Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Halcatalyst (talk | contribs) at 23:03, 8 January 2006 (→‎freedm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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  • Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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

January 3

What would be The Better career

With my interest in International Business, and architecture,what would be the better career?Which one would make the most money?You see,i'm interested in both,so if i go in either one,people will know thats its not just because of the money.Its kind of hard to choose between the two though,for me.I wonder if i can merge the two together...........which one is more popular based on peoples' view?These are a couple of things i need to know in order to pick either one.If i'm missing out on any additional information,please let me know when answering the question.Thank you for your time.

Andre' Ward

Is 'International Business' a particular career? Do you mean working for IBM, and if so, in what capacity? Notinasnaid 20:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean like working for companies that have businesses overseas.Yeah International Business can be considered a particular career.It depends though what you would do while in that business.Some people i've read about were in businesses like that,and then,some way started their own businesses or became intrapreneurs.With being an architect,you can build stuff and possibly start your own business.

Andre' Ward

  • Andre' my man, you need to go to a good university that offers both IB and architecture. (If you're an American, virtually every school with "State" in the name qualifies, so you'll have no shortage of options, but I recommend Carnegie Mellon if you can get in). As someone who has friends in both fields, I can tell you that you can make six figures in either field by the time you turn 30 if you go to a good school, get good grades, an exhibit the kind of social skills that big companies need in their most skilled employees. And yes, you can do both; Santiago Calatrava is a pretty good role model. --Mareino 21:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would civil engineering be a good way to get started?Because you see,I'm here in South Carolina,and i'm thinking about majoring in civil engineering at theUniversity of South Carolina since they don't have any architecture majors for right now.I know i read some things on certain architects,and some articles said that they started off with civil engineering and worked their way up.Some also majored in some art courses,just to keep that in mind.But overall,i just basically want to know if civil engineering would be a good beginning.

Andre' Ward

  • Yes, I'd say so. Since you're interested in the business end, I'd say art is not a good choice as an undergraduate major, but engineering is definitely good preparation.
  • Civil engineering is the oldest of the engineering disciplines, since something like it was used by the Egyptians, the Romans, and even ancient Britons (e.g., Avebury, which is like Stonehenge but older). Architecture is also obviously very old. Halcatalyst 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it comes down to your choice is between Civil Engineering (CE) and architecture you should consider your personal interests:
  • Do you like drawing and art? CE has no drawing or art, whereas Architecture has lots.
  • Do you do well at maths? You need to do the harder maths courses at school to do CE (gererally), whereas architects don't know what maths is (generally).
  • An engineering course is hard work, make sure you are really interested in the subjects (I can talk about this if you like) before you decide to do a four year degree. Architecture (at least at my uni) is not as hard.--Commander Keane 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm writing this from my desk at KPF so I think I can offer you some sound advice. These day's Architecture and International Business are essentially the same thing. Every large firm and many small firms do work around the world, especially with all the building happening in China and Southeast Asia. If you're interested in both I would consider enrolling in Architecture and taking some business classes. Firms always need people to act as Managing Architects who take care of the business end of things.

You don't sound like a design wonk, but I still wouldn't recommend Civil Engineering. If you want to make buildings do Architecture, if you want to make bridges do Civ-E. Both degrees are rigorous and difficult, but they prepair you for different things.

Finally you should consider that almost all accredited architecture schools in the U.S. are five year programs. You come away with a professional degree, but if you don't want to put in the extra year don't do it. The path to an architecture degree is paved with those who burned out along the way :) My school (PSU) enrolls about one hundred architecture under-grads each year and graduates fifty to sixty. Half of those who leave do so during or after their first year, many for business.

That said, I'm glad I chose architecture every day I walk into work. Jasongetsdown 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Architecture lucrative?Civil Engineering lucrative?I want to be nationally and internationally known for my works of buildings and other creations like others.I want to do something i enjoy and have good pay.Some architects have became both,engineers of all kinds and architects.I kind of changed my mind about going to the University of South Carolina because it doesn't offer architectural courses and Clemson University seems to be the only University with it.So which one is lucrative?

Andre' Ward

You will earn good pay as a civil engineer or an architect. I would guess that there is more oppurtunity to become famous as an architect. More importantly, civil engineers and architects do vastly different jobs - you should consider your interests when desciding between them. You have expressed interest in buildings. Civil engineers that work on buildings include (all hold a CE degree):
  • Strucutral engineers - design the building itself (I think this is what you might be interested in)
  • Geotechnical engineers - consider/test the soil below the building
  • Construction engineers - organise the construction of the building, on-site.
For example, consider the design of a small office building. An architect will work with the client in choosing the shape of the building, and the extras (like will it have glass cladding etc). Structural engineers will get the basic plan from the architect and do do calculations for the wind, earthquake and floor loads. They then choose beams, columns and a floor slab, possibly modifying the intitial architects plan. Usually the architect will organise the project, eg work with the engineers, the door suppliers, constructors etc.--Commander Keane 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 4

The Embargo Act

Was the embargo act of 1807 actually constitutional? -AK

  • A basic principle of the Constitution is that Congress enacts laws (article I). The famous case Marbury v. Madison (1803) set the precedent that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and can declare laws unconstitutional.
  • So, since it was legally enacted and not overruled, the Embargo Act was constitutional. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea. Halcatalyst 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Simply because the Supreme Court does not rule an act of legislation unconstitutional does not make it so. One must remember that sovereignty lies with the people, not the courts; for instance, slavery was never constitutional, even if the courts ruled otherwise for a time. MSTCrow 13:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The question, as I understood it, was whether the act was seen as consitutional at that time rather than whether it would be considered constitutional now. I believe it was.
  • It's true in principle, of course, that sovereignty lies with the people, not the courts. However, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's settled law that, short of constitutional amendments, the Supreme Court has the final word on what is "constitutional."
  • BTW, slavery was indeed constitutional. It was recognized implicity by the Three-fifths compromise during the Constitutional Convention. The 13th amendment (1865) abolished slavery. Halcatalyst 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Slavery was implicitly recognized because it wasn't possible to rip it out. The three-fifths clause was designed to limit the number of Representatives in the US House that the slave-holding States would have, thereby implicitly recognizing that slavery was unconstitutional, and allowing it to be enforced as such in the future, by placing legslative majority in non-slave holding states. I don't know how anyone can say that "it's settled law" that the Supreme Court has the final word on what is constitutional or not. That goes against our entire history of law, and the Supreme Court itself is not monolithic on holding such extensive and far-reaching powers. The only place such nonsense exists are government textbooks, which aren't known for being accurate anyways.
MSTCrow 01:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. My question was whether if we study the constitution now, was the act actually constitutional? I know at the time the supreme court didn't stop it, but there were many times laws and acts were passed that at the time the supreme court ignored or ruled was OK and later it was declared unconstitutional. What in the constitution allowed or didn't allow the passing of the embargo act? -AK
  • I would say, honestly, nothing, either way. The Consitution was what it was at the time, just as, today, it is what it is: A written document.
  • But American politics is and was in large part a "seat of the pants" operation. It involves a lot more people now than then, but... hey, it's about partisan politics and foreign policy. Jefferson was anti-British and pro-French; the French and the British were at war, and the British were shanghai-ing Americans to be British sailors. The Embargo Act attempted as a strong countermeasure to cut off Anglo-American trade. You could say that Jefferson was defending America, just like Bush today. Or you could say he was running wild, just like Bush today. Halcatalyst 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the opposite of the word intaglio (the antonym)?

Thank you for any help. Gina

The antonym of a carving? It doesn't have a logical opposite. --Kainaw (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nouns don't generally have opposites. But for what it's worth, the opposite of "an engraved thing" is "an unengraved thing". - Nunh-huh 02:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about relief? Dalembert 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cameo is an antonym. Halcatalyst 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Who wrote the poem containing the following passages: I loved you and perhaps I love you still The flame perhaps is not extinguished It burns so quitely within my soul No longer should you feel distressed by it .... ?

These lines?:

"I loved you; and perhaps I love you still,
The flame, perhaps, is not extinguished; yet
It burns so quietly within my soul,
No longer should you feel distressed by it.
Silently and hopelessly I loved you,
At times too jealous and at times too shy.
God grant you find another who will love you
As tenderly and truthfully as I. "



What are the effects of shoplifting on the community?

plz and thnk u

  • Increases the cost of items to everybody else, as businesses must raise prices to cover losses.
  • Increases in mistrust in the community, with security guards needed for all businesses.

StuRat 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't know about you, but I prefer an increase in price for items to cover security expenses rather than losses. Otherwise you never stop it. - 09:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Adds to everyone overhead to pay justice system to warehouse the people who got caught into prison, where the cost of doing so is often higher than the value of the stuff they swiped. User:AlMac|(talk) 11:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Increases other crimes. Once a person happily commits one crime and gets away with it, others don't seem so bad. --Kainaw (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-> this theory, that simple crimes make way to bigger ones which i beliave is called "broken window theory" lacks cientifical foundation. When it was aplied ( namely, to the secury of New York ) it did not cause noticible change in crime rates ( yes, crime dropped, but when you consider the influence of the number of cops , that has raised, and the overall crime reduction throughout the USA, this and all the other revolutionri crime fighing theories seem to have little influence, if any ) source : freakonomics

as to prices, well, they are pretty more complex than that ... some of then might rise, while other can't due to other characteristics of the markets

Tasmanian Real Estate Agents

What does Tasmanian Real Estate Agents mean?

I dont know if you are from Australia, but it is more than likely the name of a group of people who sell Real Estate in Tasmania--Ali K 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People who buy and sell land and houses and business facilities in Tasmania, I would imagine. StuRat 06:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
is referring to a cryptic hint I gave her for an earlier question. Herein lies a lesson in how to use Google. Go to the website and type the words "Denmark" and "Tasmania" into the search box, and click the search button. It will become abundantly clear what I'm referring to; a specific real estate agent from Tasmania who holds a prominent place in the minds of the Danish people. --Robert Merkel 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a good reason as to why that is the case (it's in the article, but I'll explain it here anyhow): Crown Princess Mary of Denmark worked as a Tamanian real estate agent, prior to her meetup with, and subsequent marraige to, Crown Prince Frederick. --JB Adder | Talk 07:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, no, actually. She was never a real estate agent personally, as in having a licence to conduct such a business. She was employed by a real estate firm, as a sales director. And it was in Sydney, not Tasmania. JackofOz 08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about myself?

What dating system was around back when christian monks preserved written history of my existance through the dark ages? Was it this BCE crap? No, I didn't think so--Xenaphon 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but it wasn't BC either, and they knew how to spell your name correctly. Adam Bishop 06:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See section 2 of Anno Domini. Gdr 11:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if it's mentioning Wikipedia:Three revert rule in connection with Xenophon. Notinasnaid 12:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

huh? can someone explain this question to me please? --Cosmic girl 03:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer Cosmic Girl (or try to), there was this Greek philosopher. Two people have joined Wiki, using that person's name as their account names, one of them misspelled. Plus the two of them have not been having a harmonious relationship. At the time of the REAL Greek philosopher, assuming one or more of these accounits is not claiming to be reincarnation of the REAL guy, there must have been some kind of Calendar system. Then over the centuries, new kinds of systems were developed, such as the Mayan calendar. Was it them, or the Aztecs that had a Y2K type of end-of-universe time when their Gods would play havoc with their civilization? Most of the West today is on the Julian calendar which is named after some Pope in the middle ages, where AD means after Christ (the D for latin for him that I not remember the spelling for), and BC means before Christ. Meanwhile the Chinese, and some other folks are on some other calendar system (I know about some of this because you can set on some computer systems to compenstate for which system you doing business with). So I understand the question, I just not know the answer. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the words of Mrs. Broslofsky, "What what what?" Most of the West uses the Gregorian calendar, not the Julian calendar, and the Julian calendar is named after Julius Caesar, not a medieval pope. If the question is what dates did monks use for Xenophon (c. 427-355 BC) before the notation of "BC" was invented, they'd likely have used ab urbe condita, Alexandrian era, or Anno Diocletiani dates. The "D" in anno domini dates stands for "domini" or lord, not the Latin for "Christ". 355 BC is roughly 399 AUC. - Nunh-huh 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I understand the question, I just not know the answer, and there's obviously a lot of stuff I think I know but don't really. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although he wrote some philosophical dialogues, Xenophon wasn't just a philosopher. He was also a soldier, mercenary, politician, historian and novelist. Xenophon himself identified did not number years but identified them by the events that took place in them. For example, in Hellenica he identifies some years like this:

... the year of the evening eclipse of the moon, and the burning of the old temple of Athena. (i.e. 406 BC)

Some Greek historians dated by Olympiads; thus 406 BC would be the 3rd year of the 92nd Olympiad. Gdr 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese art

Is anyone familiar with 'azuma'? Japanese anime? Thanks!

What I meant was...can someone explain/define what 'azuma' is? Thanks.

Are you looking for Kiyohiko Azuma, manga artist? Or maybe Hiroki Azuma, a critic who has written about anime? (See Azuma for other, less likely, possibilities.) Gdr 16:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

britain armour

what was armour and swords like in britain after the romans left? was it like roman armor or pict armor or saramatian armor? and what were the swords like?


I'm doing a report on the meanings and what different flags of the world symbolize. What do these flags symbolize? I just need websites, and I can take it from there. Sarah

1. India 2.Japan 3. Denmark 4. Italy

Your help would be greatly appreciated!

We have articles on all of these which explain them in great detail. See Flag of India, Flag of Japan, and so on. —Keenan Pepper 17:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Truth be told, for most vexillological topics, the Flags of the World website is still a much better resource than Wikipedia.--Pharos 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

best selling male solo artist

who is the best selling male solo artist

In terms of records sold worldwide, I believe it is Elvis Presley. - Akamad 19:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our article on Elvis Presley says that he "[h]as sold over one billion records worldwide - the first to do so - and is the best selling record artist in history." Our article on Michael Jackson notes his departure from the Jackson 5 and states that "[h]e has since become the biggest selling solo artist of all-time, with worldwide sales of over 300 million.[1],[2],[3]" My first thought was that Jackson must have sold more records because the population was so much larger during his peak years, but, against that, he seems to have had longer breaks between albums than Elvis did. Because of Jackson's early work with his brothers, it's conceivable that both our articles are wrong -- that Elvis is the best-selling solo artist but that Jackson has sold more records than anyone else (if you count all the Jackson 5 records). Ah, but in that case, could Paul McCartney aggregate Beatles plus Wings plus solo records? I don't know. Even All Music Guide equivocates, saying that Elvis's extraordinary sales figures "may make him the single highest-selling performer in history." [4] Thanks loads, you wussies. It would be nice if we could get all this cleared up by Elvis's birthday this coming Sunday. JamesMLane 09:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sincerely doubt that the Jackson 5 sold over 700 million records (which is what Michael Jackson would need in addition to his 300 million sales in order to even equal Elvis's tally). MJ does have the biggest selling album of all time. Proto t c 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hitler's invasions

What kept hitler from invading Switzerland or Sweden?

See Switzerland during the World Wars (also Operation Tannenbaum) and Sweden during World War II. (Other European nations which remained neutral throughout WW2 were the Republic of Ireland, Spain, Liechtenstein, and Portugal.) Gdr 18:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha, people just ask this now because it's the example question. Come to think of it, I seem to remember a lot of people asking about the capital of South Africa before I changed it... =P —Keenan Pepper 19:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And don't forget to read answer previously posted on this page. - Mgm|(talk) 19:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Having some nuetral areas was helpful to the NAZIs, for example, by allowing for simple prisoner exchanges with the Allies. Later on, they provided a possible escape route for NAZIs wanting to avoid trials and punishment. StuRat 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • And, don't forget, an escape route for their money, as well! From Switzerland: "Modern historical findings, such as the research done by the Bergier commission, indicate that another major factor [that the German invasion was never initiated] was the continued trade by Swiss banks with Nazi Germany." Common Man 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe people keep asking this question because it's the example question at the head of the refernce section? Halcatalyst 05:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually maybe it's because human nature is to not read. (See three lines above yours :) - Taxman Talk 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And that's tragic, because without written language, we wouldn't have civilization. OTOH, maybe that would be a good thing. In any case, as the linguists insist over on the Language reference desk, the only real languages are spoken ones. {You'll have to pardon me today. I'm not feeling cynical, but rather too much in the both/and band of reality.} Halcatalyst 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ku Klux Klan - burning cross

Why do the Ku Klux Klan burn crosses? The article just says it comes from some movie, but it doesn't seem to say what it stands for. It comes across sort of like burning a flag, but somehow anti-chistianity (or what should I call that) doesn't seem to fit in with the Klan. DirkvdM 18:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The movie, The Birth of a Nation, is based on the book The Clansman. The book is the first historical mention of KKK cross burning. However, the writer, Thomas Dixon, admitted that he took liberty with the cross burning. It wasn't from the KKK. It was from the Scottish history (particularly one of Dixon's favorite poems "The Lady of the Lake"). D. W. Griffith knew that a burning cross would look great in his movie. So, he kept it. The KKK liked it and adopted the practice. --Kainaw (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annexation Laws in South Carolina

I wonder why are the annexation laws so strict in South Carolina.I mean why?It slows down the expansion and growth of some cities.But now today,some cities of SC are still growing regardless.They complain about urban sprawl,well i'm like maybe if the annexation laws weren't so strict maybe they could possibly capture and stop urban sprawl.Will these annexation laws change in the future?Because i think its ridiculous.I mean its an alright state and everything and its highly recognized in the country,but still though these laws has gots to go.Its either that or pick another General Assembly or another team of the state government instead.Thats the way i see it.

Andre' Ward

The laws are strict to protect the poor. Look at James Island outside of Charleston as an example. They have tried multiple times to annex themselves as their own city. The catch is that they only want to annex the rich parts of James Island and leave the poor parts for the city of Charleston. The annexation laws require James Island to annex it all or take none of it. If it wasn't for such laws, all the poor parts of SC would be annexed as one city and all the rich parts would be another. --Kainaw (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have mentioned why this is a problem. The reason for annexing only rich neighborhoods is to avoid paying taxes to support the poor. Take a peek at the census and you can see that in South Carolina it is very much a racial issue as well. The poor neighborhoods are predominately black. The rich ones are predominately white. So, selective annexation is also a tool to keep black children out of white schools. Also of note: The James Island case that I mentioned has been back and forth through the courts. They have been instructed to annex all of James Island or none of it. They continue to try and find ways to be selective. Similarly, Daniel Island is currently in a predominately black county. It is a new hot-spot for rich whites to move to. So, they are fighting to be reannexed to the neighboring predominately white county. Again, a rich/poor and black/white issue. --Kainaw (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, rich people are still free to move away to avoid being asked to support the poor people around them. This has happened in my home town of Detroit, which is now into a serious budget crisis as a result of the rich moving to the suburbs. StuRat 09:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are more ways to solve the municipal governance questions than there are states in the union. In Pennsylvania, for example, there simply is no unincorporated space -- everything is a self-governed community of some sort -- and merging or reorganizing them requires majority votes by every involved constituency, plus the state legislature. Why? Because Pennsylvania places a huge value on historical continuity, and so far, is willing to pay the social costs attendant with that value. South Carolina's system has its flaws, but any change is certain to have non-obvious consequences, and that gives most politicians pause. --Mareino 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twelfth Night

Hi, in the play Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare, act 2 scene 5, when Malvolio was reading the letter he said '"M.O.A.I." doth sway my life' what does MOAI stand for? Thanks

Gosh I hope that's not a homework question, which we don't answer (see above). But there are places that might be able to help. Have you tried SparkNotes? --George 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean he wasn't talking about the Moai? Joking aside, M.O.A.I. is believed to have been an inside joke. Some people (ie: Leimberg) claim to know what it means, but others refute their claims. --Kainaw (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


which theologians have influenced current catholic thought? I mean, in which theology is current catholiscism based? and also christianism. thnx.--Cosmic girl 23:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe Catholicism was mostly invented around the time the Roman Empire switched to Christianity, starting with Constantine in 312 AD. Many of the self-serving doctrines, like the infallibility of the Pope, the right to torture and murder anyone who disagreed with the Pope, and the selling of indulgences, came about subsequently. I believe this is a manifestation of the saying "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely". I will leave it to others to list the specific people who invented these policies. StuRat 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. StuRat 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the Catholic question, you will most definently want to read our article on Doctors of the Church. The biggest name, however, is certainly Thomas Aquinas.
I'm not clear on your other question - I don't know what "Christianism" is. If you mean non-Catholic Christianity, there are many such theologians. You could do worse than to start with Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli. And here are some select articles on more recent and influential movments in Christian theology: Karl Barth, Liberation theology, Historical Jesus, Fundamentalist Christianity. --George 00:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can Ratzinger speak of rationality when religion is inherently irational? I mean, miracles aren't rational, the trinity isn't rational,stuff like that isn't rational,dogma isn't rational since we are creative creatures, so why does he have a theology of the 'rational'? how come?--Cosmic girl 15:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I think many people have argued that religion is not inherently irrational. In Catholic theology, Aquinas springs right to mind, as does the whole tradition of natural theology. For that matter, all the arguments for or against the existence of god(s) are based on the presupposition that one can reason about religion. --George 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Catholicism works a lot like the common law. New ideas always build upon the old, which reinforces the impression that the Church is unchanging. And considering they are talking about life, the universe, and everything, the Church takes great pride in how slowly and carefully it develops new thought. --Mareino 02:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lebanese unload

When I wrote the stub Lebanese unload I thought this would be notable. I could think of one incident where firing guns into the air as a sign of celebration was very prominent (in Albania). Does anyone have historical context and other recent examples of this ritual? JFW | [email protected] 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe there was at least one incident where wedding guests in Iraq were bombed by US planes as a result of this practice, which the planes took as hostile enemy fire. Also, you might want to mention that the bullets come back down at almost the initial velocity, and have killed civilians when they do so. This practice is therefore illegal in most cities. StuRat 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually this came up in a past reference desk question (I don't recall where, but you could find it in the archives if you really wanted) where I thought the bullets come back at the same speed too. The conclusion at the time was that wind resistance is a bigger factor than I thought and they only come down at something like 20-30% of initial velocity. I think that's still more than enough to kill though. I also recall reading articles well before the latest Iraq war on firing guns into the air being a not uncommon practice in the middle east, but I never found them again to confirm that. On that specific term being used, I've never heard it. - Taxman Talk 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every New Year's Eve, the police in Los Angeles warn people not to shoot their guns in the air at midnight. People don't seem to understand that their bullets have to come down somewhere. Usually through the roof of somebody else's house. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 5

List of crazy Laws and government policies

Just wanting to compile a list of what the title basicly states that have been passed throughout history, eg. Cambodia, Pol Pots policy of genecide of those who wore glasses etc. (7121989 01:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

  • "Crazy" is sort of a matter of opinion. You and I might agree that Pol Pot's policies were nuts, and so might The Vast Majority of Humanity, but that doesn't make it so. That said, you'll have to do your own homework if you want to cover all of history. But do have a look at Pol Pot and The Killing Fields. Halcatalyst 04:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek and Hebrew

Is there a place where I can learn greek letters pretty well? Hebrew as well (and prehaps actually learn the latter language)

The former because we're reading the Odyssey and it would be nice to understand some of the footnotes, and the latter because I have a Jewish background.

Ilyanep (Talk) 02:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you just want the letters of the alphabets, see Greek alphabet and Hebrew alphabet. Actually learning the languages is a bit out of the scope of Wikipedia, but you should be able to find some basic language guides and phrase books on Wikibooks for Hebrew and Greek. --Canley 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've recently commenced learning Hindi on my own, and found that through some searching it is fairly easy to put together a list of free resources for learning popular languages. First check the external links in our articles on the language, then google for learn Hebrew, and filter out the crap. Eventually by following links and recommendations you'll find a bunch of good websites. For Hindi I was able to find quite a number of sites that would teach you the script, how to write it and pronounce it with audio samples and animations, etc. Then your local library should have some of the teach yourself Hebrew type books, or if you want to spend some cash the local bookstore will certainly have a few or buy them on Amazon or, etc. I also highly recommend the Pimsleur audio lessons with some caveats. The method itself is awesome and makes a ton of sense, but their choice of words to emphasize is not perfect. A few of the words they teach you are really stupid ones that no native speaker would use. So as long as you consider that, 95% of the words you'll and all of the sentence structure, etc that you learn will be very helpful. They're a bit expensive so if you live near a large university their language learning center or library may have them available. Combining whatever of the above methods should work if you're persistent. After 5 or so months of less than a couple hours a week on average I think I'm well ahead of where I'd be if I'd taken a class because I can learn the way I want to. - Taxman Talk 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just Google "learn hebrew" and you'll get many results. - AK

The Violation of Jasmine Lynn

Please list the actresses in the movie The Violation of Jasmine Lynn by uniform number. In particular, I want to know who #00 and #69 are.

No. Do your own, um, homework. Proto t c 12:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I wanted to know who #69 is: she's really cute. (Jasmine Lynn wears #70, I know that much...)
IMDB has a cast list for this movie; from there you should be able to find pictures (try google image search, for instance) of each to determine which one you're looking for. Don't try this from your work PC unless you're really trying to get yourself fired...--Robert Merkel 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was Jesus real?

See historicity of Jesus, and perhaps you should think about what you mean by the question. Did you mean "was there a religious leader in Judea who went by the name Jesus about 2000 years ago", or did you mean "was the son of God born in Bethlehem about 2000 years ago, and did he (amongst other alleged miracles) walk on water, turn water into wine, and die on the cross only to be resurrected a couple of days later?". Many non-Christians would answer "maybe" to the first question and "no" to the second.--Robert Merkel 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, even atheists and critics of Christianity often, if not usually, believe that Jesus existed, but was only a man. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, not only admits the historicity of Jesus but shows a good deal of admiration for the man - despite extreme disdain of the religion that followed him. --Tothebarricades 06:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe C.S. Lewis wrote many proofs that Jesus was the Son of God. I read his book Miracles some time ago, and was convinced myself. Personally, I believe that there is nothing to lose if one believes in the existence of God, Jesus, miracles, etc. - indeed, there is something to be gained. Igor the Lion(Roar!) 11:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anybody's interested, this argument in favour of believing in God is basically Pascal's Wager. --Robert Merkel 12:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lewis'most famous argument in favor of the divinity of Jesus is actually his trilemma -George 14:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Jesus didn't actually exist, then some alternate explanation would be needed for how Christianity began. I say we go with the simplest explanation and say that a person, named Jesus, did live some 2000 years ago. As for the miracles and divinity of Jesus, I will leave that to the theologians to argue indefinitely. StuRat 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I repent upon my "duck and cover" attitude. The question is sensible.
There can’t be any consensus beween encyclopedists about such a big one, and my own reluctance must not matter.
One true fact is that Jesus existed and exists for some men. Their truth cannot be ignored. Others don’t believe it and there are no proofs else than - good faith.
Imagine that prescription time is not due and that the case would be submitted to a judge : a man was condemned to death by an illegal power (Rome conquered Palestine without any reason like a retaliation from aggression) but there is no evidence : what to do ?
Who to hear in court, who to condemn : the Holy empire was some legal follower of the latin one, but is it somewhat extinct. The Church took plenty of the empire’s powers, plus some more, but those powers are extinct too. Sure, they kept some archive of such cases : do that material follow our criteria of falsification (in Popper’s sense) ? The gospels were written centuries after the alleged facts and are suspected of bold refactoring.
If, like Pascal, you give benefit to doubt, this is not a scientist attitude. --Harvestman 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Gospels are, as we know, historally inaccurate, as they were written some decades after Jesus died, and were thus mostly hearsay. We can confirm, however, which miracles happened and which ones might not have happened, by the sheer simplicity of seeing the number of times a certain miracle was written in the Gospels. Some of them appear in all four Gospels, some of them appear in even the newly discovered ones (I think), etc. I think that would build up its chances of being real, wouldn't it? Anyhow, we all accept that the Gospels are inaccurate, though only to a certain degree.
As for the benefit of the doubt, I exercise that towards my fellow man, and maybe towards God, but there really is no need. I have witnessed some small "miracles" myself and others I had verified by several eyewitnesses (now tell me about a mass hallucination theory, go on). I don't mean really great miracles like the sun crashing down to Earth, or the parting of the Pacific Ocean, I mean small "coincidences" that all happen at the opportune moment, needless to say, simultaneously, as if some Great Cosmic Force hath manipulated them.
For instance, when I was 12 (I don't mean to brag, but this is a good example of what I am talking about), I entered a national music competition (violin), and my violin teacher, quite shockingly, neglected to teach me in favor of his other students. He and his other students withheld one of the concert pieces from me, so that we had to negotiate with the board of judges to let me play another (available) piece. I was not given a single lesson for 4 months, and only received coaching from my accompanist, who is a pianist and naturally had no experience with the violin. All the pieces were difficult, and without a teacher, my chances of winning were extremely low. Moreover, one of the judges was biased against my teacher and his students.
So I practised hard by myself, without any help from any violin teacher, and, come the week of the competition, I win. Youngest competitor in the high school category. First prize. And to top it all, I was surprised to learn that this judge who was biased against my teacher and co. actually voted for, and defended, me. Now how do we explain this? Use Occam's razor and you come up with the explanation that a)I'm a darn good violinist (which would really be a nice compliment but still far from reality); b)I cheated (but there is zero opportunity for cheating in a music contest, unless you smuggle in a CD, and that's going to be pretty obvious); or c)I bribed the judges (also out of the question, esp. as a "rival" judge voted for his opponent). I am left with the outlandish idea that perhaps God had something to do with this. Perhaps He sent down His Holy Spirit to enlighten the minds of the judges? Who knows.
For the atheists, I know this is quite strong language for you, and you might automatically put up your defenses and say, "That isn't true because we know it can't happen," or, "There can't possibly be a God," or other variations thereof. Permit me, however, to subject you to another anecdote I believe may support the existence of God.
In the recent past, quite a few years ago, something extraordinary happened to my brother (henceforth, I shall tone down my language and use only scientific terms). He was a young boy then, eleven years old, and on that specific day, he snuck out of his room to play ball with his friends on the street. This was in direct violation of his mother's orders, but you know how young boys are. So, at around 1300 hours, Manila time, he went out of the house and played ball on the pavement. While they were playing, one of the boys kicked the ball into the street, so my brother ran to get it. Unbeknownst to him, there was a taxicab traveling towards him at a velocity of 50-60 kph, and at the same moment that my brother ran onto the street, the taxi hit him. So great was the force of the impact that my brother flew into the air, rotated exactly 720° in midair, and landed on the other side of the street on his bottom, just in time to see another(!) oncoming car stop right in front of him (about a foot away). He was promptly rushed to the hospital, tests were done, etc. etc. and the startling findings were that he had obtained not one single bruise, cut, concussion, broken bone, or ruptured organ. Abrasions were negligible. In the doctor's words, "it was as if nothing had ever happened." To top it all, the taxi that hit him had been dented.
If you are ever in doubt, as I was when I first heard it, rest assured that I have verified this tale with all the eyewitnesses, and the medical and police records still exist, unaltered. I now ask you to answer two simple questions: what are the chances of a boy in that circumstance coming out alive and without a single bruise? What are the chances of the taxi getting dented? I haven't worked out the math, but I believe that the answer to both questions is "very, very small". That all the circumstances fitted together in such a way that my brother did not get hurt is, for me, enough to prove that a God (or a deity or great cosmic fluid of some sort) exists in the universe and that he is merciful enough to prevent a young, unimportant little boy from getting injured. There have been many more incidents and scenarios that prove that, at least, the good triumphs over evil, and that there is a God.
I am not one to give in to compromises or to "mystical" explanations of things. For one thing, I do not believe in UFO's, aliens, psychics, King Kong (aka Bigfoot), and related stuff (though I do believe in ghosts, an abundance of which we have in the Philippines), so I am pretty hard to sway. However, very early on, the Hand of God (for atheists: influence of the great cosmic fluid or something similar) has influenced my life and the parameters not under my control. You may say that to believe in God as Pascal's gambler did is a compromise, and I think so too. One should not believe in God just because if there is a God, you would be better off. One should believe in Him always. There is enough proof in the world (disregarding "intelligent design" and variants thereof) if one just has enough patience and motivation to look for it. And one has to be open to the evidence, and be objective. Eventually, skepticism will crumble, and one will see that there is a God, and one may have already seen Him before(!), under the names Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and so on. C.S. Lewis was an atheist before he was convinced that God existed. Einstein, too. Some well-known psychiatrist, too, was an atheist, before he accumulated enough evidence that convinced him that He exists. And if God exists, then Jesus exists/ed, as we get miracles from him, too. I would think so.
This leads me to another question. We may now assume that God and Heaven exist, whether you like it or not. C.S. Lewis, in his Chronicles of Narnia illustrated the scenario of a non-Catholic doing good work and eventually ending up in Aslan's Paradise. In real terms, an atheist does much good in the world, and when he dies, he is surprised to find himself in heaven. My question is that would this truly happen? Would God even accept an honest and good non-believer into His Paradise? Igor the Lion(Roar!) 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I hope so, my faith sustains the hope, and I believe more than anything else that God is love (not the WP article, which is about a band).

Etymology of the French word roman

What is the etymology of this word? Online Latin dictionaries are no good, and I'm curious as to whether it derives from Latin or has anything to do with our word "Roman" or what. --Tothebarricades 06:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you move your question over to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, where one could hope the language mavens hang out. JamesMLane 08:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it is a cognate of the english word "roman", both originating with the Latin word "romanus" (= english "roman"). From "romanus" you have in Latin "romanicus" (of Roman origin/style), which turned into old french "romanz" (to write in vernacular language, "roman style" as opposed to a non-latin tounge). From this you have the english "romance", originally meaning "written in french", but eventually shifting towards today's meaning "a love story". And in French you also got "roman" = a novel. The word "roman" in that sense has been borrowed into German and most Germanic languages. Note the english word "novel" is from Italian "novella" or French "nouvelle" meant "new", (from "new story"), but in those languages it means "a short story", as does the english "novella". So you have to watch out: "a novel" isn't "eine novelle" or "une nouvelle" but rather "ein roman"/"un roman". --BluePlatypus 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! --Tothebarricades 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Roman-ces were called romans in French because, initially, these were tales re Roma -- matters of the founding of Rome. Each of the works dealt with an Aeneid-like tale. Gently and slowly, the works began concentrating instead upon other figures from roughly the same lineage (cf. Roman de la Rose and the early Arthurian tales that place Arthur at 230 AD). So, from "Roman tales" they came to be "Arthur tales" to "courtly tales." Just general slippage. In English, the roman died out, somewhat, while it continued in France and Spain. Therefore, when the English began to re-import these stories (particularly Orlando Furioso), they came to use the French "roman" and pluralize it. Hence, the English word "romance" referred to such courtly stuff, while the later term "novel" was used to refer to the "new tales" and "novelties." Geogre 22:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spain? But the Spanish term is "novela." Weird how French kept the roman term through all this time. --Tothebarricades 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for my ignorance of the Spanish. That is interesting, because the romance continues without significant interruption in Spain. It is, after all, the literature that Don Quixote is making fun of. The Don had read too much romance and convinced himself that he was a knight. Cervantes represents a break, and the picaresque comes, I think, from Spain to England. Perhaps you know when "novello" comes to replace "roman" in Spanish? Geogre 04:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

string length?

how long is a piece of string? and where does this question originate?

thanks to all Angus more- gordie

You could try taking all the angels that fit on the head of a pin, laying them end-to-end, and then measuring them. Ba-dum, chhh! But this does sound like an intentionally unanswerable question, such as a koan (the sound of one hand clapping, tree falling in a forest with no one around, etc.). Contemplate the unknowable... TheSPY 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)TheSPYReply[reply]
I've heard the question posed as a joke. The "correct" answer is: twice the distance from the center to either end. I have no idea about its origin. JamesMLane 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you referring to strings, as in String theory, if so, I believe they are in the order of a Planck length (10-35m). If this is what you meant, best to ask this on the Science reference desk. - Akamad 11:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Varies with what system you are talking about. In most older basic interpreters and pascal compilers, they are at most 255 characters long, but newer compilers usually shift this restriction. (I've also heared that some basic interpreter had the vary low limit of 6 characters.) Length of a source line is also commonly limited to 255 characters. In old seds, the buffer length is limited to 4000 characters. In classical vi, line length was limited to what fits on a single screen, otehrwise the line couldn't be displayed. In the age of windows 3.1, many applications and languages limited it to 2^32 or 2^31 characters. Nowdays these kinds of arbitary constraints are rare -- they are usually only limited by how much virtual memory (or address space, if that's smaller) can hold. A limit on the length of filenames is usually enforced by most systems though, as otherwise there would be a danger of accidentally creating files that are haro to delete because their pathname doesn't fit in the memory. – b_jonas 22:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bucky Fuller

Hi, does any of u guys know what was Buckminster Fuller? ( an atheist, agnostic, theist?) I've already read the article but I can't find anything that gives me that information.--Cosmic girl 16:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The guy believed that the universe was a Great bucky ball administered by a godlike fullerene. Little progress has been done about those questions of faith. I still can't figure out why a cosmic person can ignore such things.

But let us imagine that faith pertains to private life : why such a question ? Do I define myself in terms of my beliefs, should I ?--Harvestman 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who Was Buckminster Fuller? by E.J. Applewhite says:

Buckminster Fuller had one of the most fascinating and original minds of his century. Born in 1895 in Milton, Massachusetts, he was the latest--if not the last--of the New England Transcendentalists. Like the transcendentalists, Fuller rejected the established religious and political notions of the past and adhered to an idealistic system of thought based on the essential unity of the natural world and the use of experiment and intuition as a means of understanding it. But, departing from the pattern of his New England predecessors, he proposed that only an understanding of technology in the deepest sense would afford humans a proper guide to individual conduct and the eventual salvation of society. Industrial and scientific technology, despite their disruption of established habits and values, was not a blight on the landscape, but in fact for Fuller they have a redeeming humanitarian role.

Gdr 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank u guys,I think Bucky was a really cool person :). ps. that cosmic person comment was funny. :) --Cosmic girl 19:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

isn't it ironic that bucky balls are destructive while bucky fuller wasn't destructive at all?.lol. --Cosmic girl 20:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buckyballs are destructive?? —Keenan Pepper 03:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think they have something to do with free radicals and they damage cells somehow, but I don't know.--Cosmic girl 13:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The Fullerene article has a section on possible dangers. It sounds like you're already read it :-) . Halcatalyst 19:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actually I read it somewhere else, but I don't remember where, is it ok to say you're already read it or is it you've already read it ? I thought it was the 2nd one.--Cosmic girl 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the Transcendentalist memo. Nothing to do with Maharishi's TM. I'll complete my creed by saying thay one does not define him|herself by his faith : his faith defines him and the actions he takes on. As a cosmic person too I believe that all our world belong to us and that creed makes me a WPian. --Harvestman 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I believe we (humanity) have recorded history through whatever means we possesed at the time. for example through cave paintings and then through written word after we developed language, but also, it's not only what the people before us recorded willingly, it is also what we find with sciences like archeology, those things are records too, but they weren't made purposefully to be a record, they where only part of the daily life of those people, hope this helps. :) --Cosmic girl 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is regarded as "history" today is largely a product of the late 19th century. Much of what came before that had a very different notion of history — the Bible, for example, has aspects which we would clearly identify as "historical" but it is not written for the same purposes or using the methods of a Rankean historian. The "simple" recording of events is known generally as chronicling, but even that is a number of different practices spread over time and space. Our article on historians gives a very schematic outline of the history of historical thought and method. Our article on recorded history might also be useful. --03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Winning Superbowl Head Coaches

How many teams that have won the superbowl were coached by a head coach who had been there before; either as a head coach an assistant, or player? Of the ones that didn't have Superbowl experience; how many had been in involved in a National Championship at the Collegiate level.

This question would take some research to answer. Visit this list of Super Bowl coaches and then Google-search the winners. -- Mwalcoff 00:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I researched it as to the coaches who had been to the Super Bowl as a player, assistant coach, or head coach. I didn't research the collegiate championships. By my count, 29 of the 39 Super Bowl-winning teams had head coaches who had been to the Super Bowl before either on the winning or losing side as a player, assistant coach, or head coach. --Metropolitan90 09:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

The article on the 1986 reorganization act of the military gives me the impression that the Joint Chiefs do very little in their day-to-day jobs. It says that they hold no direct control over the military. If this is true, then if a major war broke out between the United States and a powerful nation, would the Secretary of Defense be the one in charge of planning the overall troop movements? Would he design the campaigns and then send the orders off to the troops to execute them? This seems strange to me...can anyone give me a clue as to what the Chairman actually does?

-- 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you read the article on the Joint Chiefs of Staff? The initial section answers your question, and your supposition is more or less correct. While the Secretary of Defense is not likely to be planning troop movements, he is part of the chain of command for those units. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what are the actual sales of amerie's latest album because it said us certification as Platinum

is her album platinum? where did u get that information

I had a look on the site, if you search "Amerie" as artist, it states that All I have is Gold, but does not list Touch as either gold or platinum, therefore, I am going to remove the reference to the platinum status. - Akamad 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why did witch hunting decline during the 17th century?

[no question]

Much like whales, witches were overhunted and their population suffered drastically until the recent advent of conservation efforts.
On a more serious note, the western world increasingly looked to scientific rather than superstitious explanations for events. When you don't believe the witches are at fault, you don't bother hunting them. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a supplemant to Lomn's comment, see Scientific revolution. --Tothebarricades 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, any "witch hunt", taken in the broadest sense, will eventually "run out of steam". The "witch hunt" of the US House Unamerican Activities Committee in the 1950s and many revolutions, like the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and (Chinese) Cultural Revolution had many similar features, such as condemning people on little or no evidence, such as their unwillingness to denounce others. Such "witch hunts" eventually either attack powerful figures who are capable of launching a counter-offensive (such as the military, in the US case) or begin to scare the majority of the population, as they feel the "witch hunt" has spread far enough that they might personally be harmed by it. Thus, a certain "tipping point" is reached where the majority oppose the "witch hunts" and put an end to them. StuRat 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. All witch-hunts, literal ones and modern ones were cases of mass hysteria. And those come and go as long as there is fear for them to feed on. Witch-hunts died out in the 18th century because the enlightenment got rid of the superstitions and fear of witches. --BluePlatypus 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] be replaced with any number of silly moral panics. Nothing ever changes. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I think you're all a bit off the mark, here. The question should not be "why did witch hunts stop," but "why did they start?" Further, the question cannot be asked universally. Why did they occur in Germany? Why did they occur in France? Why in Italy? Did some nations have fewer than others? In fact, in England, what we find is that there were very few witch trials and hangings prior to the 17th century and then very few after only a few years. Why is that? Well, consider the political temper of the time. When heretic trials are underway, there are fewer witch hunts. Secondly, James I of England had written a book on Demonology before coming to the British throne and had a strong belief in witches. Thus, during his reign, it was good politics to find witches. After he was no longer king, witch trials dry up rapidly and go back to their pre-Jacobite numbers. Interesting, yes? By 1710, they're regarded as a freak show by people in London. On the other hand, in Germany there were many more witch trials right along. One reason may be the type of Protestantism in a particular place. For whatever reason, the German folk and Scottish folk inflections of Protestant thought held a higher belief in witches than the Church of England sort. Geogre 22:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South Carolina's Growing Cities

South Carolina cities are experiencing tremendous growth,and i'm wondering if they are going to become like big metropolitan cities like Atlanta,Miami,Charlotte, you know cities like that.Well specfically I'm talking about Greenville,Spartanburg,Charleston,North Charleston,Columbia,and Myrtle Beach.These are cities that are experiencing tremendous growth right now.Based on the laws,I kinda of still think cities will be a good decent size.But you know Columbia,i think needs a better well-defined financial district.Thats what they are working on now.So does Greenville and Spartanburg.They are getting there,but i wonder how long its going to be though.Overall though,my question is,are these SC cities going to grow to the other cities i mentioned earlier?

Andre' Ward

I don't have an answer for you but you may find the article on urban sprawl interesting. Dismas|(talk) 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinions for the near future (the next 50 years or so)...
Columbia: Yes. It will continue to grow.
Myrtle Beach: No. It is a tourist attraction, not a metropolitan city. Through outside investment, it could eventually become like Orlando.
Charleston: No. The Board of Architectual Review will not allow buildings to get larger and the JC Long laws forbid filling in the bay with dirt to make more land.
N. Charleston: Maybe. It is still suffering from the loss of the Navy base.
While populations will continue to increase in all of the cities, a skyscraper metropolis will not necessarily form. --Kainaw (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you were to treat William Gibson as a futurist (rather than a somewhat overrated novelist) you'd come to think that the metropolises of the east coast of the US would eventually sprawl into on eanother (Gibson calls it BAMA, the Boston-Atlanta metropolitan Axis, aka The Sprawl). That model is what became of Los Angeles and the Greater Tokyo Area - unless the city and state governments actively try to keep space between the cities, they'll inch together (one easment, one grand mall, one special case at a time) in ribbon development. Then it won't matter if Columbia has a financial district at all, any more than it matters whether Reseda has one. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theres a place on the upper East Coast called BosWash.This area includes Boston,Baltimore,Washington D.C.,New York,Newark,and several more i think.The two that are officially linked together is Newark and New York City.The others are kind of linked together.The population density up there is intense.The states in that are Rhode Island,Massachusetts,Connecticut,New York,New Jersey,Maryland,and Virginia.Check that out.

Andre' Ward

Mental Disorders


I have been wondering for the last year and don't know where to go about finding the answer... is there a specific mental illness designated for people who believe themselves to be characters inside of novels, or who are convinced that novel-worthy events happen to them on a regular basis? Any response would help me tremendously; thank you so much!


Well I'm not sure if there is a specific term for it, but the syptoms you describe seem to fit the Grandiose [[Delusuional Disorder ]]. Start there, and hopefully someone else can help you more. --Articuno1 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt if there is a specific term for novels, versus movies, TV shows, real life, etc. Also, the term may not distinguish between people who think they are fictional characters and those who think they are some other real person. The only term I can think of is delusions of grandeur (which may not appear to apply if they pick a character which isn't very "grand"). Basically, they can't stand how bad, painful, or boring their ordinary life is, so imagine they are somebody else, to such an extent that they lose touch with reality and "become" the new character. StuRat 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed my link just redirects to delusion. Perhaps someone more qualified than myself can add a specific article for delusions of grandeur, or at least a stub. StuRat 21:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While that might seem like a rather specific query, a single symptom isn't enough to diagnose a disease. Especially when it comes to mental illnesses, where different underlying problems can give similar symptoms. It could be caused by anything from Schizophrenia to some other form of Psychosis, Dissociative identity disorder (a controversial diagnosis). Whereas a person who believes novel-worthy events happen to them regularily could have a personality disorder (such as Narcissistic personality disorder), but may still be able to function. I'm not a psychiatrist though. --BluePlatypus 21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's some form of psychosis, probably schizophrenia, since delusions of grandeour are one of the simptoms of this disorder.--Cosmic girl 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's spelled symptoms. StuRat 22:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question reminds me of the movie A Beautiful Mind, where (Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow) the John Nash character lives out a spy novel in his mind. In the movie and in Nash's life the disorder was certainly paranoid schizophrenia. Paranoia can also be associated with the mania of bipolar disorder. If it's a good feeling the person experiences in his/her delusions, an extreme manic phase of biploar disorder is a good bet. Halcatalyst 05:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! That is a wonderful movie! -- Boze

Oldest School in West Virginia

I have been looking on the net and tried to look here to find it but I am not having any luck. Could you please help me find out when the first school was started in wv?

Thanky you so much


Since WV was split off from Virginia in 1863, the question comes up, do you mean the first school in WV after the split, or the first school in the area that is now WV, when it was still part of Virginia ? StuRat 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my grandfarther

hello ive been told that my grandfarther fought or at least lent his services in the russo-finnish war as a doctor im just trying to find out if he's listed anywhere ie a search engine for men and woman who fought or were involved in this war it would mean alot to me to find out this. regards fish

What side was he on? If it was the Finnish, was he in the Finnish armed forces or the volunteer corps? What unit did he belong to? Etc. Anyway there's no such search engine. The records aren't in digital format. If he was on the Finnish armed forces, try the Finnish military archive. They can give you copies of his documents if they have them. You'll need his full name, date of birth and place of birth, and date of death (if applicable), and if you don't know Finnish you'll need someone to help you fill out the form and so on. And it'll cost you a few euros. --BluePlatypus 01:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 6

Question about Tolkien's Silmarillion

I have a question about J.R.R. Tolkien's work. Does he at any point in The Silmarillion describe how Middle-Earth came to be the world as we know it? (Assuming that, as I remember, the preface to The Hobbit suggests that within the myth of Tolkien's world, the events of The Lord of the Rings were intended to have occured sometime in the past of the modern era). If not, do any of Tolkien's work deal with this? Thanks. --Brasswatchman 00:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Middle earth is a region of Arda (the Earth), the history of which is described at History of Arda. I think it's mostly in Silmarillion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and a big giant paragraph in Arda correlates "ancient" places in Middle earth with their "modern" equivalents. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fantastic. Thanks. Is the actual transition from Arda to Earth ever described by Tolkien, as far as you know? --Brasswatchman 01:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. Timeline of Arda says "Tolkien has often mentioned that after the War of the Ring the ages went on and now we are likely in the beginning of the Seventh Age, a bridge that connects this fantasy to reality.", but doesn't give a cite for this saying - I'd ask on its talk page (as it should have a cite supporting it). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnny Ramone's religion

Was Johnny Ramone Jewish?

Well, according to [5] and our own List of Jewish American Musicians, only Joey and Tommy Ramone were Jewish. GeeJo (t) (c) 08:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you were to talk about Jewish as an ethnic thing rather than just the religion, he may have been Jewish (if he took it over from his father). My gut instinct is to ask: Does it really matter? - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I thought the ethnicity passed down a matrilineal rather than patrilineal line. GeeJo (t) (c) 11:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matthew Boyd

Hello. I am looking for information about Matthew Boyd who was the Provost of Renfewshire (Glasgow)from 1827 - 1830. How can you help me? Regards Chris Reid Brisbane Australia

I guess the Clan Boyd or the Renfrewshire Council might be able to provide some answers. Lupo 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kabbalistic technique

I am currently reading the Sefer Yetzirah. In the process I got a little sidetracked trying to work out a way to visualize what to me is very abstract. I started playing around with combinations of letters. I made a table of the mother letters, the double letters and the single or elemental letters. You can see it here.

Taking each mother letter and combining it with the double letters adjacent to it and the single letters adjacent to them I came up with twenty four combinations, eight for each mother letter. You can see them here.

It is similar to the two hundred thirty one gates in the Sefer Yetzirah. I know its not the same thing. I used a different technique and I'm not presumptuous enough to think it is anything more than just an interesting trick. Considering the gates I decided to try combinations of each mother letter with all the double letters and all the single letters, not just those adjacent to them in the table. I wrote a PHP script to actually do the work. I came up with two hundred fifty two combinations, eighty four for each mother letter. They are here. I don't speak Hebrew so I don't know how many are actual words and how many are just nonsense, but I have translated some of them via Morfix and I'm still working at it. It has been curious to say the least.

All of this has been to lead up to my question. Is there an historical precedent for this type of exploration? I'm epsecially interested the adjacent letters scheme, but I'd like to know of anything using the three classes of letters to form words. Being totally self-taught in Kabbalah there are tremendous gaps in my knowledge, but I can't believe I'm the first person to try this. I'd be interested to know if anyone has done this in the past and written about it, even if it just turned out to be a dead end.--Pucktalk 10:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The table is quite similar to what appears in the center of the "Rose Cross Lamen" of the Order of the Golden Dawn, except that that's in circular form. AnonMoos 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, Lon Milo DuQuette discusses the Lamen in detail in Understanding the Thoth Tarot, but as I look at that it doesn't really aligned the same way--the Lamen has aleph adjacent to koph and pe--and wouldn't produce the same combinations of letters. The Lamen's design seems to have more to do with the Tarot trumps than with Hebrew per se. I'm actually not looking for Hermetic interpretations at this point anyway. I'm more concerned with traditional Judiaic Kabbalah in respect to the Hebrew alphabet itself.--Pucktalk 20:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any other takers on this? Or am I just going to have to actually read those twenty-six books I have on my Kabbalah shelf? Oh, the Humanity!--Pucktalk 11:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

role of the media

  • Definitely a big question. What IS the question? Halcatalyst 18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To be or not to be? that is the question.... isnt it?--Goshawk 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can mention some roles of the media: Inform, Misinform, Entertain, Brainwash... --Kainaw (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


contact sister christina dochwat

Who is Helen Frakenthaler?

Who is Helen frakenthaler?

I think you spelt it wrong. Do you mean Helen Frankenthaler? --Canley 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


according to the riaa list that amerie's latest album touch is certified gold so if u don't mind iam going to put back the GOLD reference ok?

Yes, that's OK. Good for you! --Canley 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judiciary term

A law making an act a crime that was commited before the law was passed is called an ....

A retroactive law? See Nulla poena sine lege for more info. -Canley 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the term being looked for is ex post facto laws, the making of which by Congress is explicitly prohibited by the US Constitution, among others, and is generally seen as a violation of the rule of law. Brian Schlosser42 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Specifically, it is against the US Constitution to pass retroactive criminal laws, but not other retroactive laws. Congress could pass a 100% tax for your income last year and take all your money, for example. But don't worry, this isn't likely to happen until the Democrats win the next election. StuRat 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please keep your highly politicized POV separate from your answers on the reference desk. While I realize that it is hyperbole, I feel it is out of line. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 03:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retroactively : had you time to do your homework properly before reading all this ? Also, there must be a way to find a word by its context. It is called (not google, not wikipedia) ... (please help). --Harvestman 21:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nine Million Bicycles in Beijing?

How accurate is the song in this regard? The article mentions the accuracy regarding the astronomical distance but doesn't comment on the bicycle claim. No websites that I've found seem to comment either. Thryduulf 17:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are over 14 million people in Beijing. If half the people had a bicycle, that would be over 7 million. Because bicycles are rather common in Beijing (many people drive to a parking area and bike the rest of the way to work), I would be surprised if the number was as low as 9 million. --Kainaw (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many millilitres of milk would a mother be able to give on an average daily?

How many millilitres of milk would a mother be able to give on an average daily?

A mother what? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can safely assume he means human. --Nelson Ricardo 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on lots of things: how soon after delivery, whether other foods are being offered the child, whether there is 24 hour skin to skin contact, how many children are being suckled, whether the mother is adequately nourished, etc. A nursing woman can easily produce a liter a day of milk, which would be a pretty ordinary daily intake for much of the first year, but maximum output given the right circumstances and an unusually productive person would be much more. Does that cover it? alteripse 12:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generations of European Americans

On an average, for how many generations have the current European Americans been living in the US. What about the current African Americans and Asian Americans? deeptrivia (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's pretty hard to answer, even for one person. I, for example, have a grandfather who was born French-Canadian and also have an ancestor along another branch who fought in the American Revolution. So, am I a 3rd generation American or 10th ? StuRat 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A majority of European Americans now have families who came here after the Civil war, and probablly even after 1900. As such it is likely that most people probally 5th or fourth generation of Americans. I my self am a fourth generation american.

African Americans mainly came over as slaves, the slave trade ended in 1800, As such most african Americans families came over in colonial times. Such means that most Americans are at at least 10th generation. Asians it varies. Many came in the second half the 19 century, this makes them 5th, 6th 7th generation Americans, many of these early chinese where eventually absorbed into the general population. In the early 20th century imigration law grealy restricted asian imigration until the mid twentieth century. Many Asians came post word war II, thus it is safe to say that perhaps a majority of asians are first second and third generation.

If one were to order the groups by average number of generations in the U.S., it would be first African Americans, second European Americans and third Asian Americans.--Pharos 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In eminem's new album "Curtian Call" one of the songs titled "Shake that" has a background sample that sounds very familliar.

Can you identify it for me?



is chad kroger born in canada and is there anyway his name was bruce hedrick

Yes, Chad Kroeger and his brother were born in Canada. There is nothing I have seen to imply he ever had another name. --Kainaw (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


is it christian, or catholic to say that God is everything, because I've heard that from a couple of Catholics, but I don't think the church promotes this view, since to me it sounds a little like eastern are those catholics that think that way, at odds with their creed? or am I being too close minded or dumb...--Cosmic girl 20:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's certainly not the official view of the Roman Catholic Church - you should browse the Catechism for all the official details. I also don't know of any major Christian theologian who's held such a view, though certain Western philosophers have (e.g., Spinoza). --George 20:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the thing is that I have devout catholic friends who, when I ask them what god is, just answer god is everything or god is in everything or god is infinite and uncomprehensible but that to me certanly doesn't sound like what the church says...but it's true there are a lot of catholics in latin america that have mystical views of god, and also there are a lot of agnostics and atheists that are catholics suposedly, like mylself, I'm supposed to be a catholic, but I am actually an agnostic.--Cosmic girl 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There are many strands of mysticism, Christian and otherwise, but IMHO this kind of talk is just pre-Vatican II intellectual abstraction reduced to popspeak. More specifically, it's easy answers applied to a hard religion. Halcatalyst 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The belief that "God is everything" sounds like pantheism which is not a mainstream Christian belief, but see the article about pantheism for references to aspects of it in Christianity. "God is infinite and uncomprehensible", on the other hand, seems to be consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church cited above: "We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God - 'the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable' - with our human representations." Catechism § 42. --Metropolitan90 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Come on, the list of attributes really pertaining to God amounts to zero. The list of attributes that men didn't try to fit to God also. What is the point ? Can someone say something sensible, or is it better to shut up (that's zen). --Harvestman 21:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

huh? --Cosmic girl 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]



My name is Phillip I'm writting a bookabout Nazi Germany, whick one of the caracters is Grand Admiral Karl Doeniz, I need to find out if he has any next of kin still alive and how to get a email to them, I need the copyrights before I can Publish it, can you help me with this,

Thank you for any help in this matter

Please don't post your e-mail address, as it can be picked up by spammers. --George 20:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you need copyrights for? You don't need copyright or approval from next-of-kin to write a biography of someone. Copyrights cover artistic works, not people's lives. You'd only need a copyright license to reproduce something he'd written/recorded (to an extent larger than is considered 'fair use'). Of course, you could be violating privacy or libel laws if you were writing about someone unknown, or something which is not true, but that protection isn't particularily strong for a public figure, which Dönitz certainly was. --BluePlatypus 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian Archiving Methods

I would greatly appreciate if anyone could describe the mythically efficient, if mystifying, archiving method used in Russia or USSR?

Unless you mean that Manuscripts do not burn, I have no idea. --Ornil 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might want to search out archival guides for Russia/USSR, such as this one I found by Googling "Using soviet archives". I don't know about their general archival practices though I do know that doing research there now is notoriously difficult, though mostly for matters of lack of money (small staffs) than the old problem of secrecy. --Fastfission 19:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 7

Stone Age

What are the years of the Stone Age

That will depend on the location, as humans learned to use metals much earlier in some locations than in others. Some primitive tribes might even still be considered to be in the Stone Age. StuRat 01:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try the Stone Age article. Note that there isn't a fixed set of years, it varies from culture to culture. --BluePlatypus 01:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swastika, San Antonio, TX Thomas Jefferson High School

Howdy - I have in my possession a copy of the 1934 Monticello, the Annual for Thomas Jefferson High School. Many of the female students were members of the "Swastika" and wore that symbol on their "Uniform" caps. Apparentlly they were part of a Cadet Corp. I have been unable to find any information about them or the local history of the swastika symbol they use. It has been surpressed rather thoroughly by persons unknown. I would appreciate any information you can provide.Thanks in advance for your help. This is an awesome site!! Dave An addition - 1. By supressed I mean I can find no acknowledgement of the symbol anywhere in the history of the High School. 2. The females Uniforms were obviously designed in the early 1930's. The males uniforms seemed to be modeled on the Texas Aggies, Boots or leggings, high jacket collar and peaked hat. The school was segregated in that there were no African-Americans there. I did see at least one Chines person and a number of Hispanics.

The swastika was also used as a symbol by Native Americans and others but was bent the other way. Judging from the time frame, I am guessing they were supporters of German nationalism. Bear in mind, however, that the NAZIs had not committed genocide or invaded anything at that point, although their anti-semitism and military ambition was quite apparent, even then. Also note that many prominent Americans, such as Charles Lindberg, Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy, were pro-NAZI at that point. StuRat 02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not neccesarily the Swastika is a ancient symbol, this symbol was used by native americans up untill wwII that is likely who where copied. Furthermore Hitler had only been in power for a brief time in 1934, so he might not been identified with the symbol the way he is now.

I disagree. Hitler, the NAZIs, and the German swastika were big news worldwide, even before the War. StuRat 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May 1934 was only one year after the Nazis came into power. AnonMoos 18:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's enough time for something sufficiently new and different to be noticed around the world. Also note the other clues, the uniforms, and the name "Cadet Corp". These are military trappings, more likely to be associated with NAZIs than other uses of the symbol, such as religious meanings. Also, the fact that info on it has been supressed implies there was something to hide. If not, like, say, Oliver Hardy's "Hitler mustache", it would only need to be explained (in that case, as a typical man's facial hair pattern of the time), rather than supressed. StuRat 18:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no way to know without more information. The uniforms may have in all possibility been used for many years before the Nazis came to power for all we know, and did not have yet the negative stigma that they would soon get. And who knows if it has really been supressed or not, and what that really means. Often people use that to mean that they don't know anything about it. --Fastfission 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I lean toward believing the person who posted the question, lacking any evidence to the contrary. StuRat 04:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I lean towards using my brain no matter what. What you are doing is taking a few cryptic words and then drawing out very far-fetched conclusions from them. Furthermore the key question to ask is when the logos were adopted first, which the poster gives no information about. Also, is there a reason you capitalize Nazi? It is not an acronym, it is an abbreviation. --Fastfission 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

San Antonio was known for its German settlers in the 19th century-- I would vote for the modern connection. Not much different from the "fighting Irish" is it? alteripse 12:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to the new information: "By supressed I mean I can find no acknowledgement of the symbol anywhere in the history of the High School." OK -- well that doesn't necessarily mean it was suppressed, which indicates something purposely removed or silenced. It sounds like what you mean is omitted, which doesn't assume a nefarious reason. (Anyway that is what a historian would conclude on that point. A lack of mention often just means that they were not viewed as important at the time, which itself can be an interesting and important observation when looking back at the past.) "The females Uniforms were obviously designed in the early 1930's. The males uniforms seemed to be modeled on the Texas Aggies, Boots or leggings, high jacket collar and peaked hat." I'm not sure this clarifies anything. The question is whether or not the uniforms were used in that way before or after the swastika became chiefly associated with Nazi Germany. Could you describe in more detail the swastikas they used? In particular -- which direction did they "swirl" and were they rotated to be on a "tip" or if they lay flat on their sides. The information about the school's racial status doesn't put it in a different situation than what might be expected from that time in U.S. western education. The burden of proof is in showing that this usage was not as a "good luck symbol" as they were traditionally considered before World War II, when they became completely entwined with the Nazi party. 1934 is a little too early to say for sure it was in reference to the Germans. --Fastfission 18:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names of Future Megapolises And how fast will they Grow and Come About

Today,our nation has adapted to this world.And keeps on adapting.One example is the gigantic metropolitan areas.Now some say that there will be megapolises in the future.Certain names for three have already been given,BosWash,ChiPitts,and SanSan.One is the megapolis of Northeast,one of the Far West and the other, Midwest where Illinois and the other states are.So what I'm basically asking is what are the possible Names for the future ones,because i know for sure eventually one will rise in the South.And i assume the several major ones would be Columbia,Atlanta,Charlotte, and several more. I'm Very curious about this. Maybe this will help hold the rapidly growing world population.

Andre' Ward

The population growth overall in the US is quite slow, but there is also a movement to suburbs and to the South at the same time, so growth of some Southern suburbs may be quite rapid. I would think this would make a Columbia, Atlanta, Charlotte megapolis much more likely than, say, Chicago to Pittsburg. StuRat 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily. While population growth is not very fast in the North, the physical growth of urbanized areas in the North has continued at a rapid rate due to the spread of low-density exurbs. I read somewhere that the Cleveland area grew by one-third in terms of acreage in the 80s and 90s despite remaining steady in terms of population. There's very little countryside left between Lorain, Ohio and Youngstown.
According to the Census Bureau, it's now possible to go from Lorain to New Hampshire, then south to Petersburg, Virginia and back to Ohio via Pittsburgh without ever entering a rural county. Welcome to ClevErBufRochSyrAlbBosNYPhilBaltWashRichPitt Megalapolitan Area. -- Mwalcoff 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking outside the US, most of south-east England is now considered part of the London commuter belt, and Tokyo has absorbed every city within 50km. Namewise, I doubt the portmanteau names will stick; I'd much rather live in Chicago than ChiPitts. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mega-City One. Notinasnaid 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is it true that Stalin killed approximately 20,000,000 people of different ethnic backgrounds? If this is so, it doesn't seem just that he does not get the deserved condemnation in our media; how can this be explained? Thanks. Butkus

I think it's more than that. Quite simply, no pictures means no media interest. Stalin didn't let many pics get out. We have many movies and pics from liberated German Death Camps, however. StuRat 02:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This "killed" thing is a term you need to look very carefully at. First, did 20 million die during his years? No doubt many more. Did that many die due to a policy of his that would not have died otherwise? Probably. During collectivization, there were state sponsored killings. Further, there was a mass enslavement and labor camps that killed hundreds of thousands. However, the figures are all somewhat wild guesses, and the inherent comparison of Stalin with Hitler or Pol Pot is a bit bogus. Imagine if Hitler had not had the Final Solution, if, instead, only the numbers in the camps that starved and were worked to death counted. That would be a more accurate comparison. Stalin's "killing" of his people was more along the lines of forced labor and killing them that way than by genocide. As for the totals, no one can know. The total is very high. Geogre 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Stalin did arrange for the intentional murder of million who opposed him, or he thought had some chance of opposing him in the future. The movie Dr. Zhivago portrays this, but most American media does ignore it, that's quite true. StuRat 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you're referring to the Great Purge and the Gulag, there is no secret. The American media does portray Stalin as an authoritarian, paranoid killer. As to why he isn't thought of as specifically genocidal, it is because his campaigns did not have a "racial" bent to them; in fact, his most direct killings (that is, not the ones caused by famine) had almost nothing in common with each other at all except that for one reason or another they were swallowed into the Soviet security apparatus. To be genocidal one has to intentionally try to wipe out a people based on some sort of racial or genetic basis, which was never Stalin's approach to things, as horrible as he was. --Fastfission 03:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citizenship of Colonists

How did the people who were colonists when America became a nation become citizens? Was there an edict of some sort? In order to vote - for instance, for the first president - surely people had to prove they were citizens.-- 04:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did they become American citizens? Implicitly. That was considered as an automatic part of the U.S. becoming independent. Independence, of course, was claimed by the U.S. in the Declaration of Independence and recognized by the British in the Treaty of Paris. Each document uses the word "citizen" one or more times to refer to Americans without saying that this is a new status.
At that time the U.S. was more of a confederation than the federation it became under the later constitution -- see Articles of Confederation. People were citizens of the individual states; this is still true today, but today citizenship of the United States is much more important for most purposes. Back then I don't know if the latter concept even existed. The Treaty of Paris refers at one point to "the said States, or their Citizens", but it also refers to "Citizens of the United States". However, this could have been meant to be read as meaning citizens of any of the states.
As to voting, I very much doubt that the idea of "proof of citizenship" existed at the time. If you were a resident, you would have been assumed to be a citizen, at least if you said you were. But I'm guessing. Even if I'm right, I would be interested to know when that changed and the concept of a formal immigration system got started.
--Anonymous, 5:15 UTC, January 7, 2006
I suspect that one needed to be a citizen of the prior colony to be considered a citizen of the state at that time. There were some excluded people, like slaves and Native Americans, who were denied full citezenship despite living there. StuRat 05:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wasn't there some problem with Alexander Hamilton not being eligible for the Presidency because he was not born in what became the United States, even though he was living here at the time of the American Revolution? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the Presidency doesn't just require that you be a citizen of the US, but that you be a natural born citizen. That was put in to prevent foreign leaders from moving to the US, gaining citzenship, then gaining the Presidency and making the US part of their empire. StuRat 20:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Arnold Schwarzenegger.
However, what it actually says is "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", i.e. in 1789. Hamilton had moved to New York in 1772. The Wikipedia article about him (linked above) says nothing about his being considered ineligible, and indeed, considering that he was one of the driving forces behind the constitution being written in the first place, it's hard to imagine anyone feeling that he wasn't a citizen. (Of course, his political opponents might have tried saying it whether they believed it or not.) --Anon, 20:35 UTC
Hamilton had served in the Continental Congress and New York State Legislature before the Constitution was adopted. This suggests that even if there was not a clear citizenship law, Hamilton was considered to be a citizen; it's hard to imagine an alien being allowed to serve in a legislature in the 1780s. --Metropolitan90 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what is a state church?

An official national religion, like the Church of England. StuRat 05:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First City with a million inhabitants

Which city was the first to have a million inhabitants? QM

Perhaps Rome ? It's hard to say, as ancient census takers were rare. StuRat 16:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] claims it was Rome in 250 CE. [6] No sources for that are cited but Emperial Rome kept a very accurate census compared to other ancient civilizations. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] claims it was Rome in 5 BCE. claims it was Rome in 133 BCE. In short, without a cited census source, none of the numbers mean anything. It is clear that Rome reached that mark very early on. The problem is how you define inhabitants (do slaves count?) and how you define city (are you only counting people who have a residence inside the walls or are you counting more?). I think you can safely say that Rome was the first, but it will be hard to get accurate information on when via the Internet. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


no question

See Pantheism WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French Revolution

When did the French Revolution start

See French Revolution. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What was the price of a new car in 1991? Thanks. :]

In US dollars of that year, median was probably about $16,000. alteripse 01:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Girls Borading Schools in the Victorian Age in England

Dear all,

I'm desperately looking for information about the daily routine/subjects in girls boarding schools in the Victorian Age (especially 1880+) as well as for any other information regarding boarding schools for girls in the a. m. time in England.

I, however, can find here and there something about boys boarding schools but nothing for girls at all. I wonder why? Can't be such a secret!

I would be glad for any hint you can give me (books, internet-addresses, etc.). 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Narrow your question considerably. Do you mean Victorian? It looks like you mean Edwardian. Do you mean in England? In Scotland? In the United States or Canada? Secondly, you have to realize that boarding schools are private and therefore heterogenous. There is no single model. Rather, one school would have focused on "polish" and refinement and domestic arts, while another might well have been the mirror of a male private school. Finally, there is enormous discussion of this subject in the scholarly literature, although you would be better off looking at "education for girls" and "conduct books" and "hygiene" and "female body" as your search terms. As you have asked it, the question is sort of difficult to answer. You can also go to any particular contemporary girls' boarding school and look for its past curricula. Generally, by 1880 it was a rough echo of the general liberal arts curriculum, with exceptions. Geogre 15:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your answer. Well, I'll try to narrow: England (pref. London), 1880-1900 (should be late Victorian Age... 1837-1901), girls boarding schools for the gentry and higher social class, school subjects (just to get a rough impression what girls learned day after day). Okay, I understood that every boarding school specialises in specific subjects but I don't know even one exemplary subject for sure. I can imagine that etiquette or sewing could be such subjects... but I'm not even sure about that. 19:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

California's Strong Economy

California has a pretty good government and economy.My question to you is,Does California have one of the strongest economies in the world?I mean look at California,if you live there its like living in a totally different world.They have their own style of a lot of things.I believe if CA was to break off the U.S., it'll probably form a totally different country.It has a good economy,(last time i checked).Same for Texas,many definitely say that Texas is like living in a different country.But overall thats my question to you.

Andre' Ward

I don't know specifics about economics, but you might be interested in Nine Nations of North America, which some might feel constitutes a reasonable blueprint for the fission of America. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An interesting fact for you, both California and Texas were independent countries, for a few years each, before being admitted to the US. StuRat 20:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More like a few weeks for the California Republic (24 days, to be precise.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please add that info to the California article. I read it before making my comment, and didn't see anything about it being only 24 days. StuRat 02:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French dance discipline

What is the name of that french dance discipline that consists of jumping off of walls, hanging from ledges, etc? Examples of this discipline can be seen in Madonna's "Hung Up" music video.

Parkour. Gdr 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say it is not a dance discipline but free style artistic (and not only the French do it). You can find a lot of downloadable video clips with similar action in the i-net. 08:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unusual will

Say I really wanted my body to be cooked and served to the guests at my funeral, provided I had not died of something that would make my body unfit for consumption. Would it be legally possible to do this in the US? What about other countries? Has anyone actually done this? —Keenan Pepper 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's illegal in some jurisdictions to eat human flesh, so your will couldn't be enforced if you were there. Otherwise, I don't know of anything that would stop it. I admit that I haven't taken trusts and estates yet, though, so don't make your will until you hear further. :) --George 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than having laws which say how a body can't be disposed of, I believe there are quite specific laws of how it must be disposed of. Typically, the choices are:

1) Emballming and burial.

2) Cremation.

3) Donation of organs for medical use.

4) Donation to science for research and teaching.

Since cannabalism doesn't fit any of those categories, it would be illegal in most, perhaps all, states. StuRat 01:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Armin Meiwes, the cannibal from Germany. Although in this case the person being eaten, although willing, was killed by Meiwes and didn't die of natural causes. Thryduulf 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think you would find much people who would eat at that funeral, and you certainly cannot force them to do it, so I don't think there would be much point even if it's legal. – b_jonas 21:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kant vs. Rand

hi! :), if Kant was a rationalist, how come Ayn Rand was so against him? ( I read that Kant was a rationalist in the continental philosopy article, but probably he was an idealist).--Cosmic girl 23:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know the specifics, not having read extensively in Ayn Rand's oeuvre, but she is quite famous for being extremely doctrinaire. Frequently, if you disagreed with her on any little point you were simply wrong and presumably disagreeing only because you were too obtuse or stupid to see why you were wrong. (Though, in fairness, she was not as bad as some of her followers became.) Immanuel Kant disagreed with her on a number of topics - not least ethics - and so presumably she didn't like him. --George 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see... but aren't Kant's ethics too... subjective and mind puzzling? I can't understand them, besides, I don't want to sound like another Ayn, but I actually think that her ethics of self betterment, better all of humanity in the long run,I mean, selfishness may sound downright evil, but in the bigger picture it might be good for the progress of the collective, because it follows evolution's maxims. ps. you are cool George, haha.--Cosmic girl 03:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're very kind. :) Well, each person has to make up their own mind, obviously. If you're interested, it's fairly easy to find introductions to Kant for non-experts. (It's especially necessary because his books are notoriously difficult to read.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online has several articles on Kant, though they're a little bit technical. A Google search will turn up other websites, or you can just drop by your local bookstore.
It's much harder to find good books on Rand. She's not taken seriously by most professional philosophers, and most of her followers have been people, particularly young people, who have no training in philosophy. That said, you might find the Objectivist Center FAQ useful as an intro, and her most famous book on ethics is The Virtue of Selfishness. --George 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you :), I knew that about Ayn, but I think they criticize her only on grounds that she didn't study philosophy and her philosophy was not complicated and that she wrote novels and not research papers...but I like her anyway.--Cosmic girl 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I think those prejudices are certainly part of the bias, but plenty of people have perfectly serious objections to her philosophy. This, for example, is a long critique of Rand's case for libertarianism by a philosophy professor in Florida. This and this are two more critiques of Objectivism by a philosophy professor in Colorado. While Rand may or may not be right in the end, she makes many errors of reasoning (and errors of fact about the history of philosophy) that someone trained in philosophy would not make. That's why professional philosophers have a bias against non-professionals: Philosophy is a subtle art, and it's easy to make mistakes that aren't obvious to the non-professional. --George 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 8


Hi! I am currently wokring on a project for school. I am looking for some Russian art pieces or musical instruments to display for the project. Can anyone direct me to where I may be able to find such items in Canada?

Can you be more specific than "Canada" ? If you live in Toronto, I doubt if you would be willing to go to Yellowknife to see Russian art. Also, if it's in a museum, I doubt if they will check it out to you for a school project. You might want to try to obtain prints of Russian paintings, though, those might be available for a modest investment. Or, if you are as cheap as me, just print some copies you find on the Internet on your own printer. Note that the Russians did colonize what is now the West Coast of Canada and the Northern US, so you might do best in British Columbia or possibly the Yukon Territory. StuRat 01:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nine Nations of North America

With reference to Nine Nations of North America, what exactly are the features that differentiate these nine regions? Can one distinguish between people from these regions based on their accent or language or any such cultural traits? deeptrivia (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can distinguish between citizens of the United States based on accent, language, and cultural traits. Why would you think that there wouldn't be a difference when travelling from one country to the next? --Kainaw (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, these are "nations" roughly within the US. I want to know some particular examples of features that can be used to find, for example if a person is from Texas or California. deeptrivia (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judging from a quick reading of the Nine Nations article and its links, I wouldn't say its focus is on the individual personal level. I read some of the Dixie excerpt from his book, since that's where I live, and he did say you could generally recognize whether you were there or in one of the bordering areas by how often the subject of change from the old traditions crops up in conversation, which is sort of similar to what you're asking, but for the most part it seems to be broad societal differences, like race relations, economic growth, that kind of thing. -- 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's possible, actually, that your question has nothing to do with the nine nations. If you're just asking how to tell what region people are from, there's loads of stuff on that, and I have no idea where to find most of it. Dialect has a link to List_of_dialects_of_the_English_language, which might be of some use. -- 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dialect and speech patterns are all that trained people need to pinpoint a persons origin. Obvious examples are keywords: Y'all for the south, wicked for the northeast, wersh (instead of wash) in the midwest, eh (at the end of a question) along the Canadian border. The central midwest has much faster speach rhythms than the the southern midwest. The northeast is more staccato. I studied it a bit because I am from the midwest and I know that there are stereotypes based on language patterns. For example, to make sure an audience knows a person is stupid without getting into any character development, a director will give the person a southern accent. To make sure the audience knows they are rude and obnoxious, the get either a New York or Boston accent. So, I studied enough to try and break my old habits. --Kainaw (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek Mythology

Who are the three Greek Goddesses that took a vow of chastity?

Is this a homework question? If so, you may find some information at Greek mythology and the associated articles linked from that one. Dismas|(talk) 05:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is Italy important in world affairs? How and how not? Is Italy declining, improving, or maintaining conditions in technology, economy, human rights, environment or infrastructure? What rights do teenagers have in Italy?

First thing that comes to mind... The Vatican is in Italy. I know, Vatican City is it's own country, but it is competely within Italy. The next thing that comes to mind is commerce. When I was in Bermuda looking for something to buy for my wife the week before she was going to spend a few months in Italy, everything I found (besides rum) said "made in Italy". --Kainaw (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this homework by any chance? - Akamad 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read Italy and economy of Italy for a start. As to the rights of teenagers, what do you mean? There's broad legal provisions, and then there's culture. Broad legal provisions tend to be a national issue, culture can vary greatly within a country. I'd imagine teenagers brought up in the trendier suburbs of Rome or Milan are allowed considerably more latitude than those brought up in rural villages in the more backward parts of southern Italy. --Robert Merkel 10:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I need to find information on the communist uniforms of china.

I think you may be thinking of the Mao suit. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 10:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yea, that's the one that made them all look like janitors. StuRat 10:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What does freedom mean to me?

...who are you? —Keenan Pepper 03:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If your teacher asked you to respond to the question, "What does freedom mean to me?", it means you have to answer the question for yourself. Halcatalyst 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It means you are perfectly free to do your own homework. StuRat 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can absolutely guarantee that no one else but you can say what freedom means to you. - Akamad 09:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

your freedom should mean to you what my freedom means to me,and yeah, it's good for you to do your own homework, you'll gain freedom by doing that. ;) --Cosmic girl 14:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, freedom means the right not to answer this question. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Film credits on posters

These days, a poster for a movie will usually have a section at the bottom with a lot of credits, written in an elongated font that is very difficult to read. This seems almost pointless to me. What is this block of text called, and why is it there? Is it just to pay lip service to some legal obligation to have certain people credited? But it couldn't possibly contain the full list of credits, so who's in and who's out? What's this really all about? JackofOz 08:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I happen to know someone in the business of making movies. He's one of the guys whose name about which you wonder "What is this guy's name doing in the credits?" I asked him a very similar question once. I asked him why people like the costume designer or the assistant to Mr. Eastwood or the key grip were in the credits when the general public doesn't care about those people's names. The answer that he gave me was that along with the money for working on a film there are a number of other things that studios and the people in these jobs can barter with. Someone may even take a little less money to get their name in the credits or whatever. It's basically just a little perk that they can write into the agreement when they agree to work on a picture. Now my question to him was specifically about the credits at the beginning/end of the films. I didn't ask specifically about the movie posters but I thought this might shed some light on the subject. Dismas|(talk) 08:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there might be union contracts which require listing the unions which worked on the film. They usually only listed the main people otherwise. At the end of the actual movie, however, they seem to list entirely too many people, down to caterers, for example. TV stations get so sick of showing all that crap that they either cut the credits short or squish them to one side of the screen so you can't read them. Unfortunately, they do this so soon that you frequently can't see the names of the stars. These days you can go to the internet to look them up, provided you know the name of the movie. StuRat 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point was not to take issue with those being involved getting credit. I always sit thru the entire credits at the end of a movie at the cinema because (a) I really like the idea of people being acknowledged for whatever contribution they may have made and (b) the music is still going and the movie ain't over till it's over. (I agree that this is usually denied to us on TV). I was mainly intrigued about the choice of font for this material at the bottom of the film poster. It's always the same thin, tall, unreadable typeface, no matter which film company made the movie. Why? Is it to squash in as much information as possible in the space available? Is it some psychological/marketing thing about a quality movie having a certain look and feel? If it's effectively unreadable, that means it is not intended that people actually read it. There has to be some other significant agenda/purpose. JackofOz 10:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, they occasional throw in some bonus material after the credits. I don't know the answer to the weird font question, but also notice how they tended to use roman numerals for dates, which can be quite difficult to read when they go flying by. This seems to be changing though, as more recent films tend to use standard arabic numerals for the year. StuRat 10:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read somewhere that various people insist for various reasons that their name in the credits be of certain size, but that "size" is interpreted as "height". So the obvious way to pack more names in to the billing box, while keeping them of the contractually-obligated "size", is to make them tall and thin. You can read much more about this topic in a column by the inimitable Cecil Adams. Steve Summit (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, "billing box", that's what it's called. That answers one of my questions. Thank you very much. Steve. JackofOz 11:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does E B stand for in E B White's name?

There's a search box at the top left of the page. Typing E.B. White and clicking on go brings us to E.B. White, where you will find the answer to your question. Natgoo 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Education 1934

What percent of U.S. high school graduates went on to post secondary education (college, trade school, nurses training) in 1934?

For theologians

Don't Agustine of hippo and the creator of the opus dei, Jose Maria something, extremly contradict each other? the first one says that we should basicly turn our backs on the world because every human effort is worthless and God is the only way out and that the world traps the soul and stuff like that, while the other one says that materialism is not bad and that the material world is to be cherrished and based on his theology came all those christian rock and rap bands... now I find a huge contradiction here... how can a religion have such a self contradicting theology? where is catholiscism heading? what's this pope going to do? I also read that benedict didn't accuse pedophile priests and what's more, he excused them this true? and also, a religion that is changing its views constantly... what authority does it have to say that it posseses the truth? I find this extremly silly, being from a really catholic environment myself. and also, how can the vatican have an astronomy observatory, what is it looking for if they are supposed to know it all?--Cosmic girl 20:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Even the Bible contradicts itself. For example, do you "turn the other cheek" when harmed, or do you demand "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" ? You can't do both. StuRat 20:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you actually had some knowledge of the Bible, you'd know the answer to this "contradiction". "Turn the other cheek" is the New Testament answer to the Old Testament "eye for an eye" approach. In legal terms, it overturns the previous precedent, if you buy into the whole Jesus thing (I personally do not). But don't take it from me:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39)
There are many better points to criticize the Bible on, but it helps to know what you are talking about before you do it. The Bible is two books, and finding something in the latter one which explicitly overturns something in the previous one does not make it a "contradiction". Which is not to say that the Bible is free from self-contradiction in a true sense (mostly on non theologically interesting issues), but this is about the worst example of that you could find. --Fastfission 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The contradiction is that it makes no sense that God would so competely change his rules for us when Jesus was born. What, did God change his mind ? "Forget all that stuff I said before, I don't know what I was thinking back then." I guess God must be a woman after all, LOL. StuRat 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are biblical scholars who take "an eye for an eye" mean "if you must exact retribution, it must be of a proportionate degree"; that is that it sets a maxiumum (not minimum) tariff. They contend it was meant to contradict the prevailing habit of manyfold-retaliation (where if I stole your goat, you'd burn my house down). With the "eye for an eye" method you'd only get to steal one of my goats, or a smallish cow at most. I'm inclined to beleive this rather more enlightened interpretation, not least because it sounds a lot more like a sage rabinnical saying this way. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would think that if it meant that, it would say that. If judges of the time had awarded less than equal compensation for any injury, this would cause the injured party to seek revenge outside the law, which would be a big problem for society. StuRat 22:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess acording to religion only God (whatever that may be because even they don't seem to agreee themselves about what God is) only God can demand an eye 4 an eye, but we are supposed to turn the other cheek, and of course! never ever think for ourselves,and turn our backs on science and let the human race practically die out because it's heretical to fight for ourselves since that would mean we have faith in ourselves and in science and not in God the ghost. --Cosmic girl 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please! Remember that it is said about Jesus that he came to complete the old law (meaning the books of the Bible before his gospel). Only there can you find retaliation, and Jesus himself said 'give another cheek'.
This is one message that you must keep from him. I mean, do not follow a religion, try to improve it.

--Harvestman 21:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religion doesn't want to be improved though, it wants to be followed, so to not follow religion and try to improve it, you are automatically un religious, but I didn't mean silly biblical contradictions, I meant theological relevant contradictions for example concerning the nature of God, how can there be contradictions there? there shouldn't be no religion at all in the world, and only philosophy in its place because it's so stupid to say you know it all and comand everyone to believe what you say and burn people at the stake ( people that made huge contributions to mankind) and then just be like I changed my mind, tehehe...c'mon!.--Cosmic girl 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

most recorded music albums

I would like to know who has the most recorded albums in the history of rock and roll music?

                          thank you
                             Miliie Durden
Do you mean the artist with the most albums in that periiod ? StuRat 20:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, i would like to know which artist, band, who has the most recorded albums of all time.

thank you millie


Analyes the impact of labor unions and immigration on the American worker between 1865 and 1900.

Please, do your own homework! Don't type a question verbatim from your assignment and expect people to answer it for you. I'll even give you a link to get you started: Labor unions in the United States. --Canley 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C. S. Lewis.

I believe that C. S. Lewis lived a part of his early life in Cork, Ireland. I would like to know if this can be verified.

Many thanks,

Peter Byrne.

I checked the C. S. Lewis article and it didn't mention it; a quick Google search seems to confirm that Lewis' mother was born outside Cork in Queenstown (in Cork county), and that his father was born in Cork, but it doesn't appear that he ever lived there. СПУТНИКССС Р 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What is the historical background on homosexuals?

See Homosexuality and History of sexuality. СПУТНИКССС Р 20:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia's resources are a little sketchy, in my opinion. If you're really interested, drop by your local library and read Homosexuality and Civilization by Louis Crompton (ISBN 067401197X). It is by far the best introduction to homosexuals in history that I've read. --George 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]