Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk 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 on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 9

St. Leo's Roman Catholic Church, Mimico

History of St Leo's Church, Mimico, Stock Family house, anyone know why it was named "Eden Court"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RootsPursuit (talk • contribs) 01:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, the Stock family house was called "Eden Court". Wealthy people have always liked to give their houses names. "Court" is often part of the name of mansions. (Compare, for example, Ashton Court or Hampton Court.) No doubt the Stocks wanted their house to be placed in this category. As for "Eden", the house's owners may have chosen that name to suggest that their home would be a paradise like the Garden of Eden, or it might have been chosen because the family had some connection to Eden, England or to one of the rivers in England or Scotland named Eden. It is also possible that the family had no connection to those places in Britain, but 100 or more years ago in Canada, a connection to genteel England (or to a lesser extent, Scotland) was a matter of prestige, and so wealthy people often feigned such a connection if they didn't really have it. Marco polo (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Consomme Belle-Vue en tasse"

A relative asked me what this substance is, but I didn't know, and Googling the phrase in quotes produced 0 results, so I'm guessing that the source my relative is reading has a typo. Any idea what the correct spelling could be, and what this substance is? He's reading from a book about the Penn State football program; this substance is a type of food that the players ate on a train trip to play against the University of Iowa in 1930. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I typed "Consommé belle-vue" into Google, and this was a link off of the first result. [1]. Hope this is what you are looking for. I'm not sure what "belle-vue" means, but "en tasse" just means "in a teacup". Falconus^{p t c} 04:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cup-a-Soup, presumably eaten while staring out of the train windows at the "belle-vue" (literally, good view); or maybe while in a town called Bellevue or Belle Vue. Astronaut (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to think that it's French, and thus the clams that Falconus found, because their other dining option was halibut with beurre noir. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is simply a cup of clear soup (see Consommé), probably made using a recipe identical to or similar to the one that Falconus linked. It would not have been instant "Cup-a-Soup", which probably had not yet been invented and (if it had been invented) would have been considered unworthy of a respectable railroad dining car in those days. It was fashionable then to use French gratuitously in menu items ("...en tasse" instead of "A cup of..."). Your spelling looks correct, though the original might have had an acute accent over the e in Consommé. As for "Belle-Vue" (which means "beautiful view"), I suspect that it is the name of a hotel, perhaps in France, where the recipe was invented. Many recipes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were named after hotels that had noted restaurants. Marco polo (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

According toThe Plot Thickens: Recipes from Writers (edited by Victor J. Banis, Wildside Press LLC, 2001, p 40) it "originated at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in the early part of the twentieth century." ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Palais des Papes - Palace of the Popes construction material

What ingredient was used to make the "cement" strong in the material used in the construction of the Palace of the Popes? What type of "cement" was used? Obviously it worked pretty good since apparently the stuctuture is still around after 600+ years. What material was used to make the interior and exterior white? Obviously they didn't use Portland cement in construction since it had not been invented yet until the nineteenth century and apparently after a 100 years (or thereabouts) it no longer holds up.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Portland cement can hold up well rather more than 100 years; the first concrete street in the United States used Portland cement, and the original pavement from 120 years ago has held up better than any of the patches that they've made on parts that have been damaged. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lime mortar.--Wetman (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wetman. Read over the article and have a question. Noticed that horse hair was added to the mix for reinforcement. Could other animal hair have been used also and from what animals?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Egyptians used straw in their bricks for the same purpose. Basically any fibers could be used. Longer strands are probably more useful, so I would suggest hair from people, goats and horses would probably give the best results. Googlemeister (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Camel's hair?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

do they ever make something illegal just so it will be illegal?

Is there an example of a law that is hopeless to enforce, and the lawmakers know it, however they do want to make the act illegal just on the off chance that the moralless person who would do that (such as a corporation), doesn't care if it's immoral, but might be moved if it's illegal regardless of whether it would ever be enforced?

(if my reasoning is hard to follow, I am thinking of, for example, corporations' starting rumors or superstitions. e.g.: a match maker (who makes matches, for lighting cigarettes) is credited with starting the rumor that it is bad luck to light two cigarettes with the same match. So, the law my above question references would be that it is illegal to knowingly start a superstition without personally believing it or having any basis to believe it.

Another example would be about useless home remedy type things, like that it is "healthy" to drink water from a certain glacier, even though it is exactly the same as normal water. A modern example could be "dead sea salt" scrubs, which are probably the same as any other salt. So, the rumor or superstition which one would actively start on behalf of a dead sea salt importer is that the dead sea has a long history of magical healing powers. so, the example law, is that you can't just decide to invent that rumor.

again, this would be impossible to prove, however, the law would have to be passed just so it was "out there" and maybe affected someone's moral judgment.

Although my two examples above (matches, dead sea salt) are the same, regarding rumors or superstitions my question is very wide: is there any law that is there just to be there, though it is preposterous to presume it could ever be enforced). 84.153.202.156 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Every law has some kind of reasoning behind it, be that reasoning objectively valid or not. The examples you cite would be to prevent fraud. Some laws are indeed difficult to enforce and may be "selectively" enforced. Is that what you're talking about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't mean "selective enforcement". I mean, totally unenforceable.

There are laws created "just to make it illegal". For example, many states have a law that requires people in a vehicle to wear a seatbelt. The way it is worded, police cannot pull over a person for not wearing a seatbelt. However, if a person is pulled over for some other reason, the "no seatbelt" offense may be tacked on to the charges. The end result is that not wearing a seatbelt in itself is not much a crime, but getting pulled over while not wearing a seatbelt turns it into a crime. -- kainaw™ 12:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really meet the OP's standards, as it is indeed very possible to enforce and was not passed "just to make it illegal", but to encourage safe driving habits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let me clarify the phrase "just to make it illegal": having 0% chance of pinning on someone, so that it doesn't change a "rational" examination of the consequences.

I don't know where you live, but I've been pulled over and booked about 3 times, solely for not wearing a seatbelt. You'd think I might have learned by now (I have, actually). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Before the law: nothing illegal about it, maybe a bit immoral. Consider being offered a morally questionable contract that is not illegal, or could be illegal but not enforceable. Here are the respective risks and benefits with/without this law.

Without:

• Risk: my conscience could gnaw on me. Nothing a Vuitton bag won't fix. So: -$700 with a 50% chance of happening.
• Reward: $15,000 for this contract to the evil corporation, 10% chance that they will renege or something else will prevent payment.
• Direct costs: $2000 in travel and expenses. (100%)
• Indirect costs: I lose $5000 over the same period by not doing my honest work. (100%)

So the value is 50% * -700 + 90% * 15000 - 2000 - 5000 = $6150 says choose this over my honest work.

Now with the law: It's a bit immoral, and illegal. The law says I have to pay $5000 for it, but there is no chance of it being enforced. New analysis:

• Moral risk: -$700 with a 50% chance of happening. (have to console my conscience).
• Legal risk: $5000 with 0% chance of happening.
• Reward: $15,000 for this contract to the evil corporation, 10% chance that they will renege or something else will prevent payment.
• Direct costs: $2000 in travel and expenses. (100%)
• Indirect costs: I lose $5000 over the same period by not doing my honest work. (100%)

So the value is 50% * -700 - 0% * 5000 + 90% * 15000 - 2000 - 5000 = $6150 says choose this over my honest work.

So you see, in this example the result is exactly the same as not having the law. So, if lawmakers know this, will they ever still pass that law? And what are some examples? 84.153.202.156 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Moon Treaty presently forbids private ownership of the Moon to citizens of thirteen nations that don't make manned space launches, and has been in force during a period in which there have been no manned trips to the Moon. I'd say that portion of the treaty have been entirely meaningless. — Lomn 14:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You could argue that the treaty provided a disincentive for lunar exploration, and thereby meaningfully contributed to the lack of manned trips to the Moon, or even to the development of manned spaceflight by the signatories. I wouldn't argue that, but you could... -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Laws against suicide would fulfill the original poster's criteria, I think. (Not assisting-a-suicide, but the actual act of suicide.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you succeed, then you've beaten the system, so to speak; but if you fail, you can be charged with a crime. Murder is illegal, even when the victim is yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The hell? Not where I live it isn't, and hasn't been for longer than it's been legal to be a gay man with a sex life. Was your sweeping statement about the legality of suicide (and the idea that suicide is a form of murder) intended to be understood as confined to some specific jurisdiction, or perhaps some specific religous system? Or were you just airing your personal views randomly? 86.164.57.20 (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comet's statement was about a law against suicide. If your jurisdiction has no law against suicide, then obviously it's a non-issue in your jurisdiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what does your last sentence add to the answer? It doesn't seem to be connected in any way, and comes off as intended as just a sweeping statement of general fact. Which is, obviously, it isn't. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I heard about a town, in the US I believe, that made it illegal to die. This was as a result of lack of cemetery space and a lot of red tape that the town couldn't get through to get more. This law was purely to make a statement, and for no other reason. I don't remember any of the other details, but nobody could every be fined in violation of this law (unless, of course, they are pronounced clinically dead and then come back, which happens very rarely). Falconus^{p t c} 20:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Those town councilmen must have had a few too many martinis for lunch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And they never actually "died" to begin with. Despite the fantastic advances of modern science, death remains irreversible. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere that Arizona passed a law making human/animal hybrids illegal. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You can get caught doing pretty much anything--especially if someone rats you out or you do it too obviously, or if it's discovered while you're being checked by the police for something else. So I'm not sure I buy the notion that there are laws that are absolutely impossible to enforce. Pfly (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

i like police, so i'm for them. i think they are for your benefit and protection. they never dashed that claim to me.

The obvious example would be some kind of thoughtcrime. For example, an implication of the British Treason Felony Act 1848 is that it is illegal to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend" various acts, regardless of whether they are expressed or put into practice. Unless somebody openly admits to having done this, there's no way of telling whether the crime has occurred and, therefore, it is unenforceable. Warofdreams talk 19:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Like Jury nullification; quite illegal in my jurisdiction, but also completely impossible to prove (provided you don't admit to it). See also the straight dope column: [2]. Buddy431 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"eat everything on your plate"

In raising children, there are two common, conflicting approaches to eating habits at the dinner table: one is the "eat everything on your plate" syndrome and the other is "eat until you're satisfied". What is the motivation for the former practice? Are the proponents suggesting that not eating everything on your plate is wasteful? Is it a nutritional concern? Is it valid?—it certainly doesn't look that way to me.

The "eat everything on your plate" method seems very damaging, unnecessarily so, and yet (from my limited observations) it isn't losing momentum. It appears to be one of those, "mum did it this way" habits that just gets handed down the generations.

As long as parents save food for leftovers (or cook less in the first place) and as long as they ensure their children get regular, healthy meals and a balanced diet, how can forcing your children to stuff themselves (and thereby learn bad habits with possibly unfortunate consequences) be so well-tolerated? It looks to me like widespread ignorance . . . is that so? If not, what am I missing? Maedin\^talk 12:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

'Eat everything on your plate' is nothing more than a disgusting demand for unconditional love. To question the appeal of what has been put before you is to of course question the provider. They know what is good for you, is the presumption. To not eat everything on the plate then becomes Heresy. Go to your room, no dessert, etc. Vranak (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Parents who pay attention to what they're doing won't overstuff their kids. And advising them to clean up their plates encourages thriftiness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate the thriftiness concern (though I think there are much better ways to instil the same virtue), but saying that parents are observant and won't overstuff their kids is simply not true (at least in the vast majority of cases). For a start, Westerners commonly overeat by gross amounts and don't realise it, and I don't believe that parents are biologists who have a good grasp on the size of the stomach, particularly a child's stomach, which will be so much smaller than their own. And we're not talking about being unable to breathe and struggling to make the next mouthful, I'm more concerned with less obvious, continuous encouragement to overeat until full and more than full. Maedin\^talk 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Then by all means, you should provide meals for your own kids that are reasonable in size - and you should encourage them to eat everything (including, especially, the vegetables, which I'm sure is also part of the "clean your plate" situation). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah without the clean up your plate, then what the kids will leave will usually be the veggies. Googlemeister (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Then surely the refrain would be, "eat all of your vegetables"? Is it really the case that we go down the road to the supermarket in petrol-spewing SUVs, buy and serve too much food, and then stuff our children in the name of thriftiness and 5-a-day? I appreciate Bugs's comment, but I don't need advice on how to raise my future children, just trying to comprehend the motivation behind such an apparently meaningless, harmful norm, prevalent even with well-meaning, otherwise good parents. Maedin\^talk 13:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor do they need advice from us. It's their responsibility, not ours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

One sad version of "Eat everything on your plate" is seeing an obese mother of an obese child at a McDonald's say "You can't have any pie until you eat all your french fries." It's like a cattle feedlot operation. Edison (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes parents let their children decide on the size of their helping. In these cases, the "eat everything on your plate" is probably meant to teach the children not to bite off more than they can swallow. (This was the case in little Sluzzelin's slightly didactic family). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a variation on "take all you want, but eat all you take." I've often heard Europeans criticize Americans for being wasteful, especially if some of it gets thrown away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? So you visit europe often and have lots of european friends, and doing those lengthy conversations with them the topic of trans-atlantic child dining habits has often come up? 92.15.5.169 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always felt it to be a generational thing, in the UK at least, and to do with the idea that food may not always be plentiful. My parents were children during World War II and experienced rationing to an extent throughout most of their childhood. As a result, they abhorred the idea of wasted food, and my father in particular would force my (extremely fussy) brother to sit for hours in front of a plate of cold food, and then serve it up again for breakfast if it remained uneaten after the evening performance, along with exhortations to think of the starving children in Africa, who of course were welcome to it as far as my brother was concerned. This is not an approach I recommend for a stress-free family life, but had less to do with over-facing a child (the portions we were served were not excessive) and more to do with the insistence that you should be grateful for what you are given, and not leave good food uneaten only to fill up on junk later, which is what my brother would have done given the opportunity. (They would also carefully store any unused food from a meal in the fridge and base the next day's meal around it. This drove me mad as a kid, but I now appreciate my ability to use up leftovers in creative ways.) It's OR, but I suspect that today's "eat everything on your plate" parents are not forcing their children to overeat despite being full, so much as insisting their children eat a proper portion of nourishing food rather than pick at what they like, leave what they don't fancy trying, and start nagging for crisps and biscuits an hour later. Eating a meal with enjoyment and gratitude to the person who has spent time and effort preparing it is also an important social skill for children to learn. Karenjc 14:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that was dreadful. I hope you and your brother are not obese thoughless scoffers as a result. 92.24.186.140 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Does being forced to eat food you don't like broaden the palette, making it less likely for one to be dependant on tasty junk food later in life? That would be a good argument for it if true. 90.193.232.32 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I hadn't considered the rationing, gratitude, junk food, and palate angles. I can see that all three are valid, but all answerable in different ways. Numerous times I've sat for hours in front of cold Brussels sprouts, being threatened with eternal starvation if I didn't eat them. But not eating the parts of the meal that you don't like doesn't easily get confused with not being hungry any more; parents are easily observant enough to differentiate between a proper, "I've had enough" and a "I've had enough of the pasta and I'm not going to eat the peas". But this "eat everything on your plate" comes regardless of whether or not all parts of the meal are consumed equally. And, as Karenjc pointed out, a family that is concerned about waste will réchauffer. And the answer to junk food . . . not to have it in the house? But I know, I am probably underestimating parenthood, and thinking that it is easier than it is to manage these things. By the way, I adore Brussels sprouts now—I think my dad considers it his greatest triumph, that through his perseverance I finally devour all vegetables!  :) Maedin\^talk 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Feeding of children can become an all out battle of wits (at the end of which you are usually faced with the twin spectres of both having failed and realizing your pre-schooler can outwit you...). The plate of food you provide a child is not just a pile of nutrition and calories, but also an amount of time and effort. It can be quite irksome to put a good amount of thought and effort into providing a nutritious and varied menu only to have the child refuse it (especially without trying it!). My wife and I usually don't choose to pursue that battle, so we'll normally go for the compromise ("Okay, if you eat this much of your veggies, you can have dessert..." kind of thing) if our daughter simply doesn't like the food. If she says she's not hungry, then we simply tell her she doesn't have to eat - and there will be no dessert or treats, etc. Like everything else in parenthood, you not only have to pick your battles, but also check case history - if she's eaten her veggies all week and today decided the peas are no good, you need to make sure that the peas don't in fact taste like garbage before proceeding. More than once my wife or I have arrived at the same conclusion as our daughter and moved on in life. Matt Deres (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got the right ideas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Battle of wits...pick your battles". Its sad that the old war-metaphor of leadership still survives in many people's minds. 92.15.5.169 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Children are not angels, they are naturally self-centered and live for the moment; nor are they competent to make decisions about what is best for them. That's the parents' responsibility. Some parents fail to take the responsibility, but it's still theirs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a great mistake and cruelty to force children to eat everything. Its better to waste a little food than have them turn into obese adults. "Eat all your vegetables" is good intentioned but could lead to them disliking veg. The trick may be not to feed them unhealthy food in the first place. 92.24.186.140 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The parents' first responsibility to their kids is to keep them in good health, and letting them skip vegetables because they don't like them is a failure to uphold that responsibility. The kids also need to learn the old saying, "Waste not, want not." We're used to prosperity in America, but it was not always this way, and there are no guarantees for the future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Barring an unexpected nuclear holocaust, by the time that happens they will a) be adults and be able to make their own mind up, and b) hungry so they wont need to be told to eat. It would be extremely unwise to lard-up someone because they might need the calories in 50 years time - they would be dead from the effects of obesity before then. 92.15.5.169 (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you truely want to keep them in good health including not being overweight, then you do not stuff them with food or turn them against vegetables. Nor do you feed them junk food. 92.29.123.127 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Eaters interested in food coloring may wish to broaden the palette; those interested in food flavoring may wish to broaden the palate; and those interested in supersized food may wish to broaden the pallet. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A friend said that his father's eternal crude mealtime joke was "I want you to eat every carrot and pea on your plate!" Edison (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just tell them they will die of scurvy if they do not eat their veg. As a kid I rather liked vegetables, but some may be supertasters. Good parents or good authority gives a reasoned explaination of why some behaviour is required: with bad parents or authority its simply "because I say so" and the force of willpower. 92.29.115.48 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The obvious thing to do, it seems to me, is to serve rather small portions and encourage "seconds" and "thirds" if one has finished their plate. If there's a bit left over on the last serving, fine. This would teach both thrift and not to overeat just because the food is on your plate. Of course, it might need to be tempered with the notion of eating only until you are no longer hunger rather than until you are "full" or "stuffed"--a tricky habit even for adults. Aside, there's no issue with my four year old kid eating his veggies--all our parent friends are stunned by his love of green beans, peas, carrots, corn, etc. The other, younger kid just wants crackers, so there's work to be done. Also, my wife was taught as a kid to "clean her plate" (they were poor and food was not to be wasted). So now as a adult she automatically "cleans her plate" even if it is more food than necessary. In short, I'm not in favor of the "clean your plate" meme. Better, so far, is small portions of several foods, with the option for additional portions--although with each small serving being "cleaned" (with exceptions for truly disliked foods). Anyway, with a four year old so much seems to depend on presentation and explanation. Penne are "tunnel borers". Green beans are pods with magic seeds inside, etc etc. I'm sure it will get harder as these kids get older. Pfly (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Won't kids eat if they are hungry? Why do people think that their bodies and X million years of evolution somehow underestimates the amount of food that they require? The important thing is to feed them healthy food, not junk food. 92.15.5.169 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good parents don't need telling, the authoritarian ones won't be told (to coin a phrase). 92.15.5.169 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

De Volkskrant ran an article about this last week: Bordje leeg! - unfortunately, it's in Dutch and requires payment. It refers to If you are good you can have a cookie which concludes in it abstract: "Binge eating and dietary restraint in adulthood are significantly related to participants’ recollection of their parents using food to control their behavior in childhood." Unilynx (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are people feeding their stomachs or (attempting to feed) their emotions? See comfort food. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The "eat everything on your place" sentiment probably isn't extreme. In China, for example, children are taught to eat every single grain of rice because it took a lot of effort to plant each grain. If you're worried about children "stuffing themselves", why not put slightly less food on the plate so that eating all of it wouldn't amount to overeating? ~AH1^(TCU) 15:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

bloody anthem

what is the most bloody or violent national anthem, in terms ofits tributing to or vividly describing violence past present and future. I looked at the hymn of the soviet union and it's as violent as I thought it would be, not nearly so much as the star spangled banner  ;) 76.199.146.154 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot claim that this is the bloodiest one, but Hungary's Himnusz is certainly a candidate. ("Sea of blood beneath his feet / Ocean of flame above." etc.) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bloodletting seems to be a common theme. La Marseillaise says "May be an impure blood water our furrows". Scots Wha Hae (one of several claimants to being Scotland's national anthem) goes "welcome to your gory bed" and later "We will drain our dearest veins". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See also "The Top Ten Most Violent Anthems Part I and Part II. Apart from Hungary and France's anthems, they also mention Kassaman (Algeria), Humat Al Hima (Tunisia), La Dessalinienne (Haiti), Il Canto degli Italiani (Italy), Himni i Flamurit (Albania), İstiklâl Marşı (Turkey), Himno Nacional Mexicano, Tiến Quân Ca (Vietnam), and Deşteaptă-te, române! (Romania). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are all much worse than the well-known first verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner", which could just as easily be describing a fireworks show as a military battle if it weren't for the one line about "the perilous fight". However, verse 3 of the Banner asks where the British are, as "their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution." I keep waiting for Celine Dion to sing that verse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Though it is but a state anthem, Maryland, My Maryland is as rambling and bloody as any, with lines like "Avenge the patriotic gore, That flecked the streets of Baltimore," and "Better the fire upon thee roll, Better the blade, the shot, the bowl, Than crucifixion of the soul," but has also wonderful line "She breathes! she burns! she'll come! she'll come!" Edison (talk)

I will henceforth cross the southern border of my commonwealth with trepidation. -- Coneslayer (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Countries that support Israel's settlements in the West Bank

I am responsible for editing a publication other than Wikipedia that includes a statement that Israel's settlements in the West Bank are opposed by other nations. I have received a complaint from a reader that, in fact, some (unnamed) nations support the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I am not aware of any such nations. Can anyone provide me with a link to a source substantiating the claim that some nations (other than Israel) support the Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My advice is don't touch the subject, if you don't want your intellectual cats killed. 84.153.202.156 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is my job to handle this subject, and I'm not sure what you mean by "cats killed". Anyway, I await a response to my question. Marco polo (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, if you want the truth, it is that so many Jews were killed during the holocaust that a lot of families were very broken afterwards, so if you think of the type of morals you expect kids raised in foster homes to have - think about why you have that expectation. Now comes Israel. Look, I'm not going to connect the dots for you, you have to decide. I'm just saying, if I were you, I would not press the truth on this subject. 84.153.230.67 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In case that is too obtuse: seriously. If you know what's good for you, then just follow the advice of your most outspoken, highly literate critics. If I get a letter from a Dr. on the subject of my coverage of Israel, I am going to do what it says or shut up about what I've said, truth be damned. I simply recommend you do the same. 84.153.230.67 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia reference desk, 84. This is where people try to answer questions truthfully. It's not a place to convince people that the truth isn't worth finding out. Staecker (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the table under The international consensus on the illegality of Israeli settlements? It lists the countries who were against resolutions 61/118, 62/108, 63/97, and 64/93. Not quite what you are asking, but it may be a start. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The creepy threats by the SPA Mossad IP should be looked at seriously. That "if you don't want your intellectual cats killed" "If you know what's good for you" talk makes my flesh crawl. Can someone run a checkuser?--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the threats were not on my part (I'm "84"). I am just another editor who knows that my personal intellectual livelihood is more important than the actual truth. If you want a reference to someone's intellectual livelihood, why don't you look at the story of the expose of "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters. The person who did that expose now "can't even get a letter [...] saying that he was a student at Princeton University" (from the same faculty where he attended). I'd say that's pretty much the equivaelnt of having your intellectual cats killed. Again, the threat is not from myself, but I must reiterate it: I care about your intellectual life, OP, and I want you to have a long and fruitful one. When you get literate objection to the truth as it relates to Israel, stop publishing it. Period. You don't have to go as far as to publish a retraction, we are not talking about Stalinist prisons. Just do what's good for you, as I do personally. Good luck. 84.153.185.122 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, I am backed by my superiors in a policy of publishing what is truthful, even if partisans of Israel's government object. The people who have objected to my statement have requested that I replace it with a statement that is clearly misleading. Personally, I am prepared to sacrifice my career, if necessary, rather than mislead readers. Returning fearlessly to my subject, I see that several countries voted against UN General Assembly resolution demanding an end to the settlements, yet the largest country voting against the resolutions in each case, the United States, is also on the record opposing the settlements. So, we have evidence that a few countries (including the United States) have voted against UN GA resolutions seen as hostile to Israel. Do we have evidence that any of those countries (other than Israel) actually support the settlements? Thanks again. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User 84. seems to be referring to Norman Finkelstein. Our articles indicate that the reason for his being discredited as a a political scientist in academe may be somewhat more complex than 84. implies. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

yes sir, sorry sir. ("84" here though my IP is a different one in Germany now). absolutely sir it is a complex subject and there is a reason the Wikipedia article on "from time immemorial" does not begin with the words "hoax book", since the truth is not the most important thing in this situation. you are very correct sir, and I did not mean to imply that the truth is important in these cases. quite the contrary, sir, and sorry again. I simply did not want the OP to fall into the truth trap. there are more important things in his life, in mine, and in yours sir. 92.230.67.224 (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Therefore we try to include any information that is relavent to an encyclopedic subject, even if such information may be deemed dangerous or illegal. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OP explicitly started with the very words "I am responsible for editing a publication other than Wikipedia " (my emphasis). Most of what I said doesn't apply to Wikipedia anyway since it's so anonymous - you can't reply with my name below no matter what you do. The same is almost certainly not the case for the OP, Marco Polo, and his publication "other than Wikipedia". Be careful, and good luck.84.153.234.184 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. If you don't have an answer to the OP's question, please leave this thread to users who might. Our policy is "no medical advice", not "no political advice". --Sean 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

um, thanks for affirming that I am free to give Marco Polo political advice? 84.153.232.5 (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

singers and smoking

This is a two part question, the answers might have nothing to do with each other. 1) has any successful opera singer throughout history been a smoker? and, 2) for pop music, which popular American musicians of the last hundred or years or so were smokers (if any).

Importantly, I include very light smokers as well, and also those who smoked but quit. 84.153.202.156 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Enrico Caruso. 2) John Lennon. You have an example of each. -- kainaw™ 16:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon was English. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you so, so much! (and such a fast response!) Actually I had thought you would be able to come up only of examples of a much lower caliber... now I am intrigued, as those are both "A" list names (I wouldn't have thought it was possible for the first list, actually). Are there any other "A" list names on 1) or 2)? The list of "A" list singers of their success in their respective genres is very small, no more than 20-50 people each tops. Who else on each of these lists was a smoker? 84.153.202.156 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It would take many weeks to list everyone. Smoking was popular and very common until the late 70's. So, this is similar to asking how many A-list singers ate cheesecake as smoking was no less common than cheesecake. -- kainaw™ 16:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom Waits couldn't possibly sound like he does if he didn't smoke. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pavarotti was another. You might be interested in browsing the long lists at www.popularsmokers.com --Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

These quotes suggest Waits gave up smoking about thirty years ago. Unless he spent the preceding time smoking linoleum dusted with blue asbestos, I don't think we can attribute much of his current sound to the smoke. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was being quick with my assumption, then. Anyway, there is a funny segment in Coffee and cigarettes in which Waits and Iggy Pop find an abandoned pack of cigarettes in a diner and smoke them, just to prove to eachother that having both successfully quit, they can now afford to smoke anytime they want because they want it and not because of addiction. I actually know somebody who follows this sort of twisted logic :) TomorrowTime (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! Boy, suffice to say my impresssion was totally backwards. Case closed! 84.153.202.156 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular American singers of the past fifty years have also often been ingesting all sorts of other things. Notice how much Steven Tyler's voice has changed over the decades...I don't think that was just from smoking cigarettes. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra was a smoker - one of the most successful and respected singing artists of all time ( and one of my very favourite artists, pity he smoked - dirty habit ) ny156uk (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So were all his Rat Pack cohorts. But back then, smoking was pretty much required in Vegas, except possibly in elevators and operating rooms. Dr. Oppenheim, my physician about that time, would light up a Marlboro every post-exam debriefing. Great doctor, succumbed early to lung cancer. PhGustaf (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In the article on Nat King Cole, it notes: Cole was a heavy smoker of Kool menthol cigarettes, believing smoking kept his voice low (Cole would smoke several cigarettes in rapid succession before a recording for this very purpose). The many years of smoking caught up with him, resulting in his death from lung cancer on February 15, 1965 at St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica, California. Cole was 45 years old. — Michael J 22:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And ever since, we 've all been moaning "Unforgivable". I have a friend who's a bass-baritone with Opera Australia, and he smokes about 10 a day (more at parties), and says various of his colleagues also smoke. It must be tricky to find the right balance between smoking just enough to give the voice that smoky raspiness that helps it to plunge to the required vocal depths, but not smoking so much as to endanger the very voicebox itself by overexposure to carcinogens (assuming there's any such thing as a safe level of exposure, which I doubt). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't 45 kind of young to be dying from smoking-induced lung cancer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, BB. Why are you asking me? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Asking anyone who might know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, it was a response to Michael J, and should have been indented one level in from Michael J's post, i.e. at the same level as my post. Simple, really. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A 76 year-old farmer was on his way back from Vegas and was seated next to a Catholic Priest.

"Father", he says, "I have to tell you something. I was just in Vegas for two days, and, long story short, I ended up fucking two gorgeous twenty year-olds!"

The Priest looked for contrition in his eyes, but had trouble finding it.

"Do you belong to the Catholic Church?" He asked, tentatively.

"Nope."

A pause.

"Well, are you Christian?"

"Nope."

"Are you sorry about what you did?"

"Nope!"

"So why are you telling me?"

The man grinned from ear to ear: "I'm telling everybody!" 84.153.230.67 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. What this has to do with singers and smoking is ............... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dylan. If you include NORTH Americans: Joni Mitchell. 63.17.80.31 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Josephus

Dear Sirs, Could you please tell me how it is that Josephus, Jewish Warrior knew of the intimacies of the court of King Herod. ( his wives' private lovers and etc.) His writings are quite explicit on these details. Thank you, Daisey Fish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.241.7 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on Josephus. It may not answer your specific question, but there are references for further reading material at the bottom, as well as some links to external pages which may or may not provide more of an insight. I hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As Josephus himself readily admits, he had access to a multitude of sources. He mentions several Greek historians by name, large sections of his works are based on the Bible and other Jewish writings, and he seems to have had access to archived material. His primary source for Herod's time appears to be Nicholas of Damascus, who was a diplomat and historian in Herod's court. Josephus even mentions Nicholas by name, for instance in Jewish Antiquities 16, 183-186. Poliocretes (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But don't be too po-faced about it. Josephus, like most ancient historians (in fact, like most historians full stop) is a source who is inclined occasionally to be unreliable. OK, let's call a spade a spade. Some of the time, he seems to have made stuff up. So take what he says with a pinch of salt. Consider his biases and motives. Read critically - and read Historiography. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

PAKISTANI MILITARY HISTORY.

HAS ANY FOREIGNER BEEN AWARDED THE COVETED "SWORD OF HONOR" FROM ANY OF PAKISTANS ILLUSTRIOUS MILITARY INSTITUTIONS.

IF SO, WHEN AND WHERE, WHO WAS THE FIRST ONE TO BE AWARDED SUCHPapasheikhtijan (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC).

I do not know the answer to your question, but I will say, please do not use ALL CAPS, as it is the internet equivalent of shouting. Thank you. Somebody who knows the answer may be along. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are probably many who were born before independence, so that depends on what you mean by "foreign". Raja Aziz Bhatti was born in Hong Kong and received it. Perhaps there are others. --Sean 15:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)