guys' help...) Poor dentists, they must feel so left out. :( Seriously though, I'm the furthest thing from a crim-law expert, and so I really won't pretend to know the answer to this question. All I'd like to say is that, though s/he never even asked you what jurisdiction you're in, while Edison's advice may be right, to be sure I'd look further than the wiki RefDesk for answers for such questions. To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that their may be jurisdictions where such innocent behaviour is in fact deemed criminal. Loomis 04:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

for the pain in your lower left bicuspid I suggest taking a short break from any strong flavoured objects and seeing a dentist/dentalhygienist. also I can suggest to brush your teeth every day! three times a day! and if the pain becomes imbearable you should not try to rip of your jaw. Graendal 05:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

as for the real question, the law can't do nothing if you uphold your witness and Ifyou didn't drink/supply/have in possesion booze you can always say that you did not know it and therefore are not liable to the law.

Dentists might advise you to see your dentist after every meal and brush your teeth twice a year!Edison 14:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Being around people who break the law can be seen as being an accesory (if that is the right term). But that's very iffy lawmaking, so depends very much on the country and the specific law that is being broken. Here in the Netherlands, a new law was introduced a few years ago to make it possible to arrest people for 'being part of a criminal organisation'. This means you don't have to have done actually done anything wrong, just hang around people who may have done some illegal things. It is open to a all sorts of interpretations and therefore to loads of criticism. And justly so, because it gives the police a means to arrest whoever they wish. Of course the 'righteous citizens' think this will never happen to them. Just what they thought in Germany in the 1930's. DirkvdM 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll just give an example to illustrate my point that you really never know how far the government will go in trying to pre-empt potentially dangerous activity, even before anything wrong has really been done. In my jurisdiction, it's illegal to have an opened bottle of any sort of alcoholic beverage in a vehicle, even if the vehicle is parked and motionless. Note I said opened not simply open, meaning that if the bottle had been open, and its seal broken, even if it was then shut tight, it would still be illegal to keep it anywhere in the passenger compartment of even a motionless vehicle. To transport it by car, you'd have to store it in the trunk (boot). This is obviously a measure to go as far as possible to pre-empt any possibilty of driving while intoxicated, as there's obviously nothing specifically dangerous about having an opened bottle of liquor in a car, if the driver of that car hasn't actually consumed any of it. The same goes for the underage person at a party where alcohol is served. I wouldn't be surprised if that were illegal, even if the minor hadn't had one bit of alcohol. Think about bars. Minors aren't simply forbidden from consuming alcohol at a bar, but are forbidden from entering one altogether. Loomis 13:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Owner's equity" in non-profit organizations

On a balance sheet, what is the difference between assets and liabilities called, in a non-profit organization that has no owners? NeonMerlin 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(Jeez, you've put a lot of work into your signature!) I'd first (as always) have to know what jurisdiction you're in, but besides that, I'd have to know the legal status of the organization. Is it a corporation? Loomis 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Suppose (a) that it is, and (b) that it's a club or something that's not a corporation. I'm talking about Canada. NeonMerlin 01:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok great! I'm from Canada too, and as such, I'm most familiar with Canadian law. Yet I'm still not sure what your (a) and (b) points mean. Is it a corporation or not? Loomis 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about two separate situations. In (a) it is a corporation; in (b) it's not. Need any more clarification? NeonMerlin 03:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to help you out here. Be nice. If it's a corporation, by definition, it has "owners" (though corporate law purists would likely argue about the term "owner"). Whatever you want to call them, these would be the shareholders. Profit or non-profit, the situation is the same. I'm therefore unclear about what you mean by a "non-profit corporation" without owners (shareholders), as that would seem to me to be a legal impossibilty. As for (b), I still have no clue what you're talking about. Loomis 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Near-monopoly

In business/economics theory, is there any theoretical limit to how close a company with a near-monopoly can eventually get to a permanent monopoly on its industry, absent government interference? NeonMerlin 23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, when the company can freely set prices without fear of competition, you've got a monopoly. Loomis 23:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

By a permanent monopoly, I mean an absolute 100% market share, where the only alternative to buying from the company is not buying at all, and this situation will never change. Can this state be even theoretically reached? If not, how close can one theoretically get? That's my question. NeonMerlin 01:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that of course it's theoretically possible, and it's just then that the government comes in to break up the monopoly, as it inevitably will lead to abusive practices by the monopoly company. I'm still not sure what your question is. Whenever any industry even approaches a near monopoly, the government steps in to break it up.

But your hypothesis, about "no government interference" is not totally naive. Look at cartels such as OPEC. As a "multinational" cartel, they're not subject to any "national" law. As such they do their best to "set" the price of oil on the market. But of course not all oil exporting nations are members of OPEC. So their power to "set" the price is somewhat attenuated. Perhaps a better example might be the DeBeers control of the diamond market. From what I understand, this multinational has so much control of the diamond market, and actually holds back supply to such an extent, that it actually has a great deal of control over the worldwide "price" of diamonds. But don't quote me on that one! I'll have to do a bit more research into it to give you a definitive answer. Loomis 03:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

October 6

Attributive Monism & Pantheism

Is there a relation between the two ? And to what extent is attributive monism actual --Hhnnrr 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) ?

Something is either actual or it isn't. I can't see how it could be a matter of degree. JackofOz 01:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but if you asked me "to what extent is the danger of drowning in a bath actual" and I replied 100% you might get the wrong impression even though it is literally true. BTW the Monism#Monism, Pantheism, and Panentheismdescribes the relationship between Monism and Pantheism. -- Chris Q 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume either there is such a thing as "attributive monism", or there is no such thing. If it exists, it's 100% actual, but if it doesn't, it's 0% actual. JackofOz 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help about the UN!

With 191 member states and a bureaucracy built over 60 years, but with waning support, is the United Nations still a viable organization? --Longhornsg 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it ever was. Look at its track record for starters. Most of their missions are too late or don't accomplish anything, as in Sudan, Rwanda, and North Korea. The fact that each nation in theory has the same voting power (excluding the veto powers) means that Luxembourg (population of 465,000) has the same votes (one) as India (1,103,371,000 people). Does that make sense? I don't think so.

Most of the time the UN just debats things but doesn't come to a resolution as in the case of the Israel - Hezbollah war this past summer. In fact, I remember reading that the US of A doesn't even pay their membership dues anymore. Most countries just use the UN as a political forum to attack each other. --The Dark Side 02:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Support is only waning from those who disagree with whatever decision the organization has just made. One year the U.S. can call it a hopeless bureacracy while Venezuela issues statements of praise, and the next year the opposite can happen. Over the whole history of the UN, I believe Indonesia is the only country that has ever voluntarily withdrawn (and they were back a year later.) If it was really faltering, we'd already have a rival organization in Caracas or Khartoum. As for the missions it undertakes, they are generally successful, in my opinion. The failures (eg, Srebrenica) get all the news, while the thousands (if not millions) of lives and several nations saved aren't boisterously trumpeted as successes. Although many Americans hate it, I, at least, actually see it as reasonably successful and still viable (and much better at resolving conflict, than, say the Arab League or the Non-Aligned Movement.) After all, Seoul, Monrovia, and so on might not exist without it, and maybe neither would the U.S. and (former) U.S.S.R. Picaroon9288 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The UN is a damn site better than the League of Nations and kicked ass in the Korean War. The veto power given to the World War II victors is getting kind of stale, like if the 13 original US states of 220 years ago could veto any legislation at the federal level or any Supreme Court rulings. The US has right wingers who have wanted us out of the UN for 50 years. They fear One World government, where Cuba or Somalia has the same vote as the U.S. and a majority of itty bitty dictatorships or puppet states could vote to take away our wealth and give it to third world countries. The world economic system is currently accomplishing that, as witness how much of the U.S debt is held by China, and how many jobs in the U.S are held by Mexicans or Indians (via telecommuting). The U.N is still presently the best alternative to naked aggression and might makes right, via collective security. Edison 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys seem to think the UN is only about military intervention. That would be the US, not the UN. :) The UN is about loads of things, mostly creating international cooperation with (among other things) the goal of preventing armed conflicts from starting in the first place.

About all members having the same voting right, that indeed makes no sense for an actual government (such as in the UK with its counties and the US with its states), but this is not (yet!) a government. It's a cooperation between indxependent nations. If the US want more voting right they should split up into separate countries (a move I would truly applaud for its improved democracy among other things). DirkvdM 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that it was only about military intervention; UNICEF (apparently) works pretty well also. Then again, how many UNICEF missions would you estimate have gone to their warzones/faminezones without weapons? Zero, methinks! (Oh, and I second that thing about breaking my country up. I'd applaud it too.) Picaroon9288 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As the greatest empire, regarding international impact, ever known to mankind, history teaches us that the country quite possibly will break up by itself sooner or later... All great empires before it has collapsed... 惑乱 分からん 00:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The worst part about the UN is how it refuses to act until it's too late, as in the Rwanda genocide. In the case of the Iraq Oil for Food program, the UN seemed mainly interested in enriching it's officials (like Kofi Annan's son) by violating the agreement. StuRat 01:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Rwanda is probably UN's biggest failure in modern time. The appearance of the Bosnian camps also was a failure... 惑乱 分からん 10:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling Rwanda a UN "failure" is one hell of an understatement, considering its magnitude (800,000 dead) and relative preventability of it, in comparison to certain other far less bloody, far more complex and far less clear-cut instances of the failure of a third-party to prevent a tragedy from occuring, where some of the figures involved were indeed charged by some to be war criminals. Some would go so far as to charge Kofi Anan as a war criminal for his deliberate inaction, if only the political sensibilities of the powers-that-be were any different. Loomis 12:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I once heard someone call the Israeli-Palestinian issue the "UN's baby". It's one of the first things they were involved in, and they have passed many resolutions on it. Rwanda, Congo, Darfur are more neglected children.

I think (but who am I :)) the main problem is that the UN not only needs to decide on doing something, it needs people to execute an order, and therefore a country sending troops. I think many politicians see a UN mission in a dangerous region like a game you can only lose. Ask a random Belgian about the Rwanda genocide. The first thing he might say is "10 Belgians soldiers got killed there?", ask him how many Rwandans died and he probably won't know. So (but again that's what I think) that that is why many nations either send no troops, or troops with a pretty worthless mandate. Evilbu 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, they would have had to take offensive action, and perhaps kill a few thousand people to save the lives of hundreds of thousands. This is not something the UN seems ever willing to do. StuRat 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is changing in the Congo, though, where the guy in charge of the UN forces (a Dutchman - forgot his name) has decided to not wait for orders and go head to head with any destructive forces, at the same time giving them an option of amnesty (a stick without a carrot, but not too spiky a stick either). The UN aren't too happy about it, but they're not stopping him either. Probably to see if his approach will be more successfull. Like I said so many times before, the UN is a worldwide social experiment. How can you expect it to work instantly? And in historical terms a century is pretty instant for such a major change to take place. Those who think peace through worldwide cooperation could work (maybe even in our lifetimes!?) might be dreamers, but those who are not willing to try it are cowards who don't care about their offspring. DirkvdM 06:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So just how many centuries (and Rwandas and Darfurs) should we give the UN before we give up on them and put our trust in something like NATO, which has actually shown the ability to act, as in the former Yugoslavia ? StuRat 00:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shhhh, Stu! NATO's operation in the former Yugoslavia was against international law! It was WRONG! And Slobidan should still be in power, albeit under the most strenuous of UN sanctions. What better way to let a dictator stall for eternity while his people suffer?

Ok, here's a compromise: How about we let the UN last until WWIII, the same way we let the League of Nations last until WWII. Seems fair. No? Loomis 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

name of a music

what is the name of a music that in the music video of this music, there is bow wow, and another boy and that call lingerie womans to dance, and they see they dancing.

I will certainly watch for it.Edison 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the rapper "Bow Wow"? 惑乱 分からん 07:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, they are going to school and after they leave the car of their mom, they go to many places of the city (but not to school) to have fun, so when they see lingerie store, they think about writing on papers, to lingirie girls to come to a studio to see they see the girls dancing in lingerie. I think that the music is remix of another music.

Actually, I prefer Bow Wow Wow... ;) 惑乱 分からん 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ido know which you mean but I don't think it was Bow Wow but a remake of an old song. the song+artists are:

Max Graham Vs. Yes - Owner of a lonely heart. Graendal 17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (PS: you are right that didnt is bow wow??? I have to see this music movie again again.) yes its bow wow, i saw the video again.

Musical Coincidence?

Is it just me or does the song When A Man Loves A Woman by Percy Sledge have a uncanny similarity with A Whiter Shade of Pale by Procol Harum? The bass in When... kind of matches up with the piano in Whiter... RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck

It's not just you. Both songs are in D major and are played at the same tempo, so they sound similar. Your sig is waaaay too long, btw - try to keep it to one line. See WP:SIG. Natgoo 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The similarity in chord progression is noted here. Unless you wrote that line, there's someone else out there who too noticed this.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Knife Law in California

Hello,

I am 17 years old and I live in Sunnyvale, California. My friend (18) gave me a CRKT folding knife with a 3.5" blade. It is not a switchblade - I'm pretty sure those are illegal anywhere in CA.

The knife has a belt clip. My friend told me that the knife is not considered a concealed weapon as long as the clip is hanging out of my pocket (i.e. looking at my pocket, you can only see the belt clip of the knife — the knife itself is concealed).

As much as I'd like to carry the blade for self-defense, I would like to know: a) is it really considered unconcealed if the belt clip is showing? b) is it legal for me to carry the knife as a minor?

I would appreciate any responses. Thanks, K. --24.6.242.154 05:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal advice. That said, you could contact the local police and ask them - what weapons are legally carryable, and by whom, are a topic of considerable interest to them and it's consequently an area of law on which they're likely to be expert.

Beyond that, might I gently suggest to you that whatever the legality of carrying your knife, it's a very bad idea. Even ignoring my personal belief that the general carriage of weapons makes a community more prone to violence, knives are not particularly useful self-defence weapons. From what I've read, pepper spray is a much more effective self-defence weapon. It may not be quite as manly as carrying around that big knife, but if your purpose is really self-defence rather than intimidation or impressing your buddies, I'd go with the spray, not least for the reason that because it's not likely to kill or maim your attacker you're not likely to hesitate when using it. --Robert Merkel 07:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see karate.--Shantavira 08:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In California, there are a wide range of places where it is illegal to carry a blade longer than 2.5". All schools at every level, for example. Government buildings of various sorts. Don't bother with a knife for self defense unless you've been trained at using it. There's the no rules in a knife fight scenario, too (see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for a practical demonstration.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Using a knife as selfdefense can make the situation unnecessarily escalete. If you are worried about your security try avoiding dangerous places or other forms of preventive measures. In many states, if you kill someone despise of having the chance to run, you can end up some years in prison.

And if a person gets killed or seriously wounded in the process, and you get caught (because of witnesses, surveillance, DNA or whatever) I think you'd have to prove that the measures were necessary for your own safety. (I.e. you were at risk to be murdered, raped or something to that extent.) I think that would be hard to prove in court, generally. 惑乱 分からん 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: is Sunnyvale so a dangerous place? Have you ever thought of other selfdefense methods? (spray, special shoes, carry-on alarm)

If it's a typo for Sunnydale, California, you'd better carry a stake. ;) 惑乱 分からん 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of all the above, be sure and show your knife to your friends, and let them handle it. Having an extra set of fingerprints or two on it will be useful.

Just make sure you don't hand it to them sharp-end first.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the Aleutians Islands

Is there a conflict concering fishing rights in the Bering Straits by indigenous (Inuit?) people who do not recogonize this international border that is causing friction throught a U.S. and Republic of Russia treaty?

I'm not sure about friction or a treaty, but the indigenous people of the Aleutian Islands are the Aleuts. Marco polo 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest city in the Aleutian Islands is Unalaska, so that article might mention fishing rights. StuRat 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

actually the indigenous people there indeed do not recognise the borders but they are according to the common international fishing treaty's (almost exactly like the EU's one) they have their own fishing right to completely self-supply and have some surplus for trading. the area inbetween the two countries after their Economic Exclusive Zone and Territorial Waters are free to be used by any country.

Beastie Boy's music

The beastie boys are my favorite group ever but, alas, they have a finite amount of songs. If I like the Beastie boys, what other groups do you think i should try out?

Which of their songs are your favorites? 惑乱 分からん 09:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

well, I can suggest trying www.pandora.com for some intel about their exact style and some similar groups and the songs. its a pretty useful thingy and best of all its free.Graendal 09:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Another useful site is this one. Type "beastie boys" into the box and you get a bunch of similar artists. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Wakuran's question above, depending on which songs you like, i might recommend anything from Galliano over Red Snapper (band) to Motörhead. You might like to check out early Red Hot Chilli Peppers (and maybe also early Faith No More) stuff, they sometimes come pretty close to the Beastie Boy's blend of Rap, funk sounds and heavy guitars. Oh, and for a quick laugh, have a look at Lords of the Rhymes - they do a pretty good job of sounding like the Beastie Boys, and their lyrics are hilarious -- Ferkelparade π 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly recommend Rip Slyme. I'm a huge BBoys fan too, and although I'll be the first to admit that in general Japanese music is lacking a lot (mainly originality), Rip Slyme is great. They're a little bit too much like the BBoys at times, but they're fun, the music is really well written, and they actually write themselves, something that is way too rare over here. Their best of album Good Job! (グッジョブ！, gudjobu) is a good place to start.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is it about the Beastie Boys that you enjoy? If you can explain what sort of style it is that you enjoy then more bands/artists may be applicable.--droptone 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Live plasma. Much more cooler site than the one given above. CG 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that it puts Neil Young as the closest match for the Beastie Boys makes it a lot less cooler than the ones given above. They're just trying to get people to link through to amazon.com.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right, but I like the design. CG 08:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Poem by W B Yeats

The subject of the poem is or are Yeats' critics. He compared them to fleas on a dog.

See Wikiquote: To A Poet, Who Would Have Me Praise Certain Bad Poets, Imitators Of His And Mine

You say, as I have often given tongue

In praise of what another's said or sung,

'Twere politic to do the like by these;

But was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

This it? ---Sluzzelin 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Which one is Sima Zhao

I found this picture. Obviously it's an illustration from a Qing Dynasty edition of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Can somebody tell which one of the two depicted persons are Sima Zhao, and which the other guy might be? Thanks, Sarazyn • TALK • DE 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanitation and hygiene throughout history

Lets just narrow this down to Europe for simplicity's sake.

When did people start regularly showering? Brushing their teeth? Wearing something like deoderants? I think a read some where that in the Middle Ages only the elite did these things regularly (though I don't know whether it was daily like today) but the commoners could go weeks or months without a shower. When did it all become common for everyone? The 18th century would be my totally random guess.

Also, what about the toilet? The most I now is that in the 19th or 18th centuries people went to an outhouse to their business. I wonder where they got rid of their rubbish? In a river, I bet. I think I read once that people threw their crap (literally) out the window and the people below could get in on the head if they weren't careful. I don't know whether there's any truth to that. Pyro19 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a large topic. I wrote a doctoral dissertation on a small part of this topic (the introduction of modern water supply and sewerage systems). I know less about other parts of this topic, but I will give it a shot.

On personal cleanliness, some of your questions will be answered by [[28]], which also discusses the development of toilets.

Going back in history, medieval Europeans typically did not bathe much. As you say, they often went weeks or months without bathing. When Europeans were exploring the world in the 16th century, other peoples often found them filthy and stinky.

Incidentally, this was not true of people in other parts of the world, nor was it true of ancient Romans and Greeks. See Public bathing. My understanding is that public baths developed a reputation for sexual vice in the late Middle Ages at a time when bourgeois standards of propriety—which encompassed sexual continence but not yet personal cleanliness—began dominate European urban culture. The result was the shutting down of public baths. The necessity of hauling water by hand from wells and then heating it with expensive firewood in order to produce a warm bath made bathing a luxury that few could afford to indulge often. Since it was not socially expected, few did.

This began to change in the mid-1800s among the bourgeoisie. Much of the rise in hygiene can be tied to the rapid and substantial growth in urban population, which led to an increase in overflowing outhouses, chamber pots being tossed into the gutters or ditches that ran along streets and served as open sewers, except that they only “flowed” in a heavy rainstorm. When rainstorms washed the gutters, they washed them into rivers, except where solid waste caused blockages to form, behind which pools of sewage would form. The result was the spread of cholera. Under the prevailing miasma theory of disease (or under our own germ theory, for that matter) the city’s stinking gutters and fecal pools demanded a response.

Educated people reacted to the spread of disease in part by bathing more often, which they thought would help to prevent contagion by reducing miasmas. Urban water supply systems were built both to supply homes and to wash out miasma-producing gutters. However blockages continued to plague open gutters, which collected trash as well as sewage.

One response was to build sewers. Sewers had been built in Roman times, but they came into widespread use in Europe only after the mid-1800s. Another response was to push for the use of toilets connected to sewers, and bathtubs connected to the new municipal water supplies. A third response was to introduce municipal garbage collection, which kept streets clear of obstacles blocking the way to the new storm sewers.

Showers are an even more recent development. The first modern showers were installed in Prussian army barracks in 1879. They began a slow spread into private houses, but did not really replace baths until the 1900s. In fact, in the United Kingdom, showers remained somewhat unusual until the 1970s or 1980s. Before this, people took baths to clean themselves.

Before the spread of toilets, outhouses, sometimes placed over pit latrines, were a common place for relief, although chamber pots might be used indoors and tossed out windows into gutters. In rural areas, the contents of chamber pots or latrine pots might be tossed onto dungheaps, which were allowed to compost and used as fertilizer.

As for household waste, there wasn’t much of it until the 1900s. Food wastes were generally collected by farmers and butchers and composted, fed to pigs or chickens, or rendered into soap, tallow, glue, or other useful products. Rags were used and reused for quilting, patching, and cleaning. What was left might be collected by rag and bone men.

Marco polo 19:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

I don't see the connection between hygiene and deodorants. Showering probably started with the invention of the waterfall. :) When people moved to cities that was lost and it was only recently reinvented. However, if you mean bathing, then it started with the invention of the river (and living next to it) but that was lost again wit the rise of cities leading to a lack of clean rivers. People probably still bathed, though less frequently and in bathtubs. Aas the article says, the Romans were fanatic bathers and I believe it was something for all (even the only place where people were 'the same'), but I'm not sure about that. Teeth brushing became really necessary when people started eating refined sugar and that was only a few centuries ago and even then only for the rich. But the rotten teeth that resulted from that were an indication of wealth, so it became fashionable to blacken one's teeth (sort of like having a white skin or ling fingernails were an indication of wealth - until the poor started working in factories and the rich started going on holiday in southern Europe, which turned that around). That said, people have always and everywhere chewed sticks to clean their teeth. The right kinds of sticks then formed brushes at the end. DirkvdM 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So when dignitaries met at the Palace of Versailles in the 17th century can we assume it smelled pretty bad? Or did people wash themselves for such functions? - Pyro19 19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rank had it priviledge, and the priviledged were truly rank under the perfume.Edison 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you like excrement being thrown out of windows or defecated directly out of the window, I can only recommend Jabberwocky (film) by Monty Python. About Versailles, I heard that even the king barely washed himself. They used lots of perfumes to cover that up. I've also heard stories about the wigs being meant only to cover up the horrible mess that was their real hair, and "comfort stops" behind a staircase :| ...Evilbu 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard that Versailles had no washrooms. Gross. - Pyro19 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To be picky, I must remark that Jabberwocky was no Monty Python film, although Pythonians Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin were involved in it. 惑乱 分からん 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even today in France and Germany a daily shower is not necessarily the norm. These are densely populated countries with limited water resources, so when I was there the American custom of daily showering was considered wasteful. Durova 02:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'm originally from Israel and everyone showers daily there even though the country is very small and lacks much water. Hmm, maybe the difference in climate is the reason. - Pyro19 03:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's different in Israel due to close cultural ties to the U.S.? The feedback I got from French and German people was that it was considered an inappropriate waste of water. I spoke fluent German so language wasn't an issue. It was actually rather embarrassing for both of us when my German hostess complained after I showered four days in a row. Durova 06:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could also have been the length of the shower. A one minute washdown is quite enough if yo do it every day. And water temperature also matters. Having a ten minute shower every day with really hot water is indeed extrremely wasteful. Some people even shower twice per day. A morning shower makes no sense unless it is a quicky with cold water to wake you up or if you've had some sort of exercise in bed ... :) DirkvdM 07:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Showering daily is only a very recent North American tradition as well. But not having a full bath every day doesn't mean not washing; it's been a long tradition to wash the bits that get dirty more quickly with a soapy washcloth. Anchoress 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Analyzing Piano Pieces

Hi everyone,

My first question: I'm wondering if anyone knows where to find some compositions that are harmonical and/or structural analyzed, eg: the first three notes are part of the I chord, the right hand plays a broken F Major chord, etc.

Some website/book/resource that has the above would be very helpful.

Specifically, I'm looking for some analysis of the following pieces:

Bach's Prelude and Fugue No. 9 in E Major, book 1

Beethoven Pathetique Sonata, 1st and 2nd movement

Chopin Nocturne in E minor, Op. 72 No. 1

Debussy's Clair de Lune

Bartok's Roumanian Folk Dance Suite

My second question: Does anyone know of any books/references that help with harmonic and structural analysis? Such as those for an piano theory analysis exam.

Thanks in advance! Alex Ng 23:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

October 7

types of espresso drinks

There is a type of espresso drink made by the usual method, but the barrista yanks the receiving cup off the machine halfway through the normal volume of flow. Frequently this would be ordered as a double, probably to provide adequate volume (the normal volume of a single). I think the intent is to have a better-tasting result, based on the idea that the first part of the flow tastes better than the latter. Does anyone know what this is called? I used to get requests for it 25 years ago when I worked in a cafe'. Thanks for your help!

71.236.231.238 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See Ristretto.

Average age of goverments, based on goverment form

Think I read something about how long different goverment forms survives on average, but didn't manage to find back to it. I'm wondering how long do different goverment forms survive on average? That is how old is the average democracy, autocracy, monarchy, junta, etc, when it's changed to a different goverment type? And more genereally: are some goverment forms more "stable" than others? And by how much? I think maybe democracies are most stable, but I dont have the numbers.

Wondering because if:
1) democracies are more stable than others, and new goverments are just as likely to be democratic as something else.
2) democracies never or almost never go to war against each other
3) democracies never or almost never suffer famine

Then:
1) someday every country will be democratic
2) we will have world peace
3) and no hunger

By calculating creation/upheaval of democracies it would then be possible to calculate apporximatly when world peace will happen. So when do we have world peace I guess is my real question? :) --Kristod 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You think the U.S. has no hunger?! Clarityfiend 02:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're damn right. Compare tables for starvation rates in the United States and in other countries. —

Hunger in the sence of famine. --Kristod 10:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Democracies go to war with eachother. The Kargil War was between democratically elected governments, I believe. Plus, those ancient Greek city-states had elected governments that fought eachother, If I recall correctly. And I'd bet that, on average, juntas have the shortest lifespan, with Burma (and yes, I called it Burma) being an exception. Picaroon9288 02:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also the case of the War of 1812, between the more-or-less democratically elected governments of the US and the UK, or the cases in which the United States overthrew or helped overthrow democratic governments, as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and in Chile in 1973. Marco polo 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon and Israel are both democracies. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

World Peace? Next week sometime, I think. White Guard 03:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel and Lebanon are both democracies, but as far I understand it, the war was against Hezbollah, not Lebanon. I don't think any Lebanese soldier participated in the fighting.Evilbu 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is an official, legal, democratically-elected participant in the democratically-elected government of Lebanon. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There's an article on Democratic peace theory... AnonMoos 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that-even if the theory that democratic countries never go to war with each other is true- there could still be war. Think of Spain, France (with Corsica).. and yes : Belgium. Who says everyone within that country is happy with its structure?Evilbu 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Civil war? 惑乱 分からん 15:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be a long list of democratic countries that have experienced famine and gone to war (the US was of course the first example given, but it is by no means the only one). But you seem to assume that 'once a democracy always a democracy'. Now democracies probably have a pretty strong staying power, but don't let that lull you into too strong a feeling of safety. Don't forget Hitler came to power by democratic means. In a democracy, if the people want war and denial of basic rights they will have it. Just look at what is happening right now. They think the state will only misuse its powers against other people. That's what they thought in Germany in the 1930's too. When they realised they had given away too many of their rights it was too late. DirkvdM 07:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this astute observation, Dirk. I think that all three of Kristod's assumptions about democracy are doubtful, including especially the assumption that democracies are stable. In fact, historically, democracies in general have been very unstable. When democracies fail to contain public unrest, or when they hamper military or other elites in the pursuit of some agenda, they tend to fall, often in coups. Marco polo 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Vaughan

What style of jazz did Sarah Vaughan do? Keep the answer simple i.e. 'swing'.

This sounds like homework. John Riemann Soong 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt some teacher asked of her students "what style of jazz did Sarah Vaughan do?" This may be related to a musical biography of Sarah Vaughan, but I don't believe it is a homework assignment in itself. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why else would a simple answer be wanted? What use would that be? I could envision this as part of a fill in the blank question. John Riemann Soong 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dont be so cynical, if you're goin to be like that about things just about everything on here could be homework. Its perfectly reasonable for someone to wonder what sort of style of jazz a song is, and if that song is by Sarah Vaughan so be it. We do not need a backstory. And anyway the rule is we dont do peoples homework for them, i.e. if posted with homework we dont do it, not that we dont help people with homework, i.e. if they have done all they can, then used wikipedia as a resource, then come to the refdesk if the article is not adequate, then we do help. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the OP seeks a short phrase to describe her taste in music? Even if it was a fill-in-the-blank question, the no homework policy is intended to discourage users from asking lengthly homework questions, like Describe the impact of Sarah Vaughan's vocal style on the jazz movements of the 1950's. How do modern artists also affect their respective genres of music? rather than fill-in-the-blank trivia. Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

IT IS NOT HOMEWORK. I just can't seem to find out what kind of style she does (if it was homework, it would already be due).

Death penalty

I always hear that there are prisoners who are murders.Criminals who murders another person goes straight to the death penalty or has life in prison. How does that work? How does one decide if it should be life in prison or death? For example a man explained and admitted/caught that he killed a man like he was getting a glass of milk from the frigde, like it no big deal and he gets life in prison.

Depends on the nature of the offence and the laws of that particular country. Suggest you read Wikipedia's article on the death penalty.--Shantavira 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

French distrust

Where does the distrust of the French in the US and UK come from? — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)10:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• French perfidy - Nunh-huh 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are articles on Francophobia and anti-French sentiment in the United States... AnonMoos 14:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The most recent incident was when the French campaigned for Israel to stop their fight against terrorists (Hezbollah) in Lebanon, with the promise of a robust UN peacekeeping force in it's place. Then, they only initially volunteered a pathetic token force as their own contribution. From the US, it would appear that they are working in support of Hezbollah. StuRat 19:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Before that it was the French opposing the unilateral invasion of Iraq. Damn these French, always trying to prevent wars! DJ Clayworth 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And before that, there was Philippe Pétain, opposing any war between France and Germany. You're right! Damn those French for always trying to prevent wars! Loomis 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a long, long history of rivalry, warfare and mutual mistrust between the UK and France, which really only came to an end in the early part of the last century, when Germany began to be preceived as the greater threat. The rapid collapse of French resistance in 1940 and the subsequent hostility between the Vichy authorities and the British government created a new mood of resentment. This was compounded after the war by General de Gaulle's distrust of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US, which caused him to veto British entry into the European Union. White Guard 23:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

He also called for Quebec independence from Canada. On Canadian soil. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ssssshhhh .... Canada is not the US. Better run before a bunch of Canadians jump on your neck. DirkvdM 07:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, Zoe is right. DeGaulle was a prick when he came up here to Montréal. "Vive La France, Vive Le Québec, Vive Le Québec LIBRE!!!!" Oh shut up Chuck. Leave your brown French nose where it belongs. Loomis 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the question again. It's about the UK and the US, not Canada. DirkvdM 06:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It also, if I'm not incorrect, seems to involve France a bit too, n'est ce pas? :) Loomis 09:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a follow-on to There is a long, long history of rivalry, warfare and mutual mistrust between the UK and France. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is not much of a problem with distrusting the french in the UK, though some of their mannerisms and things cause an above normal level of people to think they're assholes, I think when push came to shove, people would trust them. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer these questions

• 1.Name of Muslim women belongs to Iran recently visited space.
• 2.Name of person recently won the noble prize in Physics belongs to America
• 4.Next Hockey Cricket and Footbal world cups will held in which countries
• 5.Name of first noble prize winner form Asia
• 7.Name of Thai General who took over the powers in Thailand
• 8.Name the Planet recently discovered which replaced Pluto
• 9.Name Richest person of world
• 10.The powerful candidate for next UN secretary general belongs to China name
• 11.When National security council was established in Pakistan
• 12.Macmohan line is boundry between.........and ...........
• 13.International litracy day is celebrated on............
• 14.Name the Chinese Ambassader to UN
• 15............ is called land of rivers
• 16.Who is Pakistan's Ambassader to UN

thanks

This would appear to be a quiz. Do your own homework! (Try searching at Wikipedia and Google etc. for a start...) By the way, which were questions 3 and 6? 惑乱 分からん 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, some thoughts, but check the answers.
1.Name of Muslim women belongs to Iran recently visited space.

Anousheh Ansari

2.Name of person recently won the Nobel prize in Physics belongs to America

John Mather and George Smoot

4.Next Hockey Cricket and Football world cups will held in which countries

perhaps someone who cares will answer

5.Name of first Nobel prize winner from Asia

probably Rabindranath Tagore in 1913

The first Asian scientist to win the Nobel prize was Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman, 1930

7.Name of Thai General who took over the powers in Thailand

Sondhi Boonyaratkalin

8.Name the Planet recently discovered which replaced Pluto

nothing replaced Pluto; Pluto became a dwarf planet, and so did Ceres and Eris. Of these, only Eris was recently discovered (2005).

9.Name Richest person of world

William Gates III, according to Forbe's Magazine

10.The powerful candidate for next UN secretary general belongs to China name

Ban Ki Moon is the Secruity Council's nominee; he is Korean, not Chinese. China had pushed hard for an Asian; tradition dictates that the Secretary General not be from any of the five veto-holding security council members, so a Chinese candidate would be unlikely.

11.When National security council was established in Pakistan

National Security Council of Pakistan 2004

12.Macmohan line is boundry between.........and ...........

India and China

13.International literacy day is celebrated on............

8 September

14.Name the Chinese Ambassador to UN

Yingfan Wang?, Liu Zhenmin?

15............ is called land of rivers

India, but so are other places, historical and present: Nairi, Jotbath, Kerala....

16.Who is Pakistan's Ambassador to UN

Munir Akram?

- Nunh-huh 10:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The next IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship will be held in Russia in 2007, if that's what you mean... but by grouping it with cricket and football, perhaps you mean field hockey, in which case our Hockey World Cup article doesn't say. It's not until 2010 so maybe they haven't picked a country yet. The 2010 FIFA World Cup will be in South Africa, and the next Cricket World Cup will be in 2007 in "the West Indies" in general, not one specific country. Adam Bishop 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

About france

1. Which Place in France is Known as little Venice?
2. The players of french football team wear a little emblem on their Jersey,What is it?
3. Who decreed that January 1 shud be the start of the new year?

Please sign your questions, with ~~~~.

1. Don't know
2. France national football team
3. Gregorian calendar (what's that got to do with France?)

--ColinFine 12:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite popular belief Gregory didn't decree that January 1 was the beginning of the new year in 1582. I think Nunh=huh is right that whoever asked the question is looking for Napoleon, but as a point of reference Julius Caesar did declare January 1 to be New Year's Day back in 45 BC, just after he conquered Gaul. --70.72.19.133 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Colmar; 2. the Coq Gaulois (Gallic rooster); 3: well, most recently, Napoleon I when he abolished the Revolutionary Calendar, which had a year that started in September. - Nunh-huh 12:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Search

Several years ago Good Housekeeping published an article on what one should read to be considered "well read." It gave book titled to be read over 10 or so years. Can you help me with the article?

No, but I bet someone on the Good Housekeeping Messageboards can. Try posting your question there. Anchoress 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, please do not rely on Good Housekeeping or any other such source to determine for you what it is to be 'well-read'. This is not a recipe, for goodness sake. To be truly 'well-read' is to be beyond any such guidance or manipulation. White Guard 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that what being "well-read" means is determined by others, or in accepting guidance from them towards the goal of becoming well-read one's self. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not Good Housekeeping is a source of enlightenment or not, here's a list of must-read literature I picked up many years ago:

• Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
• The Aenid
• Age of Reason
• Alice's adventures in Wonderland and Through the Lookingglass
• All quiet on the Western Front
• The American
• Andersonville
• Animal Farm
• Anna Karenina
• Arrowsmith
• Babbit
• Bell Jar
• Beowolf
• The Bible
• Big Sky
• Billy Budd
• Brave New World
• Brothers Karamozov
• Caine Mutiny
• Call of the Wild
• Candide
• Canterbury Tales
• The Castle
• Catch-22
• Catcher in the Rye
• The Chosen
• Complete Stories of Edgar Allen Poe
• Color Purple
• A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
• Count of Monte Cristo
• Crime and Punishment
• Cry, the Beloved Country
• Daisy Miller
• Darkness at Noon
• David Copperfield
• Death Comes for the Archbishop
• A Death in the Family
• The Dollmaker
• Don Quixote De La Mancha
• Dracula
• Dune
• Emma
• Ethan Fromme
• Fahrenheit 451
• A Farewell to Arms
• Farewell to Manzanar
• Fathers and Sons
• The Fixer
• Flowers for Algernon (David & Lisa)
• For Whom the Bell Tolls
• Frankenstein
• French Lieutenant's Woman
• Germinal
• Giant
• Giants in the Earth
• Go Tell it on the Mountain
• Gone with the Wind
• Good Earth
• Grapes of Wrath
• Great Expectations
• Great Gatsby
• Great Short Works of Joseph Conrad
• Geeen Mansions
• Grendel
• Gulliver's Travels
• Heart is a Lonely Hunter
• Hiroshima
• Hobbit
• House of Seven Gables
• Hunchback of Notre Dame
• I Heard the Owl Call My Name
• I Never Promised You a Rose Garden
• The Iliad
• In this Sign
• Invisible Man
• Ivanhoe
• Jane Eyre
• The Jungle
• Jungle Books
• Kidnapped
• The King Must Die
• Kristen Lavransdatter
• Last of the Mohicans
• Little Women
• Look Homeward Angel
• Lord Jim
• Lord of the Flies
• Lord of the Rings (toke a spliff or two)
• Madame Bovary
• Magic Mountain
• Main Street
• Mayor of Casterbridge
• Metamorphosis
• Mill on the Floss
• Les Miserables
• Moby Dick
• Moll of Flanders
• Le Morte D'Arthur
• Mutiny on the Bounty
• My Antonia
• Native Son
• The Natural
• Nausea
• 1984
• Nectar in a Sieve
• Northwest Passage
• The Odyssey
• Of Human Bondage
• Of Mice and Men
• Old Man and the Sea
• Oliver Twist
• On the Beach
• The Once and Future King
• One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
• One Hundred Years of Solitude
• The Oxbow Incident
• Painted Bird
• Pearl
• Le Pere Goriot
• The Picture of Dorian Grey
• Pilgrim's Progress
• The Plague
• Portrait of a Lady
• Portraid of the Artist as a Young Man
• Power and the Glory
• Pride and Predjudice
• Quo Vadis
• Rabbit Run
• Rebecca
• The Red and the Black
• Red Badge of Courage
• Red Pony
• Return of the Native
• Robinson Crusoe
• Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry
• Saturday Night Fever
• Scarlet Letter
• Separate Piece
• Shane
• Sherlock Holmes, the Complete Stories
• Siddartha
• Silas Marner
• Sister Carrie
• Slaughterhouse-Five
• Song of Roland
• Sons and Lovers
• Sound and the Fury
• Star Wars
• Stranger
• Sun Also Rises
• Tale of Two Cities
• Three Musketeers
• Time Machine
• The Tin Drum
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• To The Lighthouse
• Tom Jones
• Treasure Island
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
• Turn of the Screw
• 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
• U.S.A.
• Ugly American
• Uncle Tom's Cabin
• Vanity Fair
• Walkabout
• War and Peace
• Wind, Sand, and Stars
• Winesburg, Ohio
• Women in Love
• Wuthering Heights
• The Yearling
• You Can't Go Home Again
• Zorba the Greek

Ah, yes; the perfect list for the aspiring autodidact of today. It must have taken so much time and effort to compile; I'm impressed. Now, get going. Questions will be asked. White Guard 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez, that was a huge list. I've only read about a fifth of them. 192.168.1.1 8:55PM, 7 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

Have you read Star Wars? What was it like?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even heard of most of those titles. And Star Wars is a must read? That has to be a joke. Of course that is all matter of taste and anyone who would take this list seriously and starts reading all the books should think about getting a mind of their own. That said, I do recommend reading 'Brave new world' and '1984' in tandem. It's a great comparison. DirkvdM 07:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, all the above are novels it seems. What about some works of science? 'The origin of species' is a classic. DirkvdM 07:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all are works of fiction: the list comes from the local public library system here, and is a list of all those works of literature you should have read in school but didn't. That's why it doesn't contain any non-fiction or scientific works. I do have a list of recommended books on the history of science somewhere, I think. (Oh, and yeah, I slipped a couple ringers in there too... I wouldn't seriously ask anyone to read The Aenid. It was late when I typed it, and I'd been sipping a nice single-malt Scotch.) -- 192.168.1.1 9:45, 8 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

Oil Painting by Alexandre Jacobs

When I search for Alexandre Jacobs, the result is Marius Jacobs. I am searching for the painter. I am wondering what an oil painting by him would be worth.

Leslie

Any work of art is worth only what someone is prepared to pay for it. Since your Alexandre Jacobs seems not to be well known, it would be best to take the painting along to specialist.--Shantavira 18:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Name this song & artist

I'm trying to remember the artist in this song. It has a male singer during the chorus singing in a somewhat high-pitched voice to start something along the lines of "hold me close love, its all me, its all me... gotta ask yourself one question, where are you now?"... Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC) isn't that the song with which James blunt broke through?dont remember the exact name Graendal 17:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nostalgia Collection

I posted this on miscel. earlier but didn't get what I wanted. I am looking for an audio or video file containing famous quotes or scenes from history, movies, and/or television. For example an audio file with "No, I am your father," "To infinity and beyond," and "E.T. phone home." I just want the most famous scenes from the most famous movies and TV shows all in one place. Or perhaps small clips of famous music. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of New Artist Stub 'Lee Woods' Artmaid 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Artmaid

I've returned from holiday to find my first contribution to Wikipedia deleted by User 'SiGarb'. The article was about Plymouth born (UK) artist Lee Woods and the reason cited by 'SiGarb' was the absence of any reference to a critical review in a national newspaper of this artist which, it seems, would alone justify inclusion in Wikipedia.

I have a background as a lecturer in art history at undergraduate and post-graduate level, with a particular interest in artists of the 20th century, specifically those from the South West of England area; (St.Ives school, Newlyn School etc). Lee Woods is generally acknowledged as one of the most significant 'popular' artists currently hailing from this area of the UK and is one of the founder members of the new 'folk-art revival' movement which has been sweeping the UK since the early 1990's. I avoided the inclusion of such primary research (which I intend to include in a book I'm having published next year), however, all of the remaining information contained in the article is already very much in the public domain. The widespread nature of Lee's 'genetic zoo' series for example can be verified simply by searching the terms 'lee woods' and 'genetic zoo' together in google, or any other search engine. Prints and posters of his work are on sale from Vladivostock to Vancouver! As for the only other piece of information which might be percieved to be 'contentious' and need substantiation (the mass media coverage of the first genetic zoo exhibtion) one only need do a simple search of the reuters and associated press database for the date given in the article to verify the plethora of articles that this exhibition generated across the world.

The whole point of artists like Lee Woods and other members of the 'folk art revival' is that they are often self-taught, POPULAR artists, who paint and sell direct to their public and therefore frequently do not register on the established, public-subsidied art radar! They would not be the original, cult, folk-artists that they are if they received 'high-art' critique in national newspapers!

My Question is, how is wikipedia ever going to become an authoritative source of information if the submissions of interested academics like myself are so easily and speedily deleted by people of unquantifiable background knowledge, apparently limited ability to research and who are able to invoke/ invent apparently arbitrary and -in my opinion -ill-informed inclusion criteria? I have tried to contact the user 'SiGarb' in order to put these questions but he/she has chosen not to give a valid email address. How can this article be re-instated? If it can't be, I see absolutely no point wasting my time making future contributions. Yours Artmaid 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Artmaid

The reference desk is the wrong place to deal with this sort of issue. Try Wikipedia:Deletion review. —Keenan Pepper 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I agree that the speedy deletion was out of order, and I can make the deleted text available to you if you'd like. —Keenan Pepper 22:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, ArtMaid. I suspect the problem was that you were not around to argue the case. I have several times proposed articles for deletion, even on subjects I am not knowledgeable on, on the basis that the article as it stood did not give sufficient reasons to continue to exist. I'm not sure that deletion has resulted even once - what it has done is stimulated discussion and, hopefully, caused the articles to be improved. People do not usually reveal email addresses on Wikipedia: the way to contact SiGarb is by posting on his talk page User talk:SiGarb. --ColinFine 17:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Conjoined twin autobiography

Has a member of an unseparated pair of conjoined twins ever published an autobiography (or diary or journal or whatever)? —Keenan Pepper 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you count A Few particulars concerning Chang-Eng, the united Siamese brothers : published under their own direction., New York : J.M. Elliott, 1838? - Nunh-huh 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC) - And Daisy and Violet Hilton wrote an autobiography in 1942. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Germans had won WWII and the Final Solution had been completed

Do you think there would now be peace in the Middle East and worldwide, in terms of Islamic terrorism? Just playing devil's advocate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.142.31 (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2006

No. What effect would a German conquest of Europe and elimination of the European Jewry have on Sunni vs Shiite violence? Moderate Sunni vs Islamist Sunni violence? Muslim vs Christian violence? It would have no effect on such things. And all of these conflicts have created Islamic terrorism; therefore, the world would still have Islamic terrorism, even if there was no Israel. Picaroon9288 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis would then move on to killing all the Muslims. They had no objection to killing off anyone who gave them trouble (even if only in their fevered minds). StuRat 03:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But would they really turn on their good friend, the Grand Mufti? (Actually, I expect so.) Picaroon9288 03:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. So many Native American tribes were eliminated from this planet. Life goes on. Nothing is the end of the world. -- Toytoy 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure to the Native American tribes that were "eliminated", there certainly was an "end of the world". I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that statement.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If Hitler made it, in a few years, people would visit Berlin as if nothing had ever happend. They would not be unlike people who visit today's New York, Boston, Los Angeles ... . History is written by the winner. -- Toytoy 03:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

True. It depends on whether you think that Hitler and those who followed after him would have continued to be as ruthless as they had been during the war, and after his death reflect on the atrocities that had been committed during his reign. Free society is not an inevitable precipitate.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

World peace in terms of terrorism (islamic or otherwise)? Terrorism is negligible compared to the destructive power of wars. Don't believe the hype. DirkvdM 07:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism has been practiced since the 19th century by dissident groups too weak to field an army to achive their aims. The Germans called the European Resistance movements terrorism. It is not purely a muslim invention or phenomenon, and while it was used by jews in the formation of Israel before they had an army, it wasnt invented by them either. So if you imagine a history as radically different as one in which Germany won WWII, you can spin any story you want about which group that might be today's terrorists in an alternate universe. alteripse 14:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I have to agree with Alteripse, I would like to point out that guerilla warfare is a form of terrorism and has been and still is one of the more ffective techniques. Graendal 17:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "terrorism" has always been extremely difficult to define. Many, like alterprise, assert that the Irgun was a terrorist organization. To me, I define "terrorism" as the gratuitous killing of innocent civilians. I just can't equate the Irgun's retaliations against Arab attacks and its attack on the British "military, police and civil headquarters" at the King David Hotel, with the attacks on the entirely civilian WTC on 9/11. Note that I'm not quite sure if I'd regard the attack on the Pentagon as "terrorism", as the Pentagon, being the headquarters of the US military, is a bona fide military target. An attack on a bona fide military target is to me an act of war, not of terrorism. Loomis 22:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The person who asked this question seems to assume that the root cause of unrest in the Middle East and Islamist terrorism is the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. If this were all or most of the cause, the questioner might be right that the Middle East would be at peace. But I would suggest that a leading cause of unrest and Islamism in the Middle East is the effort by western nations, and particularly the US and the UK, to control the region's oil and oil wealth, which has required repeated military intervention, sometimes with Israel serving as a US surrogate. Now, let's suppose that Hitler had conquered the Soviet Union and forced the UK to surrender and pledge neutrality or join the Axis. His next move would likely have been to take over the countries under French, British, or Italian influence or control that then covered most of North Africa and the Middle East, in order to secure their oil supply. He would probably also move to bring Iran under his control. This would have put Germany into conflict with Muslim (and perhaps Islamist) resistance and into conflict with the US and his erstwhile ally Japan. Or suppose that Hitler had somehow subdued the US as well. Germany would still face conflict with the Islamists and Arab and Iranian nationalists, as well as Japan, which would want to break the German stranglehold on oil supplies. It is hard to imagine Hitler agreeing to share Middle Eastern oil with Japan freely. Although he agreed to partition Poland with the Soviets, this was tactical and not a long-term commitment. Marco polo 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

October 8

Phone Q

On my cell phone, there is an option for a 2 second hard pause and a 5 second soft...what do these mean? Thanks, ChowderInopa 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A pause tells your phone to wait when dialling a stored number, rather than sending off all of the numbers in one continuous stream. It's useful for dialling phone extensions, or for navigating phone trees if there's something you usually do frequently. For instance, you can store a friend's work number as 123-4567p#890 (where the p is a 5 second soft pause) and you'll dial their main switchboard (123-4567), wait for the automated system to pick up and say "Hello, welcome to XYZ Corp. If you know the extension of the party you wish to call, press pound now.", then press pound and dial your friend's extension (890). Normally, a hard pause requires you to press a button to continue, whereas a soft pause just waits the number of seconds indicated and then goes ahead. --ByeByeBaby 04:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Thank you for calling the Last National Bank. Warning, our menu system has just been changed..."

"Beep !"

"You have selected to donate all your assets held with the bank to St. Periwinkle's Home for Wayward Hedgehogs. That transfer is now complete. Thank you. Have a nice day." :-) StuRat 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Characterization of the Oxford Philosopher J.L. Austin's work

I believe that your characterizations of Austin's How To Do Things With Words is very misleading. All of the terms which Austin introduced are germane only because Austin projected extant speech situations and all possible (especially educational) speech situations in How To Do Things With Words. If you formulated your posting in consideration of Professor Searle's publications you err. Parliaments, Congresional functions, concerted and cooperative endeavors (note the well-organized intelligence work on the Normandy Invasion.. he was fluent in nine languages ...if I remember correctly too)

I went cover to cover on Collegiate dictionaries and lived with the O.E.D itself when I did my graduate paper on How To Do Things With Words.

Austin wasn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater when he featured the much vaunted Illocutionary Act.

I do not wish to wedge my comprehension of How To Do Things With Words here. Suffice it to say Austin craced the crib of the reality of speech in the world. Searle shows no appreciation of the universality of How To Do Things With Words.

I look forward to any questions or probes on this from your quite valuable and much honored work at Wikipedia. Oh I did get copyright usage clearance on How To Do Things With Words.. (many years ago when doing the graduate research thesis work on this.

Robert J. Myers, (street address removed to prevent mail bombs) [email address removed to stop spamming] thank you for the time here.

It is not quite clear what "your characterizations" refers to and in what way they are deemed misleading. There are references to How To Do Things With Words in our articles Carlo Penco, Illocutionary act, J. L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, Logical argument, Meaning (linguistics), Performative, Performativity, Philosophy of language, Pragmatics, and Speech act. Is it claimed somewhere that Austin introduced germane terms (germane to what?) for the wrong reasons, or that he performed ejection on infants in state of ablution? Could you be more specific?  --Lambiam^Talk 05:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is only one article on Wikipedia that includes the word "germane" and a reference to J L Austin: Analytic Philosophy#Ordinary language philosophy. Note the cleanup tag.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Myers, you are addressing your comments to Wikipedians at large (or rather, those who look at the Reference Desk), most of whom have probably never looked at J. L. Austin, much less contributed to it. Please improve the article yourself, or if you think discussion is required, a posting to the article's talk page Talk:J. L. Austin will engage the people who are most interested in the topic. --ColinFine 17:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No age limit for drinking alcohol in Australia

Is it true that there is NO AGE LIMIT to consuming alcohol in Australia.

I was told that there are alcohol laws in Australia but they only talk about buying/selling alcohol and road laws. Anyone of any age can consume any amount of alcohol provided they are not doing it on public land.

Is it true? If so I'm flying down to down under for a very alcoholic holiday.

No it is not. The age limit for legal drinking in Austalia is 18. See Legal drinking age. You might, however, want to book a trip to Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Nigeria, Portugal, Soviet Georgia, Thailand or Vietnam. See here--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Georgia? You're assuming he has a time machine? DirkvdM 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't he? Too bad then. In present day Georgia, you can drink, but not buy alcohol legally. --thunderboltz^(Deepu) 08:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Na. Na. Na. You are wrong. Minors can legally drink alcohol in Australia. To paraphase:

Laws Relating to Minors

There are several provisions in the Liquor Licensing Act which protect minors, primarily in Part 7. The Licensing Court can take disciplinary action against a licensee who breaches the Act and can fine or reprimand the licensee, change the licence conditions, suspend or revoke the licence.

Under section 107 of the Act, a licensee is guilty of an offence if they employ a minor to sell, supply, or to serve liquor on the premises, unless the minor is a child of the licensee or responsible person and is aged 16 years or more, who is resident on the premises, otherwise licensing authority approval is required.

Where can a minor legally drink alcohol?*

1. At their own home or someone else's - regardless of whether an adult legal guardian or spouse is present.

2. In public places that are neither licensed premises, regulated premises nor dry areas (e.g. a family barbecue in a public area such as a park) provided they are in the company of an adult legal guardian or spouse.

Where can a minor NOT legally drink alcohol?*

1. In regulated premises including licensed premises (e.g. a restaurant, hotel, premises with a limited licence or reception centre) - a minor may be present at these venues (before midnight, or before 9.00 p.m. at premises with an entertainment venue licence), but may not buy or drink alcohol.

2. In a public place unless in the company of an adult legal guardian or spouse.

In summary, minors:

• can consume alcohol provided it is not in a public place or regulated premises
• can consume alcohol in a public place under the supervision of an adult legal guardian or spouse provided that it is not a dry area, regulated premises or in or near to prescribed entertainment such as a dance
• can generally be on licensed premises before midnight (before 9.00 p.m. in an entertainment venue) but cannot obtain or consume alcohol
• are not allowed in areas of licensed premises declared out of bounds to minors, or in gaming areas
• are not allowed on licensed premises between the hours of midnight and 5.00 a.m. unless in a designated dining area, a bedroom or an area approved for minors

Examples:

1. If at the clubrooms, a football coach gives the team some beers to celebrate a win, and some of the team are under 18, that is an offence (supplying liquor to a minor in regulated premises, section 110 & 114 of the Act). However, it would not be illegal for the coach to invite the team to his home for drinks.

2. At a wedding reception held in a licensed restaurant, a hotel, a wedding reception centre or public hall, it is illegal if a minor drinks a toast containing alcohol to the bride and groom (selling/supplying alcohol to minors, sections 110 & 114 of the Act).

URL: http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=124

URL: http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/main1.cfm?categoryid=3&topicid=252&infopageid=517

URL: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/drugs/alcohol/youth/law.htm

If you go through the expense of flying to Australia, don't waste your time there being drunk all the time. Like the people who visit Amsterdam, are stoned all the time and can't remember a thing of the city or its people. Being drunk or stoned can be nice, but visiting another coutry and broadening your horizons will in ht eend be much more rewarding. DirkvdM 07:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it called mizuhiki (water pulling)? history? process?

I know that mizuhiki is the Japanese art of knot tying using several strands of wire-like paper that has been covered with tiny ribbons of metallic foil & that it is used widely for decorating gifts. What I don't understand is why it is called literally "water pulling". Does this have to do with the process by which the paper strands are made? Is it describing the process of tying the knots using the material or is it just arbitrary? The last possibility seems unlikely in light of words like "origami" (literally 'folding paper') & "kirigami" (literally 'cutting paper'). I would also like to know more about the history of mizuhiki & the process by which the strands are made. Please help me answer these questions. Thanks.

jaWiki isn't very helpful on this. It basically says that mizuhiki originated as a type of gift in the days of Ononoimoko, but not where the actual name comes from. Try asking the jaWiki users on chatsubo.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Metallic blue ribbon may look like water. StuRat 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think they had that in the 7th century CE!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

women having sex

when women have sex, I assume their breasts become enlarged. What I want to know is that whether their nipples also enlarge? I also would like to know whether breasts harden while in erection or remain soft. Since I am 23 years and no experience in touching a women, I am interested in asking this. Thankyou

You will be disappointed to learn that there's no significant change in breast size regardless of level of excitement. In the nipples, you may expect a change, generally a hardening and constriction rather than enlargement, analagous to "gooseflesh" in the rest of the skin - the same change that occurs in response to a cold environment. Men's nipples do pretty much the same thing, so it shouldn't be that far outside your realm of experience. - Nunh-huh 09:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you were thinking of the pupil... ;) The clitoris gets somewhat of an erection though... 惑乱 分からん 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

for some reason, our sexual arousal article has "increase in breast size". that article may be in need of some fact-checking. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that personal research is banned... ;) —Daniel (‽) 14:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to have performed enough field research for sufficient statistical data. Could you honestly claim that? ;) 惑乱 分からん 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As a 14-year-old male, I'd have to say... no. ;) —Daniel (‽) 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In studies they use heat vision to see that blood flow increases to the chest and pelvis during arousal (as well as the lips, face and neck). I would assume the increase in blood flow would cause a small increase in size. Though the change would probably be less that what is normally experienced during the course of a menstrual cycle and definitely much less that the changes that the breasts go through during pregnancy. Nowimnthing 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the size of a womens breasts do increase when they aroused but the degree in which they grow differs per individual case and how far they are aroused. in some cases they may swell up by approx. 25%. oh and I could claim that wakuran. as a 17-year old male with a lot of holidays :) though actual measuring didn't really occur to me at those times . I get my intel from a book i once read about breasts.(NO NOT THE PLAYBOY BUT AN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ONE! *mumbles* damn those boilogy teachers*mumbles*) it is even possible for women to climax through only touching the breasts in the right way. but every women has their own thrils.Graendal 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What scientific book would that be? Can you link to any other sources? Boilogy sounds like fun too, but I don't see what that has to do with boobs.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany military achievements

I used to be quite impressed with Germany conquering all of Europe (and then even having the 'spares' to fight in Africa). Later I learned that they didn't quite conquer all of Europe. And last week I did some more reading and I now get the impression they didn't achieve much at all. Here's how I understand it now:

• Vichy (southern France), Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland were allies (of sorts - not entirely fair on the Finns).
• Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland and Sweden were neutral
• Austria welcomed the German armies
• Czechia was prettty much handed to the Germans by the international community (not too sure about that one)
• Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium thought they could remain neutral, didn't mobilise and were therefore easy conquests (also because they're small countries)
• The invasion of the USSR was a complete disaster
• The UK was never even invaded

Which leaves Northern France, which had an outdated defence system, Poland and Yugoslavia, which didn't have much of an army (and Poland was simultaneously attacked by the USSR) and Greece. I am no longer impressed. Actually, it looks rather pathetic for a country that acted like it could conquer half the world. Am I missing something? DirkvdM 11:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Blitzkrieg tactics were quite shocking at that time. It seems Hitler more and more got into a state of hubris, but after the failure of the USSR invasion, and US joining the allies, things turned bad for the Nazis rather quickly... 惑乱 分からん 11:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That only makes it worse. They ignored the 'gentlemanlike' custom of 'properly' announcing when you attack someone, which gave them an important edge. And still they didn't conquer much - just four countries, none of which put up much of a fight. DirkvdM 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DirkVDM, I thought of this too when discussing the movie "Der Untergang". In fact, you could even add some more elements to that, weakening their accomplishments :

- they conquered a lot while they were still respecting an agreement with the USSR. Note that in a sense they conquered some parts of Europe "together" with the USSR. There are pictures of Soviet and German soldiers happily chatting. - they had a pretty big population! - they had a huge ally in the East : Japan (and Japan sort of had Thailand as an ally as well). While Japan is quite far away, Japan didn't keep lots of USA soldiers busy.~ Evilbu 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, although they perhaps didn't conquer much, at least they had huge parts of Europe under their command... 惑乱 分からん 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, you simply decided to ignore the fact that the German army attacked with fewer troops and fewer tanks two of the (then) Superpowers (the large British empire and France and all its colonies) and crushed them in northern France (and they were prepared and ready for the Germans). You also simply added Vichy as an ally of the Axis, but in fact it was simply a puppet regime under German rule like the puppet-goverments in Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands, etc (besides handing all the French Jews over to the Germans they did almost nothing). The invasion of the Soviet Union ended in a complete disaster, but the initial achievements were considerable (more than a 1 million Russian POW's at the end of the 1st year, and the German armies were mere 50 (even closer?) KMs from Moskou). You have forgotten that almost all of the German European allies were mostly useless (except the Finns, but these were very few) and that the Japanese were simply too far away to help the Germans, and vice-versa.

Let me put the whole issue in another perspective: How incompetent were the Allies, that it took them 6 full years to crush the Axis powers (and they had to ally themselves with Stalin to pull it off) ?

They could decode almost all the German orders sent through the Enigma machine (read:Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, and in the case of the Japanase it was somthing quite simlar (read JN-25. They controlled almost all the Sea trade (despite the best efforts of the German U-boots), with all the resulting war material, and supplies lines (like Petrol and Gas, but also Coal and Iron) and were from the start heavily supported by the USA (despite all initial claims of "neutrality"). They had simply a better technology than the Germans (better Radar, Sonar, planes, the first computers, and they were even making the A-bomb). The "big" German population was around 60 millions (I am not very sure of this figure and am ignorant of the Japanese numbers) while their opponents had how many? 400 million (adding the USA and the USSR), perhaps even more? You are also ignoring that Hitler in order to help the incompetent Mussolini and his secondrate Italian troops from another trashing (the 1st being North Africa), this time from the Greeks, had to quickly invade Yugoslavia and Greece and the Germans did it in only two months despite all British and Greek opposition. Put all the Allied countries (counting the population, and please notice the war production figures) next to your list and then ask something smart. Notice that everything seems very predictable, simple, and easy to an amateur, but solely in hindsight. Flamarande 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading about Vichy started me thinking. It seems they had a government that was of the same mind as the nazis. This is where the word collaboration came from. Of course, this is why the Germans didn't need to push through in France. The French themselves were doing their job for them. And about the UK, like I said, they never conquered that. They didn't even try. And they won some battles in the USSR, but lost all that in the same year, with the campaign never conquering any of its major goals (Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow), so that wasn't much of a military success. Quite the opposite. The goal of war is to conquer and hold, so you can reap the harvest of your investment. That their allies weren't much of a help is not relevant to what I meant. They never conquered those countries. The only serious opponents they conquered were Northern France and, to a lesser extent, Greece (who put up a bit of a fight because they had help from the Brits).

You do seem to have a good point concerning the achievements of the Allies. But as I understand it, the principal goal of the military conquests was economic, through the Arbeitseinsatz. This assured that they could manufacture loads of weapons on the spot (in stead of importing them from across the Atlantic). And they were pretty good at inventing new technology too, such as the V1 and 2 and the nuclear bomb, although they never managed to finish it. (The USSR used Germans to develop it further, just like the US used a German to develop their space rockets.)

The Germans also invented the Blitzkrieg, thus totally changing the way wars were fought. Part of the lack of success of the allies lay in the supply lines becoming too long, a problem the Germans also suffered from. The distance from Stalingrad (the furthest the Germans came) to Berlin is about 2500 km. The USSR army covered that distance in less than a year. That is roughly 10 km per day on average. Pretty fast for an advancing army. The Germans had done it in stages, but did the last push in less time. Come to think if it, the achievements in terms of speed were pretty impressive on both sides, considering they had to invent this type of warfare as they went. The western Allies were doing a worse job of it, though.

But my point is that the Germans didn't do all that much impressive stuff militarily, espcially considering they had all these advantages. Such as not even needign to conquer many countries because they had no desire to fight them and even partly fought at their side. It seems the lack of opposition to the Germans was caused at least partly because nazism and similar ideologies were pretty popular at the time, probably largely as a reaction to the rise of socialism and especially communism. That is also why the pope never really condemned the Germans. He didn't like Hitler, but he hated the commies even more and Hitler was helping him in that respect. Another case of one extreme leading to the opposite extreme. DirkvdM 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what happens when you have an idiot at the helm, somebody who thinks he's right all the time, considers dissent to be traitorous, and won't admit he can make mistakes. Wait a sec... Clarityfiend 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you're not serious, Clarity, please. Right or left, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, if you actually believe there's shred of reality in that comparison, well, you've basically just destroyed all that remains of your reputation. Loomis 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He didn't make any comparison at all. If, despite that, you see a similarity to someone else, then therre must be some truth in it. :) DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first part seems to me to be a fairly accurate description of Bush. And yes, I do believe there is a "shred of reality" there. The two have the serious character flaws I listed in common. I forgot to mention his willingness to distort the truth for his own ends (dozens of Nobel laureates have condemned the Bush administration's politicization of science; the WMD's; Saddam's "connection" to al-Quaida). Show me where I'm wrong.

Although, come to think of it, he's so incompetent, he's more like Mussolini than Hitler. Clarityfiend 00:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I know many (most!) people here who aren't fans of Bush, and I respect their views. At the very worst, from what I've heard here so far, Bush may be an incompetent moron. Or worse, that he's a greedy oilman who ran for president only to enrich his family (and friends') fortune. I find these accusations ridiculous, but I'm offended by none of them.

But none of them would EVER compare Bush to Hitler, as you have. Bush=Hitler has got to be the most disgusting comment I've ever heard here on Wikipedia, EVER. I've lost family to Hitler. Bush, even if you consider him an idiot (which is your prerogative), is no Hitler. Your comment is disgusting. Please don't backtrack and compare him "more to Mussolini". Even Bush=Mussolini is a disgusting remark. It's ok not to like Bush, but remember, it wasn't ok not to like Hitler or Mussolini! Your comments are disgusting to myself and the memory of the family that I lost.

Have you lost family to Bush's gas chambers? Have any of your family been cooked in any of Bush's ovens? Be a man and apologize. Loomis 04:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to equate Bush with Hitler. That would be stupid. If I gave you that impression, certainly I apologize. I was merely pointing out that they share certain personality flaws. If I had noted that Charlie Chaplin had the same moustache, would that mean that I think the comedian and the dictator were equally bad? Please do not put words in my mouth. Clarityfiend 05:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"I was not trying to equate Bush with Hitler. That would be stupid. If I gave you that impression, certainly I apologize". Apology accepted. I'm not one to hold grudges. :-) Loomis 09:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you're not suggesting no-one lost their families to Bush? In Iraq alone over 100 000 dead. Surely, they had family? DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well all those countries that are allies, they're not goin to invade them just to prove a point to you are they, plus they reached stalingrad on the USSR campaign, given the huge expanse of russia, thats a loooong way. I mean the area they invaded was about the size of sweden, and the casualties they inflicted were horrendous, the article says somwhere around 2million people were killed in stalingrad, and the axis only suffered 750,000 people killed or wounded. So i think it is fair to say a lot of those casualties were russian. And since you pointed out a lot of these invasion were submissive or walkthroughs, what are the germans meant to do? Demand they fight in order for the germans to be looked back on as having invaded europe. The countries military might is not only reflected in the countries it managed to forcefully invade, but in any which the country weilds any power due to military might (i.e. its allies were allies because they thought germany would win, because of its huge armies, and the countries that didnt resist, in order to minimise casualties, due to the inevitable loss, thos are all victories because of the countries military might. ) Philc _T^E_C^I 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, read Machiavelli. The object is to avoid combat, whenever possible, to preserve your fighting force, by conquering with treaties and intimidation. Any country which tried to fight all the other countries in the world would be guaranteed to fail, so a more subtle approach to world conquest is needed. One exception was when only the US had atomic bombs. It could have conquered the world, had it been sufficiently evil, in that short period. StuRat 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm not saying they should have waged more war (that would be silly). All I mean is that I got the impression the military achievement wasn't as great as I thought it was and was now wondering if I got that right. DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

About the ability of the US to conquer the world with nuclear bombs. The two it dropped on Japan was pretty much it and no facilities to make many more fast. Mass production would have been out of the question. DirkvdM 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, consider that the economy of Germany was in ruins, and it suffered from massive reparation payments and hyperinflation prior to the Nazi era. They also had restrictions on the size of their military placed on them by the WW1 victors. Given these limitations, it's amazing they could conquer anything. StuRat 22:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, starting at the very latest, on August 2nd, 1934, the date Hitler became "Fuhrer", until September 1, 1939, the day WWII broke out, Hitler had just over 5 years to violate the Treaty of Versailles. Thanks to the gullibility and blindness of guys like MacDonald, Baldwin and Chamberlain, and despite the rantings of some pudgy, drunk back-bencher MP from Kent, some war-mongering, WWI has-been fool, Hitler managed to make good use of those 5 years to rebuild the German military to the point where it was just about able to conquer Europe, and in doing so, take the lives of 50 million. Loomis 23:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of my point is that they didn't conquer all of Europe. And, as StuRat pointed out, they couldn't have. DirkvdM 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the above contributors might actually benefit from doing a spot of reading on the subject, instead of speculating in such an endless and uninformed fashion. In 1939 Germany went to war with Poland and France, whose combined military force was at least twice the size of her own army. If the French had gone on the offensive Hitler could conceivably have found himself in serious trouble, having only five or six divisions in the west to face almost one hundred in the French army, with the addition later in the year of ten British divisions. The Poles-who incidentally were not attacked simultaneously by the Soviet Union-put up a strong fight, but were overwhelmed by the Nazi Blitzkrieg, most of their air force being destroyed on the ground in the initial days. The Norwegian campaign was a considerable gamble on the German side, because of the overwhelming Allied naval superiority, but one that nontheless paid off. The greatest gamble of all was the attack in the west, because the French army was still considered to be the best of its day and because-unlike the Poles-they could more than match the Germans in both armour and air power. The problem was the French were locked into a defensive mentality, and failed to anticipate the audacity of the German battle plan, which allowed them to slice across the north of the country in an advance to the sea. The French armour was also used in penny packages, rather than concentrated in the German fashion. The speed of the German advance, and the success in overwhelming all opposition, was an astonishing contrast to the campaign of 1914. France was forced to agree to an early armistice, while badly mauled British forces were forced off the continent. Incidentally, the Germans did not just conquer northern France but were well on the way to overwhelming the whole country by the time the armistice was signed. The conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece were also rapid and overwhelming, so much so that even Stalin was badly unsettled. But the greatest successes of the Wermacht came in the early months of the war against Russia. In terms of numbers alone the Soviets were superior in every military department, but by the end of September 1941 the Germans had won several huge enveloping battles that no other nation on earth could have survived. Those who are interested may care to examine the Battle of Kiev, in which the Germans took over 600,000 prisoners alone. The problem for Hitler was that, unlike his other opponents, Russia had both the space to absorb the impact of the Blitzkrieg and, more important, the reserves to make good its terrible losses. Even so, by the close of 1941, Germany and its allies controlled virtually all of continental Europe; quite an achievment for a power that in 1933 had only a 100000 man army, no aircraft and no tanks.

To conclude on a different point, I do not quite understand the intention of some of the last contributor's remarks, obviously directed at Winston Churchill. I assume some irony was intended?White Guard 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You assume correctly. I'm obviously a GREAT fan of Sir Winnie, the "old fool". I'd only hope more would learn from his "foolishness" today. I'm sure many regard me as a "fool" for my beliefs, but I'll stick to'em. What interests me about you, WHITE guard, is your unabashed pride concerning the military achievements of Nazi Germany. Curious. Loomis 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification: I share your folly. To rush to my defence, I take no pride whatsoever in German military achievments. I do take some pride-if that's the right word-in achieving historical accuracy, and some of the remarks above are hopelessly ill-informed. And please do not try to read the wrong message into my nom de guerre. I admire the work of Mikhail Bulgakov. Beyond that I will not go. White Guard 01:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! Don't bother rushing to your defence. My inference was likely offensive enough! Just watch my posts. I tend to be a bit of a hot-head. But when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I admit that my inference was quite wrong here. I apologize for that.

But you've got me interested. You say that you share my folly. I'm just curious as to what exactly you mean by that. All the best. Loomis 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do admire Winston Churchill-the old fool. White Guard 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, White Guard. About France, I didn't know the Germans faced such superior forces there. I suppose their succes indeed resulted largely from the unanounced (!) Blitzkrieg and other innovations in warfare (did you mean that they used more bombs in stead of bullets?). So it was more cunning than brute force (or rather the combination). But the invasion of the USSR wasn't much of a military success. Like I said, the goal of an invasion is to keep what you gain, and they didn't do that, so ultimaltely it was a failure (and an obvious and therefore stupid one, so they weren't so clever there, but I believe that was specifically Hitler's doing).

So I have to adapt my assumptions a bit. France was stronger than I thought and only became a partial ally when they were losing (although I already said that that was one of the bigger achievements). And Norway wasn't as easy either because of the international forces there (much like with Greece). And Germany wasn't as powerful as one might think based on its size. But other than that what I said still stands, or doesn't it? I mean, are my assumptions about the various countries correct? DirkvdM 08:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Jean Stretchers

In the 1950's there was a tool used to place inside wet, laundered jeans that kept the jeans from stretching and formed a crease down the jeans leg as they dried on the form. Are these still available anywhere?

Googling "pants stretcher" provides many links like this. --hydnjo talk 15:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

World War One

Why was the "race for the sea" inconclusive in the First World War?

--Dabc 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Race to the Sea explains it pretty well. Neither side was able to outflank the other side and gain an offensive advantage. Hence, stalemate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Does anyone know what the balance of power was like at the time, on the western front? --Dabc 17:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance of power is a political term. By late 1914 the balance of forces was roughly equal, in terms of the number of divisions deployed-hence the stalemate. White Guard 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

law

Hi i am looking for information on supreme law in the united kingdom and i am having a bit of trouble with finding anything. I was just wondering whether you could give me some information on supreme law and whether the government is the supreme law maker? Thankyou very much and i hope to hear from you soon!!

That's an ENORMOUS question! For starters I'd check out the articles on the UK Constitution, Constitutional convention, and A.V. Dicey. That should give you a good start. Once you're done, feel free to come back and ask any more particular questions you may have. Loomis 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In Britain, Parliament is considered of ultimate sovereignty. It is the only body capable of enacting laws. Governments - made up of the largest party in terms of seats in Parliament - propose legislation, but it must be ratified by Parliament. There is no written British constitution which specifically lays this out, but the uncodified constitution is made up of convention, common & statute law and "works of authority." See the Constitution of the United Kingdom and Parliamentary sovereignty articles. This is a very complex topic, and I'd personally suggest a standard Government & Politics textbook like Coxall & Robbins "Contemporary British Politics," or "Politics UK" by Jones, Kavanagh, Moran & Norton. JF Mephisto 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not forgetting that there's no such thing as "United Kingdom law". There's English law (including Wales), Scots law, and Northern Ireland law. European Union law takes precedence over local laws, but normally has to be incorporated into local law (usually by means of Statutory Instruments) in order to take effect. Most laws are passed by the UK Parliament, but the Scottish Parliament can also pass laws, as indeed can the General Synod of the Church of England for church-related matters. From next year the Welsh National Assembly will be able to pass laws, subject to veto by the UK Parliament. -- Arwel (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I have to disagree with Mephisto on some of the subtleties of his/her take on UK Constitutional Law, this very topic was discussed just recently here on September 22, so I won't go over it all once again. Although I would suggest looking it over, it was an interesting discussion.

However, I feel that I must take issue with Arwel's comment that "there's no such thing as "United Kingdom law"". There certainly is! Though many powers have been or soon will be devolved to the Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the Parliament at Westminster in London is certainly more than a parliament for England alone. First off, it's made up of representatives from not only England, but from all of the UK. The Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish all send MPs to London. But more importantly, the UK Parliament routinely passes laws that affect all of the United Kingdom, not simply England. Laws that come to mind would be laws concerning British citizenship, laws involving British monetary and fiscal policy, laws concerning international affairs, etc... Yes, certain powers involving more local matters are being devolved unto the respective Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but the UK is still one sovereign unitary state, with only one "sovereign" Parliament, in London. Loomis 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What specifically is your disagreement with my take on the UK Constitution (I think it would be misleading to refer to "constitutional law", as the British constitution isn't made up simply of law but also convention and works of authority)? I think it's pretty pertinent, as the person above is requesting help and it would be advisable to make it as unmuddled as possible. "Contemporary British Politics: Third Edition," Coxall & Robbins, 1998, states that the main characteristics of the UK Constitution are unitary government (a state that despite some constituent country powers is fundamentally unitary and not federal) and parliamentary sovereignty (the idea that Parliament's powers are fundamentally unlimited and supreme). It states that the main sources of the uncodified constitution are common and statute law, convention, the law and custom of Parliament, works of authority and more recently European Union law. Are you in disagreement with the broad thrust of this description of the UK Constitution, and, if so, in what way? JF Mephisto 23:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My disagreement with you was very subtle compared to my disagreement with Arwell. By that I mean that I think that s/he was REALLY wrong, compared to some subtle disagreements I may have with you. I agree with everything you've said above, except the part that Common and Statute Law form part of the UK Constitution. There are basically three "levels" of law in any Constitutional Democracy: Constitutional Law, "Regular" Law, and Regulatory or Administrative Law. The third is irrelevant to this discussion so I'll ignore it. What we're left with is 1) Constitutional Law and 2) "Regular" (i.e. Statute and Common) Law.

My main point of disagreement is the characterization of "Constitutional law" as being derived from "Statute and Common Law". Rather, with regards to "Statute Law", UK "Constitutional Law" is that very "Over-Arching" principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. After all, what is it that gives those buildings at Westminster permission to pass Statutory Law? In the US, Article I of the Constitution grants that law unto Congress. Likewise, in the UK, that law is "granted" by the unwritten law of the UK Constitution. In other words, while I see ordinary "Statute Law" as "Regular Law", that over-arching principle that gives Parliament its sovereign authority to pass such law in the first place is what I'd call "Constitutional Law".

Likewise, I can't see UK Constitutional Law as being derived in any way from "Common Law". Rather, with regards to "Common Law" there is that "Over-Arching" principle of Stare Decisis. After all, what is it that compels the courts to pay any respect at all to precedent? I'd say that Stare Decisis is a major component of UK Constitutional Law. The Common Law, on the other hand, like Statute Law, is, to me, subordinate to that "Over-Arching" Constitutional principle of Stare Decisis.

In sum, the way I'd put it is that UK Constitutional Law is composed (amongst other things) of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Stare Decisis. These are the "Over-Arching", "Unwritten" principles of UK Constitutional Law. Statute and Common Law are merely the "regular" law that is permitted by the Supreme, Constitutional Law of the UK. Loomis 01:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is neopaganism really a religion?

I wonder if so-called neopagans really ascribe to a religion per se or just take part in ancient rituals (or what they believe are ancient rituals) because they think they are cool. I mean, do they really believe in the existence of Odin, or whatever, the same way Christians believe (or are supposed to believe) in God and Jesus or Zoroastrians believe in Ahura Mazda? -- Mwalcoff 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought believing in the efficacy of those rituals means it counts as religion, in the generally accepted use of the term. Most definitions of religion are quite broad.--Shantavira 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do all Christians believe in god the same way? Do some of them think of an old man with a beard, do others think in more general terms, "god is love"? I think it would depend on the pagan. Everyone has different beliefs. Nowimnthing 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Some neopagans probably do just think it is cool, certainly half the Goths wearing pentagrams just see it as a fashion accessory, the same as those who wear crosses and crucifixes. On the other hand some definitely do believe in it as a religion. God calls to many people in different ways. David Frawley has an interesting section on neopagans in his book "How I became a Hindu". -- Chris Q 07:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban of veil in UK Jack Straw's remarks about the veil

Why is so much row created on the ban of veils in Britain? It is against the practice of religious freedom. It clearly goes against the principles of Democracy. The females from the west are allowed to bare all in the sun in places like Dubai & Middle East, they are allowed even to wear skirts in workplaces. There is racism in the west against the browns & blacks. Is it double standards?? Whats the purpose behind lobbying against the use of veil? [kj_venus]

Veils are not barred in the United Kingdom. I don't know where you got that impression from. A Cabinet minister, Jack Straw, simply stated that he did not like women wearing the full face veil in his constituency office, and that he thought that the full face veil was a visible sign of seperation and not helpful towards harmonious commnunity relations. Other members of the Cabinet, such as John Prescott, disagreed. Furthermore, requesting the removal of a face veil is not racism - the portion of the Muslim community that wear the full face veil do not constitute a race (and most British Muslims do not wear full face veils). The purpose of opposing the use of a full face veil is because it is considered necessary in most cultures to see the facial expressions of the person one is talking to, and to oppose visible signs of seperation. JF Mephisto 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is considered necessary in most cultures to see the facial expressions of the person one is talking to, and to oppose visible signs of seperation is obvious.Places like Dubai & others are progressing and accepting the western culture and insane ways of life. The tolerance is there for every culture to sustain. The same thing is not followed in the west. There is abuse of freedom in the west. Many students from the arab world & east face diifficulties in european universties including racist remarks. While the east tolerates all acts of sexual freedom & vulgarity of the west. There is no mutual reciprocity in that respect.[kj_venus]

I think Jack Straw's statement is unfortunate, because some people will assume that his opinion somehow represents official policy - as in the original title of this item. Nobody has said whether Muslim women are allowed to wear the veil - one minister has said that he prefers that people who come to consult him do not hide their faces.

I think your comments about 'reciprocity' are misguided. Everywhere, some people mistruct and mistreat strangers, some people do not tolerate strangers' ways, and some strangers are not willing to respect local sensibilities.

Please sign your postings with ~~~~.--ColinFine 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the veil is that it makes identification impossible. For example, there have been cases in the US where these women wanted their driver's license (the primary form of identification in the US) photos to be taken wearing a veil, which would make it absolutely useless for identification. To accept this would mean to give up on being able to identify anyone, which would cause a massive security hole. Male terrorists have been known to dress as veiled women to bypass security. StuRat 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

plodweaver

Question moved to language desk

Question about the movie Bend it like Beckham

Does anybody know what neighbourhood of London the movie took place in? Anchoress 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if anybody knows how to fix titles and redirects, the BiLB entries on WP are totally f****d up. Anchoress 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hounslow, I believe. Natgoo 22:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Woo Hoo, thank you! Anchoress 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice movie, by the way. DirkvdM 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about Germany

·I know that Hitler,Goebels,Himmler,Romel,Gering and other killed them selves.My question is:What is the highest Nazi offical that didnt commit suicide?I doubt that it was Albert Speer,because he was just a minister,but it might be him?

Thank you very much

My best guess would be Adolph Eichmann. Also, quite a few were executed at Nuremberg, so among those may be someone who outranked Eichmann, but I doubt it. Loomis 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would go with Wilhelm Canaris. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both very much.Eichmann was in the rank of Colonel and Canaris was Admiral,so it was probably Canaris.

I dont want to be boring,but just another question,because it seems like you know quite a lot about this subject:So if we take out those who commited suicide and those who got killed(like Eichmann,Ribentrop,Canaris...) who was the highest official that died in a natural way? (I believe that there were many,but I wonder who was the highest...I thought it was Hess,but he killed him self in the prison,so it wasnt him.)

Don't worry about being boring, these are important questions. By highest Nazi official I assumed you meant most prominent. Of course an admiral outranks a colonel, but I was going with most prominent and influential over highest ranking (I'm embarrassed to even say it by I've never even heard of Canaris). As for the next question, I'd say Josef Mengele, who drowned accidentally in 1979. He's certainly, once again, the most "prominent" Nazi (though I'm not sure of his actual "rank") to die in a (somewhat) natural way (neither homicide nor suicide). Loomis 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Karl Donitz was officially president of Germany at the time of the Nazi surrender; he served 10 years in prison and died in 1980. Rudolf Hess was number 2 in the Nazi party before fleeing to England; he died in prison in 1987. Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged in 1946, as were Alfred Rosenberg and Julius Streicher. Hans Lammers, Hitler's chief of staff, died in 1962. Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, Nazi chiefs in Poland and Bohemia & Moravia, respectively, were hanged. So-called Justice Minister Franz Schlegelberger lived until 1970. Economics Minister Walther Funk lived until 1960. -- Mwalcoff 21:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Great,thats about it.As for Mengele,he died in kind of natural way,but not quite.Hess would be number one choice,but he commited suicide in 1987(or he was killed,as his family claims). But,anyway,it surely is Karl Dönitz,I cant believe that I forgot him as a leader,thats probably because he wasnt so prominent as others mentioned,but it was surely him.

So having listed almost all top Nazis,it seems like none of them escaped one or another form of punishment(being killed,suicide,prison sentence,or strange deaths like Mengele and Hess).

Correct me if Im wrong,but it seems like thats the case??

Anyway,once again,thank you very much,searching for all of this would take me days,so thanks to everyone.

Doenitz wasn't a Nazi, and many of the other military officials might not have been either. They just happened to be in the military while the Nazis were in power (although of course they must have supported them, otherwise they wouldn't have remained so long, but Doenitz was never a party member). Adam Bishop 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'd say it was a pleasure, but that would sound kind of weird.:) Still, it's a fascinating topic and a great question to ask.

I'd just like to add a comment though. To me, Hitler's suicide (and the suicides of all the rest) were the furthest thing from the punishment they deserved. To me, I see Hitler's suicide as one of the gravest of injustices. Unlike Eichmann, who got what he deserved, (that being seeing scores of Holocaust survivors recount his attrocities in front of his face, and in front of the world,) Hitler never faced that sort of justice. He never faced the shame of the world. He died at a time and in a method of his own choosing, without ever having to face his accusers. To me, that's one of the worst injustices of WWII. Loomis 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A good reason not to join the army. You can never know what idiot you might have to serve. DirkvdM 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Help linking an article

Today I found the article about the Kanawha County textbook controversy. It's quite interesting, but I'm disappointed to see that it isn't really mentioned in any other article (see its What links here). Which articles could this be mentioned in, or at least listed under "See also"? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

About great tragedies(in both war and peace)

After getting such a great resposes to the other question,i got another one,because I was thinking about this for some time:

Is the Hiroshima bombing the event that took most human lives at the time?My english isnt the best,so I apologise for that,but I think you understand me:Was there any other event that killed more people(I mean in the whole world history,not just WW2).

Thank you

Are you limiting to events that took place in one instant or events that could have taken many years, suich as Black Death? --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well,I was aiming on events that took place in one day(not neceserly one instant,for example 9/11 attacks would be the example,but it happend in one day time).

That's a hard question to answer as I'm not sure. While an estimated 80,000 Japanese died instantly in Hiroshima, I wouldn't at all be surprised if there was a particular day during WWII where more than that were killed, whether they were executed at concentration camps or killed on the battlefield. Remember that 50 million died in WWII. A vast majority of those towards the end.

Of course you never mentioned natural catastrophes. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake killed approximately 230,000. Though I'm not sure what portion of that were killed on the actual day of the Tsunami. Loomis 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of them. StuRat 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure Stu? I was figuring that a good portion of the deaths were due to the inevitable diseases that spread in the water supply due to decaying corpses etc. (Sorry to be so gruesome). Loomis 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

no they weren't. Diseases were kept well in check by a massive international response. Rmhermen 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More people died in the one-day conventional firebombing of Tokyo in World War II than died at Hiroshima. Rmhermen 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Death toll article also lists the Sack of Baghdad in 1258 with over 90,000 casualties in one day. Rmhermen 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Flaming and regular

In my marching band here are many people who help us with our steps and technique etc. The two men who help with the color guard are homosexual. One of them is really "flaming" i.e. he says stuff like "girlfriend" and likes to snap his fingers a lot. The other man, however, you wouldn't think about it twice if you met him. He acts just like any other man out there. I was wondering why some homosexual men are "regular" and others are really open about their sexual preference. schyler 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a person is 'flaming' often has very little to do with their sexual preference. Some gay guys, and some straight guys like to act in a very camp manner. Others, both gay and straight, do not. You may want to read Metrosexual for information on the way many men act. --Mnemeson 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not prefer to sleep with men or women, 'regular' is subjective; it is only YOUR opinion that you define what is 'regular' and what is not, and he is not a Flamer; it is in YOUR EYES that you see him as a flamer.100110100 01:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really. "Regular" isn't really subjective; it means "conforming to a standard or pattern"[29], and surely you'd agree that people who act in a "flaming" manner do not "conform to the standard" behavior pattern for a male in our society. I think that "regular" is an accurate, if somewhat potentially offensive, way to describe non-"flaming" people. -Elmer Clark 05:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ja, really. 'Regular' is what you've been socialized to think; everyone has been socialized differently. Also, and especially, some cultures do not see see don't see that behavior as flaming, as irregular, if they even have the term. It is VERY offensive. Please shut up, to put it bluntly. Just do it.100110100 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to bite! What if this is a high school student, or someone with English as a second language? In any case it sounds like they don't know very many gay people closely, so I wouldn't blame them for being a little insensitive with terminology. It seemed like an innocent question to me. --Grace 09:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It might help you to think of it as a personality difference. You probably know some people who are quiet and shy and others who are outgoing and friendly - these are all normal variations in personality, and most people, shy or outgoing, would probably say that they can't control the way they behave. Likewise, some gay men behave the way you describe, and others don't, just because they're different people. It's an individual thing - homosexuality isn't like a disease, where everyone with the same disease will have the same symptoms. --Grace 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a disease.100110100 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. "Homosexuality isn't like a disease": ie. it is not a disease. --Grace 09:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

October 9

Are There Any Wikipedia Articles That Discuss The Mistranlastion Of Homosexuality In The Bible?

Danke schön.100110100 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your question. "Homosexuality" is never actually mentioned in the Bible per se. All that is discussed is "a man laying with a man as with a woman" being an "abomination". As to what that means, your guess is as good as mine. Loomis 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When you asked this on the Miscellaneous desk earlier, you were pointed towards The Bible and homosexuality, I'm sure if we have any more they'll be linked to from there. --Mnemeson 01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying "mistranslation" would probably be labeled as POV or OR. Obviously, God is against the behaviour, not the person. God would not condemn someone for something that they could not change. BenC7 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some (not myself, but some, mostly those opposed to homosexuality) would say that sexual orientation is something a person can change, although this seems to go against most of the scientific inquiry into the subject as well as many individual non-heterosexuals' accounts (especially those who have had others try to change their orientation). CameoAppearance ^orate 07:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When will they ever learn? Forcing "normality" on people didn't work with left-handers. If they believe it's just a question of choice, have they ever wondered why people throughout history would choose to be subject to vilification, discrimination, violence and even murder, if it were in their power to choose something safer? Could a straight person choose to be gay? Could a straight man choose from tomorrow onwards to get involuntary erections at the sight of other men's naked bodies, when previously they had no such effect? Hardly. Why would it be any different the other way around? JackofOz 07:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Jack. But nice to see some spirit in you! In any case, it's quite known according to the Bible that King David "lay with another man". It's also quite known that Onan, son of Judah, was killed by God on the spot for "spilling his seed". Many interpret that as meaning that masturbation is a sin, punishable by instant death from God. Well, let me just say, if that were true, none of us, including Ben, (I like you Ben, but be honest with yourself!) would be alive today to have this discussion! That's not to say I'm not a religious person who takes the Bible seriously, and who fears God. It's just to say that I, just like anyone else, am mystified by certain of its otherwise "apparent" meanings. Loomis 09:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to mistranslate the words. It's also fairly hard to change their interpretation, but that won't stop anyone trying. It's not particularly clear from the Bible that King David "lay with another man". What's debated is whether the description of his love for Jonathan exceeding the love between a man a woman means that they had a gay relationship or not. Onan was not punished for spilling his seed. If you read the text (Gen 38:8 and 9), you can see he's punished for the reason why he spilled his seed. I've never heard any preacher of any religion claim that masturbation is a sin "punishable by instant death from God", but I'm sure there's some right-winger out there that could fulfil this shortcoming. --Dweller 09:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Representations of left as back and right as forward

Why is it so ubiquitous to have left represented as 'towards the back/backwards' and right as 'towards the front/forwards' in human (well, Western, at any rate) culture? I'm guessing it has some connection to the fact that most of us are right-handed, but I don't know if this is actually the case. CameoAppearance ^orate 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly something to do with the fact that most Western languages are read from left to right, too — left is the start/origin, and right is the finish/destination. -- Vardion 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of that. Can you give any examples? All I can think of is the backhand in tennis, which for trighthanded players indeed refers to the left side. But for left handed players it refers to the right side, so even there it doesn't hold true. And in writing one starts at the left, so that is actually the front. DirkvdM 08:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first example that comes to mind is browser buttons: 'back' is a left-facing arrow, and 'forward' is a right-facing arrow. CameoAppearance ^orate 09:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Social Class and Voting Behaviour

How significant a factor is social class when addressing long-term voting behaviour?

Sahara Desert turned to glass

I read something a while ago in a novel or comic book with some kind of post-apocalyptic setting, that mentioned the Sahara Desert having turned into a vast sheet of glass as a result of (perhaps) nuclear war. I think that the characters in the book referred to Africa only occasionally, and with a sort of shudder, like "let's not think about what happened to Africa". This image is all that sticks in my mind, and I'd like to know where I got it from. Does it sound familiar to anyone? --Grace 09:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)