Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 1

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives

The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 31 Humanities desk archive August 2 >

Lord Rosebery

I was just wondering what issue exactly forced Lord Rosebery's liberal government out of power in 1895.

This explains that it was the supply of cordite to the army, an issue Rosebery had made a vote of confidence. But Rosebery was trying to escape: he had had a breakdown in his health both mental and physical, his lords reforms and other policies had been a failure, he had narrowly avoided being mentioned in Oscar Wilde's trial and his private secretary—who he may have been romantically linked with—Francis Douglas, Viscount Drumlanrig had shot himself the previous year. MeltBanana 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sculptor Sir William Reid Dick

I'd like information and advice regarding Reid Dick's sculpture "Dawn". Who could I contact with my questions? Thanks!-- gmd Aug.1'p6

Someone (you?) posted a question about a sculpture by this artist last week. The answers to that question will still be there. I'd suggest speaking to an art dealer or auction house. AllanHainey 11:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Lee's diet

Why is it that Bruce Lee ate lean meat sparingly? What are the benefits? I always thought that eating more would be advantageous in muscle growth since there would be a higher protein intake.

But was Bruce Lee's success simply a result of muscle, or was it more about skill, speed, stamina and studio FX? I would guess that eating lean meat sparingly is only part of the story here. Fruitarians report benefits to their diet, including higher energy levels and a clearer mind - though they're probably all a bit crackpot to start with. Nuts and pulses can provide adequately for the protein needs of strict vegetarians, so I can't see this being a major problem for an omnivore - though I guess a professional martial artist would need to do a lot of exercise. To see what constitutes an optimum diet for human health, see what other primates eat. --TheMadBaron 16:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Bruce Lee never shot with special effects. His speed on camera was so fast that the camera couldn't keep up. In addition, most of his films were shot in Hong Kong with a tight budget, so there was probably no money for special effects. And he _did_ do a lot of exercise - he was obsessed with training, because he knew there was a limit to his height and weight. Not just martial arts training - he believed that conditioning, similar to the way boxers condition, was an important part of the regiment. --ColourBurst 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you two said answers why he ate lean meat sparingly. AAK 19:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

sean paul

as I was trying to edit Sean Paul's page to include his Multiracial/Mulatto roots, someone else added a picture of a banana in place of his image...I'm not sure of how this happened, but I read the instructions on how to revert the page through the 'history' tab and I reset it..anyhow, under the 'background information' heading, I tried to add his ancestry/Ethnicity (Black Jamaican, English, Chinese, Portuguese) but the page did not save the changes. How can I add this info? Also, I added a quote to the second paragraph that explains his ancestry (it is very important to document the truth..someone put that Sean Paul was on the list of 'famous Eurasians'! I nearly fell out of my seat when I read this). Please don't let someone hijack his ancestry and I look forward to your help!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.190.60.226 (talk • contribs) 03:00, August 1, 2006 (UTC).

It looks to me like that info is now included, and is a quotation from the man himself, with a reference included. Good enough ? StuRat 23:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tresaure Hunters Question

Does anyone have the answers to the questions on the NBC game on line?

Do you have the questions? (would make answering a lot easier) DirkvdM 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What railroad does the song "i have been working on the railroad" refer to in California.

It isn't "I have...", it is "I've...". See the article I've Been Working on the Railroad. It has all the lyrics and no specific railroad is mentioned. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

California is in the US. Is there more than one railroad? DirkvdM 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Try looking through List of California railroads. Rmhermen 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If we knew for a fact that it was in California (I don't), and also knew that the song is quite old (I do), I would guess they would be talking about the California portion of the Union Pacific railroad line which met up with the Central Pacific line in Promontory, Utah, where the Golden Spike was pounded in to commemorate the First Transcontinental Railroad line May 10, 1869. See image below. StuRat 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Route of the first American transcontinental railroad from Sacramento, California to Omaha, Nebraska.

Ah, if you cut them up into teeny weeny bits and also count metrorails, the list is bound to be big. A map would be nice for this article, to give an impression of how many lines there really are (and were). DirkvdM 09:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Counterfeit Money

If I created a currency note (in secret) that is indistinquishable from the real currency, is it a counterfeit note? Later if I try to sell it on ebay, can I be arrested if noone can proof that it is a counterfeit note (as oppose to a real note which I fraudulently claimed as a counterfeit note?)

The reason I'm asking if because I hit upon this great money making idea:

1. Get a real note (check the last 3 digits of it serial number).
2. Put it for sale on ebay as the perfect counterfeit note, indistinguishable from the real thing.
3. Claimed that I had a dream in which a currency note with the serial number ending with 778 is the perfect counterfeit note.
4. Sell it for more than it's face value.

Ohanian 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Secret Service is in charge of dealing with counterfeiting, and I don't think it is a good idea to flaunt the fact that you have counterfeited money, even if it isn't true. You probably can be arrested, because this is in effect a confession, and the bill is just an ordinary bill unless you declare it to be fraudulent. I would recommend scratching the idea. AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from any laws specifically relating to currency that you might be breaking, what you are proposing is fraud. You are proposing to offer an item for sale knowingly describing it as something it is not, in order to increase the purchase price. --Mathew5000 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, why would someone pay more than face value for a currency note, counterfeit or not? You would do better to start making your fortune by selling a paper clip.--Shantavira 06:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Even someone stupid enough to fall for this wouldn't give you enough money to make it worth the effort (or the risk) and I suppose you could only do this once (or once in a year). On ebay, that is. You could do it daily in real life, but then you couldn't reach enough people to make it worth your time. I doubt if you'd find one idiot per day if you put all your time into this. And what's with the serial number and the dream? The sort of thing idiots would be fooled by? Actually, that sounds fairly plausible. DirkvdM 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The first irony here is that counterfeit money is supposed to be literally worth less than its face value if it is known to be false. But I don't doubt that some people would find its illegality exotic and be willing to pay more than the lowest denominations for one. The only good counterfeit note in this respect would be one with a very low face value.

The second irony here is that you are trying to create a counterfeit counterfeit—aka a real bill. Anyway... there was an interesting article on North Korean counterfeiting in the New York Times magazine two weeks ago under the headline of "No ordinary counterfeit". --Fastfission

I don't see who would buy money on EBay anyways, whether they knew if it was counterfeit or not... Viva La Vie Boheme

As far as I know it's illegal to possess counterfeit money even if you obtained it legally and legitimately, so I don't think there's anything you can do. If you know you have counterfeit money, you are obligated to turn it in to the authorities.--Anchoress 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure E-Bay reports that stuff when they find it, too... Russia Moore 02:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon vs Israel

Hi all, just want to know your opinion on the ongoing WAR between Lebanon and Israel??? -- FOZ

Sorry, this is for answering questions with some basis in fact, not for general personal opinionated discussions. AnonMoos 10:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AnonMoos, I have just checked your user page, and now I know what your opinion is.-- FOZ

I'm happy for you that you feel enlightened, but my user page contains rather little which is directly relevantly political, and nothing whatever on the specific issue you asked about. AnonMoos 11:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It does, however, suggest a severely one-tracked mind. DirkvdM 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that it's very sad. It's also my opinion that it's a conflict, not a war. Furthermore, it's my opinion that whatever the outcome, no-one will be the winner. Sadly, --Dweller 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I hold strong feelings on the matter, I'll hold back and simply second Dweller's comment. Whoever's right, whoever's wrong, whether any good will come out of this or whether none will, the death of any human being at the hands of another will always be the saddest possible of events in the human experience. Sad indeed. Loomis 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Wikipedia is not a message board and anyone who tries to turn it into one deserves worse than those suffering in the Labanon/Israel conflict. There are literally thousands of message boards on the Internet. Why should Wikipedia be ruined? --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then let me give an answer that is more worthy of the ref desk. It isn't a war between Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon isn't fighting. So it doesn't qualify as a war, I think. And given the fact that the Israeli army isn't very centrally organised (at least according to the military who inverstigated the 1996 shelling of Qana) one might argue that it's really terorism. But now I'm slipping into the realm of opinion again. DirkvdM 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Worse than those on either side? In other words, worse than death itself? Is Wikipedia that important that one should die for asking a mildly inappropriate question? FOZ may have asked a mildly innapropriate question, but your response, Kainaw, that FOZ "deserves worse" than those suffering in a war zone is infinitely more innapropriate.

As for Dirk's remark...oh well...what can you expect...Dirk will be Dirk. I could destroy his argument in a matter of seconds, but it's just not worth the effort anymore.

Anyway, the point of all these responses was that the RefDesk is not a forum for taking opinion polls. Perhaps you weren't aware, FOZ, and you definitely don't deserve such disgusting treatment for your minor gaffe. In any case, though, they are right in the sense that this is not a place for opinion polls. Regardless, all the best, FOZ. Loomis 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You misread my comment - I don't wish death upon those who mistakenly ask inappropriate questions. I wish death on those who purposely ask inappropriate questions with the intent of turning Wikipedia from an online source of (hopefully) factual information to another message board. Of course, I have a much lower value on the general concept of human life than is considered acceptable, but I do not hide that opinion because what annoys me so much about humans is the falseness in the way everyday life is conducted. So, I strive to be honest about my opinion that there is nothing special about humans or human life. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You bother to read what Loomis writes? I've given that up some time ago. DirkvdM 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow!!!!! Death!!!!! It seems I've actually read your comment quite correctly. "I wish death on those who purposely ask inappropriate questions with the intent of turning Wikipedia from an online source of (hopefully) factual information to another message board".

Kainaw, PLEASE, chill! Wikipedia is NOT THAT IMPORTANT to wish death upon anyone, no matter how much they muck it up, even purposely. Death????? Death for upsetting Wikipedians? Are you serious? Death?????

Whatever FOZ's missteps, accidental or intentional, this kind of language is unnaceptable.

Please either apologize, or quit contributing to Wikipedia, as we have no use for your kind here. However, if you don't, I'm afraid your outrageous remarks must be reported to the staff at wiki. It's simply unnacceptable to wish DEATH on anyone at Wikipedia. Your remarks are unnacceptable and have no place here. Please either retract them or leave Wikipedia for good. Loomis 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bye. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance. Loomis 02:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I deplore what Kainaw said, but I would have liked an outcome where he/she stayed around to participate in reasoned discourse. There's always something else at the bottom of such extreme views. JackofOz 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Chill out guyz, let me clear my intentions, I didnt want to turn our wikipedia to a war zone.... never friends. I live somewhere near Lebanon, and I feel sorry for whats happening there,and thats why I wanted to know people's opinion all over the world on this issue( as I am a very curious girl) So plz stop cursing me.-- FOZ

Kainaw may have put it rahter bluntly (even to my taste), but he does have a point. There are lots of opinions flying around on the ref desk, but the primary target here should be providing info. Spewing opinions after that has been done is one thing (I do it a lot myself), but asking for opinions without asking for information is not something that should be done here. That said, why don't we heave a page for that? Wikipedia is not a chat room, but that doesn't mean it can't have one. Looking for info on this I found WikiReason, but there isn't much going on there it seems. DirkvdM 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think I might have asked for an opinion before (or did I just read a question, asking for an opinion, I can't remember). Anyway, a sensible option seems to either provide a place for people to come together to express opinions (a userpage is unsuitable unless people know to congregate there) or to endorse an external forum, and direct such discussions over there. --130.161.182.77 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I haven't gone anywhere (well, actually, I did - spent all day travelling). I find it rather amusing that it is considered in terrible taste to be honest. Nobody else has ever wished someone else would just die? I am the absolute only person in the world who has been fed up with certain behaviour and thought that it would be easier if someone else would just die? Of course not. It is human. If you claim you've never ever thought that someone else should die, you are a liar and, as I stated, you are the reason that I do not put value on human life in general. I value specific people, but not human life. If I was told I had to choose between saving Wikipedia or saving some random stranger, I would choose Wikipedia. I do not demand (as Loomis demands) that you appologize for disagreeing with my opinion - which you should disagree with my opinion! I already stated that my personal value on human life is well below the norm. So, please Loomis, report me for disagreeing with you. Report me for having an opinion that you don't like. Report me for being honest. I'd love to see where it goes. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He's back! And worse than ever! :) Man, you and Loomis have to chill out. You think that Wikipedia should not be turned into a message board and Loomis thinks that to wish anyone's death in Wikipedia is unaceptable. Well, I am sorry to tell that the Reference desks are allready kind off message boards, and aslong they are not too exagerated, nothing is wrong with it (I rather like to read them from time to time). We can bend the rules aslong as we don't break them (have you ever run over a red light? I have.). Everybody has wished the death of somebody else and merely wishing it is not a crime (it's only a wish and not a real statement of purpose). It only becomes a crime when you really kill somebody else. Having said that, I think that your statement was of undeniable bad taste - You didn't merely wish it, you also really had to write it down - and this is simply not encouraged here. Let's simply forget this whole matter. And welcome back (but please don't push it, OK? Flamarande 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC) PS: What you both really need are a nice girlfriends (or boyfriends? whatever) and bit less of Wikipedia.

Give me a break Kainaw !!!!! What the hell do you mean by : "If I was told I had to choose between saving Wikipedia or saving some random stranger, I would choose Wikipedia" !!! who is destroying\harming YOUR wikipedia??? FOZ ' The stranger '...Well let me tell you that you are highly mistaken,Im not an enemy of wikipedia !! I do admit I shoudnt have put my question this way, but at the end it is just a question!!! So plz dont pour it that thick.-- FOZ

Actually, honesty doesn't bother me one bit. Rather, it's honestly expressed psychopathic thoughts and tendencies that I find quite disturbing. Have I ever wished someone to die? Honestly? Come to think of it, I suppose I have...a few cold-blooded murderers, rapists, pedophiles and the like. And even then I find myself conflicted, as even those thoughts seem to clash head-on with my instinctive respect for human life.

"Nobody else has ever wished someone else would just die? I am the absolute only person in the world who has been fed up with certain behaviour and thought that it would be easier if someone else would just die? Of course not. It is human." Actually no, Kainaw, it is not human. Especially when the behaviour you're talking about is a mere breach of etiquette. With the exception of the natural (but restrained) urge to want to do harm to the most vile and disgusting of criminals (i.e. murderers, rapists, pedophiles etc...), no, it's not human. It's actually the definition of psychopathy.

In fact, this may shock you Kainaw, but despite your psychopathic ranting, I haven't the slightest urge to kill you. Honest. In fact, I don't have the slightest urge to hurt you in any way, not even a well deserved slap-upside the head. As a matter of fact, the only urge I'm feeling right now is the urge to somehow help you. Honest. What I wish for you is to get some professional help to help you deal with your unusual homicidal urges, and to get to the bottom of whatever issues you're dealing with which seem to be driving these extreme anti-social thoughts. I can just imagine, Kainaw, you must be suffering a great deal of pain to have developed such misanthropic feelings about the world around you. As I've said many times here to many people I've disagreed with, I wish you all the best, Kainaw. Honest. Loomis 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that the reference desk isn't the best place at which to continue this discussion, it should be noted that there are those of us who think the sundry replies of Loomis to be much more pernicious and indecorous than the several remarks of Kainaw. To be sure, where conduct disrupts the project (cf., simply irks several project participants but does not impair the collaborative processes on which the success of the project depends), those undertaking such conduct should be advised as to its impropriety.

Anything further is, IMHO, gratuitious, and even as I would not at all mind engaging in a colloquy with another user apropos of morality, even where such colloquy would involve much castigation of me, I can't imagine that it serves anyone well for a user to attempt to inculcate morals to another here (where such inculcation is ostensibly unwanted). In truth, 've no problem with anything Kainaw has said, and I've no problem with anything Loomis has said, but, to the extent that one has disrupted the project, it is almost surely Loomis rather than Kainaw (should Loomis and Kainaw desire to discuss what ethical impulses ought to underlie human behavior, it's altogether fine for them to do so, but the reference desk, once more, isn't, I imagine, the appropriate place). Joe 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I had sincerely hoped that this whole thing would have been solved diplomatically. I.e., after tempers cooled down, Kainaw would realize that his Death Threat was unnacceptable and would have been kindly withdrawn it, explaining it as a mere burst of temper and nothing to really be concerned about. We've all lost our temper now and again. I would be the first to forgive. Unfortunately this is not how things have turned out.

Death Threats are a serious matter. They do not merely "irk" me. Joe may have been merely "irked" by the whole thing, but then again he wasn't the one being threatned with death.

(Joe may regard my remarks as "gratuitous", but speaking of "gratuitous", I just can't help but remark on Joe's overwhelmingly "gratuitous" usage of unnecessarily pretentious vocabulary. "Sundry"? "Pernicious"? "Indecorous"? "Colloquy"? etc...etc...etc...Yes, I know what all those big words mean. But no, pretentious vocabulary doesn't intimidate me. Rather, I see its "gratuitous" usage as a sign of intellectual insecurity. Myself, I just choose to speak like regular folk, as I myself, am regular folk.)

Of course we all feel comfortable in the anonymity of cyberspace. But who knows. I'm sure the technology, software and brainpower is available to actually determine my actual home address, as well as FOZ's, as well as Joe's.

In any case, Death Threats are crimes in most civilized jurisdictions.

For example, where I live, section 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides:

(1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to recieve a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person...

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment not exceeding eighteen months.

This is but the example in Canada. Nonetheless, all other civilized jurisdictions have similar laws. But please, nobody worry, I'm just presenting the law to prove a point. I have absolutely no intention of actually pursuing legal matters in any sense at all.

Joe, we're not talking about simple "morals" here. I'm not trying to inculcate Kainaw with any particular set or "morals". In fact, if you check, I never even introduced any "morality" terminology into any of my statements, at any point.

Rather, my statement was strictly concerned with mental health, not morality at all. Homicidal tendencies, misanthropy, etc...are clear textbook examples of mental pathology.

"Morality" is an entirely different issue that I never wished to touch upon. It's an entirely personal matter. It touches upon one's personal religious beliefs (if any), one's spirituality, etc...I had never introduced that sensitive issue into the discussion at all.

Most atheists and agnostics usually assert that human beings, left on their own, don't need any silly ancient text to tell them that to kill is wrong. Rather it's ingrained in all of us.

I've generally agreed with them, despite my faith. However due to this little episode I can't help but rethink the whole thing. Loomis 07:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And as for everybody else, don't worry, I'm totally chill! Yes, Kainaw's whole "Death Threat" thing is rather disturbing, but despite my language all I'm trying to do is prove what I believe to be a VERY important point. As I'm still rather sure that no one knows my exact home adress, I'm really not stressed about anything at all. :-) I still wish everybody, Kainaw AND Joe included, all the very best. Loomis 08:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It may just be me, but doesn't a death threat require you to threaten to kill someone? Kainaw said that he felt they deserved worse than either Israel or Hezbollah. Loomis brought up death. Kainaw agreed that he felt they deserved death. Now Loomis is calling that a death threat. What did I miss? Youth in Asia 21:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Death threats are not interpreted by the law so simplistically. We've all made hyperbolic "death threats" that were clearly not intended, nor received as "real" death threats, and as such, legally speaking, are not death threats at all. "I swear I'll kill you if you eat that last slice of pizza!"

A death threat is when you convey a message, by whatever means, that causes that person to fear for their life.

Of course this is a very borderline case, especially since it all took place on the net and therefore (hopefully) nobody knows where anybody else lives. As I said, I'm only trying to prove a point here, not actually make a "real life" legal case. I was only drawn into the whole "death threat" thing due to Joe's words. He accused me of attempting to "inculcate morals" unto Kainaw. I responded that it had nothing to do with "inculcating morals", (morality being a private issue and none of my business). Rather this was far more akin to a "mental health" issue, which in turn, is deemed to be a "public safety" issue. Ask any shrink. They're well trained as to their legal responsibilities. If a psychiatrist had a patient who admitted to have "a much lower value on the general concept of human life than is considered acceptable", along with expressions that he wished certain others would "just die" ... well I'm sure, at the very least, any conscientious psychiatrist would be sure to be in close consultation with his or her peers, discussing what, at the very least, is a very delicate, very potentially dangerous issue. Loomis 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Morals are a gift from God. You can argue that this is oppinion but, just because you do not understand something does not make it less true. There have been countless facts that people have not understood and therefor dismissed as someones over active imagination. In time all truths will be understood. Electricity and the lightbulb or going to the moon are good examples. Ironicly it is religion that is used most often as an excuse to violate these morals. The crusades and the attack on the World Trade Center are examples of this. A wise man once said "Some people confuse God with religion and walk away from them both". What is happening in the Middle East is the same thing that has been happening for thousands of years. The day it stops will be the most reliable sign of the end. It has got to get worse before it can get better.ĆÁĎ

Are you lot mad you started off disscussing Israel and lebenon and now it death theats, shut up shut up shut up. whats going on in lebenon is far more important than a throw away comment. i dont know wher you lot are from but in the UK the reporting in the news is more that a little biased. what is going on in Israel? they are being bombed to yet all we ever get is lebenon, lebenon, lebeon. anti semetism males me sick. Why are we only getting death tolts of lebones when one of Israel's biggest cities is beoing bomed daily. what is going on?

hey,Im replying to the last comment, Listen you, I think you are mistaken somewhere, by the way which news channel do you watch, just check out aljazeeza.net and you will be shocked to know the truth. And FYI more then 900 lebanese(civilians)have died so far in this conflict!!!!! As you know Israel is fighting Hizbollah, so why the hell is it bombing residential areas where innocent people live???

Aljazeeza.net is full of lies. They even admit to publishing bizarre anti-Jewish and anti-American conspiracy theories. I prefer to get my news from neutral sources. StuRat 02:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

hello..just wanted to comment on second last opinion on this topic..I think who is worrying abt UK is actually stupid..Can't u make difference between both situations??people in UK might have been killed in so-called attack today!!! but people in lebanon are actualy being killed daily without any mercy..don't u think it worth more attention if u r not blind??n which poor israel city yor talking abt???there is no such attack or bombing on any city,and if there is any,its not like bombing that israel doing on poor lebaneese cities and villages..Do u know above 1000 civilians have been killed so far in labanon and few hizbullah fighters,in israel death toll only 100 most of them soldiers who died in collisions????just answer 1 question?if this war and death of innocent people was happening in your owm country,and some1 said that this matter is not big thing..how would you response??please answer my question and reply to this whole message..[Arab soul]

Well, if I was a Shiite in southern Lebanon and was supporting a terrorist organization (Hezbollah) with money, shelter, food, votes, etc., while they built up a supply of rockets and then sent those rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill as many civilians there as posssible, I would expect to be bombed by Israel. I, for one, would stop supporting Hezbollah, and get rid of them, so that Israel would no longer have to attack the terrorist while they were hiding behind human shields. I would instead support an organization which would spend it's money on the people (including bomb shelters) and work for peace, instead of using it's money to buy weapons and instigate war with Israel. StuRat 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there are three separate answers to that question. The first is human shield, whereas the second is human shield. Finally, the third is, rather surprisingly, human shield. To repeat, human shield, human shield and, human shield. Loomis 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Health Insurance Netherlands

I'm in need of health insurance for a long-term (years-life) stay in the netherlands. How do I compare the available options? I've only heard of 'silver star' or something. --130.161.135.32 10:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's probably 'Zilveren Kruis' (Silver Cross, which is nowe owned by Achmea). Which happens to have been my insurance company for the last few decades. I only seriously needed them once and they did a proper job then (I was in hospital abroad and they genuinely helped me getting things organised), so I'll stick with them. That's the main criterium if you ask me (and you did :) ). When you're sick is a time you certainly don't want any troubles, so you need an insurance company that doesn't give you any hassle then. The insurance system in the Netherlands was recently changed, with the purpose of creating more competition between companies. All the stress was (as it would be) on the price of the different companies. So they will try to get that down. So they will try to get the cost down. Their biggest cost factor will be personnell, and the best way to have less cost there is less service. The most important thing you'd want from an insurance company. I fear that means insurance will go down the drain. All the companies will be for is paying your bills for you. And of course they will have to try harder not to do that (also to reduce the cost). So you will spend a lot of time fighting them to get your money back, giving you headaches when you're sick.

One reason to reduce this (some practical advise in stead of whining now) is to take out an insurance with maximum 'eigen risico' ('own risk'? Don't know the English term), meaning you pay your own bills unless the total for one year exceeds a certain level. The maximum 'eigen risico' is 500 euro. So most of the time you won't have any dealing with them. For this you also get two financial advantages. The payments are about 250 euro less per year and for 'no claim' you get about 250 euro back at the end of the year. So you break even if the medical costs are 500 euro. Below that you save money. Between 500 and 750 you lose money (compared to no 'eigen risico') and above 750 euro you declare the costs, meaning you don't get the 250 euro for 'no claim'. That's the scheme that makes most sense. Which company you choose probably doesn't matter much. Actually, I'd avoid the cheaper companies because they will probably provide less service, but that's just my guess.

Welcome to the Netherlands, by the way! DirkvdM 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What, no free marijuana as a welcoming gift ? StuRat 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana isn't exactly legal in the Netherlands (it's legal in small quantities, however it's illegal to distribute). See drug policy of the Netherlands. --ColourBurst 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That 'eigen risico' thing sounds like what's called an "excess" in Australia. An excess of, say, AUD $200 means that for any relevant claim, what the insurance company pays out in benefits is $200 less than it would otherwise have been. But the premiums for that type of cover are also less than they would have been had there not been an excess, so it cuts both ways. There's also the concept of a "co-payment", where a specified part of the charge is the member's responsibility, and the remaining charge is what the insurance company bases its benefit assessment on. They are technically different, but as far as the insured person is concerned, excesses and co-payments are just out-of-pocket expenses. JackofOz 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If want to see a GP, do I have to pay for that, or is it a free service like in the UK? I went to the 'Zilveren Kruis' website, but it's in Dutch and the doesn't appear to be a translation. I'm on a very low income at the moment (and going to blow it all on more education anyway) so I don't want to pay thousands of euros when I don't know what I'm getting. Funnily enough, they don't teach Dutch in most English schools and without structured learning, it takes more than a few weeks to learn. --130.161.182.77 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this goes for expats too (and mind you I'm no expert on this, so ask elsewhere too), but the highest premium you'd have to pay (no 'eigen risico') is just over 1000 euro per year. That doesn't cover everything, though, with the most important exclusion being dental insurance. But it does cover a visit to the doctor. DirkvdM 09:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oil Painting question

Hello. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. I have been searching the web for days now to find any information about a painting I obtained. The painting is approx. 4 feet wide x 1 1/2 feet tall. It is oil on canvas. The information on the back is as follows : 1910-820 Paris St Scene. The signiture on the bottom left corner is what is throwing me for a loop. There is a "C" followed by a space then a "D" followed by a letter that looks like a lower cased "I" with a curve to the left at the top. Then the balance of the name is "LLasuir". So the whole name is probably " C DiLLasuir " but as I stated I have found nothing on either the paintings name or artist name. I believe the artist is french so the curve on the "i" could be the slant the put above vowels? Just thought I would throw that out there. Any information that you could provide would be helpful. Thanks again.

Doug Moore--24.154.25.10 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't provide any information but it might be worthwhile to photograph the painting & post it here as someone may be able to identify, if not the painting, the style or artist. AllanHainey 09:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jacksonville mayor age requirement

What is the age requirement to run for mayor in Jacksonville, Florida (18? 21?) --Revolución hablar ver 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

please, answer me! --Revolución hablar ver 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Try here Nowimnthing 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Start a revolution and seize power. There's no age limit for that. :) DirkvdM 19:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no age limit on delusions of granduer, as Stewie Griffin on Family Guy can attest. StuRat 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Secularism vs. Laïcité

Having read both articles on secularism and laïcité (I'd never post a question without first reading the main articles!) I still don't think I completely understand the distinction. For some reason, France and Turkey are always singled out as not necessarily "secular" states, but rather "laïcist". It would be understandable if it were just France that was mentioned, simply because laïcité is a French word. Why then is Turkey, and only Turkey, invariably matched up as the only other real "laïcist" state?

It would seem to me that laïcité is virtually synonimous with secularism. One possible cause for my confusion is that I may be comparing apples with oranges in the sense that while laïcité may be specifically concerned with state policy, secularism is a much broader term that can be used to describe a much wider sociological phenomenon that goes far beyond simple state policy. But once again, why is Turkey, and only Turkey, invariably included?

Is "laïcité" perhaps a stricter form of secularism? For example, despite the First Ammendment to the US Constitution, it is apparently acceptable to mention "God" on US currency, and in its pledge of allegiance. As well, (without getting political...please let's not go there!) the current President happens to be a deeply religious man, (but then again, so was Carter, so please, let's not get into a discussion about particular US Presidents!) Is it that laïcité is an even stricter version of secularism, in the sense that the mere mention or open reference to religion is against state policy?

Once again, France may fit the bill, with it's controversial prohibition of conspicuously religious symbols in public schools and all, but once again, why Turkey?

Turkey may indeed be a "secular" state by any reasonable assessment, yet, like most secular states, there do remain some, at the very least "vestigial" signs of religion, such as the presence of the crescent moon, representing Islam, on its flag. I'm not saying that the presence of such a symbol precludes a country from being secular, if that were so, the dozen or so clearly secular countries in Europe alone with crosses on their flags such as England, Scotland, the UK as a whole, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Greece... could not describe themselves as secular, no less "laïcist", yet Turkey remains as pretty much the only other state other than France that is referred to as "laïcist".

Sorry for the rambling question! (I can't help it, my questions always seem to be overly wordy, but at least this time it wasn't a rant! Nothing really controversial that I can think of here!) In any case, there are two simple parts to my question: 1) What's the difference between "Secularism" and "Laïcité"; and 2) What makes Turkey the only state other than France to be considered "laïcist"? Loomis 14:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish approach is modeled after the French approach. The concept of laïcité is hard to grasp, but if you agree that "French secularism" is special, well, "Turkish secularism" is just like that. For example, in most countries female students at a public school who are Muslims are allowed to cover their heads with a scarf, but in Turkey that is forbidden. The wife of the current prime minister does not attend receptions because she refuses to take off her scarf. The star and crescent as a symbol of Turkey predates the Ottoman Empire (and in fact even the Byzantine Empire as it appears on coins of Byzantium, and is only related to Islam by association. In Turkey itself it is not perceived as having religious significance. --Lambiam^Talk 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lambiam, for the intelligent response. I'd just like to make sure I understand you correctly. Would it be safe to say that pure secularism (and I italicize it because it would seem that in its purest form, no state in the world seems to be purely secular,) is mainly concerned with the neutrality of the state with regards to religion (or atheism), but in no way intends to supress the public display of religious belief by private individuals, while laïcité takes secularism a step further, and aims to discourage (or even supress) such public displays of religious belief by private individuals, with the aim of creating an even more harmonious, and less acrimonious society? In other words, while secularism can be described as "the separation of church and state", laïcité can be described as (with the exception of purely private religious practice,) the "separation of church and society"?

As an example, would it be safe to say that in secular state, a private citizen is free (so long as he or she is not in violation of any "breach of the peace" type ordinance,) to hop onto a soapbox in a public place and preach whatever religious belief he or she feels like preaching, while such conduct in a laïcist state, would be forbidden as too divisive? I'm not arguing for or against laïcité here. I'm sure it has at least some socially redeaming qualities. I'd just like to understand the concept better, but as you yourself said, the concept is hard to grasp.

As for the star and crescent on the Turkish flag, I understand that these symbols predate Islam, and I'll accept what you say as fact, that in Turkey these symbols are not perceived as having religious significance. Yet I doubt many in the rest of the world, who are familiar with the central significance of the crescent in Islam, would be aware of this subtlety. Appearances can be extremely important. Take for example the ankh. It's basically a cross with a loop on top, yet the ankh symbol predates Christianity by many centuries, if not millenia. Yet today, most people not fully informed would tend to associate it with Christianity, and, as I've just learned from the article on it, the ankh indeed was adopted by the early Egyptian Christian Church, and, assuming the article is correct, its adoption by this Church is actually considered to be the first time Christians accepted a cross-like symbol to represent their religion. Before this, the cross was considered by early Christians as offensive. I was actually surprised to read this, but unless wiki is totally wrong on this one, it appears to be a rather fascinating piece of history. Anyway, this has nothing to do with laïcité, so I'll quit my little tangent right here. Thanks for the response though! Loomis 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You understood me correctly, although what I wrote is actually a simplification. I don't think though that separation of church (if you can call Islam that) and society is the right description, unless you equate society with public life. Both for France and for Turkey the aim of the laicists was, as I understand it, not so much harmony as to get the state out of the clutches of religion, using a more drastic approach than needed in democratic societies in which non-interference from religion was already common and part of accepted culture, or in which no single religion had an overwhelming majority. The Ottoman Empire had a history of a sequence of failed attempts at modernization, thwarted each time by the Ulema, thereby contributing to its ultimate decline and fall. --Lambiam^Talk 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A Painting that we own

My wife wants me to find out if this painting has any value. She gave me this information to look up. This information is on the painting. Dixvill Notch,N.H.---A.W. Quiney 1889---and je jonge or de junge.

Thank You Joseph N. Caucci

de junge (could it be die Junge?) sounds like it means the youth in German. —Daniel (‽) 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a better method of valuing your painting would be to take it to an art dealer and valuer. AllanHainey 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

American dead in World War II

Is there a website that lists the names (and other information) of all the Americans who died in World War II? 66.213.33.2 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That would likely be a very long list, too long to put on a list. But I'd imagine maybe there is some kind of database with all the names, but I can't help you with that. --Revolución hablar ver 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

here you can find 176,000 of the over 400,000 casualites. The remaining 224,000 may be a bit harder to find. Nowimnthing 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From context I'm going to assume that the website means 'dead' when it says 'casualties'. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In military jargon "casualties" includes: dead, missing and wounded. Try the National Museum of World War II for deaths.Elis1054 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Did US pay to dismantle Russian nuclear weapons?

As part of disarmament, did the US pay or provide services to dismantle Russian nuclear weapons?

If so, now that Russia has improved economically (due in part to oil) can we get our money back?--Ronbarton 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

see Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, this is still an ongoing process. I think most see it as more of an investment in our safety than a loan to the Russians. Nowimnthing 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. is also one of several countries helping Russia get rid of its chemical weapons stockpile as well. Rmhermen 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But what did it cost the taxpayers?--Ronbarton 02:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Lugar's website about $400 million per year or 5.7 billion from 1992-2006. But that is going to several different countries, not just Russia. Many other countries contribute to various projects as well. Either way $400 million is a steal compared to $75 billion this year for Iraq and Afghanistan. Nowimnthing 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally most analysts consider it money well spent. We didn't just give the money away, we helped to make sure that terrorists couldn't get their hands on the copious amounts of nuclear material in the country. I don't think anyone is getting stingy about that. It wasn't exactly a "service"—it was something which would have direct implications on global security. Personally I think it's one of the best successes in anti-proliferation efforts in recent years. --Fastfission 21:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You also have to realize that the winner of a war (even a bloodles war like the Cold War) needs to help (or should) the defeated foe to get on his feet, to turn him hopefully into a new friend. Not to help a defeated enemy, or even worse humiliate him (through rape, plunder or border redrawing), only leads to another conflict. Best example is the Versailles treaty (a complete failure) which humiliated Germany and helped Hitler into being elected (in his propaganda he promised that the national humiliation would be avenged). After WWII the US poured billions of dollars into Germany (and Western Europe) through the Marshall plan and also into Japan. Germany and Japan became good American allies. Of course nothing is that easy, both countries are allies and follow their own interrests but the trend is still there. Flamarande 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Iraq

It is said that possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in our attacks there, as well as in our response to suicide bombers. It is also said that a stunning number of Iraqis died each year under Hussein's rule. Which - our invasion of Iraq or Hussein's rule - do you all consider to have been safer for Iraqis? Thanks Sashafklein 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, during the first 17.8 months after the invasion, about 100,000 more people died than would have died during that period of time under Saddam's regime. The confidence interval for this study was very wide, and the authors took all deaths into account - not just the ones caused by the US troops - but it seems quite certain that the death rate did go up as a result of the invasion. They also wrote: "Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children." David Sneek 19:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that study is thoroughly flawed (and may have an agenda, as well) in that it only compares post-invasion Iraq with the relatively peaceful years just prior, and neglects to mention all the deaths caused by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War, the Kurdish genocide, the Kuwait Invasion, the Shiite Uprising, etc. If you really believe Saddam would never do anything comparable to any of those things again, then it's a valid study. I, for one, don't think it would have taken Saddam long to go back to his old ways. StuRat 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is to be expected during an invasion. The idea was that things would improve after that. But they haven't really and there is still little hope for improvement. The media now focus fully on Israel's invasion of Lebanon, but the death toll there is nothing compared to Iraq. It has been going on for so long now that it is no longer news. But of course the duration makes it only worse. So the worst things get least attention. And to think this all started because of a mere few thousand deaths in the US. Which is about equal to the amount of people getting killed in the US in car accidents in just three months. Every three months. Year in year out. Which makes that infinitely more important than all wars put together. Because it's an ongoing problem. For which reason it isn't news, ironically. The media should put more effort into putting the various things in the world in perspective. Like pointing out that what is going on in Sudan is even worse than the above 'conflicts'. DirkvdM 19:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're writing from Iraq. If so, I welcome you with open arms to the free world; that is, if the bulk of your countrymen and women finally decide that they actually want to live in the free world.

As an Iraqi, WE should be asking YOU what you'd prefer.

It's true, a stunning amount of deaths would have occurred either way. Take, for example, the 1 million+ deaths that occured as a result of Saddam's little adventure into Iran in the '80s. (A war in which, by the way, Saddam clearly used WMDs, the stockpiles of which seem to have vanished into thin air.)

Anyway, if you ask me, I kinda like the attitude of the New Hampshire state motto, which they print on all their license plates: "Live free or die". In other words, I'd rather die in a free Iraq than be a slave serving under a dictator. But that's just my view. Like I said, it's YOUR country, and, though this may be new to you, it's YOUR decision what kind of country you want to live in. Loomis 19:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...that sounds like the opposite of New Hampshire. I guess the Iraq motto right now is "live free and die". --198.125.178.207 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even at its worst, the Iraqi motto seems to be a choice between "Live as slaves and die" or "Live free and die" (which I don't at all agree with either, but even if so, I'd much prefer the latter). Loomis 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Westerners have an amazing ability to believe that it is better to be dead than to live under a dictatorship, even though time and time again most people usually throw their lot in with "life". In any case it is pretty presumptuous to make that decision for other people. "Well, we know you'd surely rather be dead than live under this government, why even bother asking?" --Fastfission 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If the choice was between CERTAIN death and oppression, most would choose oppression, yes. But the choice is typically between a slight risk of death and oppression, in which case many will take the slight risk. Even if we accept the figures of 100,000 killed in Iraq, that's less than 1/2 of 1% of the population, so we're talking about a 1/200 risk of death. While significant, those are the kind of odds people may be willing to risk for freedom. Also note that the risk is much worse in some areas and much better in other areas. StuRat 04:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And what are the casualty numbers on both sides of the Lebanon conflict right now? Sashafklein 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with your original question? Of course the casualty numbers are higher in Lebanon than in Israel. There are many reasons for that which I won't go into right now. But what would you have Israel do? Locate military bases in civilian neighbourhoods and generally fight as poorly as their enemies so that the casualty count will be equal? Does the fact that Israel is a better fighting force than any of its enemies, and does not turn its civilian communities into launching pads make it somehow more blameworthy? Loomis 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My brother and I am Jewish. He's 22. I'm 17, and I've gotten in fairly heated arguments with him lately, because he's anti-Israel whereas I'm pro. He's called me racist several times (even though Islam is not a race) got saying that I understand, but don't support, the Israeli attacks on Lebanon right now. And he's brought up the disproportionality of the Israel-Palestine conflict (some bomber attacks and Israel responds by invading an whole city.) Though I think it ludicrous that Israel should count how many have been killed in terrorist bombing and shoot just that many, I do also believe that the disproportionality of all Israeli counterattacks hurts them more than it helps in a conflict in which each extra civilian, or even each terrorist, they kill, breeds more. I was just interested in knowing if there were already a number known for this particular war yet. Just curious. Didn't want to start a new topic. Sashafklein 07:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, race definitely isn't the issue here because they are all semites. But neither is religion. It's just a conflict between countries (or peoples in the cultural sense). If it were more about religion, then the muslim countries might unite against Israel and with international support gone (except officially from the US, who are too busy elsewhere), even rich and armed-to-the-teeth Israel might not be able to withstand that. Then again, if that happened and Israel would again become the underdog it might get international support. At least morally, but right now no country dares burn its fingers on the conflict and that might not change. How much 'firepower' do Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the like have, compared to Israel? DirkvdM 13:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think religion is at the core, being the only possible explanation for why two groups fight over such a small and otherwise insignificant corner of the world. If it hadn't been the birthplace of (or near) the founding of three of the world's major religions, Israel/Palestine wouldn't be of much value to anyone. As for firepower, Israel has nukes, so definitely has more. Also, historically the Arabs did poorly even when they had superior firepower, due to lack of cooperation and training. StuRat 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's the (previous and still) lack of cooperation that I'm referring to. But it isn't an insignificant corner of the world if you happen to live there. Anyway, the total size is just over that of the Netherlands, so who are you calling insignificant? DirkvdM 09:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Netherlands rarely makes the world news, and I would expect the same of Israel/Palestine, if no religion was involved. StuRat 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The souvereignity (is that proper English?) of the Netherlands is not disputed, nor are its borders. Actually, we can count ourselves lucky this is such a boring country. :) DirkvdM 08:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That may say something about the quality of the "world" news you get in your respective countries, and your media's concepts of which countries actually inhabit the world. News about the Netherlands often appears on Australian media. As does news about Botswana, Chad, Bulgaria, Paraguay and other countries that in some parts of the world are considered too insignificant to even be recognised as countries. JackofOz 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I watch BBC World News and CNN, mainly. Both seem to judge the significance of an event by it's potential effect on their country, which seems reasonable to me. Tiny countries only get mentioned, typically, if they are in the running for a sports competition, like the Olympics or World Cup. StuRat 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think race isn't an issue because anthropologically they are classified as being part of the same language family, I'd dare to hazard you don't understand how racial thinking works. Even in these United States as austere and nit-picking an institution as the U.S. Supreme Court did not let mere anthropological fact get into the way of their racial categories (see United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind). --Fastfission 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If they would dress and talk alike, I bet they themselves wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They're not just the same 'race', but also the same ethnic group. Especially Jews have been protrayed in various twisted ways, depending on the political agenda of those depicting them, which doesn't quite help here. DirkvdM 10:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three questions, three answers:

• Iraq with Saddam see Human rights in Saddam's Iraq
• Iraq after Saddam see Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003
• Lebanon see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Casualties

most of the figures should be there. Nowimnthing 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A very quick look at those articles says hundreds of thousands dead in a few years both before and after the invasion. So things don't deem to have changed much (in rough terms). And 'just' one thousand dead in Lebanon/Israel (almost exclusively Lebanese civilians, btw), but that's in a few weeks, not years, so if that drag on as long and at the same scale (which I doubt) it might 'catch up'. DirkvdM 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the above posts is actually right. Jews and Arabs are both Semitic peoples. Sort of like how Germans, Austrians, Danes, Swedes, Noweigians, Icelanders and the Dutch (as well as several more peoples, forgive me but I'm sure a few have escaped my mind) are all Germanic peoples. They're all basically the same ethnic group. In fact, unlike Jews and Arabs who tend to adhere to three entirely different faiths, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Germanic peoples (not including of course those who choose to reject religion entirely) are pretty much exclusively Christian, giving them, if anything, that much more in common than Jews and Arabs. If only they would all just dress and talk alike, I doubt a Dutchman would be able to tell himself apart from a Dane! (I often get them confused myself, they're so damn similar!) Loomis 01:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and yes, right again. Most of the deaths in the current Hezbollah/Israel conflict are indeed, very sadly, Lebanese civilians. Well, we all know the reason for that, with the old human shield tactic and all, so no point in going into that. I just feel that it should be mentioned as well that in both pre and post-Saddam Iraq, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands killed were civilians as well. Oddly though, based on the above post, it seems that civilian deaths are only worth mentioning for some reason when Israel is somehow involved in the conflict. Curious. I really wonder what's behind that otherwise completely arbitrary and inexplicable distinction. Loomis 02:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Refering to "Of course the casualty numbers are higher in Lebanon than in Israel", I have a very simple question for Loomis, Why the hell is Israel killing lebanese people while its fighting Hizbollah, not forgeting to mention that the Lebanon government is not invovled in this conflict??? Does anybody know that more than 900 lebanese have died in so called War against tererrisom for no reason.

See the article on human shield. And if you still don't understand, you can also look at the article on human shield. If that one doesn't convince you, as a final resort, you can always rely on the human shield article. Loomis 00:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, they may be civilians, but many of them aren't exactly innocent. Those who are supporting Hezbollah (with money, votes, food, shelter, etc.), in it's attempts to kill Israeli civilians, can hardly complain if Israel accidentally kills a few of them. Similarly, those warlords in western Pakistan who offered shelter to al-Queada members in their homes can hardly complain when their homes are bombed. StuRat 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Post office for Zip Code

How can I find out the post office for a particular PO Box? For instance, I want to find out where PO Box 30740, Tampa, FL, 33633-1440 is located. - anon

Just call any post office and they can give you the street address of that Tampa Post Office, given the first 5 digits of the ZIP code. There is probably a web site that would tell you, too. StuRat 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked on the USPS web site [1], but it doesn't list an entry for that ZIP (although that is in the range of numbers you find near Tampa, FL). I suspect that branch was consolidated into another branch, and the PO boxes moved accordingly. Time to call them for more info. StuRat 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem

Can a lawyer stop the public prosecutor when he/she uses argumentum ad hominem towards the jury (namely directs the speech to feelings rather than to thought)? --Brand спойт 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Logical fallacies are the very heart and soul of legal argumentation! - Nunh-huh 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that's actually true. Logic and science take a serious beating in the courtroom. Just as Intelligent Design is a threat to science education and the Bush administration is a threat to both scientific research (on stem cells) and scientific free speech (on global warming), the legal system is also a threat to both logic and science. StuRat 01:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject, but I get the impression that the problem here is the jury system. Laymen are more susceptible to (legally) illogical reasoning. So wouldn't abolishing juries solve the problem? There is some talk here in the Netherlands to introduce laymen-judges (what's that called?) as assistents to 'real' judges to make the legal system more 'human' (something they have in Denmark). I've got serious doubts about that, but at least it doesn't go as far as letting a random bunch of laymen decide all by themselves on the question of guilt. DirkvdM 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In American courts the defense does have the option, typically, of skipping the jury trial and asking for a judge to rule directly. This option is rarely used because judges tend to be harsher in their rulings than juries. However, in a case with a particularly hated defendant, but weak evidence, this can be a good choice. For example, an admitted pedophile who is accused of a child murder, despite a total lack of evidence, may still be convicted by a jury, but acquitted by a judge. Any type of professional jurors would concern me that we would end up with the same rich, white, male lawyers who infest the legislature and the presidency, thus making the government even less representative than it is now. StuRat 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction: Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man," and it is most commonly heard in legislative debates and policy arguments, while argumentum ad populis is an argument to popular prejudice and "the crowd's opinion." They are both fallacies, but ad populis is most common in trials. Ad hominem is when you change the subject from the issue under debate to the person making the statement, and it can be a compliment or an insult. "What you say is attractive, and certainly moral, but not everyone can be as dedicated a pacifist as you, Jane, and therefore we have to allow for shooting attackers" would be an ad hominem, as the discussion changes from "self-defense" to "Jane's character." Ad populis is the use of stereotype, hated out-groups, and the like, and lawyers like to employ it. Even when there are "trials in the media," you'll see ad populis (the famous cover of Newsweek Magazine where O. J. Simpson's photo had been darkened), and it will also be used in political campaigns (pictures of John Kerry edited to show him sitting "next to" Jane Fonda, even though he never did). In fact, judges can and do stop ad hominem arguments, most of the time. They're called "badgering the witness" and "putting the victim on trial" (e.g. in a rape case, where "prior actions" of the victim are brought up or how she was dressed, etc.). Geogre 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, badgering the witness is a behavior (harassment), not an argument, and putting the viction on trial is a standard, acceptable legal tactic. In rape trials, certain details of prior sexual activity are statutorily prohibited from being introduced, just as certain aspects of the accused's life (prior unrelated criminal convictions) are. But barring such specific prohibitions, such argumentation is the mainstay of courtroom speech. A judge cannot prohibit arguments on the basis of being ad hominem, because ad hominem arguments are perfectly acceptable in a court of law. This is especially true in closing arguments. - Nunh-huh 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't get into it too much, but the opposing advocate has the right to object for "relevance," and the judge, if impartial, will often grant the objection. There is a thin line between character, which is subject to trial (to demonstrate mens rea) and simple ad hominem. For example, in an election it would be appropriate to mention that your opponent took money from Jack Abramoff to mobilize fundamentalist voters against gambling in one state to protect the gambling interests in another, as you're demonstrating that the person lacks ethos for the argument. Does the speaker have expertise and public concern and a good character? Well, you can question that, just as you can question whether a victim has a reason to lie or a witness to distort the truth. A character trait that has no bearing on the likelihood of a criminal act should be objected to and sustained. It's not as fine a line as it sounds like, but everyone caught in politics will claim that revealing his indiscretions is an ad hominem, and the opponents will always claim that it's establishing "character" or "values." Geogre 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

uncertainty records

how come it says on guinness world records that the first halo is the best-selling xbox game and yet halo 2 has sold nearly twice as many. halo 2 came out in 2004 so you'd think they'd update it. my question is, how often does guinness world records update their records? if you don't know do u know where i could find out?--Jk31213 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Shazam! Guinness Book Of World Records. I would suspect that they haven't got an official confirmation on the Halo 2 sales numbers, or have a lag in their confirmation process. Anyhow, that link will help you get started on some further research. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you guys (wikipedia) sure do have a number that happens to be 7.4 million. Are you guys more reliable than Guinness World Records now or what? If you are then in total, I've wasted a good $210.00 on buying those damn books.--Jk31213 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not more reliable, but we are more up-to-date. Skittle 16:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable or not, I'd say you've wasted a good $210.00 on those damn books. I wouldn't bother with those silly books. They're okay for kids messing around in the school library because it's cold or raining outside, but really, what use is information on the longest strand of spaghetti, the biggest mince pie or the most beans eaten with a tooth pick? --130.161.182.77 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For something as volatile as video game sales records I would not expect any printed media to be up to date for long. I do hope you didn't purchase the books just for things like that, because there are other ways to get that kind of information. --Fastfission 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli modern history for dummies : UN partition plan and other matters

I have been going to Wikipedia and the net in general, but I can't find a decent answer for these basic questions. I will enumerate :

1. Did the UN partition plan (1947) imply the expelling of members of one group in the part 'assigned' to the other part?

2. Did the UN partition plan (1947) envision democratic rule in both parts of the country, regardless of religion or ethnicity?

3. If so : I have heard that in both parts non Jews were the majority. So how could democratic rule establish a Jewish state in any part??

4. What exactly did David Ben Gurion do on may 14th 1948? What territory did he claim as the state of Israel? (I can't find a map of that anywhere). What kind of rule did he envision then? Dictatorship? Democracy in all of the Palestinian mandate (thus not the kingdom of Jordan) regardless of ethnicity or religion? Democracy without participation by non Jews?

I thank you,

Evilbu 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise some interesting questions. I'm sure the answer to 1 is "no" and 2 is "yes," but I'll leave it to someone with more expertise to say for sure. As far as 3 is concerned, the Jewish state proposed in the partition plan did have a slight but growing Jewish majority. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel announced on May 14 did not go into territorial questions. Regarding its position on the Arabs, it included this paragraph: "WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." -- Mwalcoff 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Finally the truth is made clear, Mwalcoff! Much better than I have ever been able to make it, no matter how hard I tried. Keep up the good work! Loomis 23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Loomis, but all I did was copy and paste the relevant section of the Israeli declaration of independence. -- Mwalcoff 01:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I congratulate you nonethless. Often times the truth is deceptively obvious, yet mysteriously absent from public consciousness. Nonetheless, I thank you for making a point that I have to this point tried in vain to make. Loomis 02:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, get real. He quoted the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Of course you're going to agree with that. And that's not a truth but an opinion. Once again, you can't see the difference. DirkvdM 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, I thought you were ignoring me, Dirk? In any case, it's not just the document that I'm applauding (after all, a document or a declaration isn't worth a damn thing unless it's actually acted upon...as a great example, take Arafat's "declaration" that he renounced violence and accepted the existence of the State of Israel...only for some reason he couldn't bear to say these same words in Arabic or actually do anything to stop his people, who loved him so, from killing Israelis). It's the fact that over the past 58 years, this particular portion (as all others) of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel has indeed been acted upon. For 58 years, Arab Israelis have indeed enjoyed "full and equal citizenship and due representation in all...[their] provisional and permanent institutions".

But PLEASE Dirk, I'm begging you, PLEASE, for once PRESENT A COUNTER-ARGUMENT! PLEASE at least TRY to engage in some sort of debate for once and prove me wrong. I've been wrong many, many, many times and I've always been the first to admit it. If I'm wrong here I'll gladly admit it as well. In fact I LOOK FORWARD to you proving me wrong. But PLEASE! You're no fun! All you ever do is take a quick jab at something I've said, and then scurry off, only to reappear to take another quick jab at something else! That's no fun at all. :-( Loomis 20:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding questions 1 and 2, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 called for democratic governments to be established and for minority rights to be respected in both states. -- Mwalcoff 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, so it's fair to say the three first questions are solved. 1.No. 2. Yes 3. Jews did have majority in the first part.

4 : well how weird is that? No explicit Israeli boundaries? An invitation to all work together does not strictly imply democratic rule by everyone?

I think "full and equal citizenship and due representation" clearly means they were planning to provide full civil rights to Arabs. Indeed, in the first Israeli elections in early 1949, a few Arabs were elected to the constituent assembly that became the first Knesset. (However, Arab towns remained under martial law until 1966.) -- Mwalcoff 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize now I should have asked a fifth question :

5. Did the UN partition plan strictly enforce immigration laws : Jews are allowed to migrate to the Jewish part but not to the Arab part? (Or did they say : every (as discussed : democratically run) part can just vote on immigration laws, but the discussed numbers of Jews and Arabs would only naturally imply a yes on Jewish influx in the Jewish and a no in the other?) Evilbu 11:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The partition plan would have prohibited Jews from moving to the proposed Arab state and Arabs from moving to the proposed Jewish state without special permission until governments in those states set up their own immigration laws. But remember that the partition plan was never put into effect. -- Mwalcoff 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, Mwalcoff, in your answer to the fourth question you almost seem to be implying that "full and equal citizenship and due representation" was the initial plan for Arabs in Israel, and was even tried on a "one-off" type basis back in 1949, only to be ultimately abandoned.

Of course you're aware that in the current 120 member Knesset, 10 members are Arab. "Full and equal citizenship and due representation" is apparently not a meaningless and disingenuous piece of propaganda in an almost 60 year old document, rather, apparently, it remains as a living and essential cornerstone in Israeli Constitutional Law to this day. Is there something I'm missing? Loomis 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

police commissioner qualifications

What are the exact qualifications to be a police commissioner? How would somebody go about running for the position and if you can't run for it how do you get apointed?

Please responed to ... email address removed

Thank you Joshua J White

Which exact police force/country are you asking about? Even if this was specified, there is no definitive requirement, it would depend on the needs of the police force requiring a commissioner. I would imagine you would need to be of a very senior rank in a police force (not necessarily the same one), and demonstrate excellent management skills. See Police commissioner for some examples around the world, and if you look at the individuals holding those titles you might be able to get an idea of their career paths. --Canley 23:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)