Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 14

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.

An american failure...

Hi, I'm gonna ask again, since no one answered the last time I asked...Here it goes:

What was the name of the expedition which was gonna explore the northern polar areas, but was literarly burdened by it's own weigth - you see, they used a snowcat/armoured wagon that was much too heavy for the snow, and it eventually sunk through. I believe the snowcat still lies there today (possible Greenland or the outer areas of The Northern Pole) --Petteroes 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could it have been John Franklin's last Artic expedition? Quoting from the article: "McClintock also found several bodies and an astonishing amount of abandoned equipment, and heard more details from the Inuit about the expedition's disastrous end. ¶ There are several things that contributed to the loss of the Franklin expedition. Franklin was culturally conservative, observing wasteful rituals in inappropriate locales; for example, he and his men carried silver plates, crystal decanters, and many extraneous personal effects with them. They attempted to haul much of this heavy gear along with them even after abandoning the ships." However, Franklin was not American but British, so I don't know if this may be what you're looking for. Franklin was not leading an Expotition to the North Pole but an expedition to chart the Northwest Passage. They got stranded in the ice near King William Island, which is in the present Nunavut Territory.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A Swedish polar expedition that met similar failure is described in the FA S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. After the balloon descended the explorers towed heavy gear across the ice until they died of trichinosis from contaminated polar bear meat. Durova 05:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sonic Youth's DAYDREAM NATION

On one of Sonic Youth's albums, Daydream Nation, there is a song listed as "Silver Rocket." What is this song about?

Looking at the lyrics here, they don't strike me as being about anything much, in the sense of describing something particular or trying to send a message. What they do - like so many of SY's lyrics - is convey a mood through a loose collection of images. In this case, I'd guess the mood they were going for is being a teenager, going to gigs, chasing girls/boys, playing in bands. A bit like Smells like teen spirit. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A Silver Rocket is a type of dildo, if that helps. --81.111.18.84 12:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Daydream Nation was released in 1988. The earliest dated reference I can find to 'Silver Rocket' as a name for a dildo is from 2005, here. So, I suspect that the dildo is named after the song (as are the night at The Garage in London and the Czech record label), not vice versa. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Silver Rocket dildo's earliest reference i can think of is in a song by the band Placebo in 1995/6: '2 rubbers, 2 lubes and a Silver Rocket' - from the context of the two other items it's clear he means the dildo. of course, that is still a long time after daydream nation, long enough for the dildo to have taken its name from the Sonic Youth song. --81.111.18.84 21:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

US inciting Sunni-Shi’ite strife in Iraq

Making Sunnis and Shi'ites suspicious of one another ... is the policy of the Americans in Iraq.What is the US policy in Iraq? Is it really granting freedom & democracy or imposing age old colonial tenet of divide & rule??? Where is freedom?? [kj_venus]

That's not a question. It's a "soapbox" satement, and a ridiculous one at that. Please remove it. Loomis 07:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It definitely looks soapboxy, but it is constructed as a genuine question. Does the US implement a policy of divide and rule? That policy has been used so often in history that I wouldn't be surprised if it were implemented here too, so it's not a ridiculous question. Go remove yourself. :) DirkvdM 08:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of the questioneer's intentions, there is a bit of a bite to this question, or rather the denial of the assumption. Did the US know that the situation in Iraq was such that a bloody civil war would break out? If so, then they deliberately plunged the country into chaos and the intention of divide and rule sounds very plausible. If not then they're a bunch of idiots who don't know how to handle the powers they have. A car driver who causes a terrible accident is likely to have his car confiscated. By analogy, the US should be disarmed. DirkvdM 11:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To believe this, you would have to assume that (a) the Bush administration is competent, (b) has a coherent Iraq policy and (c) derives some benefit from dividing the country. So far, I see little sign of the first two and the last makes absolutely no sense. P.S. Did the Sunnis and Shi'ites trust each other in the first place? Clarityfiend 15:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think the US wants a civil war in Iraq, as that makes it ungovernable, there is one possible benefit to the West. The current Muslim hatred directed at the West in the form of terrorist training schools throughout the Muslim world would be instead directed at the opposing sect, if a giant Sunni/Shiite war erupted. Eventually (probably after hundreds of millions died), they might realize that suicide bombings don't accomplish anything but kill a lot of people. StuRat 17:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The potential civil war in Palestine between Hamas and Fatah may similarly benefit Israel by deflecting Muslim hatred and suicide bombers away from it. StuRat 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The USA (and the West in general) is not interrested in any war in the Middle East because that would endanger the supply of oil. To the contrary, the US are interrested in keeping a relative peace in this region. Even a small localized war can easily grow and engulf the whole region. Flamarande 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bush team had a lot of knowledgeable and experienced people, both in foreign policy and in energy policy. It is hard to believe that they are unaware of Hubbert peak theory, which posits that oil supplies are finite and may be about to decline. If this is a concern of theirs, it could make sense to keep Iraq politically divided and in a state of unrest that can be used to justify occupation. This would tend to keep the oil in the ground but under US control until the time of shortages, when the US military will have access to that oil. Keeping Iraq divided and weak would also remove a potential enemy of Israel. However, this is just one possible interpretation of events, and I don't claim to know what really motivates U.S. policy in Iraq. Marco polo 20:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Iraq invasion was about Bush seeking revenge for Saddam's attempt to kill his father. StuRat 00:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Bush and even I can see that's ridiculous. There were numerous reasons Iraq was chosen for invasion but revenge for an alleged attempt by Saddam to kill Bush sr. isn't one of them. In fact, it's so patently outrageous I await your evidence to support your theory. It will be interesting to read. - Pyro19 04:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The only "smoking gun" evidence you could find is if Bush admitted it, and he won't, of course. However, there is plenty of evidence that Bush and Cheney wanted to find an excuse to invade Iraq before 9-11 and then immediately after 9-11 looked for a way to use it to justify the Iraq invasion. I saw an interesting PBS documentary called something like "Cheney: The Dark Side", which talked about Colon Powell and others trying to prevent the Iraq invasion. The original position of the administration is that they ONLY wanted to invade Iraq. Powell and others were finally able to get them agree to at least invade Afghanistan first, where al Queda and bin Laden were located, at the time. StuRat 18:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So you have no evidence. Okay. - Pyro19 15:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Power corrupts and too much power in the hands of one person will make that person use it for his own agenda. Examples abound in human history. StuRat intended to citcise Bush. I criticise the system that allowed him (or anyone else) to get into a position with the power to do what he does. Note that a big part of this is that the US is the size it is, which is also the reason I am very sceptical about European integration going far beyond trade. Another problem is the fact that any country gives it's top dog, however elected (or not) too much power. The combination of these two things makes it very desirable for the US to become a parliamentary democracy (because splitting the country up would be even harder). DirkvdM 07:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No One is supportive of Bush & his policies, instead kerry wud have been a much better run for the post of the US president. The Iraq mess is one example of abuse of power & N.Korea , What will the US do ? Will it extend support to China & other places in Asia? Also Hugo Chavez also has criticised the policies of the Bush administration for lacking foresight. How many more countries can take up the courage to challenge the might of the Big Brother? Even the rate at which engineers and other graduates turn out in the US have fallen compared to places like China. The US is having its own way in everything & it cant keep abusing power & freedom, when freedom is just impatience for materialistic desires. [kjvenus]

As for Chavez, he apparently wants to be an absolute dictator, judging by how he cozies up to other dictators, like Castro. And what does "extend support to China" mean ? StuRat 17:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

video game music

Hi I am looking for any music from the playstation one video game G DARIUS,or any sites to download from. Have already tried VGMUSIC, BEARSHARE and KAZAAR any help greatly appreciated.—Logan

Learn about PSF files and where to get them. You're likely to find that game's music in one of the several PSF archives out there. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Major causes of death as percentage of the population

What are and have been the major causes of death as percentage of the population (of a country or maybe an ethnic group or such), due to anything, so conflicts or natural disasters or ongoing events. Some examples are the Vietnam war (5-10% of the Vietnamese dead), WWII in Poland (16%), cars (close to 1% worldwide, but is it especially bad in one country?), the bubonic plague (40% in Constantinopel in 541), the holocaust (Jews, but also, say, gypsies, possibly per country) or terrorism? DirkvdM 08:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Carthage, 146BC, 100% either dead or enslaved? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'll add to the list the Aztec capital city Tenochtitlan, during the Hernán Cortés invasion. I've heard in TV documentaries (sorry for the bad reference) that about 90% of a city of more than half a million inhabitants died due to rubella, which was brought by the Spaniards. --GTubio 09:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• 90% of the Eora population dying of smallpox after English colonisation? Natgoo 09:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The only AD event I can think of is the rule of the Khmer Rouge. Up to one third of the population was killed off. That's about 2-3 million. --The Dark Side 01:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

During the War of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay, around 60% of the country's population was killed. Warofdreams talk 03:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WW2 accounted for the death of 3.17% of the population of all of the involved countries (a total death toll of 63,000,000), 13% of the population of russia, 10% of germany, and the battle of stalingrad, accounted for 2million deaths (~200% of the current population of the city). Philc _T^E_C^I 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Surely disease has done most to control human numbers...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia apply "Jewish-American/British Jew etc" and Jewish hyphenations with nationalities?

I don't understand this. That's like putting Irish Catholic and Irish Protestant categories. I am of the mind that religion transcends ethnicity, even in Jewish cases (Barry Goldwater & Madeleine Albright were/are both of Ashkenazi/German Jewish origins, but became Episcopalians/English Protestant Christians). Israeli hyphenations should be the only categories (Natalie Portman is a good example), otherwise I think this is some sort of Jewish identification thing for paranoid anti-Semites to look up and confirm their suspicions or something. I think it would be ridiculous to have categories for Christians and Muslims (or any non-Abrahamic faith) as well, even if NNDB does it. I think that the religious component belongs merely with the biographic articles, in detailing the religious orientation of individuals. BTW, I am religious and not trying to secularize this or anything. I'm a Christian Gentile and recall the New Testament says there is no difference between Jew or Gentile in Christ. Obviously, that was about Judeans/Israelites/Hebrews (Semites, as contrasted with Greek or Roman Japhetites) and not about Jews or Judaism as a religious community in this day and age or as it has been from the Expulsion to the creation of Israel. I think it is patently unfair to Jews to have them scrutinized with categorizes like this. Hasbro 10:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Many communities in New York City are based on extrememly minor differences but which serve to divide one group from another regardless. In terms of classification/identification in the natural or in the man-made world it a very common and sometime necessary state. 71.100.6.152 12:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the issue in any way. Thanks for wasting my time. Hasbro 12:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question rather than your diatribe the same answer still applies. Sometime one must use a hyphen to distinquish between a 12 volt car battery and a 12 volt lantern battery or suffer the result of the failure to do so by getting the two mixed up. 71.100.6.152 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are a troll. Hasbro 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

<personal attack removed - User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)>. 71.100.6.152 17:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is a personal attack. Failing to remove it as well provides evidence of a double standard. Besides Hasbro is the one with the history of personal attack... 71.100.6.152 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I still await a serious reply. Hasbro 04:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the response is that the day all the Jewish categories will be deleted from Wikipedia is the day when the Irish-American, Catholic-American, and for good measure African-American categories will be deleted. (In any case, I think the response and "discussion" over at Talk:American Jews is quite sufficient) Mad Jack 05:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try a serious response. In my experience the notations that someone is Jewish usually come from two distinct sets of editors: Jewish people and anti-semites. In both cases the aim is to raise awareness, but toward different ends. The comparison to Christians and Muslims is an inexact parallel because "Jewishness" has ethnic and cultural dimensions that Christianity and Islam don't share. While the mention of the New Testament would be relevant to Christians, people who are Jewish by faith as well as heritage aren't obligated to agree with what the New Testament says. There are many ways to debate around the margins of Jewish identity. Durova 05:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is an ethnic religion as well. Just think--India and Hinduism, the Indus River all have the same name and identity (c.f. Jews and Judaism). Semites can become Christians...Gentiles (Japhetics) can become Jews. I think it has more to do with the social atmosphere--as you say, between Jews and anti-Semites. Thank you Durova, for what response shall open a doorway to normalizing Jewish identity alongside the other Abrahamic faiths. If you can do this, then perhaps Wikipedia will lead the way to destigmatizing the Jews. For myself, I am part Jewish as a Christian (I consider my religion more progressive). Even if I were maternally descended from a mother who practiced Judaism (or her family did), I would not automatically consider myself Jewish. That's the thing. Baptism and Christening are important rites for me. Aside from that, if I were Ashkenazi, I would see myself as German ethnically (literal interpretation) and Jewish religiously. I don't see how that is hard to fathom, unless we want to send the Jews back into ghettoes and recreate that sort of "ethnic background" once more. As it is, we have Israel to consider and not the old customs of hiding Jews in the seedy parts of the city. Jews deserve the same respect I feel I am entitled to. Japheth's descendents, as Christians, are living in the tents of Shem and expanding where the Jewish Semites left off. Of course, this is the general rule. There are Japhetic people not Christian, just as there are Semitic people not Jewish. There are Jewish Japhetics and Christian Semitics. Of course, there is the other issue of Hamites and Muslims--but that is more of the same subject discussed. Hasbro 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Hinduism and India is precisely the same thing. The Hinduistic religion is largely connected to the country and culture, but Hindu isn't in itself an ethnicity. That parallel is actually closer to the connection between Japan and Shintoism. Close connection to the culture it was formed it, but not in itself a marker of ethnicity. 惑乱 分からん 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasbro, I appreciate that you have the best of intentions. However I believe that you're quite mistaken in one major area. You seem to believe that it's the anti-semites and the anti-semites only who consider Jews to be not simply members of a religious group, but members of an ethnic group as well. It's true that "Nazi" style anti-semitism was purely ethnic, and hardly religious. A Jew in Nazi Germany could convert to Christianity, yet the Nazis would consider him no less a Jew. On the other hand, the brand of anti-semitism that exists in the middle east among Muslim Arabs is quite the opposite. For example the PLO national covenant says something along the lines of "Judaism is indeed a religion, yet there does not exist a Jewish "people"" (ie ethnicity). In other words, while the Nazis regarded our religion as rather irrelevant, but recognized, and had rather extreme beliefs about our "ethnic" identity, anti-semitism in the Arab world works in quite the opposite way: They all out deny the existence of a Jewish Nation (i.e. ethnicity). According to them, Judaism is merely a religion and nothing else.

As for the Jewish position, we believe ourselves to be BOTH. We're BOTH a nation, as well as a religious group. An "Ashkenazi" Jew is not merely an ethnic German who practices the Jewish faith, but an ethnic Jew who happens to have dwelled in Eastern Europe. At the same time, a "Sephardic" (Hebrew for "Spanish") Jew is not merely a Spaniard who happens to practice the Jewish faith, but rather an ethnic Jew who happens to follow the traditions of those other ethnic Jews who happen to have dwelled in areas such as Spain and North Africa.

As for the original argument, I've got no problem with biographical articles noting this or that celebrity's Jewish background. I actually like it. You know, we're not in hiding anymore. Those days are over. Loomis 05:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point on new anti-semitism, but my point is that the duality is not always important. The person above you has info on other examples. What if we called Japanese Americans, Shinto Americans instead? I would hardly consider Harrison Ford to be "Jewish American". Harrison Ford, to me, is an Irish American. That explains his "Anglo" looks and his Democratic party affiliation just like most Irish Catholics as they usually have been (c.f. the Kennedys), but Jewishness doesn't really fit him at all. What about me? I consider my Mediterranean ancestors to not make myself today a "Semitic" or "Black" person, but that was just a natural ancient expanse of Noah's Gentile son in that area and before modern technology made it possible to transplant societies or cultures further from the Cradle of Humanity/Civilization etc. I consider Christian to be a quasi-ethnic/racial term for Gentiles descended from Japheth, because obviously, who gets criticized for Christian imperialism but those of the Graeco-Roman (European) persuasion? Where was the original spread of Christianity by the Apostles, except those areas considered to be the old core of the ancient "Indo-European" diaspora and from which they spread out further. By the way, Germans and Ashkenazi mean just about the same to me. I do not consider them to be racially different and certainly not politically, economically or socially different. They are however, quite different from the "Anglosphere standard". When I think of Henry (Heinrich) Kissinger, I think of a German just as much as Adolf Hitler. Yiddish speakers remind me of Prussia--that old and defunct German state. In much the same way, I don't think it is possible to differentiate Sephardim from Spaniards unless getting into nitty gritty social register conventions and how they worship. I classify them the same. It's an extremely hard sell for me, to say that Alyson Hannigan or Laura Prepon is different in any way from Nikki Cox. Gwyneth Paltrow looks German/Polish to me. How would one tell otherwise?

My main point is, that I don't think that it makes sense to hybridize religious and ethnic terms and make a proper distinction on nationality. Religious categories (Jews, Christians) fit for the Kingdom of Heaven, not the Realm of Caesar (Israelis, Greeks).

Hasbro 09:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of Japanese aren't Shinto, but Buddhist and even Christian. The vast majority of American Jews are (unfortunately!) Democrats. None of Noah's sons were "Gentiles", as Judaism hadn't existed in the time of Noah. Later on, some of Shem's descendants became Jews, meaning that all the other Shemites, Japhetics and Hammites became known as "Gentiles". Germans and Ashkenazi may mean the same to you, but they certainly don't to me. I'm an ashkenazi Jew, yet going back centuries, my ancestors dwelled in the Russian Empire. Yiddish may be a Germanic language, but it thrived mainly in Slavic countries, not Germanic ones. Most Sephardim I know immigrated from Morrocco and other North African and Middle Eastern countries, not Spain, and for the most part dwelt among Arab Muslims, not Christian Spaniards. Hasbro, though once again, you seem to have the best of intentions, I've never seen so many factual innacuracies clustered together in one post. And I only pointed out the most glaring of them. Loomis 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As a digression, in Sweden "bosniaks" are often referred to as "muslims", equally confusing... 惑乱 分からん 15:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, the Yiddish speakers were part of German expansionism in the East, just as Morrocan Sephardim are totally historically connected to Moorish rule in Spain. Why you would try to make cognitive dissonance about this is beyond me, but these are sophist or casuist replies. Yes, I do have good intentions and you have yet to refute the argument distinguishing the differences between citizens of God (Jews, Christians, Muslims) with citizens of Caesar (Israelis, Greeks, Egyptians). It is strange to say one is half Italian, half Jewish as Rachel Bilson's article suggests. For Alyson Hannigan's article, it says that while her father is Irish, her mother's last name is Posner. That means she is half Irish, half Ashkenazi (German). I'm being technically and literally correct, at the face value of the issue. She is not half Jewish, no more than I could be half Episcopalian and half Methodist or half Catholic and half Orthodox. You are applying specious logic here, with generalized approaches that do not fit the actual situations.

The crux of the matter is, that I could not be half Amish, half English. That is illogical, but informal and improper common descriptions among the Amish community. Just the same, it is nonapplicable to the Jewish community. Long-standing custom of inaccurate depictions, nonwithstanding. Hasbro 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Loomis' first response here. And the problem with all of Hasbro's arguments is that they consist entirely of his own opinions on what "Jewish", "Ashkenazi", etc. is or is not, and that these opinions do no match what reliable sources as well as Wikipedia say about "Jewish". Every single reputable source says the "Ashkenazi" are a distinct ethnic group - distinct that is from ethnic Germans, Russians, etc. (while these sources do not say that the Amish are an ethnic group) Hasbro, of course, has every right to believe that that's not the case and the "Ashkenazi" are not an ethnic group, but what could Hasbro's beliefs, which are in the tiniest minority, have to do with Wikipedia or Wikipedia's content? Wikipedia goes by what sources say, not by what users say or think. Therefore I find this discussion entirely pointless. If Hasbro aims to convince me or Loomis or anyone else that "Jewish" is not an ethnicity, I suppose he could spend his time trying (though I'm afraid that I am a lost cause in that department), but the point is that Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, and reliable sources fully acknowledge that the Jews - yes, today's modern day Ashkenazi and Sephards - are a distinct ethnic group. Since that's the case, they are an ethnic group for Wikipedia purposes. Harrison Ford, for example, who you brought up above, says he feels "Irish as a person and Jewish as an actor" (Harrison Ford is actually only 1/4 Irish, btw, but never mind). Rachel Bilson says she is "half Italian and half Jewish". You may believe these people are incorrect when they imply that Jewish is their ethnicity, but that belief has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content and little to do with discussion on Wikipedia. Mad Jack 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are right, then you can tell me where I would reach my local Ashkenazi or Jewish consulate, for a visa or passport issued from those nations. The simple fact is, that is a fantasy reality invented by identity politics. In all likelihood, Rachel Bilson is half German--of the Jewish religion, which is the Ashkenazi community and a subculture. You tell me where to find the Semitic embassy and I'll agree with you. As it is, I am American and it doesn't matter if my ancestors were from England before that, France before that and the fallen city of Troy, back into prehistory. If I wanted to really stir up nonsense, I could say that I'm an African-European American because of probable Egyptian ancestors way back when. More responsible editing should be emphasized in Wikipedia biographies, rather than this socialist/balkanist presentation of people who are really just one type of person and not multiple personalities. Loomis, sorry to be the one to say that you are merely American and of Jewish religion. Your ancestors probably arrived after the founding of this nation and you see fit to live as though this is Yugoslavia in America. There is no Black embassy, because there is no Black nation. Niger and Nigeria sound close. These cultural terms have no legal framework. You are not Jewish and I am not Christian in the temporal world. Our souls are citizens of God, not Caesar. That means the only diplomatically recieved ethnicities are those which are nationalities and can be found in the United Nations or even unrecognized members such as rogue states where the people are a nation and not a religion. Your religious beliefs can't replace legal truth. I am not a citizen or national of Christianity any more than you are of Judaism, because neither is a country. Judea was a country a long, long time ago and so was Troy. That I may be a heir to the Trojans does not mean that I am Trojan, any more than you being a heir to the Maccabees or the line of David would make you a Judean. If you truly want the closest experience to that, become an Israeli citizen and you will bring a belief to life, more or less as a restored reality. I wish all the best to Israel and the new Israelites, but it is obviously not the same condition as the early Imperial Roman era.

What matters most is legal identification and diplomatic recognition. Where is Jewish in the ancestry for American censuses? Most American Jews usually mark German as their heritage. Hasbro 10:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This might be a bad time to enter, but an "ethnic group" clearly doesn't need to have it's own recognized nation, as you seem to believe, just look at the Kurds, the Sami, the Basque etc... 惑乱 分からん 13:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And: Most American Jews usually mark German as their heritage -- oh, really? I'd love to see some evidence for that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are not most immigrant American Jews of Ashkenazi descent, from Germanic and Slavic (those countries with historical influxes of Teutons) nations? That contrasts with the colonial American Jews of mostly Sephardi descent. In most cases, Jews made famous in Hollywood or Broadway are Ashkenazim. Why not go on and say that these people are Ashkenazim, instead of "Jewish"? "Jewish" doesn't really specify the ethnic component of the person, as Ashkenazi/Sephardi/Mizrahi does. I really don't think that religious beliefs about ethnicity are represented in legal courts, even if the Jews themselves hold such traditions. What matters most is the legal, recognized ethnic heritage. Rosenberg is an Ashkenazi name, not a "Jewish" name. One might say that Yiddish fits for linguistic reasons as well, as opposed to Ladino. Rosenberg is not a Hebrew name. Why don't you split hairs properly and matter-of-factly? Judaism is not a nation of the Earth, but of Heaven. Therefore, use Earthly terms for yourself and your people. There are to be no double standards. It is not more appropriate for you to identify ethnically as Jewish than me as ethnically Christian. My soul belongs to God in Heaven and I identify with Him through my Christian status, just as you through your Jewish status (or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Shinto, or Hindu). We identify with temporal rulers and nations through other terms, like American, Israeli, Russian, Portuguese, Chinese. You anachronistically apply "Jewish" as a resident of a country that died under the shackles of Roma and only now do we see Israel being rebuilt, even if your RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY has lived isolated and preserved traditions outside of Israel/Judea all this time. That's a goddamned long time to be a hyphenated, "rootless cosmopolitan" and no physical trace of the parent nation that spawned said people. In fact, that is a backwards way of looking at it. You are no more or less a modern day Judean than I am a modern day Trojan. The facts speak for themselves. Our ancestors have changed and become other things from their historical roots. Hasbro 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you continue with your own opinions, which have little to do with Wikipedia, etc. There's no local "Ashkenazi consulate" where you can get a passport, but there is a general state of Israel that accepts any sub-ethnicity of "Jewish" - Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Mizrahi and grants citizenship to those who are at least 1/4 of one of those - similar to how the Italian government grants citizenship to those who are 1/4 Italian. In my response above, I was going outside of the conversation and asking... "What's the point of this discussion?", siince Wikipedia goes by what sources say, and not by what users say. And like I told you before, I have no interest in discussing whether "Jewish" is an ethnicity or not, only looking up a reliable source and seeing that it is. Mad Jack 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are competing sources and different perceptions, so ALL must be duly represented--especially the two major viewpoints. I have always been informed, that Jews can be of any race. That means, this is a religion, not an ethnicity. I also know that some view it differently. You are taking a combative and arrogant stance on every ethnic and religious category out there. I tell you to back off now. You just want to fight and win. This isn't what Wikipedia is about. Your brash attacks have inspired me to fire off insults that I will not type here. Hasbro 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"all must be duly represented" -- no, it doesn't work that way. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To sum up your statement, that means you can prove that Jewishness is not seen by a majority or significant minority as transferable between different ethnic/national/racial backgrounds and that Jewishness is identical to Judeans? Please, I'd love to see you try and prove that. Hasbro 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a waste of my fucking time, a charlatanous contrivance of NPOV and accuracy as things are in the REAL WORLD! Thanks a lot for spitting trash out your faces and nothing credible to work with. Thanks to all you "pros", for being such "cons". Good bye, ill reputable network of sources. Hasbro 13:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't been following this discussion for some time, but just came back to give it a look. Apparently, Hasbro, the only "factually correct" one here, has not only erased my Jewish Nationality, but now he apparently believes my "true" Nationality to be American! S/he's even apparently got my whole family history figured out about how and when they immigrated to the US. That's news to me, eh ! Is this is an example of your more accurate "fact-finding", eh ? Talk aboot being an ill-reputable source, eh ? :--) Loomis 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I revert to my original comments. In both natural and man-made affairs everything tends to grow and deversify over time including religions and religious beliefs until and unless an end point is reached. Hyphenation is necessary to maintain a concise link between the root and the latest diversity and to identify all those in between. Besides hasbro is an idiot. 71.100.6.152 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here on Wiki I like to think I've matured to the point where I assume good faith. In the case of Hasbro, though s/he's clearly a lunatic, I did my best to assume good faith and continously assume that s/he had the best of intentions. My conclusion remains the same. While now I'm convinced that Hasbro is a lunatic, I haven't seen in any of his or her statements anything openly anti-semitic. To me, it's all just the rantings of a benign lunatic. Loomis 00:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex in Disney

There is a Disney's story that contains an explicit sexual citation? --Vess 13:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of stary? Movie? Comic? Could you give more info? 惑乱 分からん 14:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My question regards all production of Disney. --Vess 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

DO you mean the nude photo in The Rescuers? Rmhermen 21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that only on the laserdisc copy? --The Dark Side 01:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There's the 2-frame shot of Jessica Rabbit's crotch in the live-action/animated film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, produced by Disney subsidiary Touchstone and Amblin Entertainment.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

From the article Down and Out in Beverly Hills

Released by Touchstone Pictures, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company, Down and Out in Beverly Hills 
has the distinction of being the first R-rated film ever released by Disney. The R rating is due to profanity 
as well as a brief scene showing a topless woman having sex, another first for Disney. 
However, countless R-rated films have since received distribution by the Disney Company, under subsidiaries 
such as Touchstone, Miramax Films and Hollywood Pictures. 
Walt Disney Pictures, the flagship family-oriented brand, has yet to release a film with 
a rating stronger than PG-13. 

惑乱 分からん 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This has been currently in the news: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/minnie-mouses-paris-sex-tape-hits-web.php -- AnonMoos 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Althouhgh that is clearly an unofficial release... ;) By the way, the movie could be watched here (or click on the link found at this page)

. 惑乱 分からん 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Springed Seat Thing

You can get this kind of springed seat cushion thing that helps old people get out of their seat. Does anyone know what it's called or where I can find it. My google searches have proved fruitless. --Username132 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:An Ejector seat would do the job.

Are you thinking of hydraulic pump or electric-power assist/assisted wheelchairs? Clarityfiend 16:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A lift chair slowly raises via an electric motor to help the person up. StuRat 17:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm thinking of a springed seat thing that I saw in the Betterware catelogue. It uses springs to provide a constant upward force which when combined with the struggle of an old person to get out of a chair, leads to the desired outcome. --Username132 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

what's so special about humans?

topic? 205.188.117.12 14:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They taste delicious. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Only some have good taste. Clarityfiend 17:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They have the ability to use symbolic logic. StuRat 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of them don't. Chl 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Anatomically, humans are only different than most relatively intelligent mammals in their opposable thumbs and bipedalism, and some mammals have achieved one or the other. Of course, the mice are pan-dimensional creatures of an amazing degree of intelligence. AMP'd 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the dolphins! Laïka 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

chimpanzees and bonobos have opposable thumbs and are bipedal. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But chimps don't go strutting around on their hindlegs 24/7. We humans can't walk on our knuckles. AMP'd 19:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I know a few exceptions who do walk on their knuckles. ;) Durova 05:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See philosophical anthropology. These days, most philosophers would probably answer: language. Chl 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't make chlorophyll. B00P 22:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Language is something most animals have. Of course their language is primitive compared to ours, but only if we make the comparison, by our standards. I have always been surprised at this desire to pin what's special about humans down to one specific capacity. What makes us what we are is the combination of all of our abilities (and disabilities for that matter). Many animals are known for being good at one specific thing. We are good at loads of things. So I suppose the size of our brain relative to our body size, especially the neocortex, giving us the ability to make plans better than any other animal can is an important one. But you'd have to add to that the fact that we have our hands free to execute our plans and build tools. Plus our ability to cooperate, for which we need a sophisticated language, for which we need the right kind of larynx. And thus one can probably continue adding things that may not be specific to us but that do make a unique combination that makes us what we are. DirkvdM 07:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Animals have communication systems -- the difference between those systems and human language is so large that it obscures more than it clarifies to insist on calling them by the same word... AnonMoos 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Humans are the only animal capable of teaching their children mathematics.

• For which they were ejected from the Garden. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They were expelled from the mythological garden because they disobeyed God's command ("don't eat the apple for this tree") and learned to distinguish right from wrong, and grew ashamed of their nakedness ("and covered themselves"). In their defense it can be argued that being unable to know right or wrong they were unaware they were doing something wrong. God is a bad teacher and a worse parent. Flamarande 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I doubt whether the bible was written to be interpreted literally, to begin with. 惑乱 分からん 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

About Adam and Eve - no good and wrong problem, A&E were just told not to touch that bloody delicious tree. But the book does not tell if they knew the price. If so, it was their choice.

Human is special in that he slowly gives to animals capacities he refused to them before. That evolution is quite strange, but it keeps some cohesion with good science principles ... Soon they'll receive a soul and the right to vote. I'm not talking about women. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Humans are the only animals who can care about their own mortality and the passage of time.

Elephants, for some reason, seem to have some sort of understanding of mortality. They tend to have this almost ritualistic dedication to the bones of their dead. As for chimps having opposable thumbs, yes, they may have very crude ones, but they're certainly no match to humans when it comes to manual dexterity. Even if one had the mental capacity and the musical talent for it, try to imagine a chimp playing Chopin. Loomis 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How on Earth can you know that? DirkvdM 05:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Elephants or the Chimps, Dirk? Or perhaps you were referring to some previous post. Loomis 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the indentation. I was reacing to the anon before you. DirkvdM 08:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Define "special". Then define what you use to define "special". You'll probably then have a reasonable idea of your answer to the question. (Then stop, otherwise your risk of catching philosophy will be too great.)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

medical malpractice

If a patient does not take medicine and sues a Dr. for malpractice how will her not taking the medicine affect the case?

That depends on how relevant the meds are to the malpractice. If you go in for an appendectomy and they amputate a leg instead, I wouldn't think it would matter. On the other hand, if the doc prescribes antibiotics to treat an infection, and you don't take them, and the infection subsequently spreads, then you don't have a case at all. StuRat 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jamaican reggae artists search

What are some jamaican reggae artists that mostly feature beats with a lot of bass? I'm talking about more music you would hear in a nightclub opposite the relaxing, smooth Bob Marley music. - Tutmosis 19:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, do you mean Dancehall music? 惑乱 分からん 21:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure but I will check that out, thanks. - Tutmosis 01:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Art feedback.

I've done some life drawings, and I'd like to get some feedback on them. Is there a place on the internet where I can post the drawings and have people comment on them and give me constructive criticism? Like a livejournal community or something? 69.173.119.165 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You could check out deviantART for instance, an online community for all kinds of artists (often popular with subcultures, such as anime/manga, furry and goth art, for instance). I think it requires registration, though, and you'd probably need to spend some time there on making a name for yourself. 惑乱 分からん 12:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)