Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/June 2006 Part 2

The Humanities desk archive of 1 June 2006 to 19 June 2006 can be found here.

June 20

PERSONNEL VS HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Hello

I need your help please.

Could please explain what is the difference between personnel and human resource management?

None. They both mean the same thing, but 'human resource management' is the current soft business jargon. By calling themselves human resource managers rather than personnel managers, they're trying to show that they treat people as individuals rather than as resources to be exploited. --Richardrj 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And so it says in our article on Human resource management. My take on this is that, in calling this function "human resource" management, they are at least honest by showing explicitly they view humans as a resource. The grouping is as in ((human resource) management), not (human (resource management)). Anyway, part of the theory that goes with it is that this resource has to be tended to, as in care and feeding of, to get the most out of it, and part of the soft sell is that this is supposedly advantageous to both parties (the exploited proletariat masses and the bourgeoisie who buy their labour power). --Lambiam^Talk 10:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

HR update: Personnel was a managment term inventied to give the illusion that miners did not need representation by the united mine worker when it was just the first of the fledgling labor movements. The idea is that the workers could take their concerns to personnel who would work as ombudsmen on their behalf in liue of actual U.M.W. shop stewards. In this day HR has replaced personel just as the market pressure of organized labor has been reduced to a shadow of its former past. (Hobgoblin)

Family tree

Can someone find out if Andrew Jackson (the 7th president of the U. S.), and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson were related?

This suggests they weren't. JackofOz 07:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamic force invade Europe

I think it may have been one of your featured articles. A mixed european force withstood the invasion of a much larger I think Islamic force. The europeans were outnumbered, but knew that they could not surrender because the invading force had been completely irradicating all the cities which they came across.

They fortified a city and managed to prevent the invading force from tunneling under the city walls. Sharpened shovels were used as a multi purpose digging tool and weapon in the confined tunnel space. Eventually the invading force who had laid siege to the city had to turn away.

The europeans had far fewer weapons and people, and I think they may have been led by a Hollander.

Are you thinking perhaps of the Siege of Vienna in 1529, or possibly the 1683 Battle of Vienna?-gadfium 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the answer is the The Battle of Tours which was led by Charles Martel. The end of the Battle of Tours article states "For his defense of Europe against both Muslim invasion and barbarian incursions, but most specifically for his victory in this battle, Charles Martel is considered a hero in the Netherlands, a vital part of the Carolingian Empire, and the Low Countries. In both France and Germany he is revered as a hero of epic proportions. Gibbon called him "the paramount prince of his age."" and this seems to match what the poster meant.--69.171.123.148 03:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rule out the Battle of Tours (732), as the question mentions a fortified city with city walls. The Battle of Tours took place in the flat open country between Tours and Poitiers, and there were few cities worthy of the name before the rebirth of cities in Europe around the twelfth century. That suggests you take a closer look at the Siege of Vienna or the Battle of Vienna.

FWIW, there were also many lesser "invasions" of Europe by Islamic raiding parties. --SteveMcCluskey 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Spirit Decanters

Which spirits are appropriate to be kept in crystal decanters and what is wrong with keeping them in the original bottle in which they came? The decanter article only seems to deal with wine decanters. How do you know which spirit is in which decanter? --Username132 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Any spirit can be transferred to a decanter, if it has a good airtight seal; or to any without a seal if you only keep them a few days. You put spirits into decanters because you have decanters, and want to show them off. Or because you think it's how the people in the social class to which you aspire behave. Or because you hope to conceal the inferior brands you purchased. Terribly middle class. People who use decanters rarely have so many that it's possible to lose track of what you have; it would be rare to find someone, for example, using decanters for two malt whisky bottlings they cared to tell apart. Nevertheless, some people hang little decorative labels from chains around the neck. People who care enough to tell one whisky from another, or whisky from whiskey, would almost certainly not decant them. The justifications which apply to wine (beyond the social and pretentious ones) do not apply to any spirit. I should confess: we have some small decanters which we put whisky into and leave in guest rooms. I leave it up to you to speculate why. Notinasnaid 13:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Originally wine, port and sherry were decanted because corking techniques were not as good and the wines were full of sediment and bits of cork so it was decanted and strained so it was clear when it came to the table.Spirits were often purchased in small barrells and therefor some was run off into a decanter to serve at table. Decanters also were often in the form of a tantalus which could be locked to stop the staff getting at it.*hic*--hotclaws**==(217.39.11.210 05:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

earth is round?

Hi Can u pls tell me who is credited with determining that the Earth is round (and when this is attributed)?

Thanks very much.

ryan rose email deleted for your own good

See Spherical Earth and Flat Earth Nowimnthing 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My favorite is Aristotle. He figured it out and then dismissed it as inconsistent with universal rules. (He figured it out with nothing but his bare eyes. He saw the earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse. Seeing that, he noted that, if the earth were flat, the shadow of the earth on the moon would have to be flat at some point during the eclipse. The only shape that would always give a half circle is a sphere.) Geogre 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference with a stick! I just caught the remastered Cosmos where Carl Sagan gushes about him. Nowimnthing 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you really mean "round" rather than spherical, then Anaximander of the Milesian School was the first. He was the inventer of the gnomon, at least among the Greeks, and the Earth was a cylinder in his cosmology. We live on the top.

IQ of Earth

An NSF Fellow and principle investigator on analog/digital pacemakers told me that he thought that the total IQ points for the planet is a constant, but the population isn't. It was how he explained the zeitgeist paradox, when there are some periods in history when it seems like every other person was a genius. (During the Elizabethan era, all of England had a population less than current day New York City. So, are there 3-4 Shakespeares we're not seeing in NYC, or is the world dumber?) Geogre 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(This looks like a new question, not a respone to the previous question - so I moved it.)

That theory has been around a long time. When I studied Nation of Islam, the creation story that I got from a prison visit included the observation that only 10% of all humans are real humans (with intelligence). The rest are animals that mimic humans. So, if only 10% are intelligent, the average IQ would remain constant. Note: I never found a similar story in any other study of Islam. The whole story was used to explain why Nation of Islam members are justified in hating white (devil) people. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really mean for it to be a question, but the paradox of certain moments producing disproportionate genius has vexed people for a while. One thought is, of course, Hegel's zeitgeist. Another was that climate was to blame. Another was that it took political and cultural revolutions, where the debris of certainty had been blown away. The "constant IQ points" thing was intended as a joke. I think, by the way, that the Islamic idea you mention is based on the idea of djinn and ifreeti and such. The early Gnostics similarly felt that there were simulacra running around. Geogre 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Who says there aren't 3 or 4 Shakespeares in New York? Because we haven't been drowned under a tidal wave of plays about mediaeval European kings? The Elizabethan geniuses worked in the fields that were available to them, and people like Woody Allen, Dr Dre, Alex Haley, and Barbara McClintock work in theirs. The relative dearth of women 'geniuses' in past eras doesn't mean that the concentration of IQ in females is more concentrated, does it?--Anchoress 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That, of course, is the converse: that there are so many geniuses, and we're simply not finding out about them. (No, I wouldn't put any of those people you mention up with John Webster, much less Marlowe, much less Jonson, much less Shakespeare.) There is one argument that we have as many geniuses, but our media are controlled to such a degree that we don't get anyone who's really brilliant. Another argument is that we're not seeing them because our qualification system prevents "untrained" people like Shakespeare from getting a chance (and Shakespeare's King John is not a good play). That women weren't represented in the past is another argument, but it can be an argument for or against the idea that there are magical epochs and zeitgeists. (And, incidentally, comparing what's out right now with the English renaissance favorably shows either an exaggerated pleasure in what's out now or a stunted appreciation of what they did. "Some medieval kings" isn't it, you know.) Geogre 20:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard the LionHeart's Sword

I need to know what Richard the Lionheart's sword looked like. There are a couple versions. There is a statue of him holding a sword infront of Westminster. Please let me know the most accruate historical desciption of his sword. I belive it has his crest of three lions. Do not answer the question if your answer does not provide any helpful information. Thank You.

Maybe he had more than one? AnonMoos 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

don't bother looking at the statue. Here is a roughly contemporary image, fwiiw. He lived in the 12th century, so he would probably have had an Oakeshott XII blade [1]. dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bible on the Index??

I have here a recent magazine article claiming that "on 22 March 1745, the Vatican put the Bible itself on the Index" (for its sexually explicit scenes). However, I can find no evidence of this whatsoever on the Internet. Is the claim mis-reported, simply invented, or true after all? dab (ᛏ) 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Certain kinds of Protestants have accused the Catholic church of effectively discouraging Bible-reading by Catholic laymen at various times, since (they allege) the Catholic church doesn't want laymen to directly interpret the Bible for themselves, but instead wants them to get an official interpretation at second hand from priests and the church hierarchy. I bet that what you refer to (if there's any factual basis to it) would have to do with this issue, and not with sex in the Bible at all... AnonMoos 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean, "certain kinds of Protestants"? The Catholic Church did, in fact, discourage laypeople from reading the bible at a certain interval of its history (13th to 16th centuries); the Vatican in 1234 outlawed Bible translations, effectively preventing the Bible from being read by people not versed in Latin, Greek or Hebrew (viz., the clergy). That is however far from equivalent to putting the Bible on the Index. The reason for this tendency is, of course, the existence of certain passages (including sexually explicit ones) that the Church considered difficult to interpret correctly without the proper theological background, so yes, Biblical sex, drugs and violence is at the core of this. But that still leaves me with no idea of whether the 1745 date is a pure invention. dab (ᛏ) 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean that for some Protestants, anyone who discourages or restricts Bible-reading in any way in any context is by definition doing Satan's work on earth ipso facto. I still bet that it has little directly to do with sex. AnonMoos 17:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like nonsense to me. What magazine is this, now? --Fastfission 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've come to the same conclusion now; it's from a Swiss magazine, it usually has rather high quality, but I suppose the more critically you look at journalism, the more it looks like nonsensical babble. dab (ᛏ) 00:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For most of its history, the Catholic church opposed translation of the Bible and attempted to prevent laypersons from reading it, except for devotional purposes (e.g. psalms, etc) recited by rote. According to Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (1854), Pope Innocent III stated in 1199 that "... to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted." Likewise, at the Council of Toulouse in 1229, the church resolved to "prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books." There was an obvious strategic reason for this secretive attitude. If people began interpreting the Bible themselves, they might become disenchanted with the official position and turn to heresy. However, this tendency is common in any hierarchical creedal religion: for a modern example, consider the Church of Scientology and their tireless attempts to prevent their OT documents from being exposed. Like today's Scientologists, the medieval Catholic leaders wanted their followers to approach truth on a gradient. Of course, this has proven fertile ground for Protestant critics. From Martin Luther to Jack Chick, anti-papists have not hesitated to stretch the truth for propaganda purposes. Of course, the modern Catholic church has no such policies (or ignores them), since they make no sense in an environment where one can easily, safely switch religions. Bhumiya (said/done) 09:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Consitency For Creme Brulee

What is the appropriate consitency for creme brulee? I thought it should be almost jelly-like, whilst my mum says a thick custard consitancy. --Username132 (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Our very own article on Creme brulee describes the base as a custard, as do most of the external links that I could find. The recipes I found also describe cooking a custard (see here and here, for example), so I think your mum wins this round. --LarryMac 20:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your mum definently wins. I've baked more creme brulee than I care to remember - my mom was a caterer - and it's ideally a smooth, creamy custard. --George 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Country names

This is such a basic question that I don't know how to research it in the encyclopedia. Why do countries have different names in other countries? For example, the country we call Germany is Deutschland to its citizens. Why don't we use the name they use? The name Germany obviously comes from the Latin word Germania, but why do we use it? The Germans (or Deutsche) call our country Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, an understandable translation of The United States of America, but they don't call our nation something completely different from our formal name. I shouldn't ask why this is "allowed", because sovereign nations can do just about whatever they want. But why is this done? 66.213.33.2 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

try the language reference desk - WP:RD/L VdSV9•♫ 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because we don´t speak the same language and therefore simply have to translate names? Languages, names, and the respective translations simply change with the passing of time. It seems to me that you are of the opinion that names should not be translated. Well too bad for you, because they simply are. It is unavoidable, it is...their destiny. (Darth Vader is soo cool)

In a normal converation the Germans don´t speak about "die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika" they speak about "die USA". Besides, the official name of Germany (on official documents) isn´t "Deutschland" but "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" or "Deutsche Bundesrepublik" ("Federal republic of Germany" and "German federal republic").

"Germania" is the name given by the Romans and they wrote down history, instead of the ileterate "barbaric" German tribes. Therefore "Germania" was translated into English: "Germany". Realize that a tipical country (besides the "young" USA) had plenty of diffrent names during history, and these name changed as the political systems changed, empires were disolved, etc.

My favourite example for this process, is the name Jesus, who was probably called "Joshua", or something like that (I don't understand Aramaic). As this name was translated into Greek and later into Latin his name changed into "Iesus" (in classical Latin the letter "J" hadn't been invented yet). Translate that into English and you end up with "Jesus". Ask the average person on the street and he will tell that the "dude on the cross" is called "Jesus". Flamarande 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that people did travel less when foreign country names were first learned. They were approximate pronunciations or rough translations or figures of speech (a province name for the entire country) and sometimes names given by a conqueror. Then people stick to an historical name, as different as the real one as a name for any thing in a foreign language - which disturbs no one. This was done regardless of the fact that a country name is a proper name and not a common name.

Nowadays when a country does change its name, the information is relayed by the media and people sometimes follow it. The same goes with foreign money, some towns ... other examples maybe. --DLL 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The English speaking world is a bit inconsistent about it. Nobody would think of talking about Peking, or Ceylon, or Rhodesia anymore. But the Netherlands and Holland are still interchangeable, in conversation at least. JackofOz 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany is an interesting case, even more interesting when you're refering to the German language. In so many languages, "German" is refered to in a seemingly unique, unrelated way. In English we refer to someone speaking "German", in German itself the word is "Deutsch", the French refer to the German language as "Allemand", and in Russian, it's refered to as "Nyemnitski Yezik", which can roughly be translated as "the language of those who cannot speak". It's an interesting phenomenon, but I have no particular explanation for it. Loomis 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The names of Germany all derive from the tribes that inhabited it including the Germans and the Alemannic (hence the spanish word is Alemania). Since the country germany or Deutschland) was formed long after the areas people had already been named in all languages. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind that these names in other languages generally predate the named entities' becoming nation states with official names. Germany as a nation state is a recent invention; see Unification of Germany. The official name then became Deutsches Kaiserreich, and I can foregive the Anglo-Saxons for not attempting to mangle that. Until 1806 the official name of the originally loose conglomeration of German states was the Heilige Römische Reich. In the good old days things were often not as clear-cut as they are made to be today; see for example the question whether Pope Adrian VI was Dutch or Deutsch. --Lambiam^Talk 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The official name of the German Empire was Deutsches Reich. --Cam 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It amuses me when countries request outsiders to change what they call them. Sometimes the requests stick, like Myanmar and Côte d'Ivoire (a new one is Timor-Leste), though there are always a few hold-outs who refuse to change their usage. Other requests remain largely unfulfilled, like Czechia (proposed by the Czech government in 1993) and Türkiye (the Turkish name for their country, proposed by the Turkish government IIRC in the late 1980's for English-language use, to avoid confusion with other English uses of the word turkey). ---Cam 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody outside Timor-Leste call it "Timor-Leste"? I've never heard it called anything except "East Timor", except by East Timorese people. Which is a pity, 'cos Timor-Leste is much more euphonious and evocative name. JackofOz 07:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, all the portuguese speaking countries use "Timor-Leste" and that is it. But "Côte d'Ivoire" hasn´t entered common usage. Almost everybody continues to use "Ivory coast" (except those who speak French). Even in the world championship they used the later name. What bugs me is that "old" names (who were universaly recognized in the english language) are being changed (e.g. Mao Tse-Tung > Mao Ze Dong) for all kind of dubious reasons (usualy political corectness). Flamarande 08:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of countries that changed their names, usually on decolonisation, creating new ones or digging up ancient ones. Ghana. Togo. Benin. Sri Lanka. Bangladesh (from West Pakistan, and "Pakistan" was only coined recently). Iran. The reason people notice "Côte d'Ivoire" is that it changed its name into something literal in French, which the other nations didn't do - the others changed to something essentially meaningless to Western ears so it still "sounded like a country". Shimgray | talk | 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I particulary like fancy names like "Deutsche Demokratische Republic = German Democratic Republic" and "République Démocratique du Congo = Democratic Republic of the Congo". Somehow the leaders of such countries like to pretend that they are democratic. "Only in name" takes a literal meaning here. Flamarande 20:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Upper Volta seems to have been successful in getting the rest of the world to call it Burkina Faso. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also both interesting and counter-intuitive, though not surprising, that in the PC world we live in, the less "European" or "Caucasian" the inhabitants of a given country are, the more likely English speakers will be corrected into using "better", more "authentic" versions of their name, lest they be labeled ignorant bigots.

Within Europe for example, the English language is obviously far more related to the dozens of other languages spoken in Europe than it is to, for example, a language spoken halfway around the world such as Cantonese Chinese.

Yet English speakers are never reprimanded for "renaming" foreign European place-names, even when the original name is rather easily pronounceable in English, for example:

The Italian Roma is refered to as Rome, similarly "Varsava" is renamed Warsaw, "Moskva" - Moscow. "Budapesht" - Budapest. "Napoli" - Naples. "Firenze" - Florence...the list goes on and on.

Yet refer to China's "Guangdong Province" as "Canton Province" (with the understanding that perhaps a Cantonese word may be just a bit tougher for an English speaker to pronounce than, say, the word "Roma",) and you're considered an ignorant bigot...go figure. Loomis 00:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out Names of European cities in different languages. There are hundreds of examples of English place names that are different in other languages. Just take London - its alternative versions include: Landan, Llundain, Londain, Londe, Londen, Londhíno, Londinium, Londona, Londonas, Londono, Londra, Londres, Londrez, Londyn, Londýn, Lontoo, Loundres, and Lundúnir. So it's not a question of "reprimanding" anybody. That would require some unwritten law to have been transgressed. There is no such law, as the above list clearly demonstrates, and we've all been gulled into being terribly PC about this issue. How about a little more tolerance for diversity? JackofOz 14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I completely agree with you Jack, and I think you're agreeing with me, but as usual, I'm not 100% sure. In any case, my point is simple: Naturally, different people from different parts of the world speak different languages and have different phonetic skills, and therefore, refer to different places with different names. I think that's all great. I just find it annoying when I'm (fine, not reprimanded, but certainly) looked down upon when I pronounce the "R" in a name like "Nicaragua" with that typically North American English HARD "R" rather than vainly attempting to contort my mouth and tongue in a manner they're simply not capable of, to produce that precise "trill" that a native Spanish speaker would have no problem with. I also refuse to apologize for not having the Mandarin skills to know the precise pronunciation of Mao Tse-Tung/Mao Ze Dong (or even to be able to tell the subtle difference between the two...after all, the newly corrected "Mao Ze Dong" will certainly not be the last iteration of the way the man's name should "truly" be pronounced by westerners).

We English speakers too employ a couple of sounds that most non-English speakers find incredibly hard to pronounce. A great example is our "th" sound. Yet would any of us be so rude as to point out to a non-native English speaker that "Pert" or "Perse" is an incorrect way of pronouncing "Perth, Australia"? Or correct a foreigner describing what a lovely time s/he had while vacationing in "Nort" America, and in particular, how beautiful he or she found "Marta's" Vineyard to be? Would we consider them ignorant bigots for refusing to learn the correct way to pronounce the "th" sound? Of course not. It's completely understandable that they would have such a difficulty, as it's not a sound that exists in their native tongue. God forbid, though, I should ever dare to refer to the capital of PROC as Peking!

The funniest thing of all, though, is that I happen to have an unusually large number of Chinese-Canadian friends, most born in China. I seem to be very comfortable and at ease with this nationality in particular. At work I naturally gravitate toward my Chinese colleagues. (And trust me, ask anyone here, I'm no PC panderer, if there's a culture out there that I find myself less than comfortable with, I'd be the first to say so, and indeed I HAVE, so please don't regard this as another pretentious instance of "tokenism"). In any case, my Chinese friends (especially those newest to Canada) are completely bewildered when I tell them that the term "Oriental" is considered offensive these days, and that the more acceptable term is "East-Asian". They seem to have no idea why on earth nowadays we shun the word "Oriental", which is of course merely latin for "eastern". In fact, it's not these often discriminated against visible minorities that take issue with terms like "Oriental", or "Peking", rather, as it would seem it seems to be some odd phenomenon apparently dreamt up by apparently guilt ridden white, English speaking, PC westerners. As if altering the English language would somehow erase racism. Quite the contrary. I see all these ridiculous name changes as an odd sort of distraction, a distraction from what REALLY needs to be done, which is simply to treat each and every individual with the respect they deserve. (And if certain individuals don't deserve respect, then, hell, by all means! Disrespect them!) Loomis 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

12 Angry Men: Why all men

Regarding the 1957 film 12 Angry Men: This may be a dumb question, but in the ... why are all the jurors male? If picked randomly, there's only a 1-in-4096 chance that all the jurors would be male. Did women rarely or never participate in jury service in 1957? Were women all weeded out in jury selection on the grounds that men are more likely to vote death penalty? --Alecmconroy 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Women were not called for jury duty until the 1960's, I believe. The film was based on a play, and both were done before women began being called. This was long after women had voting rights. (Jury and Jury duty would be the logical articles to see.) Geogre 03:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Only full citizens can become jurors, and women became full citizens quite recently. The USA are not the finest example (despite common belief) of giving rights to any group. Women received the right to vote around or after the WWI, and a whole generation had to pass before they became really accepted, and were considerd potential jurors. And even today the trend still continues. Look around, surely somewhere in Wikipedia you will find some article about this. Flamarande 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. Women were full citizens from the time of the formation of the country, save for voting rights. They were taxed, after all, and counted in the census, and used to determine population. And they were given the suffrage long before the play came out. You'll have to ask the original author why he chose only men for the jury. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also the issue of how jurors are selected. Voter registration is used in my county. So, if you don't register to vote, you won't get selected for jury duty - even if you are legally allowed to be a juror. Therefore, no woman could be a juror in my county until she registered to vote. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the same in the United States, where the film was set. I top-posted a bit because one answer wanted to maintain that the jurors were male in the movie because women weren't allowed to vote or given full franchise. That's incorrect, rather strongly incorrect. Jury pools simply lagged behind a bit. The reasons could have been chivalric or misogynistic, could have been 'because mothers are too important to sequester' or because 'women are too given to emotion to judge,' but it wasn't because women couldn't vote. Geogre 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a state-by-state issue for awhile. The ACLU, for example, fought (and won) a case in 1975 which a Louisiana law prohibiting women from being on juries challenged as unconstitutional (violated a female defendant's right to a jury of her peers, Sixth Amendment). Sadly we have no article on the case (Taylor v. Louisiana). --Fastfission 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the odds are only 1-in-4096 if you assume an equal chance of men and women being in the eligible jury pool. Even today that is not necessarily the case, as voter registration statistics are not exactly 50/50 (though today I believe women are registered at a slightly higher rate than men). Additionally there a number of occupations which traditionally are exempt from jury duty which have major gender discreprencies (such as teachers). --Fastfission 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement that voter registration lists are used to create jury pools is no longer completely accurate. While voter lists are still used, many jurisdictions have discovered that people were not registering to vote simply to stay off juries. So in some places, voter lists are supplemented by other lists, such as driver's licenses and property tax rolls. — Michael J 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

william shakespeare

I am trying to sale my copied manuscript of a mortgage deed that William Shakepeare had written.

Translation in english of the mortgage deed is written on the backside.

No damage.

Thanks,

Peyton

That's interesting. I hope you find a buyer. schyler 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Got to Ebay to sell it, please. Wikipedia not an online market. Flamarande 21:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What language is on the frontside? Did you do the copying yourself? How do you know 'twas the immortal bard who wrote the original deed? Whose leg(s) are you trying to pull? --Lambiam^Talk 08:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"translation on the back" -- from what language???

Simple...Shakespeare spoke English, so the deed was likely written in English. It was then translated from English to English. Makes perfect sense. (huh?) Loomis 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, what's the mileage of the manuscript? Has it been in any accidents? Any rust? Oh...sorry, I could have sworn I was in my local newspaper's classified section. Loomis 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if, supposing just for a moment, this were real, the language would be Latin. Still, I think this is along the lines of the son of Soni Abache wanting to smuggle $20 million out and needing just your bank account and routing numbers. Geogre 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why latin? In Elizabethan times, the English Common Law certainly used several latin terms, and even more Law French terms, nonetheless, the document would otherwise have been written in (Elizabethan) English. Loomis 00:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

St Teresa's Shubra

Hi There,

Wanting to know any information about St Teresa's in Shubra Egypt. It's a Catholic Church that my Mum used to visit as a kid, but when she went back this year it was guarded and she wasn't allowed in. Any information on it's history (when it was built etc) and why is it now guarded would be great? Apparently there was a body (not St Teresa's real body), but also a finger that was apparently hers. I have become intrigued and a little obsessed with trying to find out anything.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks

There is a picture of it here. And another picture and a map showing where it is on [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/shubra.htm this page]. --Cam 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A Film Based Wikipedia

To Whom This May Concern at Wikipedia,

I found that there were different types of Wikipedias such as Wookiepedia which is based on all information regarding the Star Wars Universe but I was wondering if there was the same thing for Film. I cannot find many of the specific and hard to find tidbits throughout the history of film on the main page. If you already have one could you please e-mail me at (e-mail address removed to prevent spam) and tell me how to get there. If not then could you please start one. Thanks

Please don't post your e-mail here, we answer questions within the desk itself. You can sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your post. Emmett5 22:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to the Community Portal page and ask there about interest. There is a pay Wiki-Cities endeavor where such a thing would be possible to start, if you don't have servers. Otherwise, you would need to go to Wikimedia, if you want it to be under Wikipedia's auspices. It's not a bad idea (Wiki-cine? Cinewiki?). You can get the wiki software, if you wish to webhost a project, as it's open-source. I don't know of a wiki devoted to film at present, though. Geogre 03:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you realize there is already a huge mass of information about films in Wikipedia. Take a look at lists of films for starters.--Shantavira 06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wookiepedia is a wiki not a Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. A wiki is a website using wiki software. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we make a movie based on Wikipedia, specifically on the ref desk. It has a huge cast of characters played by some of the most fascinating actors you'd find anywhere; a crazy plot that's full of twists and turns and is guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat; and the director is constantly being replaced, which will have you wondering "what on earth will be coming next". Just when you think it's starting to take itself too seriously, it launches into something really humorous, and the journey continues. It has drama, pathos, and is full of surprises. On the other side of the ledger, it doesn't have much romance - well, none actually - and there's a noticeable absence of a decent music score. But all in all, it's thoroughly good value. 5 stars. JackofOz 12:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's a great soundtrack; the only problem is that all of the songs are less than 30 seconds, for copyright reasons. --ByeByeBaby 13:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And what would my part be? I'm thinking the voice would be that of James Earl Jones, dressed in some incredibly evil costume, yet somehow possessing inexplicable charisma, tempting the rest of you: "Embrace the dark side of Wiki, its right wing...join me...that's where your true destiny lies". Loomis 23:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Inexplicable indeed, Loomis. (Lol. Don't worry, we all still love you. Well, I do anyway. Which is equally inexplicable, and scary.) JackofOz 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And there you were saying the movie wouldn't have any romance -- Ferkelparade π 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Romance? Not much. Sexual frustration? Enough to fuel a quasar. (I can imagine our Jo Swington Cassanova wandering through frame every few minutes....) Geogre 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My Rights (when approached by police in Canada)

Hi there,

I've been researching my rights as a Canadian citizen, especially when approached by police. I'm not looking for legal advice, maybe just some insight. I've read over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which seems rather straightforward, and it seems pretty similar to most laws in the United States. For instance, if I'm walking down the street, do I have to speak to the officer or provide identification? (Rationale being that it's my right to be in a public place.) Also, what are grounds for an officer legally searching my person without my consent? "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." Not that descriptive, to me anyway. Any pieces of advice or references for reputable websites would be appreciated. Though I'm still a student, none of this was taught to me in high school. Thanks in advance everyone, Mrtea (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, here's insight, I don't know if I'm absolutely right. First, it all comes down to three things:

1. Whether or not you are reasonably suspected of having committed a crime.
2. Your attitude, and to a lesser extent, your appearance, location and the people you're with.
3. What the cops had for breakfast.

Technically you don't have to talk to them or show identification. But while I probably wouldn't show identification unless I'd been seen spitting off a bridge, I wouldn't refuse to talk to them and I'd be careful to seem cooperative. We've all heard lots of stories about the latitude many police depts give officers (moving people and dumping them, etc). Also, you have to stay well away from anything that can be construed as being uncooperative or resisting arrest. Asking the officer why s/he has stopped you and what the problem is is 100% within your rights.

My understanding, in short, is that officers of the law can't compel you to do anything unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you've done something illegal, or have something to do with a crime. Unfortunately, what constitutes reasonable suspicion is very grey, and if you get justifiably (from your POV) lippy with an officer and lose a tooth on your way to lockup, it really doesn't matter if you haven't done anything wrong and the officer may not face any disciplinary action for roughing you up.--Anchoress 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's all in the precedents, which flesh out the S.8 right in question, in pretty much the same manner as the 4th amendment has been in the U.S. In other words, if you have the patience to read a couple of thousand pages of case law, you'll get a pretty good idea of where the law stands. I suppose I could give a far more extensive answer to this question, but I'm afraid I'd be violating a yet-to-be-articulated wiki rule, do not bore wikipedians to death with lengthy dissertations on Canadian Constitutional Law. Otherwise, your best bet is to wait for yet another spin-off of Law & Order, one dealing with a squad of Canadian detectives. I can see it now: Law & Order - CJ: "Canadian Justice" - lol, I wouldn't hold my breath. Loomis 10:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be asking about Canada (remember that question about shooting Canadians near the border from the US side). Is there any reason to be worried. I've seen a lot more police on the streets in New York than in Toronto, and never was I approached by a policeman in Canada, while I have been in New York.

A website you might try checking is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association--Anchoress 11:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a website in a press release

Cross post - sorry, I don't know the best place to post it.

I'm writing a press release and I've done a heap of research on how to do it right, but there's something I haven't found; what's the legality of quoting something that's been said by a particular person on a website? Do I have to get permission, or is it available to be quoted by virtue of being public? I would be crediting the originator.--Anchoress 23:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you're an American, it would almost certainly be fair use, assuming the borrowings are short. --Robert Merkel 01:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. Since the intention is to get the press release published in a bunch of newspapers, I don't see how it would fit under fair use.--Anchoress 02:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're allowed to quote brief extracts, but not a substantial part of an original. The exact proportion is not legally defined. Whether something has or has not previously been published before is not the issue: it is still copyright. If it's just a short quote, you should be OK. Tyrenius 02:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's awesome. Thanks to both of you for the info. I was just worried because the only concrete info I've been able to find online says that if you quote people without getting permission you could be sued. But I guess that means stuff that hasn't been published? Cuz I guess the web is kind of like a book or other publication? If it's already out there the person has committed themselves, so quoting them from a web publication is like quoting another published source?--Anchoress 02:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you quote large extracts from someone's work, then you would be liable for a breach of copyright, whether it's been published or not. Certainly in the UK, something is copyright as soon as it's been created. Journalists quote dialogue from people all the time without asking permission. Perhaps you could give the online reference. Please also bear in mind that this is not legal information, as we are not qualified to do that. This is only a discussion. Tyrenius 19:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ismail Haniya and Mahmoud Abbas

1. Are the majority of Palestinians Shia?
2. Are the Palestinian prime minister and president both Shia?Patchouli 23:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1. No.

2. I strongly doubt that either one is, but Hamas is certainly willing to work with Hezbollah and Iran!

AnonMoos 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Islamic Republic of Iran is sending money to the Palestinians because they are Shia; apparently I was wrong.Patchouli 02:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Iran gives Hamas money because they both are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. I doubt the Sh'ia/Sunni divide has any relevance to either of them. Loomis 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing with Hezbollah, which is supported by Iran and is based in Lebanon. As far I know, most Shia muslims are Iranian, while Azerbaijan and Lebanon are Shia too, and there is a substantial number of them in Iraq and Pakistan. Evilbu 10:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

June 21

Hispanic Immigrants / US Colleges

Hi

I am looking for resources that help hispanic immigrants (college students) assimilate themselves into Americain society. For a hispanic immigrant student looking to attend a United States college, what resources are available to him/her? (On a nationwide basis). What services do colleges offer to immigrants, and what can a hispanic immigrant expect to find in the US college system that is different than that of their own college system (using Mexican colleges as a base, even though there will be differences in where people come from). Any and all ideas would be VERY appreciated. Thanks!

Please don't post the same question on more than one board. StuRat 04:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

if they wanted to could they make an amendment to make dry cleaning legal?--Bee(y)^Ti 01:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Two thirds of both houses of congress and three fourths of the state legislatures could pass an amendment on any subject that they wanted -- except denying a state equal representation in the Senate without its consent... AnonMoos 02:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, dry cleaning is already legal. —Keenan Pepper 02:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• yes but it's legality isn't explicitly guaranteed under the US Constitution--Bee(y)^Ti 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "could they make dry cleaning a guaranteed right." The answer is yes. Theoretically, one can amend the Constitution to say anything, with the possible exception of totally invalidating itself and setting up a new constitution. That's debatable, but it's also a whole 'nother topic. --George 04:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out, dry cleaning is already legal. Despite the silliness of the question, If you want to pinpoint where in the constitution the legality of "dry cleaning" would be arrived at, it would have to be the 10th Amendment (the residual amendment): "The powers not delegated to the United States [the federal government] nor prohibited by it to the States, [as dry cleaning is not], are reserved to the States respectively [i.e. dry cleaning could be legislated upon by the individual States, but I know of no such law] or to the people [i.e. dry cleaning is legal since no State has made it illegal as far as I know]. Loomis 09:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Legality isn't explicitly guaranteed? That's just bizarre. Is this another wind-up? I think you'll find that everything is legal unless there's a law against it; not the other way round. Is there an amendment explicitly making any form of cleaning legal?--Shantavira 06:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it bizarre? It needn't be explicitly guaranteed until it has been explicitly illegalized. If every legal thing were explicitly so, the law would dwarf the Library of Babel. Dry cleaning is legal because it has not been made illegal. That is the only definition of legal I know of. It is not currently prohibited, so it is, by definition, legal. If some state, say Alabama, attempted to ban dry cleaning, then the federal government might possibly have a reason to introduce a dry cleaning rights amendment explicitly permitting dry cleaning, but it would actually take the form of a law preventing the states from legislating against dry cleaning. To use a real-life example, slavery was never explicitly permitted by the U.S. Constitution. It was simply not disallowed. When such a law seemed likely to be passed, the Confederacy broke away and wrote a new constitution that explicitly prevented the federal government from preventing slavery (literally, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]") So they didn't explicitly legalize slavery. They simply made it illegal to illegalize it. So yes, if anti-dry-cleaning types were ever elected and pro-dry-cleaning states seceded and formed their own federation, they could explicitly legalize dry cleaning by explicitly illegalizing its illegalization! Bhumiya (said/done) 01:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this some sort of joke? The above paragraph doesn't even make sense, as it clearly contradicts itself. The fourth sentence alone actually makes sense: "I think you'll find that everything is legal unless there's a law against it; not the other way round". The rest of the paragraph is just a bunch of contradictory nonsense. In fact the whole question seems to be too moronic to be actually a serious one: A constitutional amendment making dry cleaning legal? Here's a better topic: Does Congress have the power to declare war against the planet Neptune? Any ideas, anybody?

Of course not! Don't be ridiculous. They would issue an authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) against Neptune. They stopped declaring their wars in 1942. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Money laundering is illegal. What if you left money in a pocket when you have your clothes dry cleaned? I hope every concerned U.S. citizen will urge their elected representatives for the following amendment to the Bill of Rights: Clean clothes being necessary to the well-being of the People, the right of the People to have their clothes dry cleaned shall not be infringed. --Lambiam^Talk 08:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

metal, rock and ...

There is a genre called metal, another called rock and... (the name of the 3rd, is punk rock???? Hardcore??? Or what??)

So my question is: What is the right name of the genre that some people call punk rock and others hardcore???

It's always hard to classify music into genres, since something will always fall on the line between genres. As far as I'm concerned, finding good music is more important than classifying it. To answer your question, though, I think most people consider hardcore to be a subgenre of punk rock, in the same way that something like ska-punk might be. That being said, I know that certain people who are really into that sort of music consider hardcore to be it's own genre, and the rest of punk to be too much like mainstream rock. I've also heard of hardcore as a "middle ground" that includes hardcore punk, as well as metalcore bands. In the end, it's all just music -- play it loud, and who cares exactly what it's called? --ByeByeBaby 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As a first generation punk rocker, myself, all I'll say is that at this point the labels mean almost nothing, what with all the slicing and sifting they've received by fans and bands eager to claim to being unique or new. However, groups like Fear and The Germs came along after punk was well underway and were influenced by British punk bands that had been influenced by The Ramones. Some of them, like Mission of Burma and Hüsker Dü, were just plain unique, as they worked out their own conclusions from unpredictable sources, but most of them were Sex Pistols and Clash influenced. Meanwhile, punk had started with Television (band) and Patti Smith Group and Talking Heads, Blondie, and The Ramones. Nothing united them except a vaguely anti-corporate stance and a belief in art (well, maybe not The Ramones so much). I remember thinking that hardcore was far too monolithic, too fashion conscious, and too tightly policed, while the hardcore folks thought all the rest of us were sell-out wussies. We didn't mind. They did. Geogre 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dominican Republic childhood

I am needing information on children raised in the Dominican Republic.

How are they weaned and when?

What type of toys do they have for their infants?

Please sign your name with four tildes (~).
Try going to Category:Wikipedians in the Dominican Republic.
Russian F 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NGO Registration Law

I am looking to learn more about the specific legal process of registering a non-governmental organization in various countries (specifically, the United States and the UK, but also any other comparisons available), so that I might have a better understanding of the process of registering NGOs in Japan (for which I already have information) by comparison. Specifically I'm interested in what standards are required by governments' laws (is recognition dependent on the group's purpose, membership size, sources of funding, nature of activities engaged in, or can anyone with a name and a pen just fill out a form and charter themself an organization?) in order to achieve recognition, tax-exempt status, or any other associated benefits.

Any pointers would be most appreciated. Thanks,

61.7.120.10 03:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In the US anyone can set up an NGO without any registration requirement. To be tax-exempt, however, it must be either a nonprofit organization or a not-for-profit organization (there is a subtle difference between the two). StuRat 04:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this subtle difference? The two wikilinks above redirect to the same aricle, wich appears to consider the two terms as being synonymous. --Lambiam^Talk 08:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

An ONG may finance its aims with collections only. Another may have a commercial activity, selling postcards, calendars, shirts ... for another charitable or lobbying aim. May commerce, or its percentage in global earnings, be the basis of the subtility that Stu indicates ?

Here is a source which discusses the difference: [2] StuRat 02:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It was clear as mud, but it covered the ground. --Lambiam^Talk 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Canada and the EU

Does Canada enjoy a closer relationship with the EU than the United States does? Bhumiya (said/done) 05:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

None that I can think of. Loomis 09:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not as far as I know on any formal level. For obvious reasons Canada has some closer ties with the UK (not as many as you might think) but not the EU. DJ Clayworth 13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Relations between nations are economical first, and then political. The EU may feel close, but does it sell and buy more than the US ? --DLL 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cassius Longinus

I searched through all the articles "Cassius Longinus" and "Cassia gens" but I couldn't find the one that I want. I would like to know every particular about "Centurion" Cassius Longinus whose lance pierced Jesus-Christ's side. In France, Cassius Longinus is known as Saint Longin (but no more details are available).In the Philippines, Cassius Longinus is considered as a great saint: every year, men wear "masks" with a kind of roman helmet and blood running from the right eye (of the mask). Legend has it that Cassius Longinus was one-eyed and that when piercing Jesus-Christ's side, he received some blood in his eye and recovered the use of his right eye. But, what I need, is more details about Cassius Longinus' life and why he is such a great figure in the Philippines and nowhere else.
Thank you if you can help me.Marie5952

The name does not occur in the Bible or any historical document. I don't know the origin of the legend. Perhaps it plays a role that this is one of the three names appearing in the ninth and lowest level of hell in Dante's Inferno, together with Judas Ischariot. In the biblical narrative it isn't even clear the spear man is a centurion; John 19:34 just has "one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear". There is a centurion in Mark 15:39, who is reported to have said: "Truly this man was the Son of God!". There is no specific reason or argument to link the two. --Lambiam^Talk 08:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Try Longinus (hagiography). Remember that this caracter is apocryphal (meaning largely invented). Flamarande 08:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never read them but there was a series of books about this character, all fictional. The story was that Jesus cursed him with immortality for sticking a spear in him & the books are his story. Could this be what you're thinking of? AllanHainey 11:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds as though it's mixing in elements of the Wandering Jew story. Grutness...wha? 12:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Spear of Destiny. JackofOz

Also Holy Lance. Adam Bishop 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[Do not underestimate the hypothesis that] in the Philippines, Christian missionaries might have propagated a specific cult to abate some similar cult also related to a broken eye - or a spear - or a mask. The Church had Jesus born on Dec., 25, notwithstanding what Mary would have said, because of old pagan solstice feasts near that date. --DLL 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

" African American Detective Novelist"

I read an article about an author but can't recall his name. He was born in the US (Harlem, perhaps?), but his family moved to France when he was young, where I believe his father had Professorship. He grew up to write detective or murder mysteries in the 50's-60's(?) known for their surrealism, because the brutal Harlem in his books was essentially reimagined from his childhood. I believe their was a major collection of his work published within the last 10 years. Do you think you can help me? Thank you so much.

Have you tried looking for a familiar name in African American literature? Maybe it's Chester Himes. VdSV9•♫ 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Walter Mosley?--Anchoress 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He's wonderful, but he doesn't fit the profile of the question. Geogre 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a kibbutz, but a moshab?

I was watching an episode of the [Shalom Sesame] video series, that mentioned a "moshab", after talking about a kibbutz. The said that in a "moshab", they own the land themselves, and there are several other thing different in their operations than a kibbutz. What is the correct word that I'd be looking for? -- Zanimum 17:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a moshav. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this is exactly what it was! -- Zanimum 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Free Music Video Download...!!!

Anybody Knows a Free Music video & Movie Trailors download Site....!!!

I'm finding some music videos & Trailors for an urgent matter..

Thank you. A music lover

uh, not sure if this is what you want but You Tube, you can get most movie trailers at Apple. Nowimnthing 19:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Try VSpot; not exactly downloads but an online music video player. EvocativeIntrigue _{TALK | EMAIL} 22:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Aw c'mon guys, you know what he was asking for. Try P2P, especially bittorrent. -- Миборовский 00:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

jobs for kids

My 13 yr. old nephew lives in rural tennesse and is way too board haveing nothing to do, no place to do it, and no $ to do it with. He does have access to a computer but has no transportation access to go anyplace in person. His poor dad and mom are a little tired haveing him about as a full time couch spud. What would you do in this situatution? Helpfull advice most wellcome. Thanks (Hobgoblin) 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Take away the television/games and see what his hobby is. He may learn to work on the car. He may work in the garden. He may become a computer programmer. He may start learning foreign languages. He may sit and cry all day that he doesn't have a television or video game to waste his time. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Send him to volunteer for the Summer Reading Club at the local library [3]. Even in rural Tennessee there should be one not that far away. Nowimnthing 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Send him to the United States Marine Corps, or their civilian counterparts the Boy Scouts asap, and he will probably hate you for it for the rest of his life :). Seriously now, you are asking Wikipedia for family advice? I don't think we are qualified to give such counsel. Your nephew just needs to join a local team of football, soccer, basketball, whatever. Or perhaps a nice girl-friend. Flamarande 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A) I agree with the 'family advice' thing above. B) What do the parents do? If they work outside the home, why not enrol him in a day camp or something and drop him off on the way to work? If they work in the home, enlist his help. If they don't work, then have him participate in whatever activities they engage in. If all they do is watch TV and play video games, then this is obviously a turf war and we shouldn't get involved. :-)--Anchoress 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

His dad works all day everyday (almost) mom is a semi-pro housenfrau & suby teacher dureing the school year. None of suggestions offered seem to be of aid as most are unavailable due to transportation problems (distance, lack of autos, etc.) Can a kid be a self taught computer progamer? Summer time blues are still ensueing. Any more ideas folks? Thanks 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (Hobgoblin)

Sounds like you or they are more interested in finding reasons why something can't be done instead of just doing it. Get the kid outside, have him cut the grass, whitewash the fence, build a stone fireplace, walk to town, find a job, whatever. Sell some crap on eBay and buy a bicycle. And yeah, anybody can be a self-taught programmer, even a no-good layabout like Bill Gates. --LarryMac 20:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I know many self-taught programmers, including some kids. The Logo programming language was specifically designed for young people. I've also heard of kids learning the ABC programming language with success and with just a little guidance. --Lambiam^Talk 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• If he's too far away to get a job outside the home, then why not give him chores and reward him with an allowance if he does them. Then he's got cash too. Building model planes and flying them could be fun too. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)`

The parents get him to do school work, and study so he would be head of class. This type of work will keep him productive and probaly would be of more value to him than a summer job or sport.

Bigamy in Ontario

I have a question regarding bigamy in Ontario. My friend was married January 2000 in Mexico, barefoot on a beach by December of the same year, they separated. Neither obtained a divorce. They thought that because the marriage was never registered in Ontario that the divorse would have to be done in Mexico, neither was about to return to Mexico, where they thought they would have to go for a divorce, so they called it a wash. My friend remarried, a year later, they obtained a valid marriage license in Ontario and married in Ontario, her new spouse was fully aware of the situation in regards to the marriage in Mexico. Since, they have separated and he, to be vindictive has claimed bigamy...Now, she is on charges of bigamy, she has spoken to three lawyers who cannot help her. She is a single mom with four children and is facing jail time in July for something that she did not have the mental intention to commit this crime. I guess I am wondering if there is any one or any thing that any of you with bright minds can think of that may help my friend and her children? We would all appreciate it so much...Thank you

Your best advice: get a lawyer. No judge in any court cares what the people at the Wikpedia reference desk think. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously she can't afford a good lawyer, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Who are these three lawyers she's spoken to? They obviously don't know the slightest bit about criminal law. Unfortunately, criminal law is not my specialty either, but at least I'd do the decent thing and point her in the right direction, rather than throw my hands in the air as these shlocks seem to have done.

First of all, if a competent lawyer is beyond her means, she can obtain what the Americans call a public defender (I honestly don't know what the proper Canadian term would be in English). She could contact the local police or the local courthouse and explain the situation, and they should be able to set her up with such a lawyer free of charge. Of course public defenders aren't known to be the best lawyers in the world (to put it mildly! But I shouldn't generalize, some may be excellent,) so a good deal of research on her part would be of great help.

I do remember from my years at McGill that law schools tend to have free legal clinics, where law students get programme credit by doing their best to help people out with their legal problems.

I'm not sure where you're located in Ontario, but there are at least six law schools that I can think of in the province: University of Windsor, Western, U of T, York (Osgoode Hall), Queens and University of Ottawa. I suggest you call any one of those law schools, ask to be refered to their legal aid clinic, and (should they have one, which I'm almost certain they all would) tell them your situation. If one's no good try any of the others. They'll be eager to help, and they'd actually probably be able to add a lot more to your case than by letting the public defender go it alone.

In any case, "Mariage and Divorce" is a federal jurisdiction, and therefore the province you're in isn't really relevant; the law is the same throughout Canada. So should all else fail, you can always get in touch with McGill's clinic and they would be able to give you appropriate information. Good luck and feel free to ask any follow-ups including how to get in contact with McGill should the need arise! Loomis 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this sounds as clear a case of bigamy as could be. To paraphrase, "They got married, it was too much trouble to divorce, so they forgot about it instead". Instead of seeking legal advice on how to get off, your friend would be better advised to seek legal advice on how to minimize the punishment. Notinasnaid 09:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The clearest case of bigamy would be: "here's my wife...and here's my other wife"; a scenario where the individual clearly has the intention of having two spouses. In the criminal law, intent is a major component. This individual clearly did not intend to have two husbands, but simply, and perhaps negligently, failed to "officially" divorce her first husband. Even if she was found guilty, I can't see a judge imposing any serious punishment such as actual jailtime. BTW, the prescribed sentence for the crime of bigamy in Canada has no minimum, meaning a judge can choose to sentence the accused to no jailtime whatsoever, but merely what amounts to a tiny slap on the wrist, (i.e. a small fine, and possibly even no punishment at all...but I'm not 100% on that one,) with a MAXIMIUM sentence of five years imprisonment. Loomis 13:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha!!! Forget the above paragraph!!! (Actually don't forget it, it's still relevant, but what I've just discovered is EXTREMELY interesting, and would serve as an invaluable tool in this situation). The questioner mentioned that "her new spouse was fully aware of the situation in regards to the marriage in Mexico" (i.e. that they she was not officially divorced). Welllll...according to s.290(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code of Canada: "Everyone commits bigamy who, in Canada...knowing that another person is married, goes through a form of marriage with that person..." In other words, the vindictive prick who's accusing her of bigamy is himself equally guilty of bigamy!! I suggest the questioner should report the second husband to the police, accusing him of bigamy, and then wait to see what happens once the smoke clears. If anything, he'd get a taste of his own medicine!

Of course this may pose a problem when it comes to proof. If he denies that he knew, it's a simple matter of he said/she said, and her accusation might not fly. It would be great if she had some hard evidence that he knew, such as, perhaps, a saved love-letter indicating that he was aware she was not yet "officially" divorced but wanted to marry her anyway "because Mexican marriages don't count in Canada anyway" or something like that. Some sort of proof like that would be invaluable. Loomis 13:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If she was married to a guy who was already married, then he is being bigamous. Not her, obviously, I mean, for what I understand of bigamy is, you have two spouses, and she had only one! It just doesn't make sense to me that she is being accused of anything, so I suggest she goes with the Chewbacca Defence. VdSV9•♫ 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

V, I think you may be misunderstanding the situation (or perhaps I am, in which case I'd be grateful to anyone who can correct my misunderstanding). The question was actually rather difficult to follow and phrased in a rather confusing manner, so I don't think either one of us can be blamed for misreading it. Yet, I'm pretty sure I've got the situation straight, and I'll try to boil down the question to the essential facts (again, correct me where you feel I've got it wrong):

The accused got married to Mr. X in Mexico in January 2000. About a year later, they separated, but to-date have never officially divorced. A year later, the accused got remarried in Canada to a certain Mr. Y. Apparently Mr. Y was fully aware that the accused and Mr. X had never officially divorced. Now the accused and Mr. Y have separated. To be vindictive, Mr. Y has apparently filed a complaint with the authorities, charging the accused with the crime of bigamy, since she married him while she was still legally married to Mr. X.

The situation is of a WOMAN being charged with bigamy for having two husbands, not the other way around.

Legal definitions often defy common sense and/or common dictionary definitions. A perfect example is the legal definition of the word "person". According to common sense and its simple dictionary definition, a "person" is defined simply as a "human being". However according to the law, corporations are equally considered as persons (unless the term "person" is qualified by another term. For example, one would have to add the qualifier natural to the term "persons" in order to refer specifically to human beings and exclude corporations).

Similarly, the "dictionary" and "common sense" definition of bigamy is: "the act of marrying someone while legally married to someone else". Apparently, though, the Canadian legislator has chosen to criminalize not only the dictionary definition of a bigamy, which would define a bigamist as only one who marries while still being legally married to someone else, but, as well, as I've just recently discovered, the act of knowingly participating in a bigamous marriage, i.e., marrying someone who is already legally married.

The law redefines/broadens words all the time to suit its purposes, as it's apparently easier to redefine/broaden an existing term than to just invent an entire new one.

In any case, while in ordinary English parlance Mr. Y would not be considered a bigamist, according to Canadian Criminal law he has in fact committed the crime of bigamy.

I'd love to get a comment from the original questioner, as the whole issue has (obviously) become a very interesting one to me. One thing I'm a bit curious about, though, is what you mean when you say your friend is "facing jail time in July". That's got me a bit puzzled. What do you mean by that? Has a trial date been set for July? Has she already been tried and convicted and the sentencing hearing is scheduled for July? Loomis 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See the Criminal Code, section 290 and section 291 as well as the definition of "form of marriage" in section 214. Based on the facts set out by the original poster, it seems pretty clear that the woman as well as her "husband" from the Ontario marriage are both guilty of the offence. Would either of them be sentenced to prison for this? Assuming it's a first offence, pretty unlikely. However, there can be implications to having a criminal conviction on your record even if the sentence is a conditional discharge, or whatever. If possible it might be a good idea to borrow money to pay for a decent lawyer. Also click here: Legal Aid Ontario. --Mathew5000 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello this is the original questioner!! thank you all for reading and writing your opinions, we appreciate it.. My freind went to court last week with her useless family lawyer and was going to plead guilty. then the lawyer said he had to remove himself from the record and she would have to plead by herself, the judge gave her until july 7th to get independent legal advise. if she pleads guilty they are willing to give her one year probation, one month house arrest, and comunity service. This keeps her away from the trial where the crown wants2 yrs of jail time. You see she is single with four children 3,4, 12 & 13. So she feels trying to fight this in a trial is just not an option, rolling the dice per say on the future of her and her childrens lives if she is faced with jail. so she is a rock in a hard place, pleading guilty just to avoid the possibility. To comment on some of the things above yes Mr Y knew about the marriage but it just turns into he said she said, there is no proof that he knew...there is no real proof of anything, its really all about what she thought at the time, it all comes down to whether she can convince the judge that she didn t have the mental intent. (good luck on that one) We went to see a criminal lawyer last nite, he said maybe seek out a lawyer that is familiar with international/mexican/divorce/some one who knows alot about these subjects, who maybe could find a loop hole. How about the fact that she was drunk while married bare foot on the beach, or that the ceremony was performed in spanish, or that there was a marriage contract created right then and there on the marriage documents they signed on the beach that day. Marriage contract that they would split what they got together and they would each leave with what they had when they went in. Is that legal too? What about some of the Mexican laws? Is there anything that could invalidate this first marriage? It was only 10 month marriage...Does anyone know where she can obtain any of this information...Any ideas at all???

Considering that nude weddings can be legally valid, I think the fact she was merely barefoot is irrelevant. That said, if the Mexican marriage was invalid, then I imagine that would be a good defence to the bigamy charge. (Although, if the Mexican marriage was actually invalid but your friend believed it to be valid when she remarried in Ontario, then I think she'd be guilty of attempted bigamy under section 24.) I find it surprising that the crown is seeking a sentence of two years imprisonment. Even one month house arrest is a bit surprising. Does your friend have a past criminal record? Actually you might not want to discuss that on a public forum; there aren't many women charged with bigamy in Ontario in any given year, so anything you post here could easily find its way to Crown counsel or anyone else who knows your friend's name. Has your friend obtained a legal aid referral yet? Considering that the crown is seeking imprisonment, your friend definitely should not rely on law students' advice as someone suggested above. One option might be to instruct her lawyer to negotiate with Crown counsel for better terms on a guilty plea, such as a suspended sentence. It's perfectly legitimate to raise her parental responsibilities in negotiating that kind of plea agreement, and in submissions about sentence to the judge. --Mathew5000 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

God, right you are Loomis, I had misread it. Actually I had intentionally posted a misinterpretation of my own misinterpretation. funny. I thought that his friend was a mrs X who married to the mr Y who later married another mrs Z. So the chewbacca defense just might not work in this case... VdSV9•♫ 10:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I only mentioned the idea of law students' advice because legal aid can be quite poor, and it's best to be as well informed as possible. The two years jailtime that the Crown is seeking is indeed abnormally harsh. I'm also assuming that Mr Y's testimony would be the key factor in the Crown's prosecution. In any event, I'd still consider reporting Mr. Y to the authorities and have him go through the hell your friend is going through. Perhaps the threat of reporting him might provide you with a bit of leverage when it comes to him deciding whether to testify or not? I don't know, I'm really in over my head at this point...this is way too far into the intricacies of criminal procedure for my knowledge. Just something you may want to discuss with your lawyer. I should also add the annoying old disclaimer, just to cover my ass (the preceeding legal information should be taken as that of a layman only, and NOT as any form of legal advice or opinion) Best of luck. Loomis 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as an additional question: what kind of idiot would actually prosecute this woman and threaten her with jail time? In the U.S., this would be a quick way for a district attorney to find himself in need of a new job, especially once the publicity started. Are prosecutors not answerable for inane overprosecutions in Canada? - Nunh-huh 19:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this type of prosecution would seem to be highly unusual in Canada, as the Canadian justice system, were it to be criticized, would if anything be criticized for being insanely lenient. Two years jail time for this unfortunate mishap seems extremely odd by Canadian standards. If I (as an ordinary citizen...I must confess, I'm not a lawyer, I just say so because I'm a pathological liar.;)) somehow found myself in this unfortunate mess, I would almost certainly not plead guilty, or even agree to any plea bargain with the Crown. What I would do, (and again this is my opinion as an ordinary citizen, and we're no longer talking about Canada anymore, rather a fantasy dream planet called K-Pax;)) is this: Give Mr. Y a call, tell him that if he dares testify against me I'd report him to the police and accuse him with bigamy pursuant to s.290(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code of K-Pax, imply in a subtle yet clear way that I indeed had evidence that he had apparently overlooked, proving the fact that he indeed knew I was never officially divorced from Mr. X, and wait a week or so to see what happens (a bluff: if he asks exactly what evidence you have, just tell him to "use his imagination" and end the conversation). If the Crown's charges don't mysteriously "vanish", I'd then file an actual police report accusing him of bigamy, then wait another week or so. If the Crown's charges still don't disappear by this time, I'd still take my chances in court, demand a trial by jury as constitutionally guaranteed by s.11(f) of the K-Paxian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and let the trial proceed on it's course, confident that there's no way that 12 of my fellow K-Paxian peers would unanimously agree that I should be found guilty of any crime whatsoever, and even if they did, unanimously agree that I should actually face jail time. However, there is some risk involved, and I am not the mother of 4, nor even a true lawyer (as some of the tactics I'm suggesting may be considered "unethical" for a real lawyer to suggest), and we're not even talking about a real country here, rather the imaginary dream planet K-Pax. But that's just my insane fantasy opinion about an imaginary legal scenario on a fantasy dream planet, so I wouldn't take it all too seriously. Loomis 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Who was that insane lunatic nutjob impersonating me above? ;) In answer to your question, Nunh-huh, Crown prosecutors are not elected as they are in (at least some) US jurisdictions. Nonetheless you're right, this prosecution seems insane by any standards, all the more so by Canadian standards, and the Justice Ministers who appoint the Crown Prosecutors are required to face the electorate each election.

That's why I'm so eager to advise the questioner to plead not guilty and let the thing run its course in court. But that would HIGHLY irresponsible of me, as I've never met the person, and I don't have all the information I'd usually require before offering a legal opinion. So let me be clear once again, Any and all information I've presented above shall by absolutely no means be considered as legal advice or opinion. In responding to the above question I have offered absolutely NO legal advice. The above shall and should be considered as nothing more than a casual exchange of ideas. Loomis 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

largest city

In one of Wikipedia's articles, it says that the largest city in the world by surface area is Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Western Australia. But recent researches I have done show that either the Tokyo Metropolitan Area or New York City's metropolitan area are the largest. Well...which one is it? Oh, by the way, these researches were done on Wikipedia as well so someone is putting false information on here.

A metropolitan area is not a city. Chuck 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The city of God ? --DLL 16:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ENBRIBD ----??????????

What is this? A corporation? It has something to do with natural gas processing. An industrial term? Maybe a german word? Many thanks 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (Hobgoblin)

• You're likely looking foor Enbridge.--Pharos 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

enbribd rides again

P.S. enbribd is in the great state of Mississippi if that helps any thanks. (Hobgoblin)

Is Juneteenth controversial?

I posted this at Talk:Juneteenth, but I think it might be better placed here, as it has little to do with that article. Anyway: I work for the local school board, and I'm currently in the process of preparing the school teachers' calendar. I added Juneteenth to the holidays listed this year (not all are school holidays, but a lot of them are included). My boss told me to remove it, claiming that Juneteenth is controversial and that many African Americans object to the name "Juneteenth". I have been unable to find anything on the web to support this view. Does anyone have any idea what my boss is on about? I was also forced to remove Chinese New Year and some other miscellaneous non-"standard" holidays. — BrianSmithson 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not "controversial" in Texas! AnonMoos 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird. If I tried very hard to imagine a reason to be offended by it, I guess I could come up with "it perpetuates an idiolectical name," but the people who'd be offended by that are surely a tiny minority, and since Ralph Waldo Ellison wrote a novel by that name, I can't imagine that those folks would have much cultural standing. "Chinese New Year" is exactly the kind of thing that a primary school teacher should want to know about, as it gives her or him a chance to teach the class about lunar new year's calendars and allows them to do something with their China unit. Odd. Geogre 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there could possibly be controversy about making Juneteenth and official state holiday of Louisiana? (I presume that's where the school is, based on your user page.) But even that seems unlikely given that state's legislators this year enrolled a house resolution (No. 134, "To recognize Wednesday, April 26, 2006, as Imperial St. Landry - Evangeline Day") that incidentally mentions the "Juneteenth Folklife Celebration in Opelousas" as a festival in which particular pride should be taken. And I agree with Geogre, "Chinese New Year" surely would belong on such a school calendar! Crypticfirefly 03:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These were my thoughts exactly (regarding teachers wanting to know about these holidays in order to use them for lesson ideas). The argument against Chinese New Year, Ramadan, and some others was that we simply can't recognize every culture's holidays or it will get out of hand, and I understand that point. However, the Juneteenth thing really perplexed me. Kwanzaa got to stay, despite it being a legitimately controversial holiday (as witnessed by that article's talk page). Unfortunately, my boss is now out of town, and the calendar had to go to press, so there's nothing to be done now. Louisiana is slowly waking up to multiculturalism, but it will take some time yet. At least Mole Day got to stay. — BrianSmithson 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

nuclear non-proliferation policy

It is obvious that the effort to prevent nuclear proliferations extends into the very mathematics of nuclear decay but is such effort still justified with Iran and North Korea already in possession of sufficient knowledge to produce a bomb or is the establishment afraid that American citizens might with such knowledge be able to build the bomb too? ...IMHO (Talk) 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest and not tell "stupid white lies". We (almost everybody) are simply scared that regimes like the ones in Iran and North Korea, etc produce nuclear weapons. Nobody and nothing can garantue us that those weapons wouldn't be used, or perhaps even sold to other even more warlike regimes. Ok, so they tell us it us only for peacefull purposes, namely nuclear energy. And we have to believe in them because of what? They can't lie, perhaps? Their formidable peaceful past? Their links to terrorist groups (in the case of Iran) or their terrorist actions (in the case of North Korea)? So the US, who by the way isn't their friend and just might be on their target list, is keenly interested and will do almost anything to avoid that they build such nuclear power plants. It isn't fair (they might really want only nuclear energy) but tell me of a single thing that is fair in this world. Nobody wants to risk it or trusts in these guys. Flamarande 22:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"We (almost everybody)"- I don't think you represent the views of almost everybody. I'm not as scared of the nations that COULD have nuclear weapons, as I am of the nations that currently DO have nuclear weapons.

At least those coutries which have the bomb haven't been using them since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, until now. Better the devil you know and all that. Flamarande 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He certainly represents my views 100%! What nation that currently has nuclear weapons in the world is anywhere nearly as scary as the prospect of an Iran or a North Korea with nuclear weapons? The leadership of these two misfit states are utterly insane, and their nuclear ambitions MUST be stopped at all costs. Loomis 01:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• The question of whether proliferation can be prevented by means of knowledge control is one which has been debated since before the first atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima. Most people agree that restrictions on scientific knowledge alone does not prevent proliferation. More important are controls of exports of bomb-related technologies and materials, and diplomatic control regimes (like the NPT). The U.S. government is not afraid that private American citizens will try and make nuclear weapons -- the creation of nuclear weapons requires a lot more than just theoretical knowledge (much of which is in the public domain by this point), and is not an undertaking that even a relatively small group of private citizens is likely to undertake (or be able to undertake without being noticed). I don't think the U.S. government is legitimately afraid of North Korea or Iran using the bomb, but fears rather that they will attempt to use it as a political tool to gain concessions and diplomatic power (much in the same way the U.S. tried to use the bomb in this way against the USSR before 1949, but they more or less failed in this respect, because Stalin et al recognized that the U.S. was not eager to go to war with the USSR, and that the U.S. only had a few bombs at the time anyway). I don't know how real a threat it is that either of those countries would give a nuclear bomb to terrorists -- it would be worse than just using it yourself, since 1. it would still probably be pretty clear who provided the bomb and so you'd still suffer any military/diplomatic consequences, and 2. it would mean relinquishing control over the bomb itself, which is dangerous both in terms of the plot being discovered or the bomb being used against yourself or misused somehow. If that situation is in the end strategically no different than them using the bomb against the U.S. (assuming they have bombs small enough to fit onto their hypothetical delivery vehicles which could hypothetically reliably reach the United States) then I think it would still fall into the category of "not very likely" (there are easier ways for these countries to make life miserable for Americans and to consolidate their own power than through getting annhilated -- compare again the post-WWII strategy of the USSR, which made use of all sorts of subterfuge rather than direct military conflict with the U.S., to their own benefit). --Fastfission 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• An article you might find interesting is the Nth Country Experiment, where Lawrence Livermore lab determined that pretty much anybody with a PhD in physics could come up with reasonably reliable bomb designs based on information in the public domain by the mid-1960s. Of course, having a bomb on paper is a long way from having a usable bomb (or the means of delivering it). --Fastfission 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

People are always interested in that. Long ago I figured that if there were but ten clones of myself, I could completely eradicate the United States. Its simple, using terrorism tactics as well as wide scale annihilation of infrastructure and genocide, and not letting anybody know who it is so they don't know what is going on. — The Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd trust a clone? ;-) You know the Franklin quote, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead" or something like that. I'd suspect it is probably still the same with clones. --Fastfission 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that Pantex actually lost several Davy Crockett (nuclear device)s at one time along with a few other warheads scheduled for disassembly and that no one knows for sure if it was just an accounting error or if those nuks actually fell into the hands of local residents, etc. What about such anomalies in our system (not to mention in other systems around the world) as being responsible for at least one weapon being available for use by someone? ...IMHO (Talk) 01:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are also 40 lb. of weapons-grade plutonium "missing" from the accumulated transports over the years. The same question arises: are these multiple small accounting errors, grading and scale errors, or actual losses. It's the getting of the plutonium that is the biggest problem for the bomb maker. In a sense, Oakridge, Tennessee was the key to the US atomic bomb. Geogre 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's Oak Ridge, Tennessee (which manufactured the U-235 for Little Boy). Plutonium was produced at the Hanford Site in Washington State. I have no idea why Oak Ridge is so well known yet Hanford is generally unheard of. Odd the way history works. — Lomn | Talk 05:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oak Ridge is a lot bigger than Hanford, and a lot less remote, which is probably part of it. I find the idea of losing full warheads to be probably pretty unlikely, though bits of plutonium seems plausible. It's easy to mix up one metal versus another. It's hard to get confused about a warhead. --Fastfission 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires existing nuclear states to pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles. As the U.S.A. has infact expanded its nuclear arsenel and restarted research into tactical nuclear weapons and Bunker buster's it would seem to be violating that treaty. Therefore it can't really be used as a legal force to prevent other states from similarly violating it and pursuing their own nuclear programs. If the nuclear states want to prevent others from developing nukes a good start would be adhering to previous agreements and treaties on nuclear weapons. AllanHainey 11:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this, but the following rules apply in maters of international politics: Laws are for the weak, all counties have broken past treaties, and noone trusts noone too much. The UN has no strength to enforce its own resolutions and is dependent of the most powerful countries, especially the US, Russia, China, UK, France. All countries care mostly about their own national interrests and will vote accordingly. Too many poor countries sell their votes for the highest bidder (nobody will tell it out loud though). Others will opose other countries because of all kind of shortsighted reasons. Nations will support other nations because the politicians will gain crucial votes (and cash, essential in paying publicity) this way. Almost everybody sells guns to almost everybody. Everybody is scared ot the Nuclear bomb. Its simply a rotten world, so accept as it is and do not dream of another one "that should be". If you don't like it, then please try to change the system from the inside. Flamarande 13:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AllanHainey is exactly right that the U.S. has not been fulfilling its obligations in good faith under the treaty, but that is not a new thing (it has never really attempted to do that). It is one of the reasons that a lot of analysts thing the NPT isn't worth the paper it is written on, because it is very selectively enforced. I disagree with your approach, Flamarande -- diplomatic treaty regimes, though not perfect, often given a lot of political leverage. Everyone thought the Helsinki human rights accords were useless when the USSR signed them, but over time they played a major role in the country's policies towards their dissidents. But anyway these are political arguments not worth piecing over for the millionth time. :-) Allan, the U.S. hasn't actually expanded its arsenal any -- the research on the bunker busters is "officially" scrapped, and even that was most likely a modification of an existing warhead. The most recent U.S. "new nuke" debate is about the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program, but even that is more an instance of wanting to replace warheads rather than expand the warhead count. Even while saying this, though, I do believe that the U.S. has not been trying to reduce and liquidate its stockpile according to the provisions of the NPT, and I think it still has far more warheads than it needs for a credible second strike. --Fastfission 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and I suppose some politicians are really changing the system from whitin. Flamarande 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a little detail that might be worth pondering: Political scientists and military strategists are pretty much in agreement that during the cold war, even if one of the superpowers actually possessed the cold inhumanity necessary to snuff out a few hundred million lives at the press of a button, they were further restrained by the concept of mutual assured destruction or MAD.

In other words, as coldly genocidal as one side may have been, (a characteristic I wouldn't even ascribe to the Soviets, at least after Stalin's death,) the launching of a nuclear strike would be suicidal, as it would trigger an equally devastating nuclear response by the US. Say what you will about the Soviets, they may have been an aggresive, brutal, expansionist threat to the free world, but one thing they were not was suicidal. (And even from the Soviet POV, if that's your cup of tea, the Americans may have been heartless capitalist pigs, but they certainly could not be accused of being suicidal either).

Basically, then, for a REAL nuclear threat to exist, the state possessing such weapons would have to have a leadership governed by two specific traits: 1) genocidal tendencies, as well as 2) an "otherworldly" cause, one worth committing suicide and leaving this world for.

Fortunately, though, Iran is just looking for a cheap way to produce electricity. Loomis 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So they tell us, but why should we believe them? Unfortunably these regimes are also not very stable (a bit like the old Soviet Union and the problem of Tchechnia) and crappy politicians like "Bush the believer" and "Blair his faithfull puppy" are scaring everyboby so that the frightend masses don't forget on whom to vote. And the "dude of Iran" which seems (at least to me) to be as faithful and intelligent as "Bush the believer" doesn't help things, with his ravings about the "international zionist conspiracy" and his proclamations that Israel should be transfered into Europe or else...

Notice how the "dude from Iran" is using the same tactics (he is banging on patriotism and the "Americans are going to kill us" besides the "Jews are going eat us alive" crap) for the same results, namely votes. The "dude from Iran" and "Bush the believer" and "Blair his faithfull puppy" are simply the three faces from a threesided "coin" called modern Democracy.

And if the Germans were able to elect Hitler (amid a enourmous economical and political crisis) and the peaceloving Americans made Nagasaki and Hiroshima who are we to tell that no people/country with the Nukes will use them? (I don't believe myself, I used the Hitler argument - I lost :) Flamarande 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. I often end my posts with an over-the-top, hyper-sarcastic sentence. Say what you will about Bush and Blair, I happen to disagree with you there, but it's not worth debating, because it's not essential to my point. However I must say that to equate US and UK democracy with that farce of a system they've got in Iran is more than a bit of a stretch. Again though, not relevant to my point and not worth debating.

My main point is that nukes are only truly dangerous when in the hands of people who would actually dare use them. To use nuclear weapons, as I tried in detail to explain would require a mindset governed by at least two essential factors: 1) A cold, grotesque indifference to the thought of genocide, as well as 2) a committment to ideals so radical that suicide is actually a viable tactic (perhaps because one may believe that one's religion might offer some sort of reward for it in the afterlife).

Say what you will about "Bush the believer" and "Blair his faithful puppy", but neither of them show any trace of these mindsets. Bush may be a deeply religious man, which may to many paint him as a fool...fair enough. Nonetheless, he's been in power for 5½ years now, and despite whatever one can say of the foolishnes of his faith, it clearly does not include any call for any sort of suicidal martyrdom. In fact quite the opposite, as a faithful Christian, Bush would likely consider any sort of suicide to be a rather grave sin. When's the last time you've heard of any Christian suicide bomber?

The "dude in Iran", on the other hand, seems to fit the bill as the most likely person to actually consider using nukes than pretty much any world leader I've ever come across. He clearly displays 1) genocidal tendencies (with all that mad ranting about wiping Isreal off the map), as well as 2) a religious conviction (radical Islam) that actually approves and indeed encourages suicidal martyrdom.

Say Iran finally accomplishes its goal of attaining nuclear weapons capable of reaching Israel. What's to stop that "dude in Iran" from committing "The mother of all suicide bombings" and launch a nuclear strike, prompting Israel to respond in kind with its nukes, and resulting in the complete obliteration of both countries, and the loss of tens of millions of lives? MAD would surely be no deterrent, as "the dude" (referring to him as "the dude" is by no means an insult to you...I think we're just both too lazy to actually go through the trouble of finding his real name (lol)) would surely rise up into paradise and be honoured as the greatest Islamic martyr of all time.

To sum up, genocidal tendencies, the belief in suicidal martyrdom and nuclear weapons have got to be the most dangerous and frightening mix imaginable. And THAT is why there is such a HUGE, FUNDAMENTAL difference between countries like the US, the UK, France, China, Russia, Pakistan, India and Israel possessing nuclear weapons on the one hand, and Iran on the other, and in turn is why the world must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weaponry, whatever the cost may be. Loomis 12:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

June 22

Can you be more specific? Perhaps you should read the wiki article June 22. (I know, I know! So now I finally get why the words "suitly emphazi" (or whatever) are so hilarious to all of you!) Loomis 12:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you by any chance been enbribd? --Lambiam^Talk 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that somehow related to pastatution? Loomis 01:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ISTR we answered this question on June 17th - please don't repeat your posts. I also notice that "June 22" is also on the other Reference desk pages, and the rules at the top say not to cross-post. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a rather narrow interpetation of the rules, Grutness. I see "June 22" as an entirely separate question from "June 17", requiring just as much serious consideration. JackofOz 04:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems apparent to me that, being a higher number, 22/17 of the attention given "June 17" is required here. — Lomn | Talk 05:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code DVD

I was going to ask this on the talk page of The Da Vinci Code, but this seemed more appropriate. Does anyone know when the DVD is going to be released? I can't seem to find that anywhere.--Rayc 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the studio. I doubt that any release date has been made public yet. The film has only just been released in cinemas, after all. DVD release is normally about a year later. --Richardrj 09:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Normally it goes: Sneak Peak (the reviewers see it), Major Release, Second-Tier (discount theater) Release, Airline Release/Pay-Per-View, DVD/Rental Release, Television Release. Channels like HBO and Showtime have tried to get movies before they are available for purchase, but I don't think that's ever worked. Also, some movies go in a different order for various reasons. Pulp Fiction was in art houses only for a few weeks, but was too popular. So, it went to major release. First Blood was a flop that went to HBO, where it became so popular that it went to video. Someone recently released a movie in major release and video at the same time (Steven Soderheim???). As for the dates, it is all about the money. When you get the money you need from one step of the release cycle, you move to the next. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the film that went to theatres and DVD simultaneously was Crash, 2005. The director and producers were afraid that it would never get sufficient distribution and felt that they had a great movie. They did. In that case, the strategy worked, in terms of critical support and word of mouth. I'm not sure how well it did in theatrical release before the Academy Awards, but it had a new release afterward. Geogre 13:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I just found it. I was thinking of Bubble. Released in Movies, Cable, and DVD at the same time. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How-to for creating urban vinyl figures?

I can't seem to find any information in regards to how one goes about designing and creating urban vinyl figures (like the work of Michael Lau, and stuff on kidrobot.com). Anybody have any leads? Javguerre 02:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The stuff on kidrobot is just vinyl stuffed dolls. Instead of using cloth to make a doll, use vinyl. Basically, you have to learn to sew first. Then, practice with the material you want to use. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Liqueur Reference Sources?

I'm currently trying to build the article on Parfait Amour on this very website, but have had some considerable trouble finding any reference material regarding the non-mixology aspects of the drink (like history, variation, definitions of the drink, etc). I'd like to ask, does anyone know of any useful references regarding this? Preferably either web-available, or conceivably available in Australia. -- Kirby1024 04:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it a psychedelic rock ??

Hi! i've been wondering for long about the genre of the following song : Song name - Bheegi bheegi Film - Gangster (2006) Singer - James (Nagar baul)

   You can listen to the track here

In case, you are unable to do so , you may try googling for this Bollywood track. Though i know nothing about Genres of song, i think, it might be a Psychedelic Rock .I don't know whether lyric would be a factor!?!

Thanking you in anticipation,--Pupunwiki 05:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Reformatted comments to make them easier to read

After a quick Google search, I came across this page which seemed to think the genre was "devotional/religious", but I have no idea if this is the song you're looking for! EvocativeIntrigue _{TALK | EMAIL} 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

   No that's certainly not a devotional song... & the singer is
different too. Anyhow, thanks for spending your time.
                --Pupunwiki 12:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Classifying one song as psychedelic rock can be difficult. I would refer to articles such as the one about Psychedelic music for information about what is generally considered 'Psychedelic'.

--LBJacob09 8:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Assistance

I am currently taking part in a quiz and was wondering if you could help me with some questions.

http://img221.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2b7ox.jpg who is this a statue of?

http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=41kt1.jpg What this plant is? Its named after the creature it attracts.

Youre help would be much appreciated as always.

I don't know the answers, but I saw you had another link to a picture of a bridge which you have now taken down. Did you get the answer to that one? I'd like to know where it is - it looked like an awesome bridge. Thanks. --Richardrj 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its called the Maulli Bidge over the river Tarn.

So does anyone have an idea on my questions?

I believe the plant is a buddleia aka butterfly bush, or a summer lilac.

The geezer on the plinth is Pushkin. MeltBanana 01:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was Pushkin! Is that the Hermitage behind him? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No the Mikhailovsky Palace or Russian Museum but only a short walk away. MeltBanana 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Australia belongs to Asia or Oceania?

From my general knowledge, Australia is a Oceanian country. However, Australia is now a member of Asian Football Confederation, but not Oceania Football Confederation.

I am asking if Australia belongs to both Asia and Oceania, if not, why Australia could join the Asian Football Confederation.

Australia is in Oceania, the football team recently left the OFC and joined the AFC because it was fed up with the big fish little pond scenario. Basically, they were fed up being the best of the worst, baceause the OFC doesnt get any world cup places, and Australia has to play-off with losing CONCACAF teams. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You triple posted this question! dont do that. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, consider India. India is a subcontinent. India is in ASIA. India is in south Asia, and it is a subcontinent. Consider Australia. Australia is a continent. This fact might seem obvious, but it bears repeating: AUSTRALIA is a CONTINENT. And again: AUSTRALIA...is a... CONTINENT. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.189.199 (talk • contribs) 17:07, June 22, 2006 (UTC)

These are nice lyrics. Do you have a melody that goes with it? --Lambiam^Talk 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty easy to look at Asia and Oceania and see the maps. But, the question was about sports. Why are the Kansas City Chiefs in the AFC West when Kansas City is about as close to the middle of the United States as you can get? Sports divisions don't always make sense geographically. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) That response is a little too abrupt I think. You may wish to moderate your tone in future. Australia is both a country and a continent. The term Oceania is often mistaken to be the name of the continent, but is in fact just a name for the region. Likewise, the name Australasia is used for a slightly different region centred around Australia. One of the reasons for Australia deciding to leave the Oceania Football Confederation to join the Asian Football Confederation is that the OFC does not currently have a guaranteed spot in the World Cup finals. As to why they were alowed to change confederations, that is probably a choice for FIFA. Road Wizard 17:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What a pillock shouting autralia is a continent at him, no-one mentioned continents, only football federations. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, athletic organizations don't exactly have much authority in political or geographical matters. The Toronto Blue Jays are in the American League, but that doesn't mean that the entire city has been annexed by the US. Similarly, the National Hockey League began in Canada, but NHL teams are now overwhelmingly located in the US. What "nation" is the NHL refering to then? The same can be said of the National Basketball Association. Now with the Toronto Raptors, what "nation" is the NBA referring to? Even the Canadian Football League, some years back included several teams located in US cities, namely Las Vegas, Birmingham, Memphis, Shreveport, San Antonio and Sacramento. Does that mean that these six important US cities were briefly part of Canada? My simple point is that the "league" that a particular sports team decides to join is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to political or geographic matters. Loomis 21:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope this response meets with your approval, RoadWizard, and that the mild sarcasm was acceptable. Also, I can't help but tell you that I believe you were overly judgemental with regard to one of the responses above. A little levity never hurt anyone. An apology would seem to be in order. Loomis 21:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why me? I think RoadWizard's admonishment was meant for lyricist 82.131.189.199. --Lambiam^Talk 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world would I apologise to Lambian when my comments were directed at 82.131.189.199. Lambian's comment was added 10 minutes after mine. I assume that you are trying to be humorous, but I can't quite see the joke. As to why I said the comment by 82.131.189.199 was too abrupt is because very few people I have encountered know that the proper name for the continent on which Australia rests is the "Australian continent" and I don't think you can call the tone of 82.131.189.199's comment mild. Road Wizard 22:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant apologize to 82.131.189.199. I originally wrote Lambiam but quickly changed it when I realized it was 82.131.189.199 you were refering to. Sorry Lambiam, my mistake. As for my remark, no, I wasn't trying to be humourous, just trying to point out that while 82.131.189.199's "tone" may have been somewhat inappropriate, your taking it upon yourself to admonish him/her was far more innapropriate. If someone says something truly offensive, tell them so. However, if you merely disapprove of their "tone", please keep it to yourself. We're all grown-ups here, we don't need to be chided by self-righteous, self-appointed "wiki-police". Loomis 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Football Federation Australia has a good explanation as to why Australia wanted to join the Asian confederation. The Asian Confederation is likely to have accepted Australia because it offered several opportunities for them - getting the AFC Champions League, the Asian Cup, and a bunch of World Cup qualifiers televised in a wealthy country. The only country for whom it'll be a major downside is Saudi Arabia, who won't be making up the numbers at the next World Cup unless Asia gets another place (the Saudis are the worst team in the Cup by some margin). Geographically, the time zones (which are the most important thing for televising the games) work better for Japan, South Korea and China (the big TV markets) from Australia than they do for the countries in the Middle East.

In any case, if you want some examples of geographical anomalies, most of Turkey is geographically in Asia, as is the majority of Russia. But those countries play in the UEFA competitions. --Robert Merkel 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As does, of course, Israel, who is geographically completely in Asia, but plays in UEFA because of the Arab boycott -- half of their matches in Asia would be politically charged. At one time, interestingly, Israel were a member of the Oceania Football Confederation, again to avoid being in the same confed as all of the Arab countries. --ByeByeBaby 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Australia is a Western nation that's geographically part of South-East Asia and also part of Oceania but a contintent in our own right. We're also simultaneously "down under" and "over the top" (about going through to the next round at the 2006 FIFA World Cup). Basically, we don't where the hell we are. But we don't really care, that's what makes us so wonderful. JackofOz 02:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Russia is an interresting case. Europe stretches east to the Ural mountains, so the biggest geographical part of Russia is Asian, but most Russians are Europeans. And it's people who play football, not land. :)

Another anomaly is the World series, which is an exclusively US affair, except for one Canadian team.

About politically charged games. Is this taken into consideration when forming groups in the world championship? Since most teams are from Europe and South America there won't be too much of a problem, but some games might still be tricky, especially with the US. Imagine US-Iraq or US-Vietnam. Or matches between former Yugoslavian countries. DirkvdM 07:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much animosity between Americans and Vietnamese anymore, and of course the official government of Iraq is a U.S. ally. On the other hand, a U.S.-Iran or U.S.-North Korea match might be an issue. As for the former Yugoslavia, there's certainly been some sporting controversy there. Just look at our article on Srbe na vrbe! Bhumiya (said/done) 10:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

krakatoa

what is the nearest town or city near the indonesian volcano krakatoa?

If you go to the article Krakatoa, it has the geographic coordinates for the volcano. The coordinates are hyperlinked; click on them, and it'll take you to a page where you can view the coordinates at a number of map sites. Choose one of those (I used MapQuest) and zoom out until you can see the areas around it. Just eyeballing it, it looks like Cinangka is closest. Chuck 21:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Painting

http://i5.tinypic.com/15clj4k.jpg

My final Quiz Question that i`m stuck on... no-one even has a clue. It apparently depicts the arrival of a famous figuer into a European City. Help is much appreciated.

Just from the appearance, it looks Italian. The problem with that is that the people look French. The flag is red, white, and blue - but top to bottom like the Netherlands' flag. The person arriving is apparently dead. My first guess is that it is a Pope, but it could be any high religious figure. It is certainly Catholic if it is old due to the "Vive Jesus" on the banner on the right. You point out that it is the arrival of a famous figure. The first thing that comes to mind is Saint Nicholas. His remains were returned to Italy after his death and he was often depicted as having a pointy hat and a red robe. Perhaps that will help. Maybe it will lead you off in the complete wrong direction. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The larger vertical flag seems to be red, blue and yellow, and these colours also feature on the soldiers' caps. Could be set in Romania. JackofOz 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Brussels + Christ, And did those feet in ancient times wander round Belgium? MeltBanana 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So that would be red, black and yellow, hung side-ways. They haven't managed to build Jerusalem yet, though, afaik. Would give too much trouble anyway, given the quibbling over the other Jerusalem. DirkvdM 07:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone would like to know, Adrian Henri wrote a poem based on it called The Entry of Christ into Liverpool. It's in The Mersey Sound (revised edition). He also did a painting of the same name as a homage to James Ensor. Tyrenius 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Movies about the Free French Forces

Recently I have watched a couple of French films set during the Vichy regime/German occupation: Lacombe, Lucien and Monsieur Klein. Are there any films relating to the Free French Forces and/or Charles de Gaulle in London? I don't mean documentaries. For example, are there any feature films that depict any of the following:

• Destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir
• Battle of Dakar
• Appeal of June 18 (1940-06-18)
• The Chequers Accord of 1940-08-07
• Normandie-Niemen squadron
• Battle of Bir Hakeim
• De Gaulle arriving in Algeria (1943-05-30)
• Comité français de la Libération nationale (1943-06-03)

--Mathew5000 22:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there's a Franco-Russian film entitled Normandie - Niémen; there's a French TV movie entitled Mers El-Kebir. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping for films available on DVD in North America. Considering that France has one of the largest filmmaking industries of any country in the world, I would think they would have made some big-budget films about the French Free Forces, and also about Charles de Gaulle and the government in exile during the War. --Mathew5000 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

trivia question

The US gave birth to him but what state claims him as their own?

I think you'll have to be a bit more specific on that one; it's far too general, as it could technically apply to any ex-pat American. Ziggurat 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

George Washington / Washington--Melburnian 07:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a clever answer, but of course there was no US when GW was born, so this may be a flawed riddle if that's the correct answer. --K

You're right..hmmm...how about Éamon de Valera / Republic of Ireland (The Irish State)?--Melburnian 11:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. If it was Eamon surely the question would be "but which country claims him as their own", and that would be pretty dire. I think its Washington. Are there any other states which are named after people born on the North American continent? --84.13.243.110 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

June 23

The name "Hickey"

Hi folks. I just did a quick search on Wikipedia on my family name, "Hickey". What I didn't see kind of surprised me. My name is Robert Hickey, which is not important. What is important is the fact that I have been married to now Brigadier Allison Hickey for the last 21 years. Ok, congrats, but that isn't important. What is important is that Allison is a graduate of the first class of women from the Air Force Academy Class of 1980 (maiden name Hilsman). I know, because I was there, I am class of '78. Now, the interesting fact is that she is the first Female Graduate of the Air Force Academy to actually pin on General Officer. Notice, I didn't say she was the first one to be promoted to General Officer, but she is the first one to be promoted and actually pin it on. Her pin on date was November of 2004. Just thought you all might want to know that, in your "Famous Hickey" Wikipedia reference area. Enjoy. Col (Ret) Robert A. Hickey, class of '78

That is probably sufficient for entering into the article. You can do it yourself, you know. If she has gone on to have a truly notable career (standing out above and beyond other officers in the USAF), then she very well could need an article on her. If she's mainly of interest to the wider world for her accomplishment as the first GO, then add her name regularly to the list of famous Hickeys. If she should have an article on her then put two square brackets before and after her name when you add it. Geogre 03:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Identify this clothing accessory

I need help identifying two garment accessories. I see them so often in old comedy films or cartoons but I don't know what they are. What do you call the flaps sticking out at the front and at the back of this guy's neck:

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9141/shirtfrock4vv.jpg

(The image is a vidcap of Disney's Peter Pan.) --Perfecto 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a dickey. A kind of faux shirtfront usually worn with a tux.--Anchoress 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From 'hickey' to 'dickey'. I have to ask ... what would a 'lickey' be then? :) DirkvdM 07:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

hmm...tricky... Grutness...wha? 09:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask mikey. VdSV9•♫ 10:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not taking the mickey, are you? DirkvdM 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We have an article on it at Dickie; didn't we already have this question? Sticky... СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 12:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do they always flap outwards and upwards when loose from the waistband? Sorry I can't find any picture of it while not being worn. And is that a collar stiffener behind the guy's neck, or is that a part of the vest? --Perfecto 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal question

If someone posts/trolls on an internet forum, and continues to do so after the forum bans his IP address, is that poster in violation of any US law? For someone with limited legal knowledge it is difficult to judge whether or not a legal threat (Stop or you will go to jail, or stop or we will file a civil suit) is legitimate or just an intimidation tactic. I certainly don't want to violate any law, but if my actions are protected under the first amendment, as I believe they are, I don't want to be intidated out of doing something that is legal. Thanks! Mayor Westfall 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is legal does not mean it is necessarily "right."

I don't care about what your subjective opinion on morality, nor did I ask about it. That's why we have laws, and that is what I am asking about. -Mayor WF

I see how you got banned. DirkvdM 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are deliberately attempting to circumvent security measures put up to prevent you from accessing another computer, that can in fact violate the law. However in the case of an internet forum it seems unlikely that such a thing would ever really go to court, and is most likely just an attempt an intimidation. The right to post things on someone else's computer (which is what posting to a website is, in fact) is not protected by the First Amendment anymore than you have the right to write on someone's private chalkboard. --Fastfission 16:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First amendment to what in which country? Anyway, it's an interresting question. If your ip address gets banned it's not strictly you who got banned, is it? And speaking of countries, have they figured out how to deal with the internet yet? It's not bound to any country and can therefore not fall under any country's law, can it? I know this was a big issue a few years back, but I haven't heard of any 'solutions' yet. DirkvdM 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if it has been mentioned here already, but this question has been double posted. You may wish to read the related entry at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Legal question before trying to answer it here. Road Wizard 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone direct me to a law

There is a new law that bush signed very recently that deals with trolling (or anonomous trolling). Where can I find more information about this law. Does Wiki have an article on it? Thanks Mayor Westfall 13:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Trolling can mean troll (disambiguation)various things. I doubt whether there is a law against any of them, but please elaborate.--Shantavira 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted on a forum, that claims not to have a [No Member-bashing Policy]--thus members are free to bash each other. A moderator bashed me, I bashed back. I got banned. I made a new account and called out his hypocrocy. I got IP Banned. I used proxy servers to bypass the ban and continued calling him out for being a hypocrite. Then he sent me an ominous legally-sounding email. I cant tell if it's just intimidation or if it is legitimate. I dont think Ive violated any laws...but legal matters are rather complex and I dont have full knowledge of every law...Mayor Westfall 17:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't an anti-phishing law? Contrary to what most people believe, Congressional laws are VERY easy to find. Go to thomas.loc.gov. In the "Search Bill Text" box, type "phishing" and click on SEARCH. The big trick is remembering that Congress makes laws, not the President. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be an answer to both the above questions. There is, I believe, a US law which makes it illegal for an anonymous person to publish things n the internet "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person". According to a (generally very unreliable) source this was signed by the President in January 2006. DJ Clayworth 14:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That must be buried in some other law. All laws signed by Bush from Dec 2005 to present are on http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d109:./list/bd/d109pl.lst:151[1-236](Public_Laws)[[o]]|TOM:/bss/d109query.html (Wiki doesn't like the format of the link, so you have to copy/paste it). --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one "with intent to annoy..etc" That law seems vauge. how can I tell if it has ever been used and if I am in violation of it? Mayor Westfall 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The law you're talking about is this one, specifically this section. It is simply an updating of an old law which prohibited anonymous telephone harassment, and was part of a law regarding violence against women. The actual law itself does not contain the word "annoy"—this was widely misreported. The "annoy" part is in the older law. See this page for some interesting discussion. At worst it means that if you harass someone anonymously, it is legally the same as harassing them under your own name, as I understand it. --Fastfission 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ill-remembered Science-Fiction Short Story

I am being driven slowly mad by a vague memory of a sci-fi short story I read many years ago. It would ha ve been published in one of the monthly sci-fi magazines, possibly Isaac Asimov's Sci-Fi Magazine.

The general plot was of a race of aliens aiming to take over the world, using mind control either by radio or I think through music records. The main thing I remember about the story is that one of the central characters spoke only in quotes from Bruce Springsteen songs.

Does anyone remember this, have a citation, or have I made it up the depths of my fevered imagination? --Worm 13:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this what you're thinking of? --Mathew5000 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Definately not. ;) It was a published story in a science fiction periodical. --Worm 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

here is another ill-remembered SF (short) story: A spaceship pilot finds himself on a planet of intelligent plants. They have razon-sharp leaves and an intoxicating smell; the pilot ends up being cut into ribbons and digested by the plants and is enjoying himself immensely in the process. I know it sounds like a stupid plot, but if I remember it right the story had a really haunting quality. Ring any bells? dab (ᛏ) 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds sortof like "The Supremacy of Uruguay", but it doesn't involve aliens or that dude. 68.39.174.238 00:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

QUSETION ABOUT EMO!!!!!11

SO IS LIKE FALL OUT BOY THE FIRST EMO BAND EVERZ?!?!?!?!?! I <3 THOS GUYZZ THE SINGER IS SO SEXXY

K THKZ FOR HELPIN ME OUT

BYE GUYZ LOLZ!!!!!!111

65.26.86.77 14:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, B1FF is awfully active. Geogre 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Emo was the first Emo Band everz. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that wasn't biff -- 65.26.86.77 16:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Emo" pretty much doesn't mean anything, that's the problem. I've heard Galaxie 500 offered as first, and Mission of Burma, and just about anyone who didn't repeat what went before. Since no one knows what makes an "emo" band in the first place, no one can say who the first one was. I wouldn't worry about the label. Geogre 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It means emotional rock. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if that's all that it means it includes Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. As a critical concept, it seems to have no distinctions in tempo, time period, instrumentation, production values, lyrical content, or keys. I always thought that Joy Division and The Cure were very gloomy and mopey, but they're not "emo." I thought that Bauhaus (band) was theatrical and self-consciously artsy, but they're not emo. Galaxie 500 is lo-fi, like a lot of independent acts, but there's nothing particularly that sets them apart from their counterparts, and yet they're "emo," and now "Fallout Boy" is emo? It doesn't seem to have any practical meaning. It's rock 'n roll, and it's either stuff you like or don't. Trying to create armed camps of listeners is a passtime of childhood. I saw the guys of ZZ Top at a Laurie Anderson show. Geogre 02:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well like all genres it has evolved slowly, and through combining with other genres and styles, then some band will take it, go mainstream, and be credited with "inventing" it. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

10th Legion Equestris

Hi, I am asking if any of you "Roman military history buffs" can check out when and where the X Legio - 10th Legion Equestris was founded. Don't use Wikipedia please, I have read the article Legio X Gemina but I am simply not convinced. I have also searched in some sites of the internet but I couldn't found something solid. It seems that the current view holds that this legion was founded in 58 BC. However I have found that this is not supported by Julius Caesar's book the "Commentarii de Bello Gallico - the Gallic Wars" (I have a translation by Penguin classics).

The story is the following: Cutting a deal with Pompey and Crassus (the First Triumvirate) Caesar receives the governship of 3 provinces: Galia cisalpina, Galia Transalpina and Illyria. He also has 4 legions: VII, VIII, IX, and the X (I have confirmed this in the book "In the name of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy). The Helvetii are planning a migration. Caesar recruits another two legions: XI and XII (also confirmed by Goldsworthy). I have checked his book and he clearly describes these new legions as "new" and the other four ones as "veteran". So if the X was allready a veteran by this time (58 BC - the same year it is supposed to been have founded !) it is higly unlikely that it was founded recently. This is also hinted by Caesar's ambition: he needs tough veteran legions to conquer something, so what is going to demand from his partners? Reliable veteran legions. I also have a book called "Caesar's Legion" by Stephen Dando-Colins. He wrote that the 10th was founded in 61 BC by Caesar as he begins a campaign against the Lusitanii. However this book is highly disputed, as Dando seems to have made several major mistakes and some critics also say that he invented some stuff. He just might be right on this ocasion, but I want to confirm this. He doesn't really explain how he reaches this date, its seems to be reasonable, but who knows?

I have allready debated this in Talk:Roman Republic. Please take a look if you want.

So what do I really want? I want to find out is why 58 BC is considered the birth date and if there any alternative views. I am quite inclined to present the mater in a fair manner in the article Legio X Gemina. Thanks Flamarande 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

History of Russian Architect Buildings

Hi , My name is Sydney and I was wondering what the colored cone-shaped designs on the Russian buildings were called ?

History of Russian Architect Buildings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_architecture heres a picture of what I'm reffering to . St. Basil's Cathedral .

Sincerely , Sydney Thanks for any help .

• Those are onion domes. --Fastfission 19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Somewhat similar domes can be found on the towers of Catholic churches in southern Germany and Austria, where they are called Zwiebeltürme ("onion towers"). For an example, see Frauendorf (Bad Staffelstein). --Lambiam^Talk 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deadwood Season 2 Region 2 DVD Question

I've recently purchased the complete season 2 of Deadwood on region 2 DVD. While I am able to watch the episodes without any problems, I cannot seem to be able to access the additional episode commentaries. I have bought a legitmate copy and the box packaging does advertise the audio commentaries as being available.

I've tried searching for help on the internet without any success. I did find a review (see the link below) which contains a picture of the title menu with Episodes, Langauge & Features as the options. My version only displays Episodes and Subtitles in it's menu. http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=21812

I've tried playing it on my PS2 and using InterWin DVD Player & DVD X Player on my laptop but without any joy. They only show one available audio channel, and don't display any other menu options.

Given the popularity of the show, I would hope that there are plenty of fellow wikipedians who have purchased the same box set, and are possibly suffering from the same problem.

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Gallaghp 19:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Things to look out for when establishing a town or village

Hi all. In order to create a believeble world for the characters in a story I'm writing, I would be extremely grateful if anyone could provide me with certain things that surveyors look out for when deciding on the best place to estalish a town or village. Answers covering a wide range of climates and geography would be most helpful. Thank you in advance!

-- Emmanuel Q.

Well, I don't know for sure, but I imagine the biggest architectual/engineering issues are things probably divide into "long term gradual problems" and "short term immediate problems". In the former category you'd have things like erosion (in cases where you have bodies of water or high winds), in long-term stability issues (can the ground support much weight? how does it handle when it is rained upon?), and other things related to the long-term occupation of a given site. In the other category you'd probably have questions relating to the possibility of large natural disasters -- flooding is a major concern (since it is not always rare), but moving upwards into the question of volcanoes, typhoons, rockslides, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. depending on where you happen to be. --Fastfission 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't say what level of development or technology your characters have, but surely there are some very basic considerations like water -- a stream, a river, a lake, whatever. Other natural resources to provide for food, fuel, building materials as necessary. Also perhaps a vantage point in order to see approaching enemies or predators from many/all directions. Natural shelter that can be used until more permanent structures can be built.

And of course, high speed wireless internet access  ;-) --LarryMac 20:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering most villages were founded in mediaeval times or earlier, reasons include, high ground for defense, water, woods for hunting and trees for building with, south facing hill for crops (in northern hemisphere), crossing junction in trade routes or a natural resource of some kind. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I just developed a world design for what looks like a series of pieces, and put a lot of thought into the location of the various settlements. Basically, a village will often start where there's water, good soil for farming, forests for building materials (or good sod, for plains locales), and routes that can be used for trade. If your setting is more advanced (into the Medieval-style eras, say), chances are this could be refined to include places that are dependent on trade - mining villages, for example, which might not produce their own food, but have raw minerals that are traded for those basic supplies. And it seems a town will spring up anywhere a large tributary runs into a river, or two rivers fork... just because, near as I can tell. =) Tony Fox (speak) 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh yes, and bridging points, mountain passes, or any place people are forced to travel through to get to somewhere else. Philc _T^E_C^I 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, but by the Middle Ages in populous countries such as England there were already villages all over anyway (1 per 4 sq miles, say) so there wasnt really much room for new ones - any new village from that period would have had to be on the worst land, which had been ignored up to then. Jameswilson 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what era and location you are talking about.

In North America, some townsites were often chosen due to access to a waterway that could support a mill. Later on, townsites were sometimes chosen to take advantage of preexisting infrastructure, such as roads, canals and railways. -- Mwalcoff 23:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If the place that you are establishing this village will compliament and not interfere with the plot of the story you are writing. Russian F 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Chief Parker L.A.P.D.

Where did chief parker go to law school? The xxxxx (WP:NPA) at the lapd historical divison know but they will not tell me unless I PAY! them $ for research fees! My mom and my rabbi will not allow this. I suspect its UCLA but being only functionaly omnipotent I aint sure. (Book em Danno!-Just the facts ma'm.) 24.0.47.184 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)(Hobgoblin)

24.0.47.184 (talk · contribs) added. --hydnjo talk 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

List of phrases which mean to die

Where can I find a list of phrases that mean to die such as "kick the bucket" or "meet his maker" etc.?

Well, I found this one via Google that seems to have quite a few. Hope it helps.[4]--inks^T 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This question has been double posted. See the related section at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#List of phrases which mean to die. Road Wizard 00:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

June 24

history

what lay at the core of new Spain's economy and social development?

Do you mean the Spanish colonies in the Americas ? If so, exploiting the natives by stealing all their wealth (mainly in the form of gold and silver), then importing black slaves to continue mining (once all the natives had been killed off) seemed to be their main method. StuRat 02:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, strongly emotional answer, though little illustrative. GTubio 09:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it "not illustrative" ? StuRat 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See illustration. GTubio 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what an illustration is and what illustrative means. What I don't know, and you apparently refuse to tell me, is why you find my answer to be "not illustrative". StuRat 16:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then see black legend. Hope this (finally) helps. GTubio 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know what you are trying to say, since instead of saying anything you just provide links. Perhaps you think Spain's actions in the Americas were not evil but rather beneficial to the natives ? Sorry, I'm not buying that. The article basically only defends Spain by claiming that other countries were just as bad, hardly a defense at all. StuRat 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly 'new'. More likely the end of the rule of Franco. Anyway, sounds like a homework question. DirkvdM 05:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with things named "new" is that they don't lose that name when they get old, as in the New World, New England, New York, New Jersey, and New Delhi (right down the street from the old deli ?). Oddly, there are also places named Old something, particularly in Southeast Connecticut, such as Old Saybrook, Old Mystic (near Mystic, the home of Mystic Pizza), and Old Lyme (near Lyme, the home of Lyme disease !). Did they name those cities Old something when they were still new, or did they

War

With this recent situation with North Korea and testing it's Taepodong 2 missile, it's difficult to tell what news and viewpoints are accurate - it's hard to tell what could actually happen. Suppose this test ban goes ahead...what are the chances of it leading to...

1. The United States going to war with North Korea. 2. A conflict between the United States and China. 3. A nuclear war.

Kind of a worrisome situation. Looking through history it seems that wars can suddenly explode out of nothing, and considering the buildup of tensions and breakdown of the six-party talks...it seems possible that something very bad could happen as a result of all this. Could be just paranoia on my part though. What do you think? --Shadarian 02:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my opinion 1 is highly unlikely, because of the fear of 2 and 3, not to mention the likely possibility of a substantial fraction of the citizens of Seoul, and the American soldiers garrisoned in the South, being killed in the vent of option 1. North Korea and its political leadership are often mischaracterised in the foriegn media. They are not particularly nice people, to say the least. But they are, at some level, quite rational, or they wouldn't have remained in charge for the past 50 years. All the evidence suggests that their primary goal is to remain in charge of North Korea, and their actions are directed entirely to that end. Actually going to war with other countries is highly undesirable to them, because it would almost certainly result in the end of their regime, one way or the other. So their military strategy involves making sure that attacking them will cause unacceptable losses. --Robert Merkel 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

2, the conflict between the US and China is unlikely. China has publicaly asked North Korea not to test the missle (actually, it's been a bit stronger than "asked"). The major fears involved in a potential attack on North Korea are the nuclear war and the US's inability to field the necessary troups without withdrawing from Iraq. Emmett5 04:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's what I thought. What makes you think 2. might happen? Do China and North Korea have some kind of war-treaty? DirkvdM 05:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, you are familiar with the history of the Korean War, aren't you? One of the major reasons China props up the NK regime (and continues to do so) is because they don't want US troops sitting on their borders, which might be the end result of the collapse of North Korea. --Robert Merkel 08:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree heartily with Robert Merkel's above assessment of North Korea. This Taepodong 2 seems to be a publicity stunt, albeit a very bold and menacing one. If the political climate in the U.S. were different, the Bush administration could quite easily use this missile program as a pretext for an invasion. But with his approval ratings languishing below 35% and the military already perilously overextended, I don't think the U.S. is up for another war anytime soon. Maybe after 2008. To answer question 2, I honestly don't think China would even consider intervening in the event of a US-DPRK war. The global balance of power is very different from 1950. For one thing, China's borders are secure and it enjoys almost universal diplomatic recognition. Nobody's gonna be invading China, even if they take sides in the dispute. All issues with China will be solved diplomatically. If the U.S. attempted to wage war on China, the U.S. would find itself at the mercy of the largest army in the world by far. And if it were an unprovoked war, they would find themselves totally isolated and quite possibly in danger of invasion. To answer question 3, I doubt any existing government, however desperate, would consider a nuclear attack except as a response to an earlier nuclear attack. Even in a hopeless situation, a nuclear attack would be useless and would only provoke greater ferocity from the attackers and a longer occupation after the war. Bhumiya (said/done) 11:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the U.S. the one with the largest army, if we're strictly talking about dollars spent (which translates into a material advantage)? Anyways, too many businesspeople would complain about a U.S.-China war and then the citizenry would complain as the prices of their goods skyrocket. There's more likely to be a provocation over Taiwan independence (which is a lot of sabre-rattling), not NK aggression. --ColourBurst 19:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Even the most optimistic estimates for the range of the TD-2 don't make it a useful first-strike weapon. Most don't even make it a useful second-strike weapon. See this graphic for an example of this -- you'd have to think the weapon was going to have a range of 10,000 km to get near the contiguous U.S. On top of that, there really isn't any good evidence that the North Koreans have a working bomb prototype, much less one which could fit on the end of a missile. So the only way to get into a nuclear war in this situation would be between the U.S. and China, and I don't see that happening. --Fastfission 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

4. China gets pissed at babysitting the North Koreans and invade, giving South Korea the undesirable task of bringing North Korean back to level. -- Миборовский 00:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see some very different, but still very bad, results:

Japan judges correctly that the US can't be counted on to defend them from aggression by North Korea, since that would expose the US to a potential nuclear strike on the West Coast. Therefore, Japan scraps it's pacifist Constitution and rearms, including the devlopment of nuclear weapons. South Korea does the same. Taiwan follows, although for protection from China, but using the excuse that "everyone else in Asia has nukes, why shouldn't we". This spread of nuclear weapons then eventually leads to a nuclear war. 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Help Finding Songs

My father is in search of four songs that are on one collection. He used to listen to them on tape before CDs. The songs were called Brennan on the Moor, Hot Asphalt, Finnegan's Wake, and The One-Eyed Riley. After some googling, we located the musicians Steve Benbow and The Strawberry Hill Boys. In a CD called "Songs Of Ireland," all three songs excluding the song The One-Eyed Riley were on it. I am having a hard time locating The One-Eyed Riley with the others on CD. They are all old Irish songs that at one time was on a compilation together. If anyone knows of a CD with all four songs together, even under different musicians, my father and I would be grateful, because that would have been the music he remembers. Thank you so much to anyone who can provide any help or even a clue as to where I should start looking. M@$+@ Ju ~ ♠ 03:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I searched around on The All Music Guide, but from what I saw, the chances of getting all four of those songs on one CD is minuscule. The One-Eyed Riley showed up on four releases, but it's not clear whether any of them are currently in print. I'd check around at any place that might sell used CDs and try my luck that way. --LarryMac 04:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help, you're probably right about it being out of print. I still consider this a success, because we are getting a CD with three of the songs, and I can tell my dad its the best we could have hoped for. Thanks! M@$+@ Ju ~ ♠ 16:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Baptist Wedding

Hello.. I was just wondering does any one know wat happens in a baptist wedding and the symbolism involved...Thank You

I would suppose the bride and groom are thrown a bucket at and then definitely splashed in the swimming pool ? Any advice ? --DLL 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I've been to a Baptist wedding, in that both participants were observant Baptists. It was low-key, very formal, but not "ritualistic", so to speak. I don't know what the questioner means by symbolism. There was a small chapel. Two rows of seats. An aisle. Music came on. Bride in a white dress. Bridesmaids in banana-colored dresses. The bride's sister read a poem. The pastor stepped up and read a verse (1 Corinthians 13:4 or something similar), and then made some brief remarks. Vows. Ring swap. Kiss. Reception. That's about the size of it. Oh, and once I attended another wedding of two Baptists that took place on a yacht. So there's a lot of flexibility. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Baptists are a congregational church, so they have no set doctrine. Therefore, there isn't any one thing that would be a "baptist" wedding. Each congregation enjoys wide lattitude. Generally, Baptists are among the most stridently anti-Catholic of the protestant churches, and so they are strongly anti-liturgical and against what the early Independents called "pomp" and "ceremony." The marriage rite is generally the same as is used in all western Christian churches, but symbolism will be kept to a bare minimum. Thus, it is more notable by what isn't employed than what is. Otherwise, no two baptist church marriages will be identical. Geogre 02:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly suggest Wikipedia creats a new section in the reference desk----Law and e-business

The emerging flourishing e-business undoubtedly need new law systems to be set up, and as a reference desk for Wikipedia, I think it is very important to create a new section to solely collect the laws relating to the e-business. In addition, I strongly suggest the editors of Wikipedia try their best to invite the experts, the professors in legislation area from both academic and industrial field to contribut in this section and share their latest knowledge with us. In addition, case studies should also be included in this section. Thank you. (Preceding unsigned comment by User:Korenzhang2244. Please sign posts using ~~~~)

All it would say to every queation is, If you want help with law, see a lawyer, as that is the policy. Philc _T^E_C^I 10:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

--do you think it is possible to see a lawyer just for a trivial thing?koren 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are (at least) two major problems with this idea. One is that laws vary enormously from one country to another, and this is a global resource.

--so that means it will be more important to give poeple from different countries the opportunity to communicate, to discuss, especially it is becoming more and more globalised.koren 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The other is that the law is incredibly complicated

--not particular agree, law is made by humans, and nothing is too complicated to express clearly and simply on the internet. If it cannot express clearly to let people understand, the law itself will need to be verified. koren 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

and requires expert knowledge.

--agree to some extend but jsut like encyclopedia, it should be unstandable using simply language.koren 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a complete free-for-all,

--you are right in this point here.koren 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

with some very odd characters and opinions in the mix,

--talking yourself? If you are among the normal people, you should know how to communicate with others on the internet.koren 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

expecting any reliable legal (or medical etc) advice from here is foolish to say the least.--Shantavira 11:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

--I suppose it is the one who are saying this is actually foolish and need to see a doctor.koren 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, e-business related law is a very specific subject, and most sections of the Reference Desk are much more general. Several sections get over a dozen questions per day, while even the relatively small Language desk gets four or five questions daily. It's extremely unlikely that an e-business/law section would get even one or two posts per day. Most of the content that you suggest would be better suited to articles; for example, we already have a category on Computer Law. If you still think that the Reference Desk needs a new section, a better place to suggest it would be on its talk page. --Cadaeib (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not provide legal advice and even if someone comments you should still see a lawyer for the most accurate answer. As for e-business questions. Anyone who has a business and asks Wikipedia for help shouldn't be in their business to begin with. Running a business requires knowledge of your own, or at least the knowledge where to recruit experts to work for you. -Mgm|^(talk) 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm Spelling it right.

I heard this term used and cannot find a definition for it or a reference, nichean or nichian the pronunciation was (knee-chee-an). I'd like to know what this is. I couldn't get a clear understanding by way of context of the conversation.

The term is "Nietzschean" and it refers to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Bhumiya (said/done) 11:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In its adjectival form, it's generally a reference to Social Darwinism. Geogre 12:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I could imagine that, although I've always used it to refer specifically to Nietzsche and his philosophy. Some people use it to refer to any sort of extreme, polemical inversion of accepted mores, often (but not always) in a negative context. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

True. Among philosophers and trained folks, it would refer only to things like Nietzsche and his form of the dialectic of will. I suppose that some people might use it to refer to socially shocking and anti-ethical statements, like "pity is a slave morality." When it creeps into the mundane, though, I have most often heard it as a vague Will to Power/Man and Superman reference. (I just had to explain the ubermensch to a class reading a Vonnegut story. They thought I was crazy.) Geogre 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WWII

I recently saw an advert for a documentary which stated

"World War II did not begin in Poland in 1939, but two years earlier, in China, 1937, and only one country could have prevented it, Britain"

What event is this reffering too, could someone direct me to the relevant article aswell. Thank you. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War --Mathew5000 15:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It could also be argued that WW2 started in 1936 with Hitler's and Mussolini's support for the fascist Franco during the Spanish Civil War, which allowed him to win, since an equal level of support was not provided by the Allies. StuRat 15:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But Spain was never in the war (officially). But there was already a war between the Chinese and the Japanese when the invasion of Poland occurred. When Germany and Japan became allies it became a wider war and it's really rather Eurocentric to consider the start of the European part of it the start of the war. Only recently have I learned that the real big players in WWII were China and Russia, not Germany and the US, as I grew up to believe. If you go by the death toll, that is. Over half the deaths were Russian and Chinese. DirkvdM 17:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you judge the effect of war on a country solely by the number killed, then virtually every war involving a country with a huge population like China is "of major significance", while even if the entire population of Luxembourg was wiped out, the war would still be "insignificant", due to the low population of that country. Thus, that's not a good way to decide things. Also, being on the losing side often assures you have a higher percentage of casualties. Should we conclude that only the losing sides are significantly involved in wars ? StuRat 15:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the Spanish Civil War, it set many precedents for WW2, from the failure of the Allies to oppose fascist aggression, to the aerial bombing of civilian populations, to widespread executions of noncombatants and prisoners of war. Allied action to defeat Franco likely would have convinced Hitler not to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland, and at least would have avoided the European portion of WW2. StuRat 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The most generally accepted date for when WW2 began is the German invasion of Poland. Russian F 00:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In China, it is generally accepted that WW2 began in 1937. Bwithh 05:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just another example of how where you grow up determines what version of the truth you get to hear. Another example was the notion I had that by putting a man on the Moon the US had won the space race. As a kid you just accept this sort of info. But it's complete nonsense if you look at the firsts the USSR had achieved before that - spacecraft, man in space, spacewalk, Moonlanding and landing on another planet, to name but a few. And the two big ones: the first photographs of the other side of the Moon and the surface of Venus, two places we can't see from here.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you should be very suspicious about what you hear. Don't get paranoid, but in stead of blindly accepting other people's interpretations, try to find the basic data and draw your own conclusions. DirkvdM 06:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that a "World War" would only begin when pretty much every significant power in the world was at war (aside from the decidedly neutral countries). China and Japan may have been at war in 1937, but most of the rest of the world wasn't. Two powers at war with each other doesn't seem to me to be much of a "World War". However once Germany invaded Poland, at least several dozen important powers became actively engaged in war, in almost every area of the globe. Only then, I would say, did the second World War begin. Loomis 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of sense in what you say, but a Chinese person might argue "it was the same war; it became 'world' when other major powers joined in, but the war itself started in 1937". DJ Clayworth 15:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, a Balkan would argue that the First World War was simply an extension of the ongoing Balkan Wars that began in 1912. Indeed, even those who accept the traditional 1914-1918 timeline for WWI would agree that the First World War began in the Balkans, with the assasination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo. So to a Balkan, WWI began in 1912. However, the world was clearly not at war until at least June 1914. Loomis 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the Limeys could have stopped the Second Sino-Japanese War. We wouldn't have let them. -- Миборовский 00:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's "we"? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Russians, judging by his signature. DirkvdM 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese. -- Миборовский 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mailbox Rule (in contract law)

I was reading the article mailbox rule and I was wondering, what happens if something in the contract contradicts the mailbox rule? For example what if the contract says that it goes into effect X number of days after it was mailed?--Anakata 15:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The mailbox rule isn't a rule about when the contract goes into effect, it is a rule about when an acceptance has taken place. If you make me an offer, and I accept, the acceptance is effective when I mail it. So, if you retract the offer between when I sent the acceptance and your receipt of it, it is too late. The contract itself can, however, dictate what constitutes acceptance. (Cj67 16:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

But doesn't the signing of a contract constitute acceptance? What I mean is that if the signing of a contract constitutes acceptance, then the contract going into effect would be when the acceptance takes place.--Anakata 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, signing isn't enough, the person who made the offer must, of course, be notified that there is a contract. (Cj67 18:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

June 25

Underground Fugitive who lived On East Pearl Street in Torrington CT in 1974.

Dear Wikipedia:

Several years ago, while reading the local newspaper, I noticed an article that a member of the underground lived on East Pearl Street in Torrington, CT (summer months only) in 1974. The article said the fugitive's name, but I cant recall it, nor did I save the article. Do you have the fugitives name??????

Are you thinking of the Underground Railroad? It predates 1974 considerably. See this link. --Mathew5000 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A railroad fugitive? Common, trains aren't that bad. :) I think he means a WWII underground member. DirkvdM 06:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds more like an anti war protester/Weatherman type to me considering the date.Being an old radical/hippy it was the first thing that occurred to me--hotclaws(217.39.11.210 07:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

I agree with hotclaws. The question certainly is about a member of one of the following groups, or an equivalent group: Weatherman (organization), Revolutionary Youth Movement, Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Panther Party.-gadfium 08:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably thinking of Ira Einhorn, although that's a guess. He was very much wanted for murder. He had been a Weather member, but the murder charges were for killing his girlfriend. He lived in New England and fled to Europe, where he was caught, eventually (around 1998-1999). I'm giving all this extra detail because it's likely that, as usual, I've misspelled or misremembered the name slightly. Geogre 13:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Or Kathy Boudin, or Katherine Anne Power? - Nunh-huh 17:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the average number of friendships that a human will have in their life-time

Hi, I am organising an event which addresses the effect of HIV/AIDS and I am trying to illustrate the problem by relating the number of deaths each year to the number of friendships that an average human would have in their lifetime and I can't seem to find it anywhere. So the question is - 'what is the average number of friendships that a human will have in their lifetime from birth to death'. I also would need to know where these statistics are sourced from if possible. thanks - really appreciate anyone's assistance, Sarah A ....

I don't see how the number of friends somebody has relates to the problem of AIDS. In any case, how would you define "friend"? There are lots of different kinds of friendship. Do you mean number of sexual partners? That would be more relevant, but would vary enormously depending on your particular country and culture. Where are you from? --Shantavira 12:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Me neither, unless you're talking about Friends with benefits. --mboverload@ 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's trying to make a connection. He's just looking for a number to compare the number of deaths to. How about he makes it into "Each year x people die of HIV/AIDS. That's about as much as the entire population of country X." That should have the required impact. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe the poster is going to say something like 'Statistically 10 of your friends will die due to AIDS, please help this worthy cause and help a friend'? And sorry I don't know the answer to your question --iamajpeg 20:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer would vary extremely heavily since there is little justification and proper definition to what you mean by friend. Casual friends, "school" friends, close friends, ... what is truly considered a friend? --Proficient 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's Sarah again...I am a girl (as a by-the-way) - thanks for your feedback so far. What I'm trying to do is state something along the following lines - "currently there are 880,000 children affected by HIV/AIDS in Uganda"....on average in our life-time we will make "x" amount of friends....now, there are 300 people in this room tonight. I want you all to close your eyes and remember the first memory you had....keep thinking and now visualise primary school and friends you made in primary school, secondary school, university, and any friends you have made in various jobs you have had thus far in your life....all those people - multiply it by the 300 people here tonight and that wouldn't even cover "x"% of the children currently affected by HIV/AIDS in Uganda alone....... - I need something along those lines. It needs to be catchy and make people look seriously about the huge problem in Africa. Hopefully someone somewhere that has perhaps studied sociology or statistics in combination with this would possibly know the answer....thanks again, Sarah A (from Australia)

Because of the number of variables, the number would be so nebulous that you'd be better off just making up a plausible-sounding answer. No-one's going to dispute it. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There are better ways to help people understand the scale of Africa's struggle with HIV/AIDS. The charities working in the field usually prefer to concentrate on the positives, which thereby illuminate the negatives, without leaving the audience feeling that it's a situation that cannot be overcome. It's particularly useful to focus on the extraordinary successes Uganda has had in turning round one of the worst AIDS problems in Africa, through some straight-talking policies cleverly designed to gain the backing of both Christian and Islamic clerics.

I suggest you take a look at some N.G.O. websites for more info. There's a particularly good British one called International Care & Relief that works on a community level and has had terrific success. Their website is [5] --Dweller 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

major revisions complete

The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why is the link red ? StuRat 16:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD said so. DMacks 01:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Caesar crossing the Rubicon

Did Ceaser cross the Rubicon going north into Gaul, or South into Italy?

Presumably both, but it was only a problem coming back south into Italy - generals were not allowed to lead an army into Italy. Adam Bishop 16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Try Rubicon, Caesar was returning from the Gallic Wars. The Senate and Pompey were planning to get rid of him and ordered him to disband his legions and to return to Italy to face trial. Caesar choose to fight and to rebel, instead of meekly surrendering. Thereby he started a civil war. Flamarande 16:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

humantities

I need to compare and contrast the description of the 'afterlife' in the underworld in Homer's Odyssey and Vergil's Aaneid

Please, do your own homework. You can also consult the articles Odyssey and Aeneid for some details. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting mixed between Half afterlife and After half-life. --DLL 19:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Do your own homework. Our article on Hades might help you with an overview, but you won't do yourself any favors by trying to find a compare/contrast already done for you. Geogre 20:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There's actually a rather decent article on humantities. Loomis 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FDR meets JFK

Is there any historical record that these two Presidents ever met? Perhaps Joseph Kennedy once took his large family to the White House to meet President Roosevelt. 66.213.33.2 19:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know: no. I've been to the John F. Kennedy Library library numerous times, and the only suggestion of a president meeting a future president was with Clinton meeting JFK as a youth leader thing. Yanksox ^(talk) 04:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That must make presidential debates pretty difficult... GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please make your header intelligible to people from outsaide the US. Many might know (if they think a bit) what 'JFK' stands for, but hardly anyone will know 'FDR'. Cheers. DirkvdM 11:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably George W. Bush also met George H. W. Bush at some point too. AllanHainey 12:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And Ike reportedly met Tricky Dick (and so did JFK). Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we start a List of U.S. presidents who met each other? --Lambiam^Talk 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that all US presidents, in recent history at least, have met with their immediate successor, as they're generally forced to suffer the indignity of getting a front row seat at their successor's inauguration. Even those who've died in office, like JFK and FDR surely met their successors, as they chose them to be their VPs. As well, even those who completed two full terms in office, such as Clinton, Reagan and Eisenhower would still meet their successors at the inauguration ceremony, even without having had debated them.

As for presidents who've met not simply their immediate successor, but a president that would take office some time later, I'm sure FDR met Eisenhower, as Eisenhower was a major general in WWII during FDR's administration. Likewise, Ford certainly met with Reagan (in the '76 primaries) as well as Bush Sr. (as his head of the CIA). It's also extremely likely that Reagan met with Bush Jr. as early as 1981, if not earlier, being the son of his VP. I only hope and pray we won't have a new category: Presidents who were married to future presidents! Loomis 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it appears my comment was taken out of context. I meant to say evidence that existed within the JFK library. Yanksox ^(talk) 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC) They almost certainly met Joe Kennedy was a leader in FDR's party, and he involved his sons in his political work. In adddition, early in WWII JFK was stationed in DC and served in intelligence

charcoal portrait: artist/subject unknown

First of all, I just want to say thank you ahead of time for any and all help you can give. I was willed a portrait this past month and I haven't a clue how to identify the artist or the subject. Yes, I know a picture would be great, but the dig. cam crashed, so I'm sorry for that. It is about 16" x 20" and looks to be done on parchment. The subject is a young caucasian man in his early to mid twenties wearing a dress shirt and tie. The portraitlooks to be done in charcoal. At the bottom of the picture, it has the capial letter H and just below that and to the right is a dash and 25 (-25). I think it could be the year maybe? However, on the back it has a label that says: R. Paul Palm. Under this, it has "Glasmester Kunstglasfabrik". Then under that it says "Glashandel" with "en gros en detail" and then "Bergen" at the bottom of the label. I have looked through every link between the US and Norway, even as far as to contact the University of Bergen in Europe, but to no avail. I can't seem to find out what the words are, nor anything pertaining to anyone by that name. Please, if anyone knows anything about this portrait, the words, artist, or subject, I would be most grateful. Thanks again, veggielover 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Dee

Why do you assume it is Norwegian? Using Babelfish:

• Glasmester (Dutch) "For the"
• Kunstglasfabrik (German) "Glass Factory"
• Glashandel (German) "Glass Trade"
• En gros/En Detail (Dutch/German) And gross (quantity) and detail
• Bergen (Dutch) To Store, (German) Mountains

Since Babelfish doesn't have Norwegian, I can't tell if these are words shared by both languages. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Glasmester does not occur in an extensive and authoritative Dutch dictionary. It can be Danish, Swedish or Norwegian and then means something like "master glass maker". It could mean some glass factory is named "Master Glass Maker", or be telegram style for "master glass maker at the glass factory". While Glashandel can mean "glass trade", the most likely meaning here is something like "glass dealer". This is affirmed by the next line, which says "wholesale – retail". Summing up, we see:

R. Paul Palm

Master glass maker Glass factory

Glass dealer

wholesale – retail

Bergen

My best guess is this is from Norway. If the label is printed, it probably only identifies the seller or distributor of the work. Could it be a lithograph? --Lambiam^Talk 21:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My assumption is that the questioner assumed Bergen was in Norway, which led to the assumption that it was written in Norwegian. However, there is a Bergen in Germany (more than one I think), in the Netherlands, in Belgium, and in the United States. So, I was wondering if there was another reason to assume it was Norwegian. As for my translations - I blame Babelfish for any mistranslations. I only know English and Chinese well. --Kainaw ^(talk) 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you sir for the information you provided me with. I'm very grateful of your comments and translations as well. As for the reason I suspected that it was Norwegian, I searched for any and all information in the USA about the subjet in consideration, and it sure didn't fit New Jersey. When I did a deep search, I kept coming up with Bergen, Norway. Since I'm not a skilled linguist, I did make assumptions, that, at this point, seem correct. I really appreciate all the help you have given me. Thanks again, but I will still be searching for the unknown gentelman whom I now have a portrait of. If you have anymore ideas, or information please do not hesitate to relate any and all thoughts you might have. With sincere appreciation, veggieloverDee 02:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Kunstglasfabrikk in Norwegian means "Decorative Glass Factory", producing for example vases, drinking glasses etc. (as opposed to window glass/industrial glass). Glasmester means "master glass maker". "Mester" is a common handworker title in Norway, cf: Byggmester = Master builder). Glashandel means "shop or outlet selling glass". (cf: Bokhandel which means "bookshop"). Bergen is on the west coast of Norway. Would definitely say this is from Norway. JBL

Thank you JBL for the information. I, however am still trying to find out about the young man in the portrait I have. I don't know if he could be the one refered to as R.Paul Palm, all I know is I have no idea how to find out. Any ideas yourself? It would be wonderful if anyone could give me an area, or idea on how to find any informayion on this unknown person. Thanks again to everyone that has had any input on this subject. The young man still remains an "unknown person" to my family. Once again, thanks to you all. veggieloverDee 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you go take it on Antiques Road Show :-) --56.0.103.24 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

maggot?

Is the word "maggot" a legitimate term for misogynists (as it states in the article maggot, or is someone just trying to make a political statement (which does not belong in Wikipedia)? Mo-Al 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably only in the same way that "male chauvanist pigs" is, but I'm not sure. I'd say, delete it and post an explanation on the talk page. Emmett5 01:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like vandalism to me. Unless they have attestation for it, it should be removed. I've certainly never heard it associated that way in American English. Geogre 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

maggot is also the name of a slipknot fan. the slipknot fans are called maggot. the term was atribuited by joey jordison

How Educational Is The Da Vinci Code

At dinner the other day, the topic of The Da Vinci Code came up, and someone commented on how educational it is. I've read however some aspects such as the cryptex although presented as fact are actually ficticious, just made up for the story to work. This makes me wonder how seriously I should take what I read in this book? Obviously it's not all fiction (the Mona Lisa really is in the Salle de etats(sp)) --Username132 (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots of it is false. I found myself frequently pointing out errors in the book. For example, the dead sea scrolls aren't gospels. Also, the claim that yud-hey-vav-hey (the tetragrammaton) is derived from the Hebrew words Yah (another name for God) and Chava (Eve) is obviously false to anyone who actually speaks Hebrew (if it was true, the tetragrammaton would be יהחוה). Mo-Al 01:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan Brown in my opinion isn't really all that accurate in his writings, he's not about that. To a certain extent almost all fiction authors (especially genre fiction authors) are probably inaccurate, as they don't usually study their researched field for a living, but some do less research than others. --ColourBurst 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

People just take it too seriousely - it is a work of fiction after all (although IMHO Dan Brown takes it a little too seriousely too). Mo-Al 01:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code for innacuracies. Mo-Al 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just take it lightheartedly. --Proficient 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would actually say that the comment is entirely misdirected. Because Dan Brown is pursuing a wild and wholly disproven conspiracy theory, and because he basis his work on Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was based on a hoax that took in the authors, and because he has made a believer of himself, the book is actually anti-educational. It misinforms because it passes off large chunks of nuttery with sprinklings of truth. To me, that's worse than setting the novel on Mars. If it were set on Mars, readers would know that there might be a little science with the fiction, but setting it among the poor old Templars catches people off balance and preys upon ignorance (not least Dan Brown's own). Geogre 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, apart from having plot holes you could fit several Knights Templar in, I have to admit I found the Da Vinci Code quite entertainig for a couple of hours - the problems only start when people actually start believing there's any truth to the story. I'm still not quite sure why so many people insist on believing any historical truth in Brown's books (well, he himself seems to believe that, but that shouldn't be a reason for every reader to also believe it) - I also enjoyed Robert Anton Wilson's books, Eco's Foucault's Pendulum and the Neal Stephenson novels which all deal with a broadly similar subject matter, and as far as I can remember, none of those novels has sparked any noticeable amount of "Oh my gosh, it's all true"-reactions -- Ferkelparade π 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Foucault's Pendulum is pretty much an exemplar of how to do it right, IMO. The characters are historians who know (and tell the readers) the difference between history and fiction. Of course there is more going on than that, and Eco's interest in semiotics and reader response suggest more profound doubts about truth (and all kinds of other easter eggs for people who've read too much). Stephenson's Baroque Cycle is interesting to me, because he's so absolutely accurate in his topography and political detail that I've had to reassure myself that his fictional characters are fictional, and I spend my time studying 18th century England. He could misinform, especially about Newton and Leibniz, whose real life motives don't much resemble his fictional ones, but the damage done would be just one speculation on a matter unknown. That's different from Brown's rewriting of the known for the titilating. (Poor old Templars.) Geogre 12:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course - Stephenson and Eco are much better authors than Brown, and of course they use their conspiracy theory-inspired backdrops to actually tell a story worth telling, not just for cheap thrills. What I meant was that nobody (well, nobody except a number of nutjobs probably) started to seriously look for evidence of an Illuminati conspiracy after Wilson's books were released, and nobody was looking for an actual conspiracy of Fedex and Nike after reading Interface - my point being that I don't really understand all the press Dan Brown is getting for a story that is neither original nor exactly well researched (although mildly entertaining) -- Ferkelparade π 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder who actually believes any novel to be truth? I know that my aunt was certain that I was an idiot when I told her that Forrest Gump was not based on a real person. She is the type of person who would believe something as crazy as The DaVinci Code. But, she also believes that the calendar in the stable when Jesus was born was marked December 25th (and I'm sure she is certain that there was a lit tree in the corner with a little electric train going around it). All in all, who cares what she believes. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would question a whacked conspiracy theory. So, what is the point of getting all upset about those who lack the mental capacity to question what they read? --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason it matters is because Brown deals with matters that are central to one of the world's great religions and because the chaffe he throws up is all having to do with medieval European history. Given that most people haven't the vaguest idea who Jacques de Molay was, they can get confused. When some true things are there and numerous nonsensical things, it gets harder and harder for the casual reader to know what's what. This is made worse by Brown claiming, in the novel, that it's all true, and that is made worse still by Brown saying in an Oprah interview that "all of the facts and secret rituals...that's all 100% true." In other words, the narrative voice says that this is real history (and then some small bits of real history are there), and the writer says that it's real history, and yet the purpose of the fiction is to say something so mind bogglingly outrageous about Christianity as to be offensive intellectually as well as morally. It's the difference between casual confusion and deliberate deceit. More folks are vulnerable than you suppose. Look at all the new interest in Da Vinci's "woman" in The Last Supper, the new interest in the Magdalene, etc. People are falling for it like the proverbial lemmings falling off a cliff. That's why people might care. History and religion are alike getting muddied by someone setting out to persuade to error. Geogre 01:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dan Brown is the Antichrist and is trying to destroy Christianity with a book in the fiction section. Thanks for clearing that up for me. --mboverload@ 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Dan Brown is a knave. "When a man's reason gets astride his reason, and common sense is kick'd out of doors, the first convert he makes is himself," as Swift said. Dan Brown started out a fool and moved on to a knave. There is no "antichrist," except "antichrist of wit": It's an offense against everyone who studies, who researches, and who thinks, and it's only enabled by the promise of secret knowledge about things people believe in their worship. Please don't joust at strawmen. Geogre 04:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

HINT: It's in the fiction section, and there's a reason for that =D --mboverload@ 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the whole book being true! I was talking about discrete facts. E.g. Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa (true); Leonardo Da Vinci was a flamboyant homosexual (false - may have been gay but unlikely flamboyant). I don't think it's unreasonable to expect truth in a novel. Like I said in my original post, am I expected to reject every single thing it says just because it's a novel? Stupid cartoons depict characters obeying the law of gravity - judging by your post, I am stupid therefore, to believe that gravity should exist, since I'm just watching a stupid cartoon. I hope this analogy makes my original point clear. --Username132 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

June 26

Crossover music between 1940's black and white gospel

Can anyone list gospel music that crossed over between black and white churches back in the 40's? And list the groups that sang or made that music popular? Both the black and white artists? Thank you for your time and consideration.

will grand father's dna and grand son's dna match?

will grand father's dna and grand son's dna match? By testing the dna of these two can it be confirmed whether the child is the grand son or not?

• I'm not a specialist on this, but as the Y chromosome is passed down from father to son, I would say these particular chromosomes would match if they're biologically related. At most you'd need to do two paternity tests. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A Y chromosome test will only work if he's the paternal grandfather, not the maternal one. I think a normal paternity test should work in either case, although the confidence level will be lower than that for a parent and child.-gadfium 08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, confidence will get lower when you do more tests. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually possible for a maternal grandfather and grandson to be unrelated genetically, although quite unlikely. This could happen if none of the chromosomes passed down by grandpa to mom were passed on the the grandchild. The chances of this are (.5)^23. This works out to be 1 in 8,392,608. If we use 6 billion as the current population of the Earth, there should be around 715 people on Earth who are unrelated to their maternal grandfathers. If you are one of those, then there is no way to establish the relationship solely using the grandfather's and grandson's DNA, the mother's DNA would also be needed. For everyone else, including all paternal grandfather's of grandsons, DNA testing should work, although every chromosome (except the Y) would need to be checked for accuracy in the maternal grandfather cases. If only one or two chromosomes are shared, however, this could be expected in isolated communities, where everyone likely has a few shared chromosomes from common ancestors way back. StuRat 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there aren't 715 such people: in fact, this is so unlikely that it is essentially impossible. The reason your probability calculation is misleading you is that you've ignored the fact of recombination; one can estimate that there will be one recombination event per chromosome per generation. - Nunh-huh 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be a type of mutation, which would make it even more likely that a maternal grandparent wouldn't have any chromosome exactly the same as his grandson. StuRat 22:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's not a point mutation, it's the mechanism by which genes are reassorted between a chromosome pair, making the "daughter" chromosome different from either of the "parents". Your mistake is in thinking that chromosomes are transmitted without recombination, i.e., as units, rather than as a mixture of genes from a chromosome pair. - Nunh-huh 22:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (And the comparisons in "paternity" tests are not of whole chromosomes, but of specific gene loci or other markers.) - Nunh-huh 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a test where they add a dye to the chromosomes and look for identical banding patterns ? Such a test would compare whole chromosomes, not individual genes. StuRat 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is such a test, and it's used for identifying chromosomes (i.e., which one is Chromosome 20, which is Chromosome 6, etc.). It's not useful for discerning anything about heredity. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Random somewhat-related article: Y-chromosomal Adam —Keenan Pepper 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no scientist (and this isn't the science desk) but here are my thoughts. First, a Y-chromosome test would not be that useful because in theory it can give a positive result if the two subjects are, say, sixth cousins (with a common ancestor on the paternal line) just as if they are grandfather and grandson. As for a "regular" DNA test, if you had just the two individuals you could look at a large number of junk-DNA segments (which statistically have a very high degree of variability among humans) and if the individuals are grandfather and grandson, then approximately one-quarter of these specially-chosen DNA segments should match. However, a one-quarter match could just as easily be uncle-and-nephew. Could also be two half-brothers, I think. Maybe a variety of other relationships as well. --Mathew5000 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

For more info, search Google on the keywords grandpaternity dna. --Mathew5000 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Iran's foreign relations

Hi,

I'm working on a schoolpaper about Iran, about the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the consequences and outcome. Now, what I really would like to add is the diplomatic relationship between Iran and the Netherlands (where I'm from). It's easy to find information about the US, but I can't find what I want to add. Can anyone help me? Thanks. --Soetermans 09:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know only the US and the UK (after the Rushdy fatwa) broke off existing diplomatic relations. But why don't you ask the information service of the Dutch Foreign Office, buza @ postbus51.nl? --Lambiam^Talk 09:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lambiam, I'll try that! --Soetermans 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Modified Dutch Foreign Office e-mail to make it spam-harvester resistant.--ByeByeBaby 13:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Won't the @ sign still give it away? Anyway, this email address must be all over the place, so dont' they get loads of spam then anyway? Or aren't spammers all that stupid? DirkvdM 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying for some time, without avail, to find out the relations of Iran concerning the Nagorno-Karabach conflict. Right now Azerbaijan has troops in Iraq, and it could serve as a basis for US invasion of Iran, but others ources claim that Iran almost intervened in the Nagorno-Karabach conflict, on behalf of Azerbaijan. Evilbu 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Redeeming Social Values

Hello!

What does these expression means:

Redeeming Social Values; No Redeeming Social Values?

Best regards,

_____ 09:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Oculto

To me, it means that something has a justification for existing that may not immediately be apparent. For example, one person might say that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has no redeeming social value and is simply a grotesque horror film. Someone else might argue that it has redeeming social value in that, aside from all the gore, it has things to say about the society in which we live. I'm sure others will be able to think of better examples... --Richardrj 10:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Schindler's List might be an example of a horrific movie which does have something important to say, while none of the Halloween movies have anything important to say about anything, StuRat 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but Schindler's List is perhaps not the type of film that one would describe as having "redeeming social value", because it doesn't have those negative aspects in the first place. In order for the phrase to be appropriate, you'd need to have that contrast between something's apparent lack of content and its redeeming value. --Richardrj 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Then how about the original Japanese Godzilla movies, which seemed to be just silly monster movies, but did have an environmental message in them that nuclear weapons testing and usage was likely to have profound, negative, unexpected consequences ? StuRat 16:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, that would be a good example of some apparent schlock having redeeming social value. --Richardrj 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this question would have been better asked on the language reference desk. --Richardrj 16:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

physical education

Its is true that a girl who enter physical activity may lost her virginity

No, but her hymen may rupture. Virginity is not to be equated with an intact hymen. Her hymen may also begin as incompletely obstructive or perforated. Additionally, she may break the hymen without anything overly strenuous. It's a part of the body intended to tear, so it shouldn't be awfully surprising that sometimes it tears without sexual intercourse. Geogre 12:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Female virginity has been defined in many cultures solely by the existence of an intact hymen. This is because that can be easily verified, while her history of sexual activity can't. This does lead to some humorous results, however, like many women "losing their virginity" to a horse. This is why the "sidesaddle" method of horseback riding was developed for women. StuRat 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Engaging in certain forms of physical activity with a partner of the opposite sex may entail a woman's loss of virginity. However, these are usually not part of the phys ed programme. As to the hymen test, some women are born without one. So can't they lose their virginity because they never had one? --Lambiam^Talk 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that claim about sidesaddles, Stu? --LarryMac 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, and I would expect some reluctance to talk about this somewhat delicate topic, making it difficult to find a frank discussion. Girls bicycles not having a bar may also be related to this, as one fall on the bar could cause the hymen to tear. (Dresses might also be a problem with the bar, but not many girls would wear a dress while riding a bike today, so why are they still barless ?) StuRat 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the bar is because of dresses. As for changing fashion -- girls who do not wear dresses and do not care if there is a bar there no doubt just buy "boy" bikes. It would make no sense for them to make "girl" bikes with a bar (what would the difference be, then -- a paint job?). --Fastfission 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Girls bikes might have colored streamers on the handlebars, a basket in front for purses, and come in pastel colors, while a boys bike might have a heavy duty suspension, be a dark color, and have a device for making motorcycle sounds. StuRat 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Many products are marketed separately to boys and girls, for no apparent reason. A few years ago there was a Barbie computer for girls and a Hot Wheels computer for boys, for example. This trend continues into adulthood. Hair dye, for example, is marketed exclusively to men or women, while there is the no inherent difference in the dying process based on gender. Razors are also marketed by gender, as are many other products. The most extreme example is calcium and iron supplements aimed at women only (although "Fe for females" seems to have a certain ring to it :-) ). StuRat 21:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointless discrimination is all around us. At the Oscars, in most categories awards are made on merit, without regard to the sex of the people involved. But in the acting categories, the sexes are separated. Yet as soon as they walk out the door of the pavilion, all the actresses become "actors" once more. Funny, that. JackofOz 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Myself, I say sexual segregation is morally WRONG!!! To keep women in separate locker rooms is simply another case of seperate but equal. This sort of sexism should be ended and women and men should finally be required to change in common locker rooms!!! Loomis 23:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Virginity is in the mind. --mboverload@ 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My father said that when he gets older, he's going to buy a women's bike. Not because of gender roles but simply because women's bikes are easier to climb on and off. JIP | Talk 06:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mahler

Could someone tell me what the slow movement of Mahler5th depicts? Muriel

If you type "Mahler" in the search box in the upper left, you will get the article Gustav Mahler. Near the bottom is his work. You can click on a link to Symphony No. 5 (Mahler). At the bottom of that, you will find links to more online resources about this particular symphony. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What leads you to think it depicts something? Most symphonic music is not meant to depict something. Works that do, such as The Sorcerer's Apprentice, are the exception. --Lambiam^Talk 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Most music "appreciation" teachers feel that all music must depict something. I had one who said that since a specific song was "pastoral", it must represent a "pasture". I asked why it couldn't represent a "pastor" and he became very angry at the wordplay. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

mmm, and composers are often a bit enigmatic with their terms as well. many people thought Vaughan Williams' Pastoral Symphony was about the English countryside when the 'pastures' it depicts are actually the empty scarred battlefields of France in World War I. but back to the point, just because the Mahler movement does not depict a 'real' image there is still the question of what emotions Mahler is conveying in it. but that is really another matter. --Alex.dsch 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In Need Of Help

I am gain in need of your superior abilities for help in the quiz I am doing.

http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=19qr7.jpg Can you please tell me who this man is... he had a capital city named after him.

Looks like James Monroe. See Russian F 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

http://img67.imageshack.us/my.php?image=26we.jpg Please do you know what this statue is... it`s apparently the principal figure of a poem.

The ancient mariner, from Samuel Taylor Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner ("Instead of the cross, the Albatross / About my neck was hung.") - Nunh-huh 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

and finally.. http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=43xo1.jpg this system is named after a French Scientist any ideas on who he is ?

Notice that the X and Y axes are labeled volume and pressure, respectively. I suspect the quadrilateral ABCD is made up of two isotherms? In any case, it seems that the graph is related to some aspect of the ideal gas laws, of which the most pertinent would seem to be Boyle's law. The problem is that Boyle, of course, wasn't French, but, as our article states, "Edme Mariotte (1620-1684) was a French physicist who discovered the same law independently of Boyle in 1676, so this law is often known as Mariotte's or Mariotte Boyle law." Confirmation of this is needed, though, I'm not at all certain of what the graph is particularly representing. - Nunh-huh 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Or could it be Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot and the Carnot cycle, what with the arrowheads? --Lambiam^Talk 19:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, see [6]. --Lambiam^Talk 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Again much appreciated.

ships

iam trying to research a ship called barque rosalie, the year was either 1886 or 1887. my great grandfather sailed on it but i dont know where to start looking to find it. im tracing my family tree and would love to know more about this ship

• A barque is a sailing ship with three or more masts; that's not part of the name, which would be Rosalie. Can you give us more information about your great grandfather, such as what country he lived in? --Halcatalyst 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a ship named the "Barque Rosalie" that transported immigrants to Philadelphia aroung 1844, probably the same ship you're talking about. In ships passenger lists, the name of your grandfather, the port of departure, the destination port (as well asw the date, which you've provided) may narrow down the search. - Nunh-huh 20:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)*

Try Lloyd's Register--hotclaws**==(81.136.162.4 05:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

Fall of Syracuse

The article on the Second Punic War dates the end of the seige of Syracuse at 211 BC, but several sources I've seen at give the date as 212 BC. Can anyone confirm one date or the other.

If the date is 212, is this before or after the Battle of the Upper Baetis in Hispaia. It says that that battle was "in late 212 BC", so it would probably have fallen before, but If anyone could tell me that specificly it would help alot. Thanks.

The article Syracuse, Italy states: "Hiero's successor, the young Hieronymus (ruled from 215 BC), broke the peace with the Romans, who, led by consul Marcus Claudius Marcellus, besieged the city in 214 BC. The city held out for three years, but fell in 212 BC." This suggests it was late 212, or else it would have been "two years". The article on Archimedes also has 212, as does one source in print I could consult. On the other hand, the article List of battles of the Second Punic War lists the Battle of the Upper Baetis in 211 BC! --Lambiam^Talk 21:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats strange. The inconsistencies pile up. The article The Second Punic War says Syracus fell in 211 after a Two year seige.

As for the Battle of the Upper Baetis The article on Hasdrubal Barca says the battle was fought in late 212 BC, but the page on the battle itself says it was in 211.... --Krakenofthesea 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look for official documents on for the death date of Archimedes. His official website says that Syracuse fell in 212. Here it also says 212.
Russian F 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Searching an article: Nome de guerre

I am searching for a article which describes the concept of "nome de guerre". Like "espirit du corps" it comes from the french language and basicly means a nickname obtained by a military unit because of some famous action, etc. I searched allready but perhaps it is simply spelt wrongly (I am not fluent in french). Flamarande 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Close enough... Pseudonym#Nom de guerre --zenohockey 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• You'll find what you're looking for at Nom_de_guerre#Nom_de_guerre. --Halcatalyst 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, for future reference -- esprit de corps (which redirects to Morale). --LarryMac 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that both articles are simply wrong. "Nome de guerre" is described as basicly an "alias" used by the resistance, and "espirit de corps" is simply described as morale.

As far as I know Nome de Guerre is rather a name gained because of some wellknown action (heroic or not) of a military unit which then adopts this name, turning it an official one for it. "Espirit de corps" was mainly coined by Napoleon and is basicly a bit of arrogance/belief in oneself's superiority against his enemy (If we believe we are better, then we are), It also a kind of mental resistance to survive and will to win no matter what, and a wilingness to support ones comrades-in-arms no matter the odds (a la: We will leave noone behind). It is fostered primarly in elite/special units. I might be wrong, though (highly unlikely in these particular cases). Flamarande 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that additional information is needed in either article, then be bold and edit -- with proper citations of course. But please at least use the correct spellings, which have been provided for you. --LarryMac 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A nom de guerre means more or less what was said above. Origin-wise, it comes from the armies of the Old Regime, where the use of a nom de guerre was compulsory among the rank and file of the army. It was recorded in army records, so it was different from normal nicknames. "When a man entered the ranks, he took on a new name, usually of a descriptive, humorous or ironic twist ..." (Lynn, Giant of the Grand Siècle, p. 443. Examples include Belle Jambe (pretty leg) (Marshal Murat in his youth) and Joly Coeur (happy heart) (Jeanne Bensa, one of the not-as-uncommon-as-you'd-think female soldiers in Louis XIV's time). Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And what's all this talk about gnomes de guerre? We shouldn't be using gnomes in war! Those poor innocent creatures should be left alone to go about their own business in the shrubs without being drawn into human squabbles! It's an outrage! -- Miss Emily Letella, a.k.a. Ground Zero | t 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightbulb

How many humanities specialists does it take to change a lightbulb? --Dweller 20:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Including yourself? Flamarande 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This question has been posted on all reference desks ( except /M) --hydnjo talk 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't resist (I have a weakness for lightbulb jokes): "How many Marxists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" A. "None: the lightbulb has to develop its own revolution from within." Geogre 01:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try Geogre, but the scientists have won this. Shame... I was rooting for you guys. --Dweller 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One. And a ladder. And a notebook. And some photocopies. And a penguin classic paperback. And a computer science major she's friends with who'll be glad to help her technically while she reads at the beach, and writes some of her thoughts in the notebook. Also, a highlighter would be beneficial so she can mark up the photocopies. And, obviously, her friend needs a new lightbulb to replace the old one with, but I'm sure he'll be glad to purchase/supply one.

How many Microsoft vice presidents does it take? A: "That is proprietary information. As soon as you have paid the appropriate licensing fees and signed the EULA, you will be automatically updated to Lightbulb 2.0." Geogre 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun, here's my favourite lightbulb gag. Dedicated to you, hydnjo. How many Country & Western singers does it take to change a lightbulb? Four. One to change the lightbulb and three to sing about how good the ole one was. --Dweller 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a lightbulb joke maniac. "How many lesbians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" A: Three: one to change the lightbulb, and two to write a folk song about it. "How many music fans in Athens does it take?" A: Only one, with 99 on the guest list. "How many sorority sisters does it take?" A: One: she holds the lightbulb up in the air, and the world revolves around her. "How many fraternity brothers does it take?" A: Five: One to screw it in, two to get a keg, and two to order t-shirts. Geogre 03:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Q: How many lightbulb jokes does it take to get hydnjo into vandal patrol mode?
A: One *blush*, only one! --hydnjo talk 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Q: How many lesbians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: That's not funny.

--Anchoress 13:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Only one, but the lightbulb has to be ready to change. Loomis 22:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Majority Government

When was the last time that Canada had a majority government?

The Liberal Party formed Canada's last majority government following the federal election of 2000. It was their 3rd straight majority, caputuring 172 of 301 possible seats.

Coalition govenrment

When was the last time that Canada had a coalition government?

1917 perhaps? Try Unionist Party (Canada) and Canadian federal election, 1917. Adam Bishop 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. In 1917 Sir Robert Borden won with a rather substantial majority. To my knowledge, Canada has never had a coalition government. Of course I may be wrong, but I can't think of any occurrence of a coalition government in Canada. Loomis 00:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sport and regeneration

At the moment I'm researching the how much hosting major sporting events (Commonwealth Games, Olympics, various World Cups etc) affect the regeneration of cities. Are there any good links to websites that document this well? (at the moment most of the information I have found has been about the Manchester Commonwealth Games) --iamajpeg 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that they help in the short run but possibly hurt in the long run, as excess stadium capacity leads to abandoned buildings and urban blight. A continuous source of income is what cities need, not just rare events. StuRat 22:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Remember that major sports events are great advertisements for the cities - increases in tourism tend to last for a considerable time. ISTR that Barcelona is still reaping benefits tourism-wise after the olympics they held a dozen or more years ago. Grutness...wha? 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Heres an analysis of the economic and regeneration effects of the Olympic Games link Jameswilson 03:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the renovation of the city around the venues adds revenue. It isn't just arenas that are built. There are new transportation facilities, new housing, street improvements, etc. In addition, the Olympic host citiess are also hosts to Olympic Arts Festivals, which often lead to the building or renovation of new museums and art galleries. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Excess capacity in transportation, housing, roads, museums, galleries, etc., is also a problem. Unless there is a permanent increase in population or tourism to pay for and occupy those things, they will fall into disuse and disrepair and cause urban blight. StuRat 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Manchester did well developing an area after the Commonwealth games and used the stadium to replace an old soccer stadium so it is still in full use,but us canny Northerners don't like to waste money.It all came in under budget as well.Pish-tosh Wembley Stadium! hotclaws**==(81.136.162.4 05:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

• Does that thriftiness seep over the border from Scotland ? BTW, what happened to the old, abandoned soccer stadium ? StuRat 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Maine Road? Wasn't that converted to flats? Thanks for the replies by the way --iamajpeg 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Adrimalty Law

I once heard some milita guy state that all US law that is not common law or maybe just all law is actually adrimalty law at its core. Or something like that. What do you think? 21:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)(Hobgoblin)

First, it is admiralty law. Second, it is clearly defined as "laws that govern maritime issues". Perhaps he was claiming that the U.S. is a maritime vessel and all laws on it are maritime laws. If so, he's a nut. --Kainaw ^(talk) 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to read the articles Common law and Civil law. The first is based upon the old english law and was inherited by these impudent colonials. Flamarande 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IANAL. However, it seems that there are some people that interpret the phrase "Federal courts shall have exclusive jusrisdiction over admiralty law" to mean that federal courts only have jusridiction over admiralty law, and no jurisdiction over anything else. Obviously all sane people and the courts themselves disagree. There also people who say that having a fringe on the flag makes it a military flag and a court that uses such a flag must either be court-martial or an admiralty court (apparently because admiralty must be related to admiral, and that's sort of military sounding). Pretty much all indoor flags (and so ones that are in courts) have fringe, because there's no wind inside and the fringe makes it look nicer (it doesn't hang as limply). That's seen as evidence of the fact that they are in fact admiralty courts. Again, the courts say these people are crazy. --Ornil 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blue Streak Sound Track

Does anyone know what the title of the song is that has jazzy-ish/electric piano in it? It's played frequently throughout the film, but does not appear to be in the list of songs in Blue Streak's soundtrack (I've downloaded a few likely candidates and sampled even more, but I can't find it!). --71.117.39.90 21:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDB lists three songs from the movie that are not on the soundtrack at amazon.com: "Nuthin' But A "G" Thang" by Snoop Dogg, Leon Haywood and Frederick Knight, "Jungle Brother (Urban Takeover Remix)" Written by Nathaniel Hall, Samuel Burwell, Michael Small and Michael Oliver Performed by Jungle Brothers, and "Seis Salines" Traditional, Arranged by Edwin Colon Zayas Performed by Edwin Colon Zayas Y Su Taller Campesino. My guess is maybe "Seis Salines"? I have never seen the movie, so I can't be much help... 128.197.81.181 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but unfortunately I can't find it. "Seis Salines" turned out to be a Mexican ballad, or something like that. Again, I appreciate the help. --71.117.39.90 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

looking for list biggest chinese cities

Hello,

this question may seem weird, but some time ago I found a list here of the 50 biggest (in population) Chinese cities. Now both Google and Wikipedia Search button don't seem to bring me back to that page. I just can't find it anymore. Does it still exist?

Thanks,

Evilbu 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

List of cities in China should do the trick — Lomn | Talk 21:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, [7] is a list of cities in China with more than 100,000 inhabitants (but the list is more than 50 cities long). 128.197.81.181 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I really couldn't find it back, even though the name is indeed quite logic. Evilbu 14:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

al?

How do I propose adding an article to Wikipedia?

Under the heading of "wisdom", I would like to add an article called "wisdom-inquiry". Wisdom-inquiry is academic inquiry rationally devoted to seeking and promoting wisdom, construed as the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others, wisdom thus including knowledge and technological know-how, but much else besides. The English philosopher, Nicholas Maxwell, has published a number of books and articles on wisdom-inquiry. See, in particular, his "From Knowledge to Wisdom" (Blackwell, 1984), and his website www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk How do I go about proposing such an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruple (talk • contribs)

Seeing as you have a username, just go ahead and write it yourself! See Help:Starting a new page, part of the Wikipedia:Editing FAQ. Good luck and I hope it goes well! Ziggurat 23:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

June 27

1996 movie "Michael" (Starring John Travolta) obscure reference in credits

In the credits for the 1996 movie "Michael" there is an acknowledgement to MTM productions for the use of a clip from the Mary Tyler Moore Show. Where in the movie does the show clip appear? Thank you.

--207.69.139.7 02:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Baptist Marriage

Do Baptist Believe that marriage is a sacrament ?

All Christian churches recognize three rites: baptism, marriage, and burial of the dead. Geogre 04:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. See Sacrament. --Nelson Ricardo 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only not really, but not even close. A lot of Evangelical Protestants consider that only baptism and communion are sacrements. I suspect that includes a lot of baptists, but not necessarily all. Incidentally, Baptists are not a denomination in the same sense that Anglicans or Roman Catholics are; there are lots of different branches of Baptist, and they don't necessarily believe the same things. DJ Clayworth 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys are playing very hard with the meaning of "sacrament." It's true that the Baptists are congregational, so there is huge variety, but ... well, all I can say is that I've never seen one that didn't recognize marriage as a sacrament in the same sense that baptism and "communion" is. Now, what these churches think of sacrament itself is very, very, very different from what the older churches think. There are seven sacraments, as our article indicates, but there is a minimum three, too. We're about to go way off the rails with technicality, I think. Geogre 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Christian churches hold sacraments to have been instituted by Jesus". Of the seven "roman" ones cited in our article, some he instituted, and some he submitted to (baptism, anointment of the sick (only : feet oiled by the Magdalene). And if he married her, that was kept secret. When did he say "do the same" ? for one prayer, forgiveness, and eucharism. Churches and groups do what they like - he won't come and tell "I never said that". --DLL 18:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus attended a wedding in Canaan and blessed it in the Gospel of John. Geogre 19:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

US Presidential election colours

I was looking at some Wikipedia articles, and I noticed that until the United States presidential election, 2000, red was used to symbolise Democratic voting states and Blue was used to symbolise Republican states. Since 2000, though, it's been the other way around. Red = Republican and blue = Democratic. Why the switch? Battle Ape 07:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the change was made by TV networks for reasons known only to themselves. Incidentally there was research carried out last year into the effect of different coloured strips on the achievement of sporting teams. They concluded that teams with red colours are more likely to win. AllanHainey 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, in Britain red is the colour of the left-of-centre (but increasingly less so) Labour Party, while blue is the colour of the right-wing Conservative Party. --Richardrj 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What began as the whim of a TV graphics designer and has since become a cultural convention. Personally, it seems a little odd, since everywhere else in the world, red is used for left-leaning parties and blue for right-leaning parties. But it isn't likely to change anytime soon, considering how well-established the imagery of the "red state" and "blue state" has become in the public imagination. Hell, "blue" has started to become a shorthand term for "Democrat", particularly "Liberal Democrat", on the Internet (e.g. ActBlue.com, Blue Mass Group, etc). They're silly terms, but what are you going to do? Americans like to identify groups by their colors. Remember the blue and gray? Bhumiya (said/done) 13:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not just Americans! In German politics, for instance, every party has its own 'colour', and coalitions are always referred to by the colours of their constituent parties. For instance, the former governing coalition of the SPD (Social Democrats) and the Greens was referred to as the "red-green" coalition. The CDU (Christian Democrats) are associated with black, the FDP (Liberals) with yellow, and so forth. It's become ingrained in the national politics. — QuantumEleven 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to forget Pan-Blue and Pan-Green, now I'm allergic to anything Taiwan-related that is green. -- Миборовский 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In Finland, the main colours are red, green, and blue. Red is used to denote left-wing parties like the Left Alliance and the Social Democratic Party. Green is used to denote the Central Party (formerly the Agrarian Alliance) and the Green League, although they are politically not related. Blue is used to denote the National Coalition, a mostly right-wing party. Minor parties have different colours: the Swedish People's Party uses yellow, and the Christian Democratics use purple. The True Finns mainly use blue too. JIP | Talk 06:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue and red are natural colors to represent the parties, since the U.S. colors are red, white and blue. My guess is the networks decided not to use red for the Democrats because they did not want to be accused of associating the Democrats with socialism. -- Mwalcoff 03:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mormon belief of God

In this article it mentions

"Mormons, for example, hold that the God of this universe — who created humanity (or at least guided our evolution) — was once Himself a mortal being who was created by a previous God in a prior universe or context."

Is this true? I can't find any reference to this belief in either the Mormon article or in Articles of Faith (Mormonism). Thanks! Madd4Max 14:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the case, as this article in a Mormon wiki would indicate. However it seems to be something that the LDS don't like to talk about and it doesn't make it into Wikipedia articles. DJ Clayworth 14:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems difficult to check the source indicated in that m&m wiki. It is only a .edu that is difficult to link with [last saint's] "official" site. What do you think ? --DLL 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See Mormonism, Nature_of_God and LDS, Godhead. —Wayward ^Talk 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Little boy exploded a bit too late?

I heard a rumor that Little boy, the nuclear device, exploded a bit later than expected, when it was dropped over Hiroshima. For a very brief moment, that apparently would have made it look like the worst thing was about to happen : a harmless, but perfectly armed new weapon was just 'donated' to the Japanese.

Is that correct?

Evilbu 14:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Per this site, the fuze was set for 610 meters (though the site incorrectly labels the fuze as radar-, rather than atmospheric pressure-, driven). The bomb actually exploded at 580 meters, so there was a 30 meter lag. Assuming a ballpark terminal velocity of 400 km/h, that's a "late" detonation of about a quarter-second. So yes, the detonation appears to have been late, but it was late by an insignificant amount, and absolutely no one was capable of monitoring the bomb's altitude anyway.

The most likely explanation is that the crews simply became increasingly nervous, as the bomb fell, that something would go wrong -- even though the bomb was on schedule and operating as planned. — Lomn | Talk 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(Little Boy had both proximity (radar) fuses as well as barometric fusing. Just a nit-pick.) --Fastfission 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I suspect that, even if the bomb didn't detonate, that it would have been destroyed on impact due to the force of the impact and explosion of the conventional explosives onboard. Thus, it would act as a far less effective "dirty bomb", but would be rendered useless in the process. Nuclear weapons dropped by parachute or landing in water are more likely to survive the impact, however. StuRat 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It also seems plausible that, as a gun-type weapon with only two pieces of fissile material, impacting could have created a (very-low-yield) critical mass on its own. — Lomn | Talk 15:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the bomb not going off... An often-repeated story is that the scientists who developed the bombs told the President to invite all the heads of the world to Nevada to see it for themselves and they would surely quit fighting. However, the President was afraid of what would happen if there was a glitch and the explosion didn't happen. So, he said that they would drop both bombs and, if they didn't work, the Japanese would just think they were regular bombs that didn't go off for some reason. I have never seen anything official to back this story up, but I hear it in just about every documentary I see on the bombs. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My solution would be to demonstrate it to a group of Japanese POWs. If it worked, send them home to tell Japan about it, if not, just keep them as prisoners until the war was over. StuRat 16:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the Tokyo command would have believed the fantastical stories of a group of Japanese POWs to the point of surrendering an empire? They didn't even believe the first reports that the attack on Hiroshima was caused by a single bomb until after the attack on Nagasaki, if I recall. --Fastfission 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

At the time, Japanese military culture considered surrendered soldiers to rank slightly below "scum of the earth". Soldiers were supposed to die rather than be captured, so the POWs probably wouldn't even have been listened to. --Serie 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect the Japanese to surrender solely based on the POW testimony, but when their story was confirmed by Hiroshima, that might be enough to get them to surrender without Nagasaki. StuRat 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To use such an expensive device on such a dubious plan (and one which there is no good indication that it would work) seems like a very bad decision to me. The only reason it would sound like a sensible one is if you believe that the dropping of the atomic bomb was the worst of all evils—I'm not sure that's an idea that really holds up to logical scrutiny. --Fastfission 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about demonstrating TRINITY to the Japanese POWs, not Fat Boy or Little Boy, so there would be no additional weapon destroyed, and the cost would be almost zero. I don't expect it would prevent Hiroshima, but would convince them we had a powerful bomb in conjunction with Hiroshima. They couldn't argue that it was multiple bombs or a meteor, or whatever other wacky theory they might have had, if there were Japanese eyewitnesses who had seen an atomic bomb detonated before. Thus, Nagasaki might have been prevented. StuRat 00:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to think that Nagasaki would have been prevented if one more account (from unreliable sources) was added to this. Remember that Nagasaki occured only two days after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki it took almost a week before the final decision went through. Would a speculative report from Japanese prisoners held under duress and subjected to a carefully prepared American demonstration have changed anything? Very, very unlikely. --Fastfission 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It was three days, not two, and there was no reason not to try. Even a 1% chance of avoiding Nagasaki would have been well worth the effort. StuRat 17:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So basically the bomb had an altitude measuring system to determine the time of detonation, rather than a timer? Thanks. Yes the Japanese POW plan would probably not have worked, but what would have worked is a demonstration on some island.Evilbu 19:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. However, I did just consider that crewmembers probably knew about how long drop to detonation would take and could have been timing it, so that could add a factor to the personal uncertainty.

As for an island test, there are a couple points against it:

1. The Japanese were pretty stubborn at this point. See Fastfission's last comment above.
2. Reliable observers would have been tough to come by.
3. The US only had 2 bombs after the Trinity test, and there's an understandable reluctance to use half of your hopefully-war-ending arsenal on a test of already-questionable merit. — Lomn | Talk 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not just war-ending, but expensive as all hell, too. It is also worth noting, as it well known, that it isn't as if the U.S. were not already involved in massive bombing campaigns of civilian cities in Japan. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take nuclear weapons seriously, but making the atomic bomb into a bigger moral question than it was considered by military commanders at the time is something of an anachronism. (Oh, and yes, the crewmembers had a pretty good estimate of how long it would take before detonation—it was something worth knowing if you didn't want your plane to get caught in the blast!). --Fastfission 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese POWs could have been present at Trinity, so there would still be two more bombs left (Fat Boy and Little Boy). BTW, how long was it until the US had their fourth atomic bomb ready to go ? Even if the Japanese still didn't surrender after Nagasaki, I can't see how there was much hurry at this point, since the US could just sit back and wait, Japan no longer posed a military threat. StuRat 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On August 10, General Groves reported to General Marshall that he could have another Fat Man bomb on Tinian and ready to drop by AUgust 24. The U.S. strategy was to try to use a "shock" approach to get a quick surrender one way or another. The longer the war took, the more people would die one way or another, the more it would cost, etc., and if things were allowed to drag out it would become increasingly unlikely that they would get a full surrender. Again, there is no way that the Japanese government would have believed the reports of POWs. --Fastfission 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, I wouldn't expect them to believe the POWs until it was confirmed by Hiroshima. Having two distinct sources of info on the bomb may have forced them to admit to the existence of the bomb and surrender before Nagasaki. StuRat 00:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how more Americans would die if it dragged on, they could just stay out of range on their ships, as America had total air and sea superiority by that time. StuRat 00:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And why would the war "dragging on" (by which you apparently mean lasting only until the next bomb was ready on August 24th) cause the Japanese to reject unconditional surrender ? The stories of the earlier bombs would only spread further with time, then additional atomic bomb detonations would make the Japanese public eventually demand an end to the war on any conditions offered. StuRat 00:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Americans would not simply sit in their ships, for one thing—they wanted to end the war. Trying to "starve out" the Japanese would have probably killed as many of them as Hiroshima, in the end. The more tired the American people grew of war, the more likely they'd encourage a less-than-wrathful solution. If the bomb was not taken as a "shock" then it becomes just another horrible way to die, along with the firebombing. If the bomb had become "normalized", its use would have been reduced considerably as a negotiation mechanism. --Fastfission 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The primary reason to end the war quickly was to avoid further Allied casualties. A few days more or less, waiting on the ships, would have made no difference. This is all moot, however, as my plan would either have ended the war earlier (if the Japanese surrendered after Hiroshima) or at the same time (if the Japanese still waited until after Nagasaki). StuRat 17:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we felt the time was ripe for revenge. It's war. Unnecessarily vulgar comment removed. . I'm probably just being horibly insensitive, tho. --mboverload@ 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The bomb not exploding might have forced the US to accept some of the Japanese terms for surrender (such as not betraying their religion) and loads of lives would have been saved. Doesn't sound like a worst case scenario to me. Quite the opposite. DirkvdM 08:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If Japan was allowed to surrender in the way they wanted, the military government would have stayed in power, rebuilt their forces, and then attacked, just as Germany did after WW1, only with nuclear weapons. The result would be a nuclear WW3, a true disaster for the world. Japan needed to be "pacified", which required an unconditional surrender. StuRat 00:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, or a massive and bloody invasion would have taken place, as was planned. In any case, the U.S. did in the end accept the one condition that the Japanese had been insisting on all along (to allow the Emperor to retain his rank, if not his political supremacy), they just labeled it as "unconditional". This is a fact that often gets neglected in most discussions on the subject (that the unconditional surrender had one condition, and that condition was the same one that was rejected earlier because the surrender needed to be unconditional). --Fastfission 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There was considerable debate on the retention of the Emperor in the US, and it was eventually decided that he would be useful in ordering the Japanese not to resist the occupation, which he was. Otherwise, we might have had a situation like Iraq in post-WW2 Japan. StuRat 00:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of why they agreed to it in the end. What I'm pointing out is that there was a condition to the "unconditional" surrender, the same condition that the U.S. previously rejected when the Japanese offered a "conditional" surrender. --Fastfission 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The surrender was indeed unconditional, leaving MacArthur the right to decide whether the Emperor stays or leaves. See the applicable sections from the Japanese Instrument of Surrender:

"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated. "

"The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender."

StuRat 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold on! Do I get this right? The US first didn't allow the Japanese to keep their emperor (their 'God on Earth') and even dropped two nuclear bombs on them to get their way and then when the Japanese had no choice but to surrender they said "Ok, now you can keep him."? What a bunch of bloody pricks! Or do I get this wrong? I hope so, because that would be really sick. DirkvdM 19:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Factually correct, but the way you present it isn't quite right. The US insisted on the right to choose whether Japan could retain the Emperor, which would give them the right to change their mind if keeping him wasn't working out. The "unconditional surrender" was also necessary so Japan would accept that it was, in fact, defeated, and not leave any room for a revisionist history which would say "Japan was never defeated, it was a negotiated settlement, thus, if we build up our military and attack again, we are sure we will win this time". As is, Japanese schools don't teach anything about their policy of genocide during WW2, showing the revision of history effort is alive and well. They do admit to having lost the war, however. So far, the US strategy to keep Japan from ever being a threat again seems to have worked, at least for the first 60 years. StuRat 20:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Civics Question

Can you please give me the refference to the prime minister of India AGAIN?Please.

Try putting "prime minister of india" in the search bar at left -- it's quicker. — Lomn | Talk 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical UK flag query

If, hypothetically, Scotland were to declare its independence from the UK, how likely is it that the Union Jack be altered? My guess would be "not very", but maybe I'm wrong. Note that I'm not asking about the likelihood of Scotland declaring its independence. But if it did, how would it affect the flag and the national symbols? Also, would the common name of the country be changed (e.g. from "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" to "United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland"? Bhumiya (said/done) 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a hypothecital qestion and as such has no real answer. It would largely depend upon the will of the parlament, the wishes of the prime minister, and the mood of the mob. Flamarande 15:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If Scotland were to gain its independence then it would no doubt be as a part of a long series of discussions and decisions taken alongside the other members of the UK, and the EU, and all of the many and other varied organisations and treaties which Scotland currently belongs to due to it being a part of the UK. If the rest of the members of the UK were also gaining independence, I doubt that the union flag would be used at all, it would just become obsolete. Wales and England would revert (as they are already) to the Dragon and the St Georges Cross. The real question is, what should Northern Irelands flag be now, as it is currently flagless. --84.13.243.110 00:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetically it would feature a tartan background and the word "Bannockburn" in huge red letters topped with fetching image of a ginger wig. --Dweller 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Union Jack of today is composed of a superimposition of St. George's cross (for England), St. Andrews saltire (for Scotland) and St. Patrick's saltire (for (Northern) Ireland). Apparently, Wales has no representation on the Union Jack.

Should Scotland secede, the remnants of the UK would be England, Wales and Northern Ireland. First off, St. Andrew's saltire would no longer belong, removing the need for any blue in the flag.

The rest is a bit of a guessing game. It's possible that the UK would use this opportunity to include St. David's cross to finally include Wales, but this would seem to be very unlikely, as St. David's cross is made up of a rather odd combiantion of colours, namely yellow and black. Also, when the Union Jack was originally designed in 1801, all of Ireland was part of the UK, rationalizing a strong presence of St. Patrick's saltire on the flag.

With Scotland gone, and assuming a Welsh symbol would not be introduced, the flag would be rather simple: the superimposition of St. Patrick's saltire and St. George's cross. Basically a red "X" on top of a red "cross" on a field of white.

However, with the independence of the republic of Ireland, leaving only Northern Ireland as part of the UK, (and since so many of the residents of Northern Ireland are of English origin anyway, and since St. George's cross, rather than St. Patrick's saltire is represented in Northern Ireland's de facto flag,) St. Patrick's saltire would not likely be included.

In that case, the entire concept of a "Union Jack" would likely be abandoned, and the flag of the UK would be essentially the flag of England. That's my best guess. Either that or a combination of the English flag with some minor inclusion of the oddly coloured Flag of St. David for Wales. But it's all really a guessing game at this point. Loomis 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is totally hypothetical, so its all just a big guessing game. --Dumbo1 00:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

rarest CD

As noted in record collecting, most record collectors are only interested in vinyl records. The article names some of the rarest and most collectable records in the world, but doesn't mention CDs. So my question is, what is the most collectable/valuable CD? --Richardrj 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of World records online doesn't seem to have an entry for this, and I can't see another mention of the rarest CD anywhere else, just discussion of the "rarest" CD for particular artists in forums! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There might not be any rare CDs because: 1)CDs are very easy to reproduce: download some songs, burn them onto a disc, print a label onto the disc.

2)CDs are a fairly new invention, so there aren't rarities yet.

3)CDs are mass-produced, so there are many of them to go around.

Another Scottish independence query

That last Scottish question was certainly hypothetical, but this one isn't. I'm wondering how the Scottish independence movement is viewed outside of Scotland. Does it have much support/sympathy in England, Wales, and Ireland? Are non-Scots largely apathetic, or is it perhaps viewed with hostility? Bhumiya (said/done) 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now we are suposed to answer for whole countries/peoples? It largely depends upon politics, and politicians (and the mob) change their political opinions alltoo quickly. My personal view: What would the Scotts gain? They are not oppresed in any way that I know of. Beside a Scottish (at least a descendend of Scotts) monarch sits upon the British throne. Flamarande 15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask whether it was justified. I was asking about the common British/Irish attitude towards it. I consider that a legitimate question that can be answered. For example, if you were to ask me what the average American thought of slavery I could tell you with some confidence that they generally oppose it these days. If you asked me what they thought of a current political issue like gay marriage, I could tell you, based on opinion polls and my personal experience, that just over half of them oppose it. Public opinion isn't a magical, uneffable thing. I imagine most people have a rough idea of public opinion in their own country, so this seems like a question that someone from the UK or Ireland ought to be able to answer. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think many English people nowadays are anti-Scottish independence on any emotional level. Personally, I dont mind at all either way. While North Sea oil (off Scotland) was bringing in a lot of money it wasnt in the interests of the English to allow Scottish independence but now we've mostly used that up...! Jameswilson 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, James. So, you'd say it's largely an attitude of apathy? Bhumiya (said/done) 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Jameswilson from my perception of the mood of the people of England. Very few people I know of display any particularly strong emotions when the issue of Scottish independence comes up (I for one don't even think about it except for those rare occasions that it is discussed by the media). There are a few practical objections that are occasionally brought up, like the UK turning into two little fish in the EU instead of one of the big fish (quite important in terms of voting power and negotiation), however that particular argument usually earns the reply "Why are we in the EU anyway?" than any comment about Scotland. There has been some stirring in the tabloid press in the last few years that a large number of UK Cabinet posts are held by Scottish MPs and that Scottish MPs have an unfair right to vote on English issues when English MPs can't vote on the same Scottish issues due to devolution. But again, from the people I know, this is generally met with either indifference or contempt for the political system at Westminster rather than any anti-Scottish sentiment. Road Wizard 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing I should add though is that there is a sense of unreality over the Scottish independence movement as far as it is considered from English people. From the way people react to the topic they seem to be of the opinion that "it'll never happen", so any objections are muted as there isn't really much to object to. If, on the other hand, the Scottish independence movement was to suddenly gain a lot of momentum, the shock would likely stir up a hornets' nest of emotion. Road Wizard 03:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavery is an immotive issue about people's fundamental rights and I don't think it bears a comparison. Of course people are going to have an opinion about slavery, whatever country they live in. What do people in the USA think about Texan independence? Thats a much closer question to the one you asked.

I wouldn't say that. Texan independence has never been even a peripheral issue in Texan politics, but in Scotland, the second most popular political party runs on a platform of Scottish independence. It's not the same at all, to my mind. But I admit, after hearing these responses, that the issue doesn't seem to provoke strong feelings outside of Scotland, which frankly surprises me. I suppose on an institutional level, there is relatively little connection between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Still, it would have a significant symbolic effect if Scotland left the union. Speaking as an American and a relative outsider, I'm surprised it isn't more contentious. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Texas may not be the right comparison but I still think that this is nothing like slavery, and I am still at a loss as to why you used the word, unless of course you've just watched Braveheart. If so have a look at the historical inaccuracies of the film.

To understand the current situation you have to look at recent history. Scotland (and north england and wales) regarded the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher as being London based, and who couldn't care about others in the rest of the Uk. The opposition Labour party were in disarray giving the SNP a large impetus. Since the election of Tony Blair and New Labour, the SNP has received less support. The formation of a Scottish parliament has further weakened the SNP's position. Many people in Scotland see the SNP as being a protest vote. This has been helped by the Labour/Liberal democrat coalition government in Scotland. At the last election the SNP received 10% of the available vote and 20% of the actual vote. Its not huge. So it's not as simple as us being apathetic about Scottish independence. Scotland already enjoys a fair degree of independence. Yet our ties to the EU are growing stronger. But if Scotland goes further, gaining more power from Westminster, it will lose as much to the EU.

As for the idea that Scotland leaving the "union" is really important, I disagree. Ireland left the Union 80 years ago, yet we haven't needed passports to travel between the UK and Ireland, and citizens of each country are afforded full civil rights of which ever country they are in (and we got on much better with each other because of it). Australia became fully independent quite some time ago, but our shared culture and language has meant that our countries are as close as they ever were. Looking from England, the British Empire was dismantled last century. If the people of the UK decided to become seperate states in the next century, yet the EU got deeper and wider, it would just be one type of union turning into another. As long as the people get what they want. But I doubt it will happen. I think the Union will get absorbed into the EU before splits, but it doesn't really matter. They won't have customs posts and passport checks at the border. As for the Symbolism, what symbolism. We aren't obsessed with being a Super-power, because we aren't one. We've lost power and influence (partly due to the US) over many, many decades. Perhaps its time to use all of our talents and assets to improve England, instead of all that colonising and subsidising, and patroling the oceans, and wars etc. --84.13.244.65 22:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the UK formed, Scotland has enjoyed a seperate and distinct legal system and different educational system, coinage and notes and increased political representation at Westminster (and lots of other things too). James VI of Scotland became James I of England (yes it was that way round!), and roughly 100 years later the Scottish parliament voted to merge with that of England Act of Union 1707. After that the bad treatment that the poor of Scotland got were from its own ruling class. So don't think about Scotland in the same way as other independence movements like Ireland where the "Union" was very one-sided and applied at the end of a sharp blade.

It makes total sense that Scotland gets more power if it wants too. I think most British people think the same. What I find hard to believe is the Scotland could become "totally independent". All countries are mutually reliable, Scotland is not just in the UK but also in the EU. Armed Forces, Foreign Policy are likely to get more integrated with other countries, not less. But domestic issues, and some tax decisions should go to Scotland (and Wales) should it be practible and should the people in those countries want it.

I'm a typical Brit, half English, half Irish living in England but with parents living in Scotland. We are all so mixed. Its like asking a Cornishman what he thinks about Liverpool deciding to have an elected mayor, (that's a fairly new thing here). Scotland and its neighbours are so inter-reliant that independence is more to do with National Spirit and pride than real practicalities. Scotland has got a parliament with some powers which was built at great cost. It would be a pity not to use it.

So all in all, we aren't apathetic, as long as it is democratically done and no one gets shafted. But the EU is growing and we are integrating more and more. If Scotland gains its independence, it will be more symbolic than anthing. And if they want that, why not? --84.13.243.110 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When you use the term Scottish Independence Movement, I presume you mean the Scottish National Party. If you aren't then please submit a different question. If you do mean the SNP, a reasonable comparison might be with the Parti Québécois. --Dumbo1 00:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lark Ascending

I initially just heard this over the radio and I noticed that The Lark Ascending by Vaughn Williams sounds a lot like Chinese classical music. However, it's quite sad that very little Westerners make this observation and go on to praise it as "portraying English beauty"? Anyhow, it was accomplished with a Western orchestra, yet it sounds so much like there's an erhu and a guqin in it. Even the saxophones sound like saxophones, yet it's not their normal style. Another editor before me noticed the same thing but I'm afraid it is rather original research, even though it is highly likely - what a pity. I'm very highly piqued because I thought I was listening to a fusion piece. I didn't know the violin could be used in such a way to sound like Chinese music. John Riemann Soong 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that the choice of the musical scale gives the general impression of the piece. --DLL 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perception of art is an exchange between the artist and the reader/viewer/hearer. The knowledge, taste, culture and experiences of different hearers are naturally different. Your "quite sad" comment might be a bit shallow and ethnocentric. What would you think if an English listener heard a piece of Chinese music and thought "what a pity the chinese think it sounds chinese and don't realize it sounds like Vaughn Williams"? alteripse 19:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Except it doensn't sound like most of his other pieces. I don't hear many pieces quite like this, and I mean not in terms of melody or portrayal or wonderfulness, but the time signature as well. Of course I thought it was a rather funny coincidence (and had no idea it was Williams and so far back) until I saw the article in which another editor had put his views there. My "quite sad" comment refers to the possible plagiarism from another piece, not from another genre - because I've never heard what the Nightingale piece sounds like so I can't confirm for myself. John Riemann Soong 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Saxophone? Weird. I have the Academy of Ancient Music version of it -- quite wonderful. The intervals are a little exotic, in that there are more half-steps and such, but -- de gustibus non disputandem est -- I didn't think it sounded very Chinese. Another possible explanation is the mimesis: Williams was attempting to describe lark song and lark flight, and birds are a common enough theme in Chinese music (at least the trad. Chinese music that I've heard). Geogre 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Something very mellow - including the clarinets, too - (although for example they seem to interchange quite well for moods - ie. for Pelleas et Melisande by Faure). I thought it weird because it almost seems that Williams is trying on purpose to sound exotic, but yet it's used to describe an English landscape? [http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/violin_composers/92779/1 (Some other review sites seem to make the remark)]. I'm just trying to investigate more. John Riemann Soong 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That I wouldn't quarrel with at all. There is something intentionally exotic about the music. With him, though, it's always possible that there is some little known medieval source that he is reinvestigating (cf. Lazarus and Dives, which is paired with Lark on my record, anyway -- little-known folk song). Geogre 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just don't call him "Williams". His surname was Vaughan Williams (unhyphenated), and his given name was Ralph. JackofOz 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

secretary cursive and bookhand.

What were the secretary handwriting styles of the 14th and 15th centuries? How did they relate to blackletter or humanist handwriting. Zeimusu | Talk page 15:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you mean in England and Europe, then secreterial handwriting from as early as 1315 (attested 1321) to almost the end of the 1400s (the style was already widely proscibed in 1498) enjoyed a major blackletter/humanist revival of doing your own homework..

Eh? Is the above just nonsense? What's the homework reference about. I'm 33 years old. I don't do the homework thing anymore. Zeimusu | Talk page

We do have a blackletter article although this is admittedly not that good (admittedly since I wrote much of it using class notes). "Secretary" styles are just cursive variants of the formal types of Gothic or blackletter, which made it easier and quicker to write. In what sense do you want to know how they are related? Adam Bishop 16:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you have largely answered my question; thank you very much. I'd to see a sample. I read about it while skimming through book (whose title I forget), which had a page from a manuscript half in "secretary cursive" but using italic for emphasis. I'm just being curious. Zeimusu | Talk page 15:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You should see if there are articles on paleography or palaeography, and also check the subjects out at an academic library.--Teutoberg 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Children of Hannibal

There is an alternate history, Hannibal's Children. But, did Hannibal historicly have any children; did he even marry/have consorts or anything?

Try [[8]]. There might have been a child of Hannibal but the issue is a bit unclear. Flamarande 19:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to Buy a Guqin

I live in Massachusetts, U.S., and I was wondering where, if anyone knows, could one buy a guqin in Massachusetts or if somebody could direct me to a website online that has them. Thank you. -----Seclipse21 18:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, eBay has one for $400... Madd4Max 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just run down to the nearest Guqins 'R' Us ? :-) StuRat 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done & prolificent article! The bets are now open : Who shall find a longer article, about an object, than that guqin ? --DLL 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

tablerock furniture company

Hi! My name is Dwaine and I'm trying to get some information on tablerock furniture company that used to be located in Morganton North Carolina. I have some furniture built by that company and I'm trying to get some idea of when they were built. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Hi Dwaine.

A Google search didn't bring much up, unless it happened to be on Table Rock Rd... EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Morganton, NC has a lot of furniture manufacturers. I've never heard of one named Tablerock. The popular ones are Drexel and Henredon. There is a big furniture mart in Morganton. Workers there would know if there is a Tablerock Furniture Co nearby. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked a coworker (Dr. Brackett) who is from Asheville, NC. He said that his dad worked for Drexel in the Table Rock Furnture Plant in Morganton. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Brace yourself for this one ... does Dr. Brackett only speak parenthetically ? :-) StuRat 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The furniture appears to be antique. My family has had the furniture since the mid 60s. Was the Tablerock Furniture Co around in the 30s? Thanks! Dwaine

Dracula / Horror

What is the name of the musical clip played on an organ in many horror films, such as the Dracula series?

The notes are as follows: F D# F C G# A

It's not an adaptation of Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 by any chance? Just a not-very-musically-inclined guess. Ziggurat 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Thank you.

"It Belongs to Them, Let's Give it Back"

On my drive to work this morning, that old '80s song "Beds are Burning" by that old Aussie group, Midnight Oil...(you know the one, it's led by that freaky bald dude Peter Garrett,) popped on the radio. The song is obviously about Aboriginal rights in Australia.

I understand the injustices that Aboriginal Peoples throughout the world have suffered upon contact with Europeans. I understand that there were many wrongs done, wrongs which can never be reversed. I also understand that despite the fact that we can't go back in time and reverse these wrongs, much can still be done to restore to these peoples the dignity they deserve, as well as to help to restore to them, as much as possible, what their life was like pre-European contact.

I also recognize that these are issues that exist in every area of the world that was touched by that period of about 500 years ago when Europeans began to explore all the furthest reaches of the globe. However, I'm not very familiar with these issues in non-English speaking countries, so I'll restrict my question to English speaking countries: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and at least two African countries: South Africa and Zimbabwe.

That said, I feel that I'm missing something. On the one hand, those champions of Aboriginal rights who happen to be of European descent tend to speak in terms of: "We stole their land". "We're really alien intruders and we don't belong here". Or, like a lyric in the song I was refering to, "It belongs to them, let's give it back". Yet there seems to be some sort of "disconnect" that I have trouble understanding. Is it hypocricy perhaps? I don't know. What I do know is that that freaky bald dude doesn't seem to be practising what he preaches (similar to so many left-wing champions of Aboriginal rights). If "it" (Australia in this case) belongs to "them" (Australian Aboriginal Peoples), and it should be given back, why doesn't he just pack his bags and return to Europe? I'm sure he owns a house on some land in Sydney, why doesn't he find some Aborigine and "give it back"?

Doing a bit of research, I actually learned that this guy is now an Australian member of Parliament! Obviously he considers Australia to be his home and intends to live out his pale white European life there. And he's just one of a whole culture of European descended people living in land "taken" from indiginous peoples, not only in Australia, but in every country I mentioned above.

So to sum up my question, while the injustices done to Aboriginal peoples are clear, and while the "right thing to do" may be somewhat less clear, but still discernable in principle (i.e, as I mentioned above, to do our best as non-Aboriginals to "make things right" and restore to Aboriginal Peoples all the dignity and prosperity they deserve, while at the same time, despite whatever past injustices, recognizing that this has become OUR home too, and that it wouldn't be right to require us to leave,) I'm completely confused by those "activists" who say "we stole their land" and "we don't belong here". What exactly are they suggesting? Are they suggesting that all non-Aboriginal people simply pack their bags and head back to wherever their ancestors came from? Or are they suggesting that we should stay where we are, while maintaining a constant feeling of guilt for being alien intruders in a land where we don't belong? Or, is harping on European guilt just a brilliant marketing strategy for that freaky bald guy to make a tonne of money, without really actually giving a damn either way? Loomis 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the situation is similar here in New Zealand (but with the added benefit/problem of an actual treaty between the crown and the Maori people - the Treaty of Waitangi). Here, the solution - shaky, convoluted and controversial though it may be - is the combined returning of part of tribal lands along with monetary compensation for those parts which cannot be returned. In Australia and the US the situation is worse for the original inhabitants due to the lack of binding treaties, but the situation is surely largely the same: ambandonment of the "reservation" schemes which basically force the native people into unproductive area, return - in name at least - of any parts of their original land which are now federally/state owned, and compensation for the rest. Grutness...wha? 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I always interpreted the song as being pro land rights, along the lines of the Mabo case, which was topical at the time (late 80s/early 90s). I don't think he is suggesting that "whiteys" back their bags and leave. Garrett is my local MP and, although he may have made "a tonne of money", I consider him to be one of the more honourable members of parliament.Downunda 05:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Those well-meaning people who talk about what "we" did to "them", should really have a good hard think about what they're doing. They are non-indigenous people whose remarks are directed only to other non-indigenous people. They thereby exclude the very people whose exclusion from mainstream society they themselves are decrying. How sensitive and respectful is that! This kind of self-flagellatory language only serves to perpetuate the very thing they criticise, the separation of citizens of a country into different racially determined cultural camps. If people persist in seeing themselves as either indigenous/non-indigenous first and foremost, rather than as Australians/Canadians/whatever first and foremost, nothing will ever change. That's not to say there aren't appalling problems that need addressing, but reconciliation must start in the hearts of ordinary men and women and children first, otherwise any government programs will never have a hope of succeeding. I am sure Peter Garrett never suggested that non-indigenous Australians leave Australia. Restoring some land justice to aborigines does not require other Australians to leave what is their own country too. It has also been suggested that the British leave Northern Ireland and let the Irish take over. Well, most of the British were born there and that's their home too. How fair would it be to expect them to just pack up and live elsewhere, because of the "sins" of their ancestors? No, replacing one injustice with another never works. JackofOz 07:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's symbolic, not literal (or perhaps hyperbolic). The song is asking for recognition - "The time has come, to say fair's fair, to pay the rent, to pay our share." User:Downunda's point is important - the song was released when Mabo had been before the High Court for more than 5 years. Prior to the Mabo decision, the Australian legal system did not recognise that people inhabited the land before the Europeans arrived (the concept of terra nullius) - thus nullifying any claim to title. Mabo recognised that Australia was not an empty land when it was colonised (namely, that indigenous people weren't animals). The native title system recognises that indigenous and non-indigenous proprietary rights can co-exist, not that one supplants the other (this was cemented by the Wik decision). Land rights is something different again, and ownership under the various state Land Rights Acts is only granted where the indigenous claim is the primary claim (and has required a special Act of Parliament each time a claim has been decided). Natgoo 10:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! All well argued points, though I don't necessarily agree with all that was said, I certainly agree with most of it. I'd forgotten about the fact that Australia differs from where I'm from (Canada) in the sense that Australia was considered terra nullius, while Canada was not.

But all this leads me to a follow-up. It's a sort of hypothetical question, so please bear with me. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Europeans of centuries ago possessed the ethical and moral scruples that seem to have evolved over time, those being, that Aboriginal Peoples are basically our equals, and that to commit those appalling crimes against them is simply unacceptable.

Now imagine an explorer from Europe, landing in the Americas, or Australia, or New Zealand, and explaining to the first Native he met that he, as an "English Christian Puritan" or a "French Huguenot", or a "Spanish Jew", faced a miserable life of persecution where he came from, and would therefore like to settle in this new place and start a new life, along with many of his kinsmen, in order to be free from that rather awful, overcrowded, disease ridden place called Europe, that very place that happens to persecute those of his particular religious faith. (I realize that this is deviating somewhat from actual history, but again, please bear with me).

Now suppose the Native were to respond: "Sorry, but this land is ours and we have a strict policy against immigration by outsiders". What would be the "right" thing for the European to do? Turn his ship around and return home to the hell that was Europe at the time? Or stand up to the Native and tell him: "Look, you live in an enourmous, yet extremely sparsely populated land. We have no intention of interfering in any way with your way of life, and we, as humans, have the basic right to live wherever on earth we choose. Therefore, though we'd prefer to have friendly relations with you, we have weapons to defend ourselves unlike any you have ever seen, and, like it or not, we're coming here to stay and to set up a settlement on a certain piece of land that you apparently have no use for".

My question is, if THIS were the way history played out, would Europeans still be considered in the wrong? No, this time they did not commit any attrocities. No, this time they did not colonize the land in the name of some far away European monarch. They simply settled on the land, albeit against the permission of the Natives, and though they had no wish to decend into violence, they defended their decision with the warning that any interference would be fended off with their vastly superiour weaponry.

What I'm getting at is this: Is the "sin" of the original European settlers focussed on the way they went about settling in what was to them the "New World"? Or does this "sin" consist of not only the brutal treatment of Aboriginal Peoples, but as well, the simple act of settling in a land that "wasn't their's", against the wishes of the indigenous inhabitants? Loomis 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and Jack, I agree entirely with what you say. In fact a few years back I wrote an article denouncing the whole "us vs. them" mentality, and simply suggested that we should all, both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, push toward a policy of universal inclusion into Canadian society, as we're all equally Canadian.

The response I got from one particular Aboriginal totally threw me off guard. She basically denounced my argument, and was apparently particularly offended by the fact that in arguing as I had, I was effectively implying that she was "Canadian". Apparently many Aboriginal peoples in Canada don't even recognize themselves as "Canadians" at all, and to my astonishment, to refer to them as "Canadian" was something of an insult. As I said, this argument threw me completely off guard, and as such, I'm too confused by the whole issue to be able to properly respond to it. Hence the original question. What exactly is the right approach to take with regard to our Aboriginal "co-inhabitors"? (That's the best term I can come up with, as pretty much everything else seems to wind up being some sort of insult). Loomis 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Its an impossible issue and obviously in practice it was a question of "might is right". But from the ethical standpoint I dont think your settling "nicely" screnario really works. The British settlers in Australia would still have been going to live in somebody elses land without their permission (indeed expressly against their wishes). Which would still have been wrong ethically. Jameswilson 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Imagine if a ship landed in Sydney today and the occupants stated that they wanted to live in Australia, they wouldn't interfere with the "locals" but any attempt to stop them would be resisted with force...I can picture the police Rapid Response Team storming the vessel before the anchor hits the seabed! Downunda 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, so James, if I get your point, and correct me if I'm wrong, it would be ethically wrong to seek (and indeed insist upon) assylum from religious persecution? My family came to Canada about 100 years ago essentially to escape religious persecution. Had they not come here then, I would most likely never have been born. But then again, as you said "it's someone elses land" and my ancestors settled here without the permission of the indigenous people. So are you saying that ethically, the respect of certain group's "land claims" is more important than my own very life?

Sorry James, but if the storm troopers were ever after me, and I happened upon your house, I'd first politely ask you if I may hide out at your place, but if you insisted on leaving me to face certain death, I'm sorry James, but I'd do whatever it takes to force myself in, including knocking you out with a rolling pin. Perhaps you may consider my little "B&E" as "unethical", but in matters of life and death, we simply cannot afford the luxury of considering the niceties of what proper "ethics" may have to say on the point. Loomis 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As for your comment Downunda, I'm sure that Australia, being a civilized country, has a rather humane set of rules for refugees seeking assylum. However, were it to turn away a ship landing in Sydney filled with assylum seekers, yes, I assume the Rapid Response Team would manage to turn them away. But would that be the right thing to do? Oh well, I suppose it's just another case of "might makes right", only this time in reverse. Loomis 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just another thought: Don't you sense any hypocrisy in the sense that the now defunct White Australia Policy is commonly, and rightfully so, denounced as a shamefully racist policy in Australia's history, yet many of you seem to regard as perfectly valid what could essentially be described as an "Aboriginal Australia Policy" - a policy whereby Aborigines should have had the right to exclude from Australian citizenship all non-Aborigines? Granted, the Australian Aborigines are the indigenous people of Australia, while Europeans were late-comers. So compare it to, say, Europe, a continent where the "indigenous people" are all white. Would it not be shamefully racist for Europe to have a "White Europe Policy"? As I see it, if Australian Aborigines have the right to exclude all non-Aborigines from their land, since they are the indigenous people, it would follow that the indigenous people of Europe would equally have the right to exclude all non-white people. Yet, hypocritically, Europeans excluding non-whites from citizenship would be considered shamefully racist, yet the concept that Australian Aborigines should have rightfully been allowed to exclude all non-Aborigines from settling on their land doesn't seem to have the slightest tinge of racism. I fail to see any distinction whatsoever. If a person, based solely on his or her skin colour, is forbidden (or at least rightfully should have been forbidden, in the sense that Australian Aborigines should have had the right to exclude non-Aborigines from settling anywhere on the continent) from settling in the Australia, I cannot see that as anything else than racism once again. Racism works both ways, you know. Loomis 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, three things.

1. Australia and Canada were not (mostly) settled by people escaping persecution - they were sent out to take over the land (and then others followed). Those who were genuinely escaping persecution (including your family) were not the driving force behind this. Lets not confuse the two issues (colonial expansion and refugees/asylum-seekers).

1. Anyway, the more I think about it, I still dont really accept your point, which seems to be that because someone is suffering oppression (in Russia?) they have the right to be admitted to any piece of empty-ish land going. Who owns that land at the moment is somehow secondary. Refugees are perfectly within their rights to try and settle in country X, and hopefully people will be generous, but the current inhabitants should still have the ultimate say-so on how many to admit. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but otherwise sovereignty means nothing.

1. Third, yes of course racism can cut both ways on the individual level. But at the level of policy, I cant see that the measures you mention are so objectionable. Its the same argument as "men-only" clubs are discriminatory but "women-only" clubs are OK. Or its discriminatory to put up a "no gays" sign but "gays-only" hotels are OK. Its a compensation for the general discrimination in society: you cant wave a magic wand and get rid of that so you allow a positive discrimination the other way to even things up - sort of "refuges" for the discriminated-against group where they can "be themselves" without the presence of anyone else. Jameswilson 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the same argument used for Affirmative Action in the US, which is legal counter-discrimination. I find such policies totally misguided, in the they seem to imply that the minority is inferior, and needs special treatment. This tends to lead to dependency which utterly destroys minority communities, and also leads to resentment from the discriminated against majority. And finally, any minority who does succeed isn't given credit for making it on their own. My state of Michigan will soon vote to abolish this policy, I hope it passes. StuRat 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Addressing Jameswilson, if somebody stole money and then spent it all, doesn't he still have to pay back that money? If they stole an object, they're legally allowed to sue in court, I think. However, there's a problem in your third point, and it mostly pertains to social power. "men-only" clubs in history were objected to because there was no real way for women to organize their own clubs and get the necessary funds for them (this was back before the suffrage days, I believe). Even now, there's systemic bias in the way health care experiments are performed (white male default, even though it's been shown that racial minorities and women act differently to different types of treatments). I have the same objection to Affirmative Action because of this... getting rid of Affirmative Action won't get rid of all system biases in the system, but very few people will acknowledge it, people tend to care only about how they're being shafted by the system. --ColourBurst 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Any nation has the right to an immigration policy which maintains the "status quo". That is, if it's 90% white now, it should apportion 90% of it's immigration quotas to whites, or perhaps even more, if needed to offset higher domestic minority birth rates which will tend to change the population demographics over time. StuRat 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they have the "right" (as I'm not sure countries have "rights" like people do). I do think it's a racist policy, as in it discriminates based on skin colour. In addition, how is this going to work? What about biracial people? What about caucasoids like Northern Indians and Ainu? I can point out many problems with that kind of policy and it doesn't help the country one bit. --ColourBurst 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The alternative is to argue that no society has any right to preserve itself and it's traditions, as a huge influx of foreigners will inevitably replace their original culture with that of the immigrants. StuRat 17:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How does keeping certain people out and other certain people in "preserve it's(sic) traditions"? Preserving culture and tradition is a matter of a conscious effort to do so. Moreover, the U.S. and Canadian culture is based on immigration! Saint Patrick's Day and Cinco de Mayo? From immigrants. Hot Dogs (frankfurters)? Made by immigrants. Bagels? Same thing. Fortune Cookies? Also made by immigrants. Oh wait, you don't think a fortune cookie is "American" even though it was made in the U.S. and you couldn't find it in China until recently. If you're worried about preserving the original American culture made by the founding fathers which included things like slavery, then you're way too late. --ColourBurst 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's current traditions, not "original traditions". This includes things like hearing periodic church bells (instead of a Muslim call to prayer broadcast from minarets over loudspeakers 5 times a day), women able to wear what they want (instead of forced to wear burkhas), speaking English (or as close as we Americans can manage), etc. I don't object to controlled immigration, and like the mild influence of immigrants (I like hummus, for example), but when the number of immigrants is so high that it has a potential to swamp the current culture, this is a problem. BTW, the Muslim call to prayer 5 times a day is not an exaggeration, it actually happens now in parts of Michigan: [9]. To me, basic changes like this make it no longer America, but more like New Beirut. StuRat 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, there was an incident in Florida where a Muslim woman insisted on wearing a burkha for an identification photo on her driver's license, making it entirely useless for identification purposes. This was rejected, but if the Muslim population was large enough, sufficient political pressure could be exerted to allow this type of thing. StuRat 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So freedom of religion is bad? You don't trust the U.S. constitution (supposed to protect against these things)? Americans shouldn't take up Buddhism? Not _that_ many people want to come to the U.S., not enough to make a dent in the 200 million people already there, anyway. That's why I think it's hypocritical - especially when the topic above is talking about how whites took away the land from the aboriginals. And to note, what's "mild"? Hot dogs and hamburgers are a pretty heavy influence on American culture. It's unequal treatment no matter which way you slice it. --ColourBurst 22:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note that many "aboriginal" people displaced, or even wiped out, an earlier occupant of the land. Do they also owe restitution for this ? In Europe, the original occupants were Neanderthals, should the Europeans clone a race of Neanderthals from their bones and teeth, place them back in Europe, then all commit suicide since they no longer have any claim to any land on Earth ? :-) StuRat 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More good points Stu. I welcome all views in this discussion. After all, the main point of my question, as a non-Aboriginal Canadian, is not to push one view or another, but to better understand what for me is an incredibly perplexing issue. Here I find myself born in a country that I call my home, yet there's always this lingering concept being pushed by certain individuals that my being here is somehow "wrong". Any further comments are more than welcome. Loomis 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, I forgot to say. Of course if I was desperate I would do as you say. If I was starving, I'd certainly steal some food or money rather than die. But I shouldnt pretend to myself that stealing is not generally wrong. And I should, I suppose, repay the money when my I get the chance - ie make restitution.

On the general point, its like the Irish-English thing. How far should English people born today be expected to apologise for what went before. I dont feel any personal responsibility, but I know from drunken conversations with politically-aware Irish people ("when it all comes out") they dont trust us even in the current generation. They certainly want me to admit that the English were bastards in the past. Without being too fanciful, I think they are sort of asking themselves - this James seems reasonable enough, but has English culture really changed? - if circumstances were the same would this modern-day Englishman behave in the same way again and let the Irish starve? Jameswilson 01:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem there - people want "the past to be in the past", but they haven't proven that they've really changed (see the Caledonia_land_dispute). The illegal immigration business in the U.S. is another example of this - in the past, legal immigration was determined solely by your race, so really what's legal is what the government says is legal. There's also immigrants claiming themselves as "true Americans (or other country)" but their ancestors were immigrants, but they imply that other people aren't no matter how long these other people have been in the country. --ColourBurst 02:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This answer is already too long, but this kind of discussion always seems so ignorant of history. None of you can name a land or a people who have not been invaded, displaced, converted to new religions, had their language changed, had new diseases introduced, etc. Many seem to think England is an arch offender, but for the first 1100 years of its recorded history, it suffered exactly the same fates as any other "tribal" or "aboriginal" people: it was invaded by Italians, by Germans, by Danes, by Dutch, and by French. Its early religions, languages and cultures were replaced. Its gene pool was flooded with those of the conquerors. You get the picture: there is scarely an atrocity perpetrated by the Europeans in any continent which was not perpetrated against some of them in recorded history. How many times did Asians invade Europe with the same level of widespread cultural destruction and replacement as occurred in America and Australia? What do you think happened in Europe and Asia when denser agricultural populations replaced sparser hunter-gatherer populations? Anyone who thinks the European invasion of America is regrettable or should be "undone" should be equally supportive of "undoing" the Mongol invasion of Europe, the Muslim invasion of Europe, the repeated Chinese invasions of Taiwan, the Turkish invasion of Anatolia, the Dravidian invasion of south Asia, the Arab invasion of North Africa and an infinity of others that were just as destructive and "unjust". Terms like "native American" are as racist and offensive now as in the 19th century when it was the Dutch, German, and Irish immigrants who were the "non-native-Americans". So what do we do, tell everyone to go back to some imaginary "starting point" that simply corresponds to the borders of our historical knowledge? Oops, nearly all of us have mixed ancestry with ancestors who came from various places and who sinned against each other in a myriad of ways! So where do we really "belong" and who owes what to whom? It is hard to have any attitude but contempt for the ignorance, political arrogance, and racist naivete of those who pretend that European offenses in America, Africa, and Australia are somehow unique rather than simply more recent and better documented, or that some sort of moral "scorecard" allows claims that one race is morally superior to another because of its "victimhood", or that some people owe others reparations because of ancestral behavior. If we can learn anything from history it is that human beings do terrible things to each other singly and in groups defined in an infinity of ways and all of us are descended from both perpetrators and victims. alteripse 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You make a great point, Alteripse. An American Indian historian, member of the Omaha (tribe), once made the same point by saying, "If the Sioux keep asking the United States to apologize for what they did to them, we're going to ask the Sioux to apologize for what they did to us." (paraphrased from memory) --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

James, I must take great issue with your second point, that being, that it is within the right of a "sovereign" nation, in order to protect its "sovereignty", to have the ultimate say-so when it comes to refugees seeking assylum in foreign countries. Consider the story of the SS St. Louis. The facts are simple. A ship of some 1,000 Jews departed from Nazi Germany to find refuge somewhere, indeed anywhere that would take them. Both the US and Canada turned them back, and they were forced to return to Europe, where pretty much all of them perished at the hands of the Germans. Are you saying that the US and Canada actually had the moral "right" to turn them away? If that's what you're saying, I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. It would seem to me that one of the most basic of moral obligations one human owes to another is to do one's very best to preserve the life of another. This basic law of humanity transcends any secondary laws with respect to "sovereignty" or however else you want to dress it up. To turn away another human being in such dire consequences, is, in plain and simple terms, a crime against humanity.

My story is a simple one. My people originate from the middle-east, where we once had a state, some two thousand years ago. At some point, we were expelled from this state by a conquering power. So we fled wherever we could. Many of us found ourselves in Europe, where we were at times welcomed, at times tolerated, but most often seen as "alien intruders" who do not belong in Europe. Over time, bad became worse, and ultimately, in WWII, it was made as clear as possible that Europe was not our home. "Go home to Palestine!" was a common remark by the locals, even before the war. Luckily, my family found safe-haven in Canada, however, as this whole discussion clearly demonstrates, though we may live an almost perfectly safe life in Canada (relatively speaking), we still do not "belong" here, as, after all, this land was stolen from Canada's indigenous people, right?

As luck would have it, finally, after two millenia, we were able to re-establish a state in the middle-east, that place where we originally came from, that place that we could finally call our "home". Yet all did not go as simply as one would expect. In returning to this "homeland", we could not have been met by a more hostile group of neighbours, as well as certain individuals who had settled in the area during our long absence. Now, being in Palestine, rather than hearing "Go home to Palestine!", we hear "Go home to America!" or "Go home to Europe!".

In an almost absurd turn of events, rather than recognize that we were "back where we belonged," pretty much every other nation on earth now accuses us of, at the very least, "stealing land from the Natives."

In any case, though this may seem harsh, I simply can't give a damn whether I "ethically" or "morally" belong in Canada. Yes, I recognize that indigenous Canadians were treated harshly, but frankly, neither I nor any of my ancestors were responsible for that. I'm a human being, a citizen of Earth, and to hell with it all, I have the right to call ANY place on this planet my home, regardless of "land rights issues", "national sovereignty", or any other nonsense whatever group may use as an excuse to make me feel like I don't belong and am forbidden to live in any place I damn well please. Loomis 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

June 28

William Trent

I found the stub article to one of my ancestors, but it describes Major William Trent III not his grandfather William Trent I, who founded Trenton, New Jersey. I would like to write articles about both (I have a book written by a PhD student from University of Pittsburgh on William III's life).

William Trent senior is listed as William Trent (Trenton, New Jersey) and Major William Trent III is listed as William Trent

How would I go about suggesting that the listings be straightened out? --Ben Trent 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to make the William trent page into a disambiguation page, linking to two separate pages called William Trent I and William Trent III. I've made some changes to fix that up. Grutness...wha? 09:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Democratic versus Republican

Is there a series of questions I can ask myself to determine whether my thinking, beliefs and situation (income, job type, etc.) qualifies me (compatibility wise) more as a Democrat than as a Republican and vice versa or if I actually lean toward something more or less sinister? ...IMHO (Talk) 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd question from someone whose userbox claims they're a politician.--152.163.100.72 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of those things. They're worth every bit as much as you pay for them (they're free). For myself, cogito ergo sum Democratus. Geogre 03:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"I think therefore I am a Democrat?" Think about what? If you apply that to President Clinton then what must have he been thinking about when he did not have women with that sex?" ...IMHO (Talk) 03:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean President Clinton, the Rhodes Scholar?--152.163.100.72 04:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean President Clinton who was Impeached. ...IMHO (Talk) 04:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean unrelated tangent to deflect the origional comment?--152.163.100.72 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of little quizzes online, but most of them are biased. I doubt that your income or occupation would influence your political affiliation, since there are many poor and rich people in both parties. It's mostly ideological. but if you answer "yes" to most of these questions, you probably belong in the GOP. If you answer "no", you probably have more in common with the Democrats. If you're evenly divided, you could probably be a moderate in either party. Of course, it may be that you would prefer the platform of a third party to either major party, but anyway...

Do you support preemptive military intervention?

Do you oppose universal health care?

Do you think social security should be privatized?

Do you think Judaeo-Christian morals should influence policymaking?

Do you think organized labor is a threat to free enterprise?

Do you think marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman?

Do you support legislation banning flag-burning?

Do you support capital punishment?

Do you think immigration from Mexico should be strongly restricted?

Do you think American soldiers should remain in Iraq?

If you answered "yes" to more than five, you'd probably be a Republican (or Joe Lieberman). Bhumiya (said/done) 03:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot, "Do you believe in personalizing and then demonizing complex geopolitical issues and treating entire nations as their leader and all your opponents with pure hate?" Geogre 13:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you love the flag with a transubstantiation-inspired passion? "Have not I myself known five hundred living soldiers sabred into crows' meat for a piece of glazed cotton which they called their flag; which, had you sold it in any market-cross, would not have brought above three groschen?" -- Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus. Geogre 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay that sounds like a pretty good start. Now how about if I wanted to include Communist in the mix or Nazi, etc. Can we expand this group of questions to include those political parties as well? ...IMHO (Talk) 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Political Compass sounds like what you're looking for. Natgoo 09:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks a great deal. This is more advanced than I was hoping for and moves the decision making process into a more scientific yet still practical realm. Thanks again. ...IMHO (Talk) 10:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How about making it more realistic for the U.S.:

1. Do you want a group of rich people (mostly white men) to cast your vote for you?
2. Do you want to blame all the nation's problems on anyone who doesn't obey the group you chose?

If you answered yes to both, then you are either a Republican or Democrat - it doesn't really matter which since both parties are for raising taxes and raising taxes and then giving themselves a big hefty raise (which they will cover up by saying they are against the 3% Cost-of-Living raise while passing a 7% raise on the side). Now, if you answered no to either one, you are anti-American and you will burn in hell with all the other flag-burning hippies. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowing what idealogical groupping you fit best in, is all great if your just voting, but if you plan to become an elected offical there are only two questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Could you imagine yourself cheating on your taxes?
2. Could you imagine yourself cheating on your wife?

• If you answered yes to 1 and no to 2, you're a Republican, with the Bible in one hand and your budget in the other. You pay way to much taxes, and most of it goes to lazy welfare cheats, and dead-beats anyway. And your wife has been a loyal supporter for years, and helped you get the votes from the religous right and middleclass women.
• If you answered no to 1 and yes to 2, you're a Democrat, always putting the rest of society before yourself, except on long workdays in the office when you and that blonde secretery are all alone. And you've seen the looks your wife is giving your best friend, they're probably doing something they shouldn't be doing, so she's got nothing to complain about.
• If you answered yes to both, you're a Libretarian, why on earth should you abide by the law of others, you work your ass of every day, you have every right to make your own rules, and that is what America is all about. We don't need a new king!
• If you answered no to both, you're a fine upstanding member of your comunity, and you're not really cut out to be politician are you? Maybe you should consider becoming a teacher, or a doctor, or maybe fight poverty in a picturesque village in Namibia. --Eivind^t@c 02:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the example... I can't find the other section where I was looking for an example of a Cynic but your's will work fine. ...IMHO (Talk) 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Communism

In simple terms... why does America view Communism as such an awful thing? I don't quite get the concept, I suppose. --Thanks!

Well as in the above effort to define a few major political parties by comparing the answers a member from each party would give to several relevant and distinquishing questions there is as of yet not indiction of what questions might be suitiable or what the answers might be. Consequently Communism can at this point in time be lumped in with Democrat or Republican or both. You have to define Communism in similar terms if you want to find an answer. ...IMHO (Talk) 05:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of the issue for me, I don't really understand what Communism is about as compared to Democracy, and why a commie is such an evil thing in the US.... -- Steve (the previous anon poster)

Well alot of it depends upon the reason or basis. Agricultural even with manufacturing endevores that sell products and are centered around a belief in God are usually accepted here in the US. But then as with any group or individual that may include an alternate quirk may also have then gone over the line, i.e., have done something that other individuals or groups can simply not approve or forgive. ...IMHO (Talk) 05:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article Communist Party USA covers many points about the rise and fall of the Communist idea in America. As a comparison, you may wish to read about the many other countries in the world that have active Communist or Communist-like parties. Road Wizard 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a mixup between terms and systems here. Communism is an economical policy and democracy is a way to decide which policies (including economic) to use. So in theory they don't exclude each other. However....

First some groundwork. Communism is an ideal in which everyone does what they can and takes no more than they need. That would be very nice, but people aren't like that. So in countries ruled by a Communist Party (and are therefore mis-named Communist States) you get what is usually called State Socialism, with a government that owns everything (nationalisation) and tries to change the attitude of people such that eventually the government can abolish itself and people live happily ever after in total freedom (ironically also the (right-wing) economic-liberal ideal).

In reality, this is done through an oligarchy, with a small group of people controlling the country. This is not democracy and therefore considered very bad in the West in the last century or so. Before that we had kings or Tsars, which were much worse, but we got over that and now that we have 'seen the light' everyone else has to follow. By force, if needs be. This excuse for the 'war on communism' is somewhat understandable (I also prefer democracy, but that's no excuse to force it down other peoples' throats). But there is also the domino theory, which states that if one nation 'falls' the neighbouring countries will too, somehow, and eventually the US will become communist. This is not based on anything at all, but somehow it appeals to the public. And then there's the simple idea that because the economic system of State Socialism is so unlike that of the US that it has to be wrong. This is stupid but classic. Anyone who has a different belief has to be wrong. This has always been in the history of manikind. It was usually about religion, but this time it's about an economical system, which is even more silly.

But there's one more thing. After WWII the USSR effectively confiscated Eastern European countries. This was done through military force (albeit originally against the Germans, but that was effectively just a convenient excuse). And that was understably seen as a real physical threat. I haven't a clue how real this threat was, but it's gone now. Any threat from Cuba was based on suport from the USSR, so that threat is gone too.

But then there's China. Still not democratic, still present in Tibet and only getting stronger. So if there was any threat from China and therefore a solid reason to mistrust them, that is only getting stronger. But they've introduced some free market and now everyone acts like everything is ok (well, almost - there's still the human rights issues). Which is pretty hipocritical. This makes it look like it was really all about the economic system and every people have the right to choose their own system.

Oh, one more thing. The US have the power to push everyone else around, so they do. Another constant in the history of mankind. DirkvdM 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I have to add this one. Democracy in the US? Democracy means that people can vote for whatever idea they wish to support. So McCarthy obviously wasn't a suporter of democracy. But more fundamentally, what choices does one have in the US? Two parties that are barely distinguishable from each other. You can pick any colour as long as it's blue. Yeah, democracy.... DirkvdM 08:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW! I have to say that I don't think I've every heard as much diatribe! I'm not complaining mind you I'm just saying that if I ever need sometimg to keep me busy while sitting on the can... Oh well, lets not get McCarthic. Anyway what I want to ask is if you were going to come up with a list of questions that might tell me whether I would be happier living as a Communist what would those questions be? I already have a few questions to help me decide if I am a Democrat or a Republican from the topic just above. ...IMHO (Talk) 08:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

About China: I don't think that's true... when Japan was poised to rise economically the U.S. hated them too (particularly in Detroit where two men killed Vincent Chin and essentially got away with murder), and the Japanese were democratic! --ColourBurst 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

People's Republic of China != China. I for one think the Republic of China is the continuation of Sun Yat-Sen's principles. Also see anarchist communism, collectivist anarchism, gift economy, et al. which are forms of libertarian socialism that rejects an oligarchy for communism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, PRC is what I mean... however, Communism in practice is rarely equivalent to Communism in theory. Samuel Webster was the guy who said "Communism works, in theory." --ColourBurst 19:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That really depends on which theory one means (which really has become an immortal cliche). A fairly testimony of a successful partially classless society is Homage to Catalonia by Orwell, when the Anarchists banded themselves together in the Spanish Civil War (although they called their other opponent, the Moscow Regimists aka Soviets "Communists" with a capital C which tends to exclude the anarchist communists). I however rarely call the Beijing and Moscow Oligarchial Regimists by their self-prescribed names anymore (Gongchandang/CPC and Soviet respectively) because it both the Chinese and Russian terms. Workers organise themselves all the time.

In Singapore there are proposals to organise some lift-upgrading (in the opposition constituencies, ie. Potong Pasir SMC and Hougang SMC purely through voter participation because Lee Hsien Loong somehow morally justifies that it's acceptable to actively discriminate opposition constituencies in the HDB upgrading programme in favour of constituencies that support the ruling People's Action Party. I don't know their latest status, but self-organisation in practice can actually have the potential to be quite successful. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Orwell, though, wasn't Animal Farm a counterexample of what could go bad? You can't assume that the Homage scenario would always be the outcome of what happens. --ColourBurst 03:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Franco eventually won the Spanish Civil War. The outcome of the Homage scenario is not what we want (being defeated by the Fascists and infighting with the Moscow Oligarchists). Animal Farm is usually cited first against communism - but in truth he was writing against the Moscow Regimists who said they were Communist (and he termed them so) but were in truth no different from the capitalists. Of course, at the time the Moscow Regimists laid their claim to the label, but in truth poisoned it for the anarchist communists. In the anarchist respect, he was showing what was potentially possible, and a lesson to be learnt: the anarchists must never ally with the authoritarians, or at least treat them with all suspicion. Politically, there is a systemic bias that favours the citation of Animal Farm as a book, but Animal Farm was a condemnation of the Moscow Regimists, not the anarchist communists. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it has to do with the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (okay, technically all the same thing)... all wars in which the U.S. was fighting Communism. This probably leads to a lot of anti-Communism being thrown about. --ColourBurst 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically all the same thing?? The Vietnam war was pretty hot, I'd say. And that was about a people trying to oust the occupying force, which was quite the rage at the time, with colonies going for independence. When the 'champion' of these freedom fighters (the US) didn't reply to their request for help, they turned to a closer, more logical ally. Which happened to be a socialist state (China). Which did wake up the US, upon which they did enter the war (on the wrong side), which forced the Viet Minh into the arms of the Chinese (and 'communism') even further. So the US created their own demon, so to say. Sorry, had to get this off my chest. :) DirkvdM 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that the three wars are basically clustered under the cold war category. Whether this categorization is correct (or Americentric) is up for debate, but that's what Wikipedia has done. --ColourBurst 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"The US have the power to push everyone else around"? If that were the case, North Korea (or any other country in the world for that matter) would not have nukes, 9/11 would never have happened, OPEC countries would provide America with free oil, every country in the Middle East, as well as the Hamas led Palestinian Authority, would recognize Israel and quit commiting terrorist acts against Israeli civilians, Iran would end its nuclear programme and apologize profusely for having the temerity to dare disobey the wishes of the American government, the French and the Germans would have supported the war in Iraq, there would be no Iraqi insurgency, Fidel Castro, now without a Soviet Union to back him would be kissing GWB's ass and begging for forgiveness...etc...etc...etc. Yes, the US may be the only "superpower" in the world, but that's a far cry from actually having the power to "control" the world. Believe me, there are a whole load of things that are going on in the world that the American government wished it could change if it had the power...but it doesn't. Loomis 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Because communism is the epitome of godliness and as such, unattainable. That's why people hate communism. -- Миборовский 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I had never thought of it that way, Миборовский, you're absolutely right. We're all jealous of that wonderful utopia in which the state essentially murders millions of its own people, throws those who dare speak their own mind into gulags, or better yet, machine guns them en masse in Tiannenmen Square, leaving a lucky few who could avoid those fates lining up for toilet paper. Oh how I wish I had been lucky enough to have been born in a communist country. Ya ochen revnivii, Миборовский. Loomis 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh. A few things.

1. Nobody was killed in Tiananmen Square.
2. Those who were, were the real communists.

-- Миборовский 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It was rather like the entry into Fallujah in terms that the troops struggled to enter the capital. I guess you could call it a massacre, but plenty of soldiers got killed as I recall. I don't think there was machine-gunning en masse so much than lots of bayonet fighting and tank rolling. Also, there were "real communists" (those singing the Internationale), and then there were those who simply wanted to return to the old regime. Alas.

And, besides the fact that one is describing that oligarchial state, not communism. I'm pretty content with my place of birth, though. I wouldn't have it any other way (though I do dissent against LSL et al.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Christianity, we should model ourselves after Christ even though it's impossible to attain perfect righteousness on Earth. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Give to Caesar..." BTW, Christ never advocated communism. Merely, his disciples lived communally. -- Миборовский 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And organise what is ours. But communalism is rather a good choice anyway. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Family groups are family groups whether the relationships are based on DNA, adoption, platonic love, alcohol, crack, or even the same career, subway route or fashion style. The problem with Communism it that it hates Capitalism so much it rejects prosperity of its own while encouraging postal workers to open packages from somewhere else and to steal most, if not all, of the contents (Cuban postal operations). ...IMHO (Talk) 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the term is "platonic". ;-) A high amount of wealth isn't necessarily needed for a HDI or eudaimonia, but now this entire thing is degenerating into generalisations. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, you haven't been listening. Communism is that ideal state that is unattainable, as Миборовский puts it, not what those countries have that are called communist (but aren't). But he also states that Christ was no communist, which he was. Living in a commune is the only attainable form of communism because only if you all know each other will you be willing enough to sacrifice your own needs for those of others. Actually, the best example of communism is friendship. DirkvdM 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pengyou, camaraderie, etc. but living in a very extensive network of communes can work, too. In a city-states I think this is especially applicable....I'm thinking of environments like the HDB with their common void decks, markets and corridors...Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How is Christ a communist? Bear in mind there is a fundamental, indestructible, unbridgeable class difference between Christ and Christians. King of Kings? LORD? Hello? His disciples later lived communally. That's it. If you choose to emulate them, go ahead, it can't hurt you. But you can't call Christ a communist. -- Миборовский 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• All very complicated, but maybe this idea is worth considering, since self-interest is always a very potent force. Communism is (widely held to be) about redistributing capital (money and stuff). On this basis, you might expect that people with little stuff or money might think it was a good thing. Similarly, people with lots of stuff and money want to keep it, so they might think communism is a bad thing. Now, there are of course more people without stuff, than there are people with stuff. But, almost all the people who own newspapers, TV stations or politicians have lots of stuff. They can therefore try to use their power to say communism is Bad. In fact, the amount of energy put into saying communism is Bad suggests that some of the people (with stuff) thought there was a really good chance that other people (without stuff) would want communism, but that it was possible to influence them by putting out real facts, or lies (according to your opinion) about life under communism. Notinasnaid 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a great theory on paper but the facts are that the people who have a lot know that the way to keep a lot is to appease the people that don't have a lot with actions and material goods and not (just) words. Even though it might be through taxes and welfare the haves even in this country pay the bills of the have nots. There are exceptions and accidents and other problems but for the great majority of cases in this country the haves provide a far greater portion of what thay can have than is provided to the poor Communists by the wealthy Communist. ...IMHO (Talk) 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what country you are talking about (you don't say, so it's probably the US), but the poorest people on Earth are to be found in non-socialist contries. More specifically the most die-hard capitalist countries. True, in Socialist States the Communist party doesn't provide the poor with as much as it does for even the unemployed in the Netherlands (and possibly even the US), but that's simply because those Socialist States are not as rich. And before you turn the causality upside down, if they're poor that's because that's what they were to start with. Which was the reason for the revolution. After that, the 'poor' fared a whole lot better than they did under the Tsars or Batista. Before the revolution, Russia was only just escaping from the middle ages. Half a millennium too late! DirkvdM 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a given that whoever is in power will have the opportunity and the means to do better that whoever is not. Some people are happier being poor so they would revolt just to stay poor just like the rich would revolt to stay rich. The great thing about America is that it embraces a form of government that allows opposites to exist almost side by side and instead of killing each other rely upon the other to help maintain a balance so that both can continue to live. Anti-totalitarianism is the thing. Whereas Communists don't have a clue about compromise and believe totally in the totalitarian state. China, however, is showing some of its anchient wisdom in the phrase "One country, two systems." We may yet have a world filled with opposites and yet that offers prosperity for all. ...IMHO (Talk) 21:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but I think you are part of those who have misdefined communism. For us, the true form of communism is anarchist communism, and all other forms must be rejected. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has clearly taken a turn for the absurd. Sure, the communist "ideal" may be kinda nice, despite the fact that each and every country that has given communism a shot has deteriorated into a totalitarian hellhole. There are indeed "true" communist communes, such as the kibbutzim in Israel, for those who are attracted to that lifestyle. They join voluntarily, and are free to leave any time they wish.

Still, I'd find it kind of dull to live in any kind of "communist utopia" whether attainable or not. Humans are meant to compete with one another, it's what makes life worth living. Imagine showing up to play a game of football, and finding that rather than play the game, both sides have apparently agreed that it would be in the greatest good for everyone to simply declare the game a tie, shake hands and go home. What a dissappointment that would be.

That's not to say that the less fortunate should not be guaranteed a comfortable life. From my perspective, the fairest, the most humane, but at the same time the most invigorating and the most human society to live in would be one where all are guaranteed a comfortable life, yet those who strive for more are given the opportunity to satisfy their basic human impulses to compete, to better oneself, to strive for personal achievement. It would seem that social democracy, not communism would provide that perfect "utopia". To be quite blunt, to live in a "communist utopia" would, surprising as it may sound, be duller than death itself. Loomis 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The football analogy is a logical fallacy. Rather, it is like instead of infighting among a team, it is like pursuing an adventure as a united group, rathe than have mutual strife. Mutual cooperation is more effectie than mutual strife. The other thing is that you are asuming a country must form. Sovereignty and international recognition is superfluous (except for popular sovereignty). As for being dull, you are describing Brave New World more than you are describing communism - for example take the free software movement, which espouses copyleft cooperation, rather than competition and copyright. I really bet that's a "duller career than death".

And, not every country which has pursued it has degenerated on its own accord: there was the Paris Commune, anarchist Catalonia, the egalitarian armies...(ie. that of which is described in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that the football analogy is a logical fallacy, yet you don't identify which logical fallacy you're refering to. A logical fallacy is not a simple vague term for something that you "instinctively sense" is illogical, rather, each logical fallacy is refered to by name, such as the "ad hominem" logical fallacy, the "begging the question" logical fallacy or the "straw man" logical fallacy. But then again, communists have never been accused of being overly dedicated to logic, so I'll leave it at that.

In any case, correct me if I'm wrong, but for a football game to occur, there must be two "competing" teams. That's what makes it so much fun. That's what put's the "life" into the game. I'm not sure what you're suggesting. If you're suggesting that each team member cooperate towards the common goal of defeating the "other" team, then you don't seem to be suggesting any sort of communism I've ever heard of. Rather, this "cooperation", it would seem to me, would be more aptly described as nationalism, rather than any form of communism.

On the other hand, if you're suggesting that "both" teams join forces and cooperate mutually for the common good, well, I'm afraid we're back to where we started. The game would be called off, and the members of both teams would join together and go see a good ballet. Not that I want to put down ballet, it has its place for those who enjoy it, but it clearly doesn't satisfy the basic human need to compete, to constantly better oneself, to dare to reach for objects beyond one's grasp, to self-actualize, to evolve as human beings, and ultimately, to constantly improve the human condition. Communism, even in its most benevolent possible form offers none of that. It offers stagnation. It offers complacency. It's devoid of all the invigoration and excitement that life has to offer. Once again, it's duller than death itself. Loomis 21:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fallacious by wrong association. For a football game to occur, it sets an objective, and to do the objective the best way possible. Life is not about competing against each other - because the objective is not to destroy each other, unless you are in a state of war. Rather, there are a whole host of objectives - to build, to construct, etc. which poses a difficulty in itself without mutual strife. Even a game in itself is based on harmonious consequences. Communism rejects nationalism, and you totally misinterpreted me - the point is that all of humanity is in one team - and the universe on the other. You are totally miscorrelating the game to an economy. It's also rather arrogant to assume people's interests...;-) To reach for objects beyond one's grasp? The universe poses that. Soccer is fun because tests each other, but it is a set competition, as opposed to an economy. A society cannot be compared to a soccer game. Within a society there might be a competition to see who can complete the most ambitious things - but still freely cooperate with each other to bring each other up. To constantly improve the human condition is communism, because in a gift economy each advancement is bestowed upon the other.

To say that it offers stagnation would follow the logic that you might as well not have familial or friendship relations because your family offer you complacency and you might as well start demanding payment whenever you do anything for them and to pay them whenever they do anything for you. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're making a whole bunch of baseless assumptions about familial relations etc...However, rather than argue the issue point-for-point, as that seems to be going nowehere, (as I'm sure you'd agree :)) let me ask you one simple question: Do I have the basic human right to prefer to live in a social democratic society rather than a communist one? I would assume that you believe in the basic right to human self-determination and agree that I have that basic human right. Therefore, let me take this opportunity to wish you the best of luck in finding that society that suits you perfectly, while I'll continue on my way living in the social democratic society that I live in. I assume that's your position, as it's the only position possible for one that believes in the basic human right to self-determination.

However, in the unlikely scenario that you believe that I don't have the right to prefer social democracy, what in hell's name gives you the right to tell me that I don't know and have no right to determine what's best for myself? I suppose then that you'd say that I really don't know what's best for myself; or that my decision is an offence against "the people", and I should be punished for my dissent. I sincerely hope (and I actually believe) that that's not your position, as that would put put you in very undesireable company. Loomis 00:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it absurd that you would think I am the latter. Most people, even when excluding the PRC, don't live in a social democracy btw, more like an plutocratic oligarchy. ;-) One doesn't force people to join the society, we just shower them with propaganda (propaganda isn't bad by itself, as long as everyone has the equal capability to spread their own views as equally as others, unlike a plutocracy). I'd say you were mistaken, and you can have the right to prefer what you choose, but that also means we have the right to keep disseminating information about it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, anti-communists need better online presence or we'll lose every debate/argument/demagoguery. Puffing up like a puffer fish and invoking Hell ain't the way to win an argument. -- Миборовский 10:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad we seem to agree on one thing, Elle. Now I don't see what your problem is. I don't know what country you're from, but if it prohibits communist parties from running in elections then it has no right calling itself a democracy. I know that when I enter the ballot booth, there are not one, but several communist candidates to choose from. We simply choose others. As for your comment, Mibrovsky, I'm not looking to win this argument. Communists have every right to hold their views. My argument is that so do I. As for my style of argumentation, my use of the term "hell" seems to have been fruitful, as it cleared up a miscommunication between myself and Elle. What I truly have trouble with is your complete lack of communication. You're an anti-communist?? Could have fooled me! Loomis 11:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose this discussion be moved to Talk:Communism. ...IMHO (Talk) 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that would clog up the discussion page, which is for resolving issues for the article itself. Besides, that's what RD is for. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sephira (goddess)

When you type 'Sephira' into the search bar one of the results is a sentence stating that Sephira was a Spanish goddess of intelligence and creativity. However, there is no entry with further information on this site, nor can I find any mention of this goddess or pantheon anywhere else... so my question is, where did this information come from? Yes, this is important to me.

--Elara

Sephira is a Hebrew term meaning to count or number. Try Sefirot, Sephiroth, Sefira, etc. Most of these refer to enumeration (such as the parts of the Trinity in Christian faith) that constitute the whole meaning of God (when taken together) in a particular context. ...IMHO (Talk) 09:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. On the page for the Tales of Symphonia anime, it says that "Many legends and works inspire the game’s story... Even obscure characters such as Sephira of Spanish mythology make brief appearances." This led me to here, where it describes "Sephira: Sephira was the Spanish Goddess of intelligence and creativity. Also, in Hebrew Sephira is an alternate spelling for Sephirah or Sefira, one of the ten Sephirot, or mystical “Divine Emanations” in the Kabbalah of Judaism." Hmmm. A Google search turned up mostly mirrors of Wikipedia, and surprisingly, back to Wikipedia, to an unusual place; List of montes on Venus, which lists Sephira Mons as coming from "the Spanish Goddess of intelligence and creativity." This appears to have been taken from here, but i can't get any further. Sorry. Hope this can help someone go further in tracking the mystery of this unsourced statement. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 16:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sophia =wisdom and is seen as feminine,particularly I think in the Greek Orthodox religion,hotclaws**==(217.39.10.51 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

  I don't know why the discussion jumped from Sephira to Sophia, but the "Holy Wisdom of God" is generally seen to refer to Jesus Christ, from 1 Cor. 24: but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Jesus is generally not seen as feminine, also not in the Greek Orthodox Churches. --Lambiam^Talk 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as computer games adopt themes and characters from virtually anywhere I am not surprised there might be multiple references (and apparent competing sources) for the true meaning of the word Sephira or even some created intentionally for the express purpose of desecrating the original meaning. A historical document check is the only way I see of resolving this apparent inconsistency ...IMHO (Talk) 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

JERMAINE DUPRI

CAN I HAVE A LIST OF ALL THE SONGS THAT JERMAINE DUPRI HAS PRODUCED TO DATE???

Only if you promise to stop SHOUTING at us. JackofOz 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please don't type in ALL CAPS. But concerning your question, you can usually just type in the name of the said artist and there is usually a section that contains a list of their works. schyler 12:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry< my caps key is stuck and i didn"t know i can use the shift key to make lowercase letters> can i have the list< please?

Click the links in my earlier post. schyler 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for "shouting" that is just how i write but the thing is the list given on the list of works is not precise.JD has produced a lot more songs than the ones mentioned. Have a look at Kanye West's page for example. It has a list of all the songs he has ever produced but unfortunately it is not the same for JD who has produced loads more than Mr West.

The Producted By Database is a good place to start. Also try searching google for "Jermaine Dupri Production Resume" or something like that. Also this page is a listing of album credits if you wanted to manually check to see what else he's produced.--69.171.123.148 06:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Duke Magnus II of Sachsen -Lauenburg and wife Princess Sofia (Gustavsdotter) Vasa

I would like to know any information on Duke Magnus II of Sachsen-Lauenburg (1543-1603) . I would also like to know if there are any pictures of him? He was married to Princess Sofia Gustavsdotter (Vasa) ( daughter to King Gustav Vasa I (KIng of Sweden) and Margareta -second wife of King Gustav Vasa.

They had a son Gustaf af Sachsen - Lauenburg born 1570 and died 1597. He had a wife Anna Knutsdotter Lilllie and they had a son Gustav Gustafsson Rutenkrantz (1590-)

What confuses me is that in some places Duke Magnus is listed as Magnus II and others Magnus III . Now , was Princess Sofia married to a Magnus II of Sachsen - Lauenburg or Magnus III of Sachsen- Lauenburg?

All we seem to have on Wikipedia is Magnus I, Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg (who died in 1543), and the list on Duchy of Lauenburg, which has only this one Magnus. But perhaps that might be somewhere to start. Adam Bishop 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've seen makes them Magnus I and Magnus II. It would come as no surprise, though, that someone, somewhere, had developed an alternative numbering system, (thoiugh it is hard to imagine who might be the third Magnus—perhaps someone was enumerating the Dukes of Saxony, rather than the Dukes of Saxe-Lauenburg—all of the latter are the former, but the reverse is of course not true, so the enumerations wouldn't match—this is most likely what you are seeing). Genealogical data (but no picture) can be found here. You're safe saying Sofie of Sweden was married to Magnus II of Saxe-Lauenburg. - Nunh-huh 06:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris

I have been trying for several weeks, to find a recording of the soundtrack from Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris - and whilst I am able to find very many copies of this they sound nothing like the copy I grew up listening to.

The LP I remember listening to in the late 70's early 80's was comprised of the songs predominatly featured in this musical but with one difference - they were performed by a woman with a deep, sensuous jazz club voice - deep, husky, laid back - you know the sound I am talking about!! For some reason I have the name Edith Piaff in my head and can't help thinking that the title was something like - "Edith Piaff Sings Jaques Brel is Alive and Well.. etc". I was just a kid at the time so my recollection is poor to say the least, none of my family have been able to assist, the LP is of course lost forever....

Please guys and gals - any assistance would be great!! And any suggestions of where else to look would also be appreciated.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my email. Best regards Mithril

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacques_Brel"

(duplication of question removed)

According to our articles, Edith Piaf died in 1963, whereas the Jacques Brel entry indicates that JB Is Alive ... did not premiere until 1968, so it seems unlikely that she could have performed the musical. The Edith Piaf entry at The All Music Guide shows many songwriters under "Performed Songs By", however Jacques Brel is not one of them. If you further search the AMG for any albums entitled "Jacque Brel Is Alive ..." (sorry, that's just too much to type), you will find dozens, including mention of the first original cast recording from 1968, under which it states "[...]the reedy-voiced Elly Stone, who recalled Edith Piaf." Unfortunately, this album appears to be out of print. You might want to search at used record stores, on the 'net or in the real world. -- LarryMac 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not out of print. Here's the Amazon link. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

salary

can anyone tell me what is the average income of a voice actor? some sources say $2000 for 8 commericals and others just say things like not a whole lot.

Salaries for VAs vary depending on the product being produced. During a seminar I attended a while back with an industry professional, for animation work the rate can run from upwards of $300 per half-hour episode of a new series, down to half that roughly for doing a dub. Having said that, it appears I need to move to LA, judging from this article which states the salary for union members has a base of about $600 an hour. Tony Fox (speak) 16:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Regional Symbols

I asked this a few days ago and got referred to FotW, but that didn't go anywhere so I'm asking again. If you know any visual symbols for a Chinese province, autonomous entity, city, large region (the West, the South, Manchuria, etc.), ethnic, cultural, or linguistic group, or any other sort of inter- or subprovinical cultural area, I'd like to know. I'm especially interested in traditional or at least pre-PRC things. Any sort of symbol, like a flag, crest, particular plant or animal, or even just a color or colors, is fine. -- 207.255.69.226 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I answer this a few days ago? They don't have any. -- Миборовский 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Marchese Dias Torqas, Viceroy of Naples

We have inherited from grandparents in Norway a painting of Marchese Dias Torqas (Torgas?), Viceroy of Naples. I would love to know who he is but cannot find him in Wikipedia or in any lists of Viceroys of Naples I have come across. Can anyone help?

Perhaps you should try using the title Margravio instead of Marchese. Russian F 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Antonio Álvarez Osorio, viceroy from 1672-1675, was the Marqués de Astorga, which in Italian would be Marchese di Astorga. You are probably misreading di Astorga as Dias Torgas. --Cam 20:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this look like the guy in your painting? --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the description, that painting's inscribed with the year 1775; that must be a later marques. --Cam 20:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On this page in Spanish we find a reference (in Italian) to one "Antonio Pietro Alvarez Osorio Gomez Davila e Toledo, marchese di Astorga di Velada", apparently ambassador in Rome in early 1671, who is undoubtedly the same person. On this page in Spanish we can read that he only became marquis after a succession problem with four contenders, the previous marquis having died in 1659 without a male descendant. Our friend then apparently was already Marquis of San Román. We also find that he died in 1689 without descendants. Further (somewhat undigested) genealogical information is in this Word document: [10]. --Lambiam^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Really grateful for the above - thanks very much Lambian. The reason why we were confused was that - at the top left hand corner of the painting - the marquis name is inscribed exactly as follows:

Marchese Dias Torgas Vicere di Napoli

so the painter has split Astorga into two words and added an "s". May indicate the painter wasn't Italian? It would be interesting to know why the painting ended up in Norway - and who painted it. -¨¨¨

State Schools

Which article tells me when the state started providing schools? --Username132 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which state? Emmett5 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

History of Education in the United States.Patchouli 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe Education in India. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Education in Rwanda anyone? --Downunda 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Education in the Netherlands. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Public education, Sparta was the first to provide education as a government service. --WhiteDragon 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sirhan Sirhan's Parole Hearings

Good evening everyone: I have a question that might seem a little macabre, but, nevertheless it is very serious. I am doing a very detailed report about Sirhan Sirhan and would like to view his parole hearings if at possible. However, I don't know if they are made available to the public. My question is, "Does anyone know where I can either buy or borrow them?" I've checked at the local libraries in my area and none seem to have them. I suppose I could always contact the California Department of Corrections . . . As always, any and all information is greatly appreciated :-) --Cross31 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, don't know how neutral that article is; anyone reading it is left with the impression that Sirhan Sirhan most likely did not commit the assassination. As for reading the transcript of his parole hearings, your best bet is probably to contact the parole board. You might also try asking a reference librarian at the library of a law school in California. --Mathew5000 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

U.S. House to Presidency

Has there been a United States president who has gone straight from the House of Representatives to the White House?Patchouli 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not in the past 50 years...beyond that I'd have to do some research. Loomis 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any; the closest looks like James K. Polk, who was five years out of the House when elected. —Zero Gravitas 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

However, one President went from President to the House of Representatives - John Quincy Adams. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln. Though at the time of his presidential campaign, he wasn't an elected member of Congress or any other legislature, he did serve one term in the US House of Representatives in the late 1840s. --Revolución hablar ver 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry Clay tried in 1824 but lost (sort of) to John Quincy Adams -- Mwalcoff 03:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis adoption story

Did Jefferson Davis really adopt a black son? Seems contradictory, for someone so racist and the President of the Confederacy, a regime based upon the continuance of the forced slavery of all blacks in the South, would adopt a child of a skin color he hated...yet the story persists, both in this article and here --Revolución hablar ver 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! It's not at all good practice to assume that Jefferson Davis disliked, much less hated, black people. The issues were tremendously complex, and Davis himself was split on the matter. He certainly didn't think that he was fighting to preserve slavery, although that was an issue, and people don't cease to change the moment their time in the historical spotlight ends. He could well have changed his mind entirely, and it's never a particularly safe thing to equate the causes with the leaders of the causes. That said, I don't know if he did adopt a black son, and I do find it unlikely, although he was a devoted father who was heartbroken when his own son died in childhood. According to reports, that caused him far more grief than the loss of the war. Geogre 02:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... about the best thing I could find is this (google "Jim Limber") for more. There are few references online for this story, and almost all are decidely pro-Davis. The account may have some basis in truth, but it would be an exxageration I think to say he was adopted. Apparently there's a portrait of "Jim Limber" at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia (though I would be very surprised if this wasn't an "imagined" modern-day pinting). I guess they would be a good place to e-mail for more info. Oh, and someone posted this photograph to a genealogy messageboard.--Pharos 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to be pro-Davis than to be pro-Confederacy, I'd say, as he was never a "fire breather" or one of the ones chomping at the bit for slavery's preservation. There were surprising people who wanted to get rid of slavery, but "not now." (Stonewall Jackson, for example, believed that slavery was going away...but not now.) There was on general reprimanded for sending a letter to Richmond advocating the immediate freeing of the slaves and their arming. However, the nasty racists who attach themselves to this element of history make it hard to research cleanly or present honestly. Geogre 13:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a compelling idea. Everyone likes the redemption angle. Robert E. Lee was another one who is popularly held to have opposed slavery. But it would be silly to say any Confederate placed any great priority on the emancipation of slaves, let alone took practical steps to this end. If any major figure had done so, he would have been branded an abolitionist traitor and estranged from the Confederate leadership. Certainly there were Confederates who didn't mind the idea of eventually freeing the slaves, but it's difficult to say whether this was an earnest and deeply held belief, or a fiction projected onto Confederate heroes to make them more palatable. As for Jefferson Davis, he was certainly unusual in his attitude to slaves. He was without a doubt a racist, in the sense that he considered blacks inherently inferior. He also considered slavery a benefit to them, which makes me doubt that he would have had any sympathy for abolition. He did own more than a hundred slaves. Among other slave owners, he was ridiculed for being too lenient. According to some sources, Jim Limber was an abused black child adopted by the Davis family in 1863 who lived at the Confederate White House. Several Internet sources say that he was "forcibly removed by Union soldiers and never seen again", possibly bundled off to DC, which sounds to me like utter bullshit and makes me doubt the veracity of the entire story. All information about Jim Limber states that he disappeared after 1865. Naturally, he must have been dragged kicking and screaming from massa's house. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico's status in the UN

What status does Puerto Rico have in the United Nations? --Revolución hablar ver 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See the section "Puerto Rico's political status and international law" in the article Puerto Rico, where this is explained in some detail. --Canley 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

June 29

Political compass questionaire

Anyone brave enough to send letters or faxes or emails to all of the politicians asking what their answers to the questions reveal their true political profile to be? ...IMHO (Talk) 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would politicians answer it (assuming they don't had done the test allready)? And even if they did answer it, don't you think that they would lie? Flamarande 09:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us what you think about politicians, Flamarande. And then, I'd be interested in knowing why you're interested in politics. JackofOz 10:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I'm a politician, and I just took this questionnaire. The questions are loaded. Define "rich"--eg. the rich are being taxed too highly. I am 'rich' in the sense that I make say twice as much money as the average bear, and I am taxed quite highly in Canada for it. "Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism": yes, I agree. What the question doesn't grasp is that I also think this is necessary in a time of trouble. When things relax, liberties can relax again. "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system"--gaaahh??! Of course, one could agree with the theory of this. Yes, totalitarian states have always been better equipped to turn on a dime and head off in a new policy direction; so in this sense, I must say I 'agree' with the statement or be caught in a falsehood. However, I strongly disagree that this is a good idea, so I actually have to answer the question 'incorrectly' and respond to its intent. Incidentally, I came out as: Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62 which surprised me as I'm a Conservative.--Shandon 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here, apparently, according to the test, I'm a leftist! Loomis 19:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's American, so a Canadian conservative would probably be a hippie freak commie in the US. :-( (I came out -8.5/-4.5, so I'm a Gandhi.) Geogre 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

All in all, I must say this questionnaire really doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't, in my opinion, have any reasonable basis for it's "0,0".--Shandon 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As I was saying, above, these things are worth what you pay for them. If a person really wants to know whether she is a Democrat or Republican in the US, the best idea would be to go to their respective websites and look for their legislative and judicial positions. Being a Democrat or Republican really shouldn't be like being gay or straight, much less like being Russian or Chinese: one ought to be a fully developed human being who changes her mind from time to time, is capable of voting for persons who agree with her goals, and yet not put on some silly tag that says, "I'm sorry, but I am a Republican, and I shall be a Republican because of the tattoo." Geogre 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The methodology behind the analysis of such questions is neural networking as in the game of twenty questions analysis. The idea is to use the results as a basis for comparison with others. I agree that the method is not fool proof (as you can easily see by going to the above web site) but it can be made more sophisticated and improved to the point of almost infallibility. Most companies such as sports authority and blockbuster and wal-mart, etc. now use the same method on an everyday basis to screen applicants. ...IMHO (Talk) 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a methodology which can give very rough answers to very specific question. The problem I have always had with the political compass is that it is clearly set up in order to favor a "libertarian" approach—everything is in the terms of freedom versus control, rather than the terms that people who believe in other political systems would actually self-describe as. As such you end up with a scale which is predetermined to emphasize certain similarities while ignoring key differences. Which is fine -- if you are trying to convert people to the benefits of one political philosophy. If you are trying to actually understand what sort of political opinions people hold, it is not that useful. --Fastfission 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm almost completely neutral on the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale. What does that mean, I'm not sure. My political compass:

Economic Left/Right: -2.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.05

--WhiteDragon 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Hello, can you say me, when the qualification for this tournament (Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics) start, and can you give me a list with all games of the preliminaries? Thank you and greets from Germany 84.186.90.23 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the region. The FIFA Executive Committee, allocates a certain number of teams per confederation and then each region sets up the qualifiers separately. This year the distribution of teams is:

- Men's tournament: AFC (4, including the host nation), CAF (3), CONCACAF (2), CONMEBOL (2), OFC (1), UEFA (4)

- Women's tournament: AFC (3, including the host nation), CAF (1.5 - one direct qualifier and one team to play-off against representatives of CONMEBOL), CONCACAF (2), CONMEBOL (1.5 - one direct qualifier and one team to play-off against representatives of CAF), OFC (1), UEFA (3)

(see press release here: [11])

Most confederations organize a special U-23 competition, but UEFA uses the finalists of the UEFA Under-21 Championship. Obviously the dates of the preliminaries will be different for each region. Germany would be playing in the UEFA conference and thus I would look at the official website [12] for the U-21 Championship. It seems that the CAF qualifiers are starting this fall [13] but none of the other confederations have listed anything about the 2008 Olympics on their sites. Crito2161 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do nomads get their food?

Hello, I really enjoy your site! I have been pondering this question, what do you call people who eat only meat? Secondly, where do nomads get their food? Do they kill off a lamb once in a while, and where do they get their veggies? If they only eat meat, would they not die of meat-poisoning? And do they carry chicken with them for the eggs? Thank you in advance!--Kaasje 09:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Present-day nomads may get their food from Wal-Mart. Nomads from hunter-gatherer societies got their food by hunting and gathering. --Lambiam^Talk 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you only eat meat, I guess you'd be a carnivore. Or a meatatarian. You would die, eventually, of some kind of vitamin deficiency, though; perhaps scurvy, or rickets. It's basically an Atkins diet, without the celery and egg whites (ie, eventually fatal). Proto///type 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Even moderate amounts of (raw) animal liver such as calf liver and fish liver will be sufficient supplies of vitamins A, B, C and D. Heating will destroy much of the vitamin C. Vitamin E is more problematic for meatonliers, but if you eat 1 kilogram of meat a day you will get more than enough to avoid a deficiency. --Lambiam^Talk 12:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm, raw fish liver.  ;) Proto///type 13:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly they would kill off a sheep - that's half the reason for having them. Or goat or horse or cow or reindeer, according to their lifestyle. Killing off a lamb would be less common as, while the meat is more tender, immature sheep yield less meat. Most nomads would not/do not keep chickens - although they might gather wild bird's eggs. Except for the Polynesians, who brought pigs, dogs, and chickens from island to island but weren't exactly nomads, I can't think of any nomads with chickens. Perhaps some nomads had ducks or geese? Rmhermen 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(I wonder if people who get their food from windows in little boxes on the road are nomads?) Geogre 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)*

Many pure meat-eaters eat partly digested stomach contents of animals for the vegetable contents.---hotclaws**==(217.39.10.51 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Yet another good reason be an omnivore. DJ Clayworth 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Do historic nomads not also devote some resources to sedantary agriculture in some cases as well?--Amanaplanacanalpanama 07:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Some, more often they'll trade some livestock or livestock products like milk, butter, and meat for grains with nearby sedentary agrarians. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 03:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

World poulation if no wars/disease

Hi

I wonder if anyone could give an estimated guess (I reliase it's a question riddled with variables) as to what the population of the world might be had there not been any wars, majoy diseases, catastrophes etc?

Thanks

Joe

Consider populations of wild animals: typically, the population is limited by disease, starvation or predators. (Natural disaster is so rare to generally exclude). There isn't really anything else: talking of ideas like "limited by territory" really means the animal breeds more, but disease, starvation or predators kill every animal in some areas. In humans it is the same, except that we've removed the predators, and we sometimes kill each other (in effect, we are the replacement predators). So if we removed all other limits on our fecundity you can be sure that starvation (or inward predation) would have done its bit to limit the population, but perhaps not before we had so overworked the land we could no longer sustain ourselves at all. Of course in the enlightened modern age, humanity is fundamentally different. Notinasnaid 11:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

At a guess, not much different than currently. Consider that World War II was the most recent war to affect the population on a global scale (the estimated 30ish million deaths were around 1% of the total population). That's a crazy huge number, and I don't want to denigrate it, but given that the question is "riddled with variables", you're not going to be realistically estimating to within 1% of a value, so you can basically ignore this. Also consider that, at least in the US, the end of WWII sparked the baby boom, a population jump that might not have occurred without the societal pressures of the war. (For what it's worth, the 1918 influenza epidemic killed around 3% of the world's population; however, this was probably less biased towards killing the breeding portion of the population)

The other major point that I see, which you've not indicated, is the starvation bit mentioned above. It becomes increasingly difficult to estimate how much more pressure the food supply (and so forth) could have sustained. Suddenly add 100 million to the population in 1919, and could then-current technology have not only fed (and so forth) them, but also allowed for a comparable population growth rate? Beats me. — Lomn | Talk 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Spanish influenza was noted for killing young healthy victims while WWII was so large that large numbers of "overage" men fought so the "[bias] towards killing the breeding portion of the population" may be less than you expect. Rmhermen 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Malthus (or Thomas Malthus) for the Malthusian hypothesis. However, Germs, Guns, and Steel argues, along with a number of other recent works, that there is just no way that we avoid disease when population pressures grow, as, if nothing else, population density makes us move, and moving puts us in the realm of new pathogens. Geogre 13:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Limits to Growth model is a more realistic statement of what Malthus was getting at; however, the (beautifully simple) arguments against Malthus and LtG put forward by Ester Boserup are very persuasive indeed. --Dweller 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a Malthusian, but I find him historically compelling. That his question, which is all he really began with, has perturbed thinkers for centuries is, I think, really quite interesting. Very few theories from that era have remained viable without significant modification, but Malthus simply pointed to a very fundamental discrepancy between food and population. I think that sort of puts him up there with Zeno. I don't think Zeno is right and that there is no motion, but he continues to cause one's mind to go all fuzzy for a while, and that's valuable. (That said, I also think that the progressive and technological theories about solving population are inherently fallacious. You cannot put a potentiality in the bank, in my opinion, and that's why any "the market will solve" or "technology will enable" or "outer space will be settled" or "Gaia will make room" argument, for me, is simply illogical. The future may solve things, and it may not, but arguing inductively about anything as multicausal as population pressure just strikes me as much more religious than empirical. (And now I'm going to read that article on Boserup).) Geogre 14:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the strongest argument against Malthus and evidence of Boserup is that increase in food production has become exponential too. And we're not even trying that hard. (See European Food Mountain!)

When the supervolcano that created Lake Toba erupted some 70.000 years ago, mankind almost became extinct. Only a few thousand survived. I suppose that was the biggest blow we ever got, so had that not happened ... who knows? Impossible to speculate. We might have been quite a different animal, so it might have increased our fecundity, or decreased it. Given that this big one had results we can't say much about (I suppose), all the other speculations are pointless. Sorry, guys. :) DirkvdM 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Difference between terms

Hi all. Hope you are well. What, if anything, is the difference between a legal requirement, and a statutory requirement? I'm having issues finding this. Thanks. Proto///type 11:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In most context these are synonyms. A statute is often just another term used for a law. However, the word can also be used for a (formal, written) rule of a corporation or other organization, and requirements of that kind of statute are not in general requirements of law. --Lambiam^Talk 11:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. A "legal requirement" could mean a number of different things, including "we are doing this because our lawyers told us to and we don't really know why". A statute is generally a law passed by the legislature. Often there are various types of secondary legislation made under the authority of a statute. To take one example in Canada, there is the Marine Transportation Security Act (a statute) and the Marine Transportation Security Regulations (secondary legislation). The Regulations are more detailed, and they are made by the Governor in Council pursuant to section 51 of the statute. If you are required to do something by a provision of the Act, you could call that a statutory requirement. But if you are required to do something by a provision of the Regulations, you wouldn't call it a statutory requirement but you might well call it a legal requirement. However "legal requirement" might refer to a host of other things as well, for example a requirement under a contract. The term is often used to mean something that is "legally prudent" although not technically required. I don't agree with the person who said that these terms are in most contexts synonyms. --Mathew5000 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I'd put it is that a "statutory requirement" is a subset of the broader notion of a "legal requirement". In other words, all statutory requirements (as long as they're constitutionally valid!) are legal requirements, but not all legal requirements are statutory requirements. Mathew came up with one example of a legal requirement that isn't a statutory requirement, that being "administrative law" also known as "regulatory law". But I don't think that's the best example, as administrative law still depends on an "enabling statute" to be valid as administrative law. In other words, if a statute called the "xyz Law" was passed by the legislature, within that statute there must be some section that says something to the effect of "an xyz commission will hereby be established, with the power to pass regulations concerning the xyz law". At that point, the "xyz commission" would be passing what's called "administrative law". But there are two better examples of legal requirements that are not statutory requirements. One is a constitutional requirement, for example the US Constitutional requirement that "There shall be an election for President of the United States every four years" or similarly, the Canadian Constitutional requirement that "a general election must be held at least every five years", and the other would be an "unwritten" common law requirement, such as the basic "tort" requirement: "one must compensate another for damages caused by him/her due to any act of negligence". Loomis 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Book publishing

I'm curious as to what the numbers shown on the publishing history page of most books signify. I assume they are something to do with the stile of print, but I'm not sure. I can't look it up on Wikipedis because I don't even know the proper name of these numbers ! Two examples I have recently seen are: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and 1 3 5 7 9 2 4 6 8 10.

RASAM 12:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

These numbers indicate which reprint the book is part of, and arranging them like this enables the publisher or printer to indicate this with the minimum amount of work, i.e. they simply delete one digit for each print run. When copy is centred, reprints can be indicated by a centred line of alternating figures; each digit stands for the number of the reprint. One figure is deleted with each subsequent printing so that the smallest remaining digit marks the reprint number. When copy is full left, figures are in descending order. --Shantavira 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's particularly easy when you store the film images used to create printing plates. (These tend to be stored rather than plates). You can just use masking tape to cover another number, before making a new printing plate. With direct systems that go from computer to printing plate without any film, the technique is lost, and so the style is likely to vanish over time. Notinasnaid 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard it referred to as the impression number. If there are two sets of digits, then the year of printing is indicated as well. The first set of digits, read right to left, indicates the year; the second set, read left to right, indicates the impression number. The following example represents a fourth printing in 1998

06 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 4 5 6 7 8 —Wayward ^Talk 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

smoking

I would like to have an articles about the effect of smoking

• And you do. See Tobacco smoking. Notinasnaid 12:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

AMI Musicale

Hello, My husband was given an AMI jukebox without the box. It contains sixty 45's, plays continuously until one side of all records have been played, then automatically reverses and plays the other side of all the records. We were told that it came out of a hotel or casino in Las Vegas and was placed in a closet where it played and piped the music throughout (probably just the lobby area). This piece is called AMI Musicale, and we can't find any information on it as to either confirm or deny its usage or origin. If you can help us, we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you so much, Paula Knight Arcadia, Florida

This page lists several models of jukeboxes that were produced by AMI (Automatic Musical Instruments company). Scroll down for the list of models that play 45s. I don't see a "Musicale" listed, but there are many photographs, perhaps you can find your machine that way. --LarryMac 13:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Baby boy's name

My child is due in December. Over the past five years or so, my wife and I decided that we really like the name Adaline Marie (though Adaline Love was a close second). However, we found out on Monday that we are having a boy. So, we've spent the last few days pouring over lists of baby names. It appears that we simply don't like boy's names. If you were having a son right now, what name would you choose? If you feel it important, our last name is Wagner, but we have no German. I'm adopted (half Blackfoot/half English) and my wife is Italian - which is why she's against anything that can be shortened to Vinny or Nick or the like. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you've considered Kurt (Kurt_wagner) already, but Why not just masculinize the name you already selected, something like Adrian Marcus? Fine Arts 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Or William or Walter. I rather like alliteration. Seahen 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Josef, Yuri, Sergei, Boris, Vladimer, Dmitry. Russian F 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Johannes is nice and baroque, but it's too "John" for my taste. Know what concept you like (joy, chance, love, amity, honesty, strength), and then look for translations into languages that work -- Hebrew, obviously, but also Latin, Greek, etc. You'll find that many will already be names. (Sigurd for victorious!) Geogre 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

You could pop onto any one of many, many baby naming sites (like this one, which seems pretty good from a quick browse) and see what happens. Here's a page that gives trends in one Canadian province that's pretty multicultural, so might be interesting. I personally kind of like different names from the norm. Creativity is good! (Not too creative, though, or your kid will have therapy bills to deal with.) Tony Fox (speak) 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mib. -- Миборовский 18:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't pick Richard! Loomis 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well why not? We have at least two Richard Wagners in my community, and the name hasn't hurt them. One was a head social planner. Most people wouldn't even know about the composer.--24.80.70.174 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It would be paying too much respect to that utterly repugnant excuse for a composer to allow him to ruin a perfectly fine name like Richard Wagner. Loomis 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure it doesn't rhyme with a common "put-down." Like my first name is Jay and idiots at school say "Gay Jay," therefore I go by my middle name which is Schyler (pronounced Shyler) and no one can ever pronounce it right, which is a sacrifice I rather take than a put down. Other names can suck too, so put some thought in to that. BTW, what do you have against Wagner, Loomis?schyler 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Wagner the name, only Richard Wagner the composer. Have you read the article? I'm sure if you gave it a quick read you'd understand where I'm coming from. If not, just say so and I'll be glad to clarify my POV re Richard Wagner. Loomis 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But he'll unfortunately never escape "Fagner"!

I think thats a myth, if people want to take the mick, they will wether your name rhymes with an obvious put-down or not. Just because it forces them to be more imaginative, or just offensive, doesn't mean they'll stop. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything that's not on this list. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 23:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all suggestions. It seems like nothing sounds good. I wonder if my mother had this much trouble naming me... oh wait. I'm named after her two favorite soap opera characters from 1969. I only watch cartoons on Adult Swim. Peter Fry Wagner... hmm... --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be Peter Philip Wagner? ;-) Good News, Everybody, the possibilities are endless! How about Brian Zoidberg Wagner? Chris Kif Wagner? . . . --LarryMac 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My wife and I really like the name "Kai". TacoDeposit 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Being the possessor of an unusual name myself, I strongly advise you give a name which doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in whatever community you happen to live in. Kids are cruel, so why give the playground bullies unnecessary ammunition. The exception I'd give is if you use a name which can easily be shortened to something "run of the mill", but I see your other half doesn't like shortenings. --Dweller 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'd also avoid overly long names, alliterative names, famous names and names which are funny when used as an initial!

There have been lots of comments about avoiding names that have potential for being made fun of. I disagree, because if a child is not made fun of about their name, they will be made fun of for something else. Kids are cruel. However, if you have a name that has a personal meaning to you, you can share that story with your child that they will be proud of it. --WhiteDragon 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An "A" name would be nice, Allan, or Alex... Political Mind 00:55, May 12, 2024 (UTC).

Population of Akihabara?

What is the population of the town of Akihabara? What percentage of residents are male? What is the age distribution? Seahen 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Akihabara is not a town. It's a district in Tokyo. I don't think there are any residences in that district as it's a commercial district and the prices would probably be even worse than Tokyo proper. --ColourBurst 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Albert Francis Cross

I'm looking for more info on this author but there is hardly anything out there - can anyone suggest any sources?

Did you try the search box?Click this. schyler 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of pages I'm not too sure about...

I'm not sure if there's a better place to ask this, if there is, let me know and I'll move this there.

I just noticed two new pages (Senate Report 93-549 and Senate Document No. 43), which strike me as sounding alot like borderline conspiracy theory documents, one of which is unreferenced, the other referenced with questionable sources. Does anyone know if they are legit and should be cleaned up, or if they're actual hoaxes and should be deleted? Thanx. 68.39.174.238 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the article on Senate Report 93-549. There really is a report by that number. All in all, it was a 1973 special Senate committee's request for more time (and money) to determine if and how the state of emergency that existed in 1973. The article, as it was written, implied that the report was by the current sitting Congress in opposition of Bush's war on terror - which is not remotely true. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanx alot. 68.39.174.238 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hello people. I will be needing your help for the final time now. You guys have been great at helping me answer these Questions and now are the fianl 3 of 5 i`m stuck on.

http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=27eg2.jpg Which Geographical Landmark is this situated in America.

Cheers David

Much appreciated for your help through this quiz.

The model is for Vladimir Tatlin's Monument to the Third International, aka Tatlin's Tower. David Sneek 17:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And the statesman is George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, KG, GCSI, GCIE, PC. See Curzon Line. David Sneek 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers The American one is hard i`ve been through all the rock formations on wiki..

Could it be Independence Rock (Wyoming)? ( [14]) David Sneek 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate thats correct http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Independence+Rock - Cheers for all your help.

How to write/ petition the court to seal criminal record

Hi! I need a sample form for petitioning the court in seminole county florida

Have you tried contacting the Seminole County Court? --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Most atheist nations in the world?

I sometimes hear that my country, Belgium is one of the most atheist nations in the world. The dominant religion is Belgium is catholicism, but only three percent of the population still seems to be going to church on a weekly basis. Over the last five years, I have seen only one Belgian praying before having his meal, and he was actually a converted protestant. However most of these people were baptised though, and thus are on the church's list as members.

I am not talking about separation of church and state, I am talking about active believers

Is this true, or are there other nations that are even far more atheist? (Perhaps the Netherlands? Perhaps nations that have been communist or still are?) Thanks,

Evilbu 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

China officially, as if I remember correctly religion is illeagel. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Although the state has a hostile attitude towards religion and creates problems for its free exercise, religion has not been outlawed. See the article Religion in China.

As to Evilbu's question, you can not so easily equate not regularly going to church and being an atheist. Many non-churchgoers still consider themselves Church members, and among those who don't, many nevertheless believe in some kind of God. --Lambiam^Talk 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You also have to consider whether those who do not worship a deity are truly atheist, or just agnostic. Road Wizard 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The atheism article has a section on statistics that may answer your question. Road Wizard 23:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You remember incorrectly. -- Миборовский 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Philc _T^E_C^I 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• On a side note, I would like to say that being atheist is not necessarily evil in and of itself. I have seen many ethical atheists, and I have also seen many unscrupulous religious fanatics who use religion as a means to assume a holier-than-thou demeanor and to claim that they should never be suspected of any wrongdoing.Patchouli 23:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What on earth prompted that, talk about guilty conscience!! Shot in the dark but, are you from the american mid-west? Philc _T^E_C^I 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of course they are not evil! I myself believe in compassion towards all humans, and I don't believe in any god at all. Thanks for that link. What I essentially wanted to know is, in which countries are people spending the smallest amount of time. The question 'do you believe' is also a good indicator but still different, my own parents haven't gone to church in ten years except weddings and funerals, yet they persistently refuse to answer that question, and never critize their own catholic (forced) education. Evilbu 23:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The one country which actually outlawed all religion was Albania (not China). See also Society of the Godless. AnonMoos 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a hard atheist myself (as I'm sure many of you know by now), but I don't think that is a particularly common position. There is an increasing number of weak atheists and nontheists, who lack a belief in a deity but do not actively reject such a belief. There are many countries, such as Japan, where belief in a God-style deity is not part of the traditional religion, but belief in other supernatural things is common, albeit not as common as it once was. In Communist states such as the PRC, conventional religion is rigidly controlled because it represents a competing dogma. I say "conventional religion" because I consider Marxism-Leninism to be a religion in its own right: it demands adherence to a set creed (which may be changed only by a few guys in a position of power), adoration of past heroes, unquestioning support of the party line, and faith that obedience and hard work will yield a future of prosperity and joy. In the USSR, no real effort was made to equip people with a rational argument for atheism. The government simply introduced Marxist-Leninist doctrine and whatever came into conflict with that doctrine was declared counter-revolutionary. Once the government stopped enforcing the doctrine, religion recovered rapidly because most Russians had never been exposed to anything that made them seriously question their old beliefs. The majority of Soviets were never atheists. In my opinion (and this obviously conflicts with the view of a religious person), atheism is what happens when people have enough money, enough education, and enough political stability to stop thinking as a group and start thinking for themselves. In all the world, I would say Western Europe is currently the most conducive to personal, non-political atheism. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Library of Congress

Is there a law requiring every publisher in the United States to submit one copy of all its publications to the Library of Congress? If you know the title and section off the top of your head, please cite it.Patchouli 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See Library of Congress. The literal answer to your question is "no". There is no such law. The law is that anyone seeking an American copyright registration has to submit two copies to the United States Copyright Office, which happens to be part of the Library of Congress. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code Prose Style

There have been a lot of fuss made by critics about how bad Dan Brown's prose style is in the Da Vinci Code. Can someone tell me specificlly what is wrong with Brown's prose?

Try this: [15]. --Lambiam^Talk 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

June 30

Seven fathers of federation

Who are the Seven fathers of Australian federation?

I'm not sure there is a universally agreed upon set of "seven fathers of Australian federation", so the answer is probably "whomever is listed in your textbook". --Robert Merkel 01:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Neocaloric

I'm a freshman at the University of Arizona and I'm currently taking a ANTHRO course, I was hoping that someone would have some info on Neocaloric and how it came to be.-Thank you

To my knowledge, "neocaloric" is a word that some guy (Shusky if I remember correctly) tried to coin. It means: "Using non-human energy for food production, ie: crops that grow themselves and oxen to work the fields." It didn't catch on. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hogarthery

I've been looking at "The Five Orders of Perriwigs" by William Hogarth (smallish pic here: http://tang.skidmore.edu/documents/images/h-n/hair_004_lg.jpg) and have been wondering: Given the nature of most of his work, is that a real advertisement, or another parody? I can see it both ways, and wonder if anyone else knows... Thanx. 68.39.174.238 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not an advertisement, it's a caricature. It exaggerates to some degree for humorous effect, but it's based in reality -- however, certain varieties of wigs shown (such as those with black patches on the crown) were specialized for the traditional costume of some types of legal professionals, and would not ordinarily have been encountered outside of legal contexts. Churchh 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. Do you know if there's a bigger pic around somewhere? The one I've got is off the back of a book, and has been nicely defaced with an ISBN, which ruins the text. Thanx again. 68.39.174.238 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dover Thrift had an edition of 101 Engravings by William Hogarth. It covered his "studies of nine heads," but not the wigs. The point, though, is that it costs something like $8, in the US, and has very nice notes by Sean Shesgren. It's a very good thing to own. (I scanned the A Harlot's Progress plates from it.) For a full sized book with more illustrations, and one that would include the paintings and not just the engravings, Ronald Paulson's edition would be preferred, but you'd best get it from a library, as owning it would set you back some money (unless you found it on sale at a 2nd hand shop and got lucky). Geogre 03:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Probabilism in moral theology

This question was asked about a week ago at Talk:Probabilism. It doesn't seem to have secured an answer. If someone has one, could they answer it there (and note here that they've done so)? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[copied question]

Does the magisterium of the Catholic Church approve or disapprove of probabilism? 69.140.157.138 03:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[end copied question]

Probably. --DLL 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Afterlife in Islam

In Islam, if a person is very moral and has alot of good deeds, but he or she is not a Muslim, then will he or she be able to go to heaven?60.241.147.187 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the point without the 72 virgins? --mboverload@ 10:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking no , but it is not in the Islamic belief that a specific person is judged to enter Heaven or Hell unless that person was mentioned in the Quran or Authentic sayings of the Prophet ( meaning named to be in heaven or Hell ) . It is acceptable to say a person who dies a Muslim without committing a sin that nullifies it ( Kufr ) will enter Paradise even if he is punished for his sins before it , but not by naming someone . Same applies to martyrs , its acceptable to say a martyr will enter heaven and be rewarded accordingly but naming a specific person as martyr is wide spread mistake within Muslims . On the other hand , Muslims believe that anyone who hears of the message of Islam an then does not follow the prophet Muhammad will not enter Heaven . But like I said before , not a specific person . This is because of the Muslim belief that that which is in the heart is only known by God . A person may show Islam an be a infidel at heart ( hypocrite) , and a person who may seem to be fighting for the sake of God may be doing so for other reasons then what appears . As for those who appear to be non-believers it is possible that they are hiding their belief , or that they became faithful prior to their death . Another thing I would like to point out is that some times there are legitement reasons for not accepting Islam such as complete ignorence regarding the religion or significant misinformation , these people are believed to be tested in hereafter and rewarded or punished according to the results . Of course all this is regarding the afterlife , as for treatment and relations in this world , Muslims are ordered to treat people as they appear yet their fate is in the hands of God ... Hope this helps :) Hhnnrr 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean, what about good and moral believers of religions other than Islam?

Like I said before : no . It is conditional to believe that there is only one God and that Muhammad is His messenger . Doing good without this belief is not enough to enter Heaven . Of course , with the same exceptions I stated above .

note : Before the prophecy of Muhammad Muslims believe that the true followers of the prior prophets enter heaven ( ie Jews Christians .. ) but not after he was sent . Hhnnrr 12:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Credibility and Relgion

It vexes me how religon is able to exert it's authority with NO conclusive evidence to prove the existance of certian dieties, Qui, fate, karma or any other metaphysical entities/powers/influences. So, HOW exactly do they do it?

To me, this seems like an adequate example that illustates my frustrations with strictly religious people:

If someone said, "Well, Mike, there are many different species of horse."

I'd think about all the different horses I'd seen in my lifetime, and say, "Well, ok, that seems plausible. Show me some pictures of them."

If someone said, "I have discovered the unicorn."

I'd think, "Well now, I've never seen a unicorn. I'm going to need to see some pictures, X-rays of the Unicorn's skull, eyewitness testimony, DNA evidence, geneology of the Unicorn and etc."

If someone makes a fairly rational claim, they only need fairly rational proof. If someone makes an extravagant claim, it seems quite fair they need some pretty damn extravagant proof. However, religion needs no such proof and makes and will make no effort to provide it EVER.

Therefore, why do people believe it? 69.138.62.148 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

People believe because it makes them feel good to believe. As far as I know, no religions are out to convert people based on convincing arguments; instead they always talk about faith, which for you and me means "totally unjustified belief". —Keenan Pepper 06:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider this idea: Even though no one has ever seen infinity we are aware of its existence through the effect it has on numbers such as when you multiply it by 1 or try to divide any number by zero. We have never really seen infinity but we know that it is there because of it's effects. ...IMHO (Talk) 09:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan

Like it was said above, religion is comforting. There are people that believe that their daughter who was abducted 20 years ago is still alive. It's irrational but it's comforting. --mboverload@ 10:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say, it's quite comforting for people who aren't religious to explain religion as an inferior coping strategy. How do people get away with characterizing beliefs that they do not have? How can they convince themselves? If you are not religious, you really don't have much right to say why people are religious. Geogre 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking the specific question: how "religon is able to exert it's authority" which seems to have been ignored... historically successful religions have legitimised those with power. Those with power therefore support the religion, and may grant it power over their subjects; especially if the preaching is compatible with preserving the status quo. Religion in the west these days has no authority as such over people who don't choose to participate, only influence. Notinasnaid 11:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Again take the role of infinity. Its authority is exercised over us all the time just like gravity. Primitive man probably questioned as well how the Earth could get away with exercising such "authority." Maybe in terms of understanding religion we are stil as equally primitive. ...IMHO (Talk) 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That, of course, is imperial religion. All religions get co-opted at a certain point. The question is always degree, and, of course, is not really a fault of the religious system in particular but a function of the growth of the nation-state. Whether the religion is Roman polytheism (the emporer became Pontifex Maximus so that impiety and treason were synonymous and Christians could be put to death), Hinduism, Taoism, Confucism, Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, religion and state power go through phases of opposition, adoption, co-option, alteration, and, usually, opposition again. Throughout, however, the principles of the religion remain the same and are non-secular. Note, though, that most religions do not use coercive force. States use coercive force. Geogre 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The key for totally unjustified belief is stupidity and/or overwhelming lack of experience, in other words, non-scientific reasoning. The only thing worse than plain belief in an unjustified statement is giving a certain degree of credibility to the same statement, instead of just rejecting it, until conclusive evidence is given. Quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_%28novel%29): "Applying the scientific method, she states the agnostic viewpoint that "there isn't compelling evidence that God exists... and there isn't compelling evidence that he doesn't."" Sorry, but this is not the scientific method. There will NEVER be any compelling evidence to prove that an "invisible, eternal, intelligent" God does not exist, it's absolutely impossible to deny such a "theory" through any intelligent reasoning... Religion will reside always outside science in its advance, always getting around any disprove attempt. Such a "theory" tells you nothing, and any possible prediction using that knowledge will obviously be wrong.

There are many forms of stupidity and/or overwhelming lack of experience. A 3 year old child will believe in Santa Clauss, not because of stupidity, but because he's too young to know that such a possibility is impossible. Another example is superstition, people are threatened with hell and "in case it's true what this dude says, I'll obey him, since I lose nothing in the worst case and MAY win in the best one" (see Pascal's wager). Others think that being a believer makes them "happier" by having a futile hope in so-unlikely-it's-impossible things. I argue that living in the real world and facing it how it is will make you "happier" since you will not face countless disappointments; moreover, as reportedly Nietzsche said once: "Hope only makes the sufferer suffer longer".

Religions, by convincing with fallacies (as in Pascal's desperate case, he became an idiot; not just innocent faith propositions), amass in some cases thousands of millions of followers. Those followers are power. GTubio 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Labelling religious people as either "stupid" or suffering from an "overwhelming lack of experience" is offensive. All you have proved above is your own stupidity, lack of experience... and intolerance. --Dweller 12:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, likewise the labelling of atheists as "ungodly ppl" = evil persons. I really like it when preachers (including the pope) proclaim the "wickedness" and "evilness" of Atheism in this current era". Flamarande 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It's a priori. Those who do not worship God are the un-Godly -- they are not members of the religion. What's the problem there? That the churches see atheism as a corrosive? If you're really atheist, why should you care? Of course those who believe that God is the source of goodness will believe that those who deny God are a force of evil? It's logical and nearly mandatory. That doesn't mean hate. It doesn't mean prejudice. It means that they regard atheism (not atheists) as a force that harms society. If your version of "atheism" (quotes because true atheism implies total indifference to the beliefs of the religious) sees theism as bad, weak, stupid, etc., then how, exactly, have you achieved any superiority? Intolerance is intolerance, but at least the religious aren't, here anyway, saying that atheists are petulant and blind non-thinkers so soaked in private arrogance and historical unawareness that that they can't see, much less reason, straight. Geogre 14:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to summarise what you just wrote: A atheist should not care what his fellow religious man thinks about him? Sorry, but everyone of us care what other ppl think about us. "They regard Atheism as a force that harms society" and a atheist is suppossed to like it? But to say the reverse "they regard religion as a force that harms society" would be acceptable, right?

Is ungodly the same as evil? --Dweller 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

According to these preachers, yes. But is a very outdated view. Flamarande 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Humans have over-active pattern recognizers, and over-anthropomorphize. They see malice where there is only incompetence, fate where there is only coincidence, cause and effect when there is only correlation, healing when there is only a placebo, and people in the sky where there are only stars. Popular religions are also wrapped up with taking a strong stand for good against bad, whether through altruism, pacifism, or a moral system. That goes a long way toward making them seem intuitively correct, even if they are rationally dubious, and a subject matter of non-provable statements makes it very hard to concretely dispel myths. It's hard to let go of intuitively satisfying, comforting, deeply held beliefs. Though a rational examination of religion often leads to disbelief, I've also plenty of smart people who are religious. They often have more nuanced views, and at least have some intuitive answers for many of the tough questions. -- Beland 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

An answer to the original question. Belief is exactly that... a belief. Religion isn't a science. It doesn't need proof (although many great theologians, notably Maimonides tried to prove the existence of a Creator). Faith demands of us to put something of ourselves in. And as with the rest of life's experiences, the more you put in, the more you get out. Science is the new religion... people want to understand everything (or at least to be reassured that someone else understands it). That approach to life makes a lot of sense.

Religion is content with lacunae. I don't expect an irreligious person to agree to this. I'm not sure I'd expect them to understand either. But I would expect them to respect it.

Your frustrating arguments with religious people come down to the fact that you're arguing oranges and they're arguing lemons. You're looking for them to prove something they probably don't want to prove and certainly don't need to prove, even if they could (which they can't).

Perhaps you'll be mollified by the knowledge that frustrations exist in reverse too; when religious people living in irreligious societies find that their actions are misunderstood, ridiculed or flatly blocked. --Dweller 14:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Than you Carl (new to the RD ? :). So you say that you live or that someone loves you : where is the evidence ? Faith is an human need and finding a cause for everything we perceive also. Very few religions make a reprehensible abuse of those needs :)) --DLL 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Loving isn't extrodiary. I would guess at least a billion people on earth are in love. Faith is not a human need, I'm not sure where you got that idea.--mboverload@ 05:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be interested in reading our article about Carl Sagan. He's dead, btw. --LarryMac 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm starting to become offended by all the recent questions and comments by people who seem to find no fault in ridiculing other people's religious beliefs. I agree, that when people of certain faiths begin to use their religious convictions to justify otherwise immoral actions towards others, they are clearly crossing the line. But this doesn't seem to be the case here. Here we seem to be ridiculing people of faith for their faith alone. This is unnacceptable, and, in fact, rather bigoted. Just as we've all come to accept (or should come to accept) that whatever goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults, bizarre and incomprehensible as it may be to the rest of us, is none of our damn business, similarly, so long as nobody gets hurt, what goes on in the minds of people of faith, bizarre and incomprehensible as it may be to the rest of you, is none of your damn business either. Loomis 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? We are saying is that there is no proof for god and we are discussing why people would believe in something with no proof. I really couldn't care less what you believe. Just don't say we can't discuss something because you're "offended". --mboverload@ 05:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK then. Consider the question: "Credibility and Homosexuality: How do they get away with it? It vexes me how homosexuals are able to exert their authority with NO conclusive evidence to prove that thir lifestyle is natural. Qui, fate, karma or any other metaphysical entities/powers/influences. So, HOW exactly do they do it?"

Would that not be offensive?

No?

OK, How about this one: "Credibility and Judaism: How do they get away with it? It vexes me how Jews are able to exert their authority with NO conclusive evidence to prove the existance of their particular beliefs. Qui, fate, karma or any other metaphysical entities/powers/influences. So, HOW exactly do they do it?"

No? Well I suppose you don't know what it means to have your personal convictions to be under attack. If you'd reveal yours in particular, I'm sure I'd find a way to offend you (not that I want to, but just to prove a point). Loomis 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your arguement is completly invalid. Homosexuality has been identified in AT LEAST 350 different species. I don't know what authority "homosecuals" and "Jews" have other than the right to exist. I have trouble understanding most of your post. --mboverload@

It always amazes me how many people use terminology such as "your argument is invalid" without themselves having a clue as to the "logical" definition of a "valid argument". In any case, I'll rephrase:

As has been said time and time again, persons of faith (by definition! look up the word faith in a dictionary!) believe in God, despite a complete lack of proof. We RECOGNIZE that we have no proof. How many times do I have to repeat it? We BELIEVE in something that we RECOGNIZE we can't prove. THAT'S HOW RELIGION WORKS. I believe in God, and I don't pretend to have any proof of His existence. Period. I just believe. Call it bizarre, call it an inexplicable quirk in my brain, but I simply believe. Please, though, don't have the arrogance to tell me that my "belief without proof" is "stupid" or that I'm suffering from an "overwhelming lack of experience". Once again, this is both bigoted and intolerant, and, if I may add, rather narrow minded.

To assume that all that exists, both natural and supernatural, must, by definition make sense in our tiny primate brains is just plain arrogant. All we all are are simple humans, and to assume that anything our tiny primate brains can't "scientifically" explain, by definition cannot be true is just plain arrogant, or dare I say, hubris. As a matter of fact, most of the greatest scientists to have ever existed, scientists like Newton, Einstein etc...those icons on "rational, scientific" thinking, people who have a grasp of the nature of the universe far greater than any of us can claim to have, generally tend to conclude that, to the best of their knowledge, their must be, to one degree or another, some sort of "prime mover". So keep in mind, when you refer to people of faith as "stupid" or suffering from an "overwhelming lack of experience", you're actually accusing people like Newton and Einstein as being "stupid" and suffering from an "overwhelming lack of experience".

In any case, even if religion is indeed a silly superstition, with no basis in reality, still, to mock and ridicule those who believe is no less offensive. For example, you may believe that humanity originated from the planet Neptune. In fact, a great number of persons, possibly in the millions, may share your belief. I may feel that your belief is the uttermost in stupidity (which, in this case, it likely is!). But that's simply how I, and all other reasonable people may see things, and for all intents and purposes, we'd be right. Still, it would be wrong, bigoted and offensive to mock and ridicule those who believe that humanity originated on Neptune. Yes, we can argue the point in a friendly manner, trying to convince our "Neptunists" that their theory doesn't seem to make sense to us, but to call them "stupid" or demean them in any similar manner would still be wrong. Loomis 01:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For "religion" in general, how "they" (?) exert their authority without proofs will probably differ from one religion to another. Being a Christian, I can answer from that perspective. I became a Christian when I picked up the New Testament and started reading it. As I read it, I thought, "Yes, this is true, this has always been true, and I'm just now discovering it." I didn't feel the need to rush out and attempt to scientifically prove the integrity of every stated fact - at least not immediately. After a while questions began to come up in my mind - "What about the dinosaurs?" etc. So I went and looked for answers. Each time, for each question that I have ever asked, I have found a satisfying answer sooner or later. If they weren't satisfying, I wouldn't continue to be a Christian! I'm not a Christian because "they" (whoever they might be) exert some authority over me. I would continue to be a Christian even if I was the only one in the world. I like this quote, from the book Tortured for Christ by Richard Wurmbrand (improsoned in communist Russia): In prison, the political officer asked me harshly, “How long will you continue to keep your stupid religion?” I said to him, “I have seen innumerable atheists regretting on their deathbeds that they have been godless; they called on Christ. Can you imagine that a Christian could regret, when death is near, that he has been a Chris­tian and call on Marx or Lenin to rescue him from his faith?” The officer laughed, “A clever answer.” I continued, “When an engineer has built a bridge, the fact that a cat can pass over the bridge is no proof that the bridge is good. A train must pass over it to prove its strength. The fact that you can be an atheist when everything goes well does not prove the truth of atheism. It does not hold up in moments of great crisis.” BenC7 11:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's wrap it up with saying that when they near death and scarred, many turn towards religion. Don't forget though that religious ppl have tortured too. You seem to believe in the New Testament. Well tell me, how do you know what Jesus did and said in the garden of Gethamane as all his disciples were sleeping, how do we know his words? If right after that, he was arrested, he couldn't have said anything to anyone (according to the New Testament) and in his trail he didn't say it. So how do we know what he said to his father as he was praying in his last free hours? The New Testament is full of such unclear issues, but if you believe in it, fine by me. I am not scared of rational, peaceful, and tolerant religious ppl. Flamarande 12:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

While a bit off topic, I am somewhat new and am not sure where an appropriate place would be to answer the above question. I don't imagine that Jesus' disciples fell asleep the instant Jesus left them. Jesus repeated the same prayer three times; they wouldn't have had to stay awake for the whole hour each time to know what he was saying. I am a bit wary of posting my email address but you might be able to access it from my user page (?). Feel free to talk to me about such things. BenC7 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a bit far down the chain, but to try and find a rational answer for the original question - it seems to me that the on thing that all religions offer as aa core tenant is some form of being able to live forever. While our genes will go on, any particular individual will not and that awareness that we posses is very difficult to accept, at best. So it stands to reason that our mind would come up with some coping mechanism, and no rule says it has to be rational. I’ve always thought the main driver for religious belief at its core was the desire not to wink out of existence when one dies. Then we mix in our core sense of troops and tribes and we for a club that has rules for inclusion and exclusion. A religion is born. If you follow the rules as set down in this book, you won’t die. It stands to reason to me that people would jump all over that.

68.198.15.239 00:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has a different idea about religion is...you are being a troll by asking someone to prove it or disprove it, because no one has a very agreeable answer. Let it die. Religion is up there with "Political views" and "Sexual experiences".....you only discuss it with people who unconditionally accept you for who you are.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. As the original poster of the question, I am rather shocked at the debate that has erupted. I agree with the point that the question was rather bias, especially 'how do they get away with it?' A more civilized version of the question would go more like this:

"As a human being, if someone suggests an idea to me, I require strict proof of the given idea through repeatable tests and extensive data in order to find that idea 'believeable'. However, religion (from what I have seen) seems to operate extremely effectively outside this framework; that is, it manages to take in vast amounts of resources in the form of currency, man hours, food, and etc. Religious sects also exert a rather large amount of influence on politics and world government. How is it that they are able to achieve these feats while operating outside of this framework?"

From what I have gathered from the posts made by others, I have come to these conclusions:

1. Not all human beings, like me, require STRICT proof of an idea for him or her to find that idea 'believeable'. Therefore, if an idea sounds good, and it has a little, or even a decent amount of proof, they are able believe it.

2. Some human beings find religion comforting as a lifestyle, and choose to believe in it without strict proof for this reason. To me this seems like a mild form of hedonism.

3. Some people are religious because they are told to be and lack the mental facilities to properly question it and/or grasp the idea that there might be a deviation from what they have been told to believe.

I figure, when God comes down from the sky (or-where-the-hell-ever it is he comes from) and says, "Hey, Mike, here I am, motherfucker, I'm GOD. Watch this," and then brings some dead guy back to life right in front of me, then, indeed, I will believe him.

Have you never read the Bible, or even just the New Testament, where this happened numerous times? BenC7 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In respsonse to Loomis's comments on what it is that I believe, and the offendability of such: it should be quite obvious what I believe based on the question I asked. Athiest, a College intellectual, White, 19 years of age. Offend away, my friend. I happen to believe that relgion is a HIGHLY effective form of population control with beliefs that have no real basis in reality. Religion, I beleive, stunts rebellious leaders and turns the masses into what the current leaders of the world want them to be: docile consumers.

All right then. What you're saying is that as a 19 year old self-styled "intellectual", your position is that you have some insight into the nature of the universe that somehow escaped the likes of Newton, Einstein, Darwin (yes Darwin! to his dying day he insisted that he was NEVER an atheist, rather an agnostic), Stephen Hawking (who, in one of his famous quotes, referred back to that famous quote by Einstein, that "God does not play dice with the universe" with his own take on God: "Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." And no, this quote does not appear to be a flippant remark aimed at ridiculing the faithful. In fact, if one reads the many quotes of Hawking, though he doesn't ascribe to any particular faith, his belief in that "inexplicable something" rings loud and clear.

To summarize then, as a confirmed atheist, you believe that, in rejecting atheism, such minds as Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Hawking etc... simply don't measure up to your own 19 year old "intellectual" mind's understanding of the universe. They were (were for the other three, I recognize that Hawking is still alive) just a bunch of fools, who simply didn't seem to get, as you seem to so easily, that they were simply the victims of "a HIGHLY effective form of population control", and like the masses, were nothing more than the docile consumers their contemporary leaders of the world wanted them to be. Wow! You sure think a lot of yourself! Nevermind the opinions of the greatest scientists to have ever graced the earth! You know better! Perhaps you're God! Loomis 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Touché BenC7 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Loomis, I do. The example which you so delicately weaved is inherenantly flawed: you produced three great scientists who disagree with the ideas I have presented. Allow me to break down the fallacies of your argument into bite-sized pieces:

1. Newton was born in 1643 and lived until 1727. During this time, if you even suggested the fact that there might not be a god, they probably stoned you to death and then pushed your body over a cliff. It was in his best interests (that is, if self-preservation WAS one of his interests, and I believe it was) to claim that he did believe in a God, and preferably, and Christian one.

2. As for Einstein, Hawking, and Charles Darwin, what of it? Let me portray the argument you are presenting here in a sentence: "Because Einstein, Hawking, and Charles Darwin were considered brilliant, and they believed there was a god, they must be right, and therefore everyone should believe there is a god." Do you see the slippery slope you have created with this argument?

While they might have been brilliant in their field(s), in the end, they were just men, fallabile as any other men before or after them. Perhaps they were WRONG. Perhaps they did believe what I believe, but, in order to avoid public outcast and shame, believed (or said they believed) what most of the population around them believed. Perhaps they WERE the (unwitting or not) victims of a highly effective form of population control. I see absolutely no reason why this is not possible.

3. As for comparing my age and relative wisdom with the greatest scientists of the world, again, what of it? These men were great scientists, not great philosophers, religious leaders, or political scientists. While they were great scientists, perhaps they were narrow-minded in terms of religion or the anayization of it. I DO know better about it than they do, there, I said it!

4. As for being God, that is just silly. There is no god.

I enjoy such a vigourous argument. It has been awhile anyone actually provided good examples. 69.138.62.148 06:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Our mysterious friend, you might be digging your hole deeper with those last comments. 1 is not factual by any stretch of the imagination. 2 is an inaccurate paraphrase of Loomis' argument. Perhaps you should read it again. 3 and 4, well - hmmm. I'll call Mensa. BenC7 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UT

It should be noted that the religious beliefs of Newton, an Englishman, were such a departure from the dogma of 17th and 18th century England that he was clearly regarded as a heretic. Newton's religious beliefs are characterized by most historians as closer to that of Eastern Ortodoxy. If you truly understood the nature of religious politics in this time period, you'd understand that Protestantism was regarded as heresy by Catholics, Catholicism was regarded as heresy by Protestants, and both regarded Eastern Orthodoxy as all the more heretical. It should also be noted that heretical beliefs were considered so evil by each branch of Christianity, that to hold and espouse them was at least as bad, and probably worse, (as it would have that much more of a tendency to "warp" the minds of the rest of society,) than to simply state that you don't believe in God. If Newton was truly concerned about being "stoned" to death (which in and of itself sounds extremely odd for that period. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the 17th century BC?) wouldn't he at least conform to Anglican beliefs in his writings?

As for Darwin, I never said he believed in God. All I said was that he was a confirmed agnostic, and that he rejected atheism. You say that it's possible that Darwin actually was an atheist, but hid that fact in order to avoid public outcast and shame. Darwin trying to avoid public outcast and shame? That's so absurd it's actually funny. Darwin thrived on controversy. He was the ultimate "shit-disturber" for the religious establishment. Yet for some reason he stopped short of proclaiming the truth of his atheism? Believe me, if Darwin was truly an atheist, he would have revelled in proclaiming it loud and clear.

As for Einstein and Hawking hiding their true "atheist" convictions, while the above may have been absurd, this is beyond the absurd. In fact, if anything, their apparent belief in God could only have hurt their credibility rather than helped it. Don't tell me that 20th century quantum physicists gave a damn whether these two icons were believers or not. If anything, it would seem to me that it could only have helped their reputability all the moreso if they simply avoided the topic of God altogether.

What you're actually doing is the old "shift the premise" logical fallacy. My argument is NOT that you should believe in God. I'm no bible thumper. You can believe what you wish. In fact I have a great deal of respect for agnostics, for they have the courage to simply admit "I don't know". As for atheists, though I completely disagree with their "beliefs", I can agree to disagree. If an atheist told me he believes there is no God, but respects the fact that I believe that there is, I'd be perfectly fine with that. What irritates the hell out of me is when an atheist not only tells me that he believes that there is not God, but that I'm a stupid, ignorant fool for believing in Him. So please don't put words in my mouth. My argument was NOT: "Because Einstein, Hawking, and Charles Darwin were considered brilliant, and they believed there was a [G]od, they must be right, and therefore everyone should believe there is a [G]od." Not at all. I only brought these "scientists" because you seem to be base you atheism on the "scientific method". By bringing them up, I was simply trying to illustrate that their seems to be a consensus among the best "scientific" minds of all time that there is a God. This is by no means meant to convince YOU to believe in God. Not at all. It's merely to display, that among the scientific community, to say the very least, "the jury's out".

I'm glad, though that I seem to be making at least some headway. I'm starting to see you using words like "perhaps" and "possible". This is indeed very encouraging.

Finally, you mention that the men I've referred to so far "were great scientists, not great philosophers, religious leaders, or political scientists". Fair enough. The scientists have spoken. It's curious though that you would be interested in the opinions of "great religious leaders". Huh??? Seems to me you'd be utterly disinterested in their opinions. That leaves us with philosophers and political scientists. I think I'll leave political scientists for now, as I don't see how their opinion would be of any interest, but if need be, I can quote a few.

As for philosophers, let me quote perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time: Socrates. "True wisdom exists in knowing that you know nothing."

I admit that I may be wrong and God may not exist, for, in the Socratic sense at least, "I know nothing". Do you have the courage and the wisdom to admit that you may be wrong and God may exist after all? Loomis 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be more than happy to say God exists when I see some proof. I just don't find it reasonable to assume he exists. --mboverload@ 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY respect your position, Mboverload. You have no proof, so you don't believe. Perfectly understandable. I only wish the original questioner would be as open minded as you are. You don't believe (until proven otherwise) and I do (until proven otherwise). Basically we agree to disagree. That's all I'm looking for. Too bad the original questioner REFUSES to agree to disagree. Oh well. All the best. Loomis 00:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

mboverload, what types of "proof" would you require? Could you please provide some examples? Instantaneous healing? Raising the dead? Would these be enough (considering that they have already happened and continue to happen all over the world)? In not, then what? Do you want God to appear in visible form (eg. as Jesus)? I'm not sure what kind of "proof" you are looking for... BenC7 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to admit that Loomis and other's presented arguments are correct. There is no way to prove through logic or science that God exists or does not exist; this presents a problem to both believers and nonbelievers, because if something cannot be proven to exist, it cannot be proven to not exist, either. I rescind my previous statements and apologize to all.

After much contemplating, I have decided that I believe that it is highly UNLIKELY (that would put me firmly in the realm of agnostic, admitedly) that there is a God (especially of the Christian variety) because of the series of rules presented by the Christian bible and other relgious texts that are very similar in structure to those used by dictators or other world leaders in order to maintain control over a population, which would make God a man-made entity devised for such purpose. For example, if one looks up the brainwashing entry:

1. Milieu Control (social pressure)- Churches and congregations, church confessions, religious dogma, reading scriptures aloud as a group, and etc.

2. Mystical Manipulation - The use of mysticism via the inner want of all human beings to find meaning of life given through providing a god.

3. The Demand For Purity - Removal of sin and sinful acts.

4. Confession - already mentioned above as part of Milieu Control.

5. Sacred Science - Although there are many things that happen in the Bible that seem scientificly impossible, they are possible though God's power, i.e. stopping the sun.

6. Loading the Language - God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful, perfect, unaffected by time, and his and the acts of his apostiles are glorified through similar 'loaded' language. While some might see it as a defition, why not just say, 'all-powerful' and leave it at that? I wish I could give better examples. If I could give a sound byte of a typical Southern Baptist preacher, whom groups of I have listened to many times, that would capture this point perfectly.

7. Doctrine Over Person - Upholding the laws of god is more important than the person obeying them. (i.e. "if a hand causes you to sin, chop it off, if an eye causes you to sin, gouge it out", and similar passanges if taken literally, however some groups do not take these passages literally)

8. Dispensing of Existence - When you die, you will go to Heaven, Hell, Nirvana, be reincarnated, and your existance will cease to have any meaning.

These similarities lead me to believe, but do not definitively prove, religion is man-made population control device.

In response to BenC7's comments about resurrection in the New Testiment, yes I have read these stories. I need God to come down, indentify himself as God, and then bring a dead guy (or some similar feat) back to life right in front of me, preferably while I am videotaping it with a high-definition camera.

69.138.62.148 23:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, it seems that we have finally gotten to the point "to agree to disagree" which is all that I was ever after. As I mentioned, I'm no bible thumper, and I too have issues with those "religious" people (like the Southern Baptist preachers you've referred to, or certain mullahs and imams) who simply accept the "Christian Bible" or the "Quran" word for word, and use circular reasoning to prove the existence of God, and prove that if you don't believe as they do, you'll go to hell. I reject these approaches as being simplistic and irrational, and, if I may say so, an insult to the intelligence of human beings as thinking creatures.

My belief is of an entirely different nature. It's personal, private, and based on as much rational contemplation as my limited mind is capable. Yes, I do belong to an "organized religion", yet my religious leaders actually encourage as much questioning and dialogue about the existence of God and His nature as possible. And once we're done, we go back to resuming our daily lives, and then, whenever we wish, gather back together and debate these difficult concepts once again, and again, and hopefully for the rest of our lives. But I'm not here to preach my own faith so I'll leave it at that. My apologies to Ben if any of this is offensive to his faith, as I'm very grateful to him for backing me up when no one else seemed to have the courage and/or interest. All the best, Ben, and God bless you.

I'm just curious about the author of the post just previous to the last one, who "rescinded his/her previous statements". I'm flattered, but in this mess of a discussion it's difficult to follow who said what.

In any case, all the best to all of you in your respective spiritual adventures, especially the original poster. Take care and thanks for the invigorating debate! Loomis 11:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. I do accept the Bible word-for-word, although I recognize that sometimes there may be minor mistakes or ambiguities in translation. I feel that it is important to try and understand the spirit of what is being said; it is the Bible, not a computer code. Notwithstanding, I have read the Bible through 6 times, and the New Testament probably an additional 10 times besides - I'm not one of those people who may have read the Bible in the distant past and choose to remember of it only what I want to remember. God is who he is, not who we want him to be. BenC7 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish beliefs

I've heard that the reason Jewish scientists are often not welcome in research labs is because of their belief that since they are the "chosen people" and therefore no one else who is not also a Jew is not entitled to have the same knowledge, i.e. there is a greater risk they will not report a discovery to their employer. For instance: even though most people know of Einstein’s famous equation $e=mc^{2}$ most people do not know the details or steps and experiments in physics that led to its formulation whereas the details of each step and experiment are simple and rooted in basic physical and mathematical concepts and relations. I have heard that by keeping the knowledge to themselves as though it were a trade secret Jew's preserve a role for themselves in the secular world which would otherwise be diminished. Is this true? (By the way I am not anti-Semitic.) ...IMHO (Talk) 09:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is true that "Jewish scientists are often not welcome in research labs" in some unspecified part of the world, and the reason is because "since they are the "chosen people" and therefore no one else who is not also a Jew is not entitled to have the same knowledge" it's a ridiculous misunderstanding of the concept of the "chosen people". To coin a phrase, misunderstanding is the father of prejudice and the grandfather of persecution. --Dweller 09:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment begs the question: What is the correct understanding then of the concept of the "chosen people?" (Don't want any misunderstanings here.) ...IMHO (Talk) 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. To elaborate, there's an excellent article at Jews as a chosen people, but I'll summarise it (hopefully without too much POV). Chosenness is about being given and accepting a heavy burden of commandments. Jews believe they have 613 commandments and if judged to have done well, they get rewarded with a place in the next world. Jews further believe that non-Jews have just 7 commandments. So, it's easier to get to heaven as a non Jew, which explains the Orthodox Jewish practise of deterring conversion.

None of that is about keeping knowledge a secret. That's anathema to Jewish traditions of learning and developing the mind. Some of the worlds greatest published scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have been Jewish. It's strange that you cite arguably the world's most famous theory/equation as an example of a Jew keeping a discovery quiet; perhaps I've misunderstood you!

The usual issue over "chosenness" is about superiority, rather than secrecy. The usual response on this score is "not better, just different". Frankly, it's not easy trying to keep Jewish law. --Dweller 10:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense. I can accept that. In reference to Einstein’s famous equation for the laymen it usually stops there. There seem to be no step by step details to accompany the development of the equation or the electrical or electronic or mechanical experiments which led to its formulation whereas the device that was first used measure the speed of light accompanies almost every text that discusses it. In regard to Jewish difference being interpreted as Jewish superiority could this misunderstanding be based on the nature of the difference as the idea that since Jews are required to please God to a greater and deeper extent than non-Jews that subconsciously this makes them feel superior to others or at least present themselves as being superior without actually doing so consciously and intentionally or this idea being on their minds? ...IMHO (Talk) 10:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"In reference to Einstein’s famous equation for the laymen it usually stops there" that's because most laymen don't know anything about general or special relativity, and don't want to..for instance, here is an article showing the E=mc2 derivation of the term--71.247.107.238 16:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, most laymen don't know anything about the Time-independent Schrödinger equation, beyond a string of horrible puns revolving around cats, is that because it's a secret? no Is it because the average person is too lazy to actually care about something that requires thought? I'll let you answer that one--71.247.107.238 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also let me add that although many non-Jewish religious groups have a set of laws they follow many other religious and non-religious groups and individuals have but one rule (although some have perverted its meaning to justify certain evil doings) which I suppose is really insufficient when it comes to human nature of maybe forgetting certain details. ...IMHO (Talk) 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that several groups have seen themselves as the Chosen. For example, it was common language invoked by protestant Christians who believed that they were the true Jews, as Jews had forfeited their chosen status with the rejection of Christ. There is plenty of that language used by the early American settlers, and it was reinforced by the Calvinist notion of The Elect. Japanese people have at least been accused of believing themselves to be the Chosen people. Several American Indian tribes had beliefs that they were "the people" (as opposed to the other things that looked like people). Icelandic travellers regarded strangers as scælings, which is a term that indicates both "slaves" and "demons" and "non-humans." In contemporary prejudice, Chinese and Korean laboratory workers have been known (by me) to refuse to work in a lab with Japanese researchers. Geogre 11:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh I would imagine that the refusal of the Chinese is based more on the practice of belief during the Japanese occupation of China. Every now and then you hear stories from former British and American captives. Most anyone with an ego probably at some point in life considers themselves to be better and become as a result fair game for con artists no different than those who feel themselves to be worse are fair game for certain preachers. As for Jews maybe its just this idea that many non-Jews seem to have that they are unable to remove the "difference" referred to above just as one is unable to change their place or date of birth except through a "final" solution. ...IMHO (Talk) 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

About discoveries : Not all theories derive from experimentation. Albert devised his theories because some old experiments of thought (made without any lab) did not match existing theories. He was alerted about those mismatchs while in a patent bureau ; some patents dealt plainly with "coordination between clocks" (or something close to that) which was already extremely difficult in our accepted, non-relativistic, reality. He just put the problem farther. So he hid nothing and someone had to devise experiments to prove those new theories. --DLL 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein wasn't even a practicing Jew. Mo-Al 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you heard about Jews keeping secrets from Gentiles because Jews are the "Chosen People," but I can assure you it is not true. Judaism doesn't really have much in the way of secrets, except stuff like Kabbalah. But failing to fulfill reporting obligations to one's employer would undoubtedly violate all kinds of Jewish tenets about dealing honestly with people. -- Mwalcoff 23:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

All of this is very good to hear. Thanks to everyone for your comments. ...IMHO (Talk) 10:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Heinrich Hitzinger

I am looking for a little more information on a peripheral figure from the close of world war two. A number of sources state that when Heinrich Himmler was captured by allied forces in 1945, he was travelling under an assumed identity, a policeman called "Heinrich Hitzinger". There is also a whole mass of confused and sometimes contradictory information about his appearance, the presence or lack of an eye patch, etc. Some sources suggest that Hitzinger was a non-entity and had never existed in reality, but others say that there was such a man, and his papers were appropriated by Himmler because of a resemblence between the two men. I have tried and failed to turn up any information about the real Hitzinger, if he ever existed. If anyone can help me with this one, I would be very grateful. --Hwater 11:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)HDW

Perhaps a controversial suggestion, but have you tried David Irving's website www.fpp.co.uk ? He has a picture of the dead Himmler and the report to go with it. It shows spectacles rather and no eye patch. There is, among the conspiracy-mongering, quite a lot of plausible detail, but nothing on Corporal Hitzinger. My recollection, from Peter Padfield's biography of Himmler - which I don't have to check - is that Hitzinger was real but dead. Hope this helps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Democracy

"In a democracy the people are their own masters". With reference to this statement, explain the role played by the parliment as the body of people's representatives.

In how many words? David Sneek 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And when is it due? Notinasnaid 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And how much does it count towards our final grade? Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"I can help to sack my M.P. and thereby change the government" That's 12 words. Tip: When you do submit your essay, spell "parliament" correctly. --Dweller 12:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You can claim the assertion is false. In a democracy the plurality are the masters of the majority. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But then again, if the statement is speaking of people as a single whole body including everyone, it is true to say that the only masters of people, are people. In any situaution really invluding dictatorships, autocracys, or anything. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was born in a tyrannic regime and I always wanted to know how my grandmother who told me ghost stories and swore sincerely that they were real would be able to make laws; she was totally illiterate, too. She was a kind and fine lady, though.Patchouli 15:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem ... illiteracy and believing in ghosts is not a problem. If you can conduct your life and order your house and your relations with neighbours, you can devise very good laws. Some more literate people shall then try to bypass those laws, and good representatives are there to help you against that. This is not so simple, but the tune of the air is there.

This said, DYH (by you your homework done must be) and PSBTFT (four tildes by typing please sign). --DLL 19:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighting Website Contents

If a person updates a Website, does he have to pay a fee again to obtain a new copyright? http://www.gwu.edu/~mpb/betaox.htm has Copyright © 1998 Karl J. Miller. Would the owner thereof have to pay a new fee to the Library of Congress's copyright office if he were to update it today?--Patchouli 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright is granted automatically as soon as something is written down or typed in; I'm not sure what benefit you get from paying anything to the Library of Congress, other than better documenting authorship. -- Beland 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about other countries, but as I understand it in the US, it only costs if you want to register your copyright. Copyright itself is automatic and free [16].

Registration confers certain legal advantages over not registering, but the basic rights of copyright are available without registering.

Basically, one usually registers before filing an infringement suit. Otherwise there is little reason to register unless you are a major content producer (and will be filing lots of infringement suits), as I understan dit. --Fastfission 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the related question is whether you would have to renew the registration when you update the web page. Just a guess, but I would suppose you would periodically renew the registration. This would be purely for additional legal protection. I will have to defer to others for more specifics.

Nowimnthing 16:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why does the Website owner not change Copyright © 1998 Karl J. Miller to Copyright © 2006?--Patchouli 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Either he hasn't updated the page since then or he hasn't bothered to. Nowimnthing 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not really necessary for him to put any date on there. There is no possibility of it expiring anytime soon. --Fastfission 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the Five Elements Theory ?

How does the five elements theory contradict with scientific studies and - if possible - with religious beliefs ( Christianity , Islam , Judism ) regarding God and creation .Hhnnrr 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming I'm not doing homework for you.... First it depends on what theory of five elements you are talking about: Five elements then you might look at Classical element, Chemical element and Periodic Table. Nowimnthing 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple ancient theories that involve five elements. For a description of what material substances are actually made of, see chemical substance, chemical element, and atom. Some of the element theories also involved mechanics - for example, why some things fall and other things rise. Classical mechanics is the modern theory which is correct on normal human scales. The five element theories also have astrological components, which are simply untrue. The visibile stars and planets are usually made of the same elements we see on earth, not something like aether. -- Beland 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the Five Elements theories address the question of how the universe was created. Though the monotheistic religions you mentioned do have historical and creation accounts which conflict with scientific discoveries, I'm not sure that they firmly address the question of what material substances are made of. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there were some obscure passages in one of their holy texts that did do so, either literally or metaphorically. -- Beland 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is the Chinese theory , Is it acceptable ( scientifically ) to say the world is composed of only five elements ? And when I speak of creation I mean that this theory is related to the Yin Yang theory which is related to creation .. so now what ? ( this is not home work - does it look like it ?? ) Thank you all Hhnnrr 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No offence intended, it was just worded in a test question like manner and I get suspicious. There are some who support the general idea of the classical five elements as solid (Earth), liquid (Water), gas (Air), or plasma (Fire) with aether being the more odd matter in experimental physics. I'm not sure you could make the same argument for the chinese elemetals, wood, fire, earth, metal, and water. Nowimnthing 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most would not consider elemental thinking to be totally incorrect, just an oversimplified earlier version of the knowledge we have now. See History of the periodic table. Nowimnthing 17:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Genesis tells (quick glance) that elements were not created, just separated from the chaos they made before. Those elements refer to primordial sensations and are no more accurate than ... good and evil for a mature mind to describe the world (s)he lives in. But our memory associations, history, memes (do I have to bluelink it ?) and myths are strongly based on those primordial sensations. --DLL 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean Jews today dont believe the elements composing the world were created ? Sounds strange .. My understanding was that this idea of being generated from chaos was in the eastern philosophy . Hhnnrr 19:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The five elements theory contradicts science because it has no scientific basis whatsoever (no evidence for it at all). Mo-Al 23:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems simple to me. There are 118 elements, not 5, so it is completely and totally incorrect. --mboverload@ 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see , and I feel the same . Is there a web site I can return to that discusses this issue scientifically ? Thank you all Hhnnrr 07:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not :). I'm sure if you look scientifically at it, you might begin to notice some discrepancies. For example, metal does not 'generate' water, under any circumstances. To answer your original question as a Christian, I suppose that one way it conflicts with Christianity in that it is assuming that wood, fire, earth etc. have some innate spiritual qualities about them - i.e., in being associated with particular body parts, 'heavenly beings' etc. The Bible does not teach any such thing. BenC7 06:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tax Cuts

From time to time, especially in the late 90's, a proposal is made in Congress for across-the-board flat-rate tax cuts. For example, all income taxes are to be cut 5%. Thus, someone otherwise paying $1,000 in taxes would save $50, and someone otherwise paying $1 million in taxes would save $50,000. This seems to me as fair as fair can be, because each person is saving the same percentage. But the mere mention of such a proposal causes many politicians (mostly liberals) to go abolutely ape, screaming "tax cuts for the rich!" Of course these would be tax cuts for the rich, but they are tax cuts for everybody. To put it simply, what is unfair about this, and why do many politicians insist on higher and higher taxes on the way up the income scale, but cannot abide any tax savings "for the rich", even though THEY ARE PAYING MORE? 66.213.33.2 18:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the arguments against it would be the same as those for Progressive tax. One of the arguments is that the rich have a higher level of disposable income and are therefore more capable of contributing to the common welfare. Issues of class and opportunity also come up. Nowimnthing 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Contributing ... imagine that you are an adult and your baby, your daughter and your son, notwithstanding their age, capacities and all, should do an equal part of home jobs and bring the same amount of money ? Equity is not mathematical equality. The design or the level of progressivity is a true question : no level at all is mere demagogy and never observed. --DLL 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing of such a proposal, but it would leave the level of "progressivity" the same, provided there wasn't also some hidden change to the level of deductions, the alternative minimum tax, etc., which we haven't accounted for here. So, the tax code would be just as "fair" as before. StuRat 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, as for the need for progressive taxes, they are needed to counter the natural tendency of wealth to concentrate in the hands of the few, which happens because they are better educated, have better connections, have starting capital, accountants, etc. So, without a progressive tax, eventually 99% of the wealth ends up in the hands of 1% of the population, then you get something like a communist revolution from the starving 99%. This is something we would prefer to avoid. StuRat 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have a progressive tax in the first place, and the government needs more money, it might put the taxes up by 1% for everyone. Interestingly, this probably wouldn't get headlines "big tax rises for the rich". If the economic situation improves, then reversing this increase would indeed by a "big tax cut for the rich" but no more unfair than the initial situation (and no less). Of course, when politicians say things it is designed to appeal to their current and potential electorate. Why else would they speak? Notinasnaid 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If a flat tax rate is introduced, to cover the money that they no longer collect off of rich, they add a bit on to everyone. Which means that for the people who were rich, the taxes still go down. But for others they go up. Did you honestly think that they can just cut taxes if they feel like it? where did you think they were going to get the money from, that they weren't getting from you? and did you think they've been taking money all that time just to piss you off? no its because they need it, so if they stop taking it, they stop spending it. And then the government doesnt do its job. Basically governments shouldn't promise lower taxes, but lower spending, which means definite lower taxes. Philc _T^E_C^I 02:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the original question, they weren't actually asking about a flat tax. I read it that way, too, the first time, however. StuRat 21:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Title of a youth or young adult sci-fi book?

Hope you guys can help. I am trying to figure out a patron request for a sci-fi book that features an alien boy with amnesia who carves figures in wood. They think he is a a human and in the end he has to escape the planet as the authorities chase him. Oh yeah, he alos has telekenisis, thanks Nowimnthing 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds extremely familiar, but I can't quite dredge up anything from my memory right now. I'll keep thinking, but in the meantime, here is a site where you can submit just such a question. And please post the title when you find out. --LarryMac 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but as a public librarian, I can't go about spending money answering reference questions. Librarians have their own free version here: [17] but since it is a listserv it can be a bit slow. I'll let you know if I figure it out. Nowimnthing 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that they wanted money. My first search had taken me to a "mysteries solved" page and I stumbled around from there. I just know I've read this book. --LarryMac 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think i may have read that a long time ago. I'll ask a friend who would know and get back to you --Bmk 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read it too, I'm sure. It's not Stranger in a Strange Land, I assume, but it does sound like it's from that era and maybe by Heinlein. Geogre 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If the novel features travel (long distance teleportation) by walking through doors, I think I've read it. If so, it's rather short, but damned if I can remember the name of it... - Nunh-huh 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, that does ring the bell. Frank Herbert Whipping Star or Roger Zelazny's non-Amber novel he did really early? It's a 1970's thing, I feel sure, that I read, anyway (as I only read science fiction during my teens). Geogre 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it's been percolating for a bit, I think it might be something nondescript like "The Secret Door" (and not by a well known author like Herbert, Heinlein or Zelazny). - Nunh-huh 23:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking a stab here. It's not The Worthing Saga (which is collected from the books Hot Sleep and Capitol) by Orson Scott Card is it? It involves telepathic powers as opposed to telekinesis though. But it also features a boy running from the authorities and eventually attempts to escape the planet. - Zepheus 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The People" stories???by Zena Henderson???-hotclaws**==(217.39.10.51 06:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

Oooh! Oooh! How about "The Forgotten Door" by Alexander Key? I think that might be it! --Bmk 13:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely the book that I recall!! --LarryMac 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Renior Gabrielle Renard Print

I have a print of Gabrielle Renard and Jean Renoir. I'm told it is a print from the last plates that Renoir made before he died but published after his death. The plate was signed, but the print is not. I was also told that the plates were destroyed after some prints were made. Does this sound legitimate? If so, does it have any value?

Thank You,

Sorry, I forgot to add my return e-mail... removed email to save you from gobs of spam

It sounds possible, but there is a lot of art forgery going on that is very sophisticated. To be more certain, you need a documented history of the print, showing the chain of ownership from the (estate of) Renoir to you. Alternatively, you need an expert to examine whether it is an orginal print, which will cost a small fortune. How old does Jean look on the print? He was almost 31 when his father died. --Lambiam^Talk 10:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You could take it to an auction house and ask them how much they think you might get for it. That should produce some information. You don't of course have to sell it. The choice is yours. Tyrenius 11:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

lt.Col. G.A. Custer's missing pistolas

I once heard a nasty rumor that the sioux have custer's personal brace of handguns that were taken as war trophys after the 7th cav fell at the little big horn. This is supposed to be one of the deep and dark secrets of the tribal elders as the weapons would be nearly priceless to us gun nut collectors. Supposedly yellowhair's pistols were lost to history. What do you think? 19:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)(Hobgoblin)

I think that if it's a deep dark secret of the tribal elders, it would be difficult to answer. Unless one of them came here, and it was true, and he felt like giving up the secret. Why is this rumor "nasty"? Sounds a reasonable enough trophy; earned fair and square. Notinasnaid 20:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Earned is right - they certainly paid the price for them. --Bmk 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

After the battle it is completly possible that the took Custers pistoles. However if they took custers pistols they likely sold them. There would no reason now to keep their possescion secret. The government would not demand them back.

Psychology of Coloring Interior Spaces of Universities Buildings

Hi I am looking for the methods of using different colors and their Psychologic effects on Students.For Example I want to know if there is a specific and Psychologic reasons on coloring interior spaces of different faculties such as Law,History,Art,Mathematics,Medical and etc. I want to know ,ore about relations between Psychology of colors and studying different courses in universities. I Will be glad if someone Help me to Find a good answer Thankyou Sincerely A.A Nadi --80.253.142.101 19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While not restricted to univeristy settings, we have a pretty good article on Color psychology. Nowimnthing 19:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The professor who lectured me on architectural psychology had designed several university buildings and gave the strong impression that colour theory had very little part to play in the designs. He was keen on decorating each floor in a building, or each building in a complex, in a different style, to reinforce a sense of location. Warofdreams talk 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, because at my university, there were several buildings where every floor (and indeed areas within each floor) looked exactly alike, so if you didn't know your way around, it was easy to get lost. --WhiteDragon 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange questions about the British monarchy

Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch of sixteen different countries. If she wished, could she move to, say, Canada, and style herself "Elizabeth I of Canada" (or would it be "Elizabeth II of Canada"?), then appoint a governor-general to represent her in the UK? Or is she obligated to remain in the UK? If the Commonwealth Realms are all equal partners, it seems to me she should be able to float around.

If for some reason the monarchy should be abolished exclusively within the UK, Elizabeth would remain the queen of fifteen countries. Would she be expected to select one of these as her new royal home-base, or would she remain in the UK (UR?) as a pretender to the throne? I know these are pretty frivolous questions, especially since support for the monarchy is significantly higher in the UK than in most Commonwealth Realms, but I'm very curious as to Elizabeth's exact status. Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're asking a very hypothetical question, and since I left my tea-leaves in my other jacket, I'll restrain myself to the more concrete question: Elizabeth's present style as queen of Canada (proclaimed on 28 May 1953, the Parliament of Canada assenting) is ""Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". So she would probably continue to be "Elizabeth II" even if she lost the UK: ""Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of Canada and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". " Of course, she and Parliament could decide otherwise. On the other questions, I suspect it depends mostly on the circumstances of the elimination of the monarchy. - Nunh-huh 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But she doesn't have a special relationship with the UK? That's essentially the core of my confusion. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

She very clearly does have a special relationship with the UK, but the official position is that at least insofar as her position as head of state is concerned, by the Statute of Westminster 1931 she holds those positions equally, and no nation takes precedence over any other. - Nunh-huh 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Brits pay millions each year to keep the royal family in mistresses, and I doubt if any other country would be willing to foot that bill, so I'd say if the UK dumps them, so would everybody else. StuRat 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Its ridiculous that people complain about how much money they cost. Even if we get rid of them, a head of state will still have to go and give speeches and do relations, and the palaces and stately homes will still have to be looked after, so no money is saved, at all. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when does the queen "give speeches and do relations"? She gives perhaps one speech a year, and barely ever leaves the country. All the functions normally performed by a head of state, including foreign relations, are handled by the prime minister. And as for the castles and stately homes, a government-appointed curator is less obtrusive, more accountable, and more efficient with money than any royal. When I was in England, half the castles were closed. But we have begun to digress. Bhumiya (said/done) 09:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are in fact totally wrong here. The Queen makes many speeches and goes abroad quite frequently (very frequently considering that she's 80). Buy a newspaper and read the court section and you'll find out what she does. Much of what she does is ceremonial of course, but it's still stuff that in the US for example has to be done by the President, forcing him to take time off from actually governing the country. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The big palaces, like Buckingham palace, could probably pay for themselves if open to paying tourists after the royal family was evicted. Lesser estates should probably be sold off to some historical society so they can pay to maintain them. The biggest financial loss might be the poor scandal sheets, who wouldn't have any royal toe-suckers and tampon-wanna-bes to report anymore. I suppose they would have to switch over to alien babies, like in the US. :-) StuRat 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, The Brits pay 62p each year for Liz & co to sit on the throne. [18]  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to say that support for the monarchy is "significantly" stronger in the UK than in other commonwealth countries. I would actually venture to estimate that support for the monarchy is actually stronger in (English) Canada than in Britain itself, probably because for us it's far more symbolic than real. We look at the Queen in a far less "personal" sense, not as some royal snob who lives in the most ostentatious mansion in our most important city, but rather as a mere symbol of our history, and an important element in our constitution. In addition, the Queen provides us with a sense of identity to differentiate ourselves from the Americans, and so to lose her would almost be like losing a crucial element of our own identity. Knowing Canadians, we'll likely abolish the monarchy only after England does. And finally, there seems to be a great deal of respect for this Queen, as she tends to conduct herself with a rather admirable degree of poise.

All that being said, while Queen Elizabeth can probably assure herself that she'll always be respected as Queen of the Commonwealth, I find it extremely difficult to imagine anywhere near the same degree of respect being given to her heir apparent, the future King Chuck. I can only imagine that if the monarchy would finally be abolished, it would be during his reign. Loomis 23:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The queen has a mistress?? (Not that there's anything wrong with that). Hmmm ... maybe she should change her name to Elesbieth.  :--) JackofOz 02:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Monarch is not constrained by a set of distinct and unbreakable laws and principals. Many of her actions, roles and responsibilities are determined by previous practise. The question mooted is totally hypothetical, and as such has little relevence as if the actions mentioned above did happen, there would be a range of actions which could be taken, depending on specific circumstance at the time. One point should be bourne in mind, which is that some countries have removed the Queen as head of state and become republics, and yet still stay in the Commonwealth. It is possible that the UK become a republic yet other nations retain the Queen as head of state, although personally I find that unlikely. However it is possible.--Dumbo1 11:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I know of no republic which has maintained its monarchy in any capacity, although (contrary to common view) it is at least theoretically possible. The monarchy could be administered by the government as a cultural program. In a country like the UK, where the royals are (allegedly) a boon for tourism, this would probably be considered. Frankly, I think it would help tourism if they were kicked out altogether, thus allowing castles and such to be open to the public full-time. When I was in the UK, it seemed like half the royal residences were closed. Bhumiya (said/done) 09:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that it is possible for the Queen to remain head of state of other Commonwealth countries, whilst no longer being the head of state of the UK, but that would be unlikely. The Queen is Monarch of each country independently. Anyway this is a non encyclopedic hypothetical question so it shouldn't really be here. --Dumbo1 23:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Subsidiary of a corporation

In New York State, must a subsidiary of a corporation itself be a separate corporation, or may a subsidiary of a corporation be an unincorporated entity? Is there a reference in the law?

jefitzge--jefitzge

What do you mean by "an unincorpotated entity"? Loomis 22:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about New York law in particular, but in general it's common for a corporation to set up "divisions" that are not separately incorporated but function to some extent as a self-contained unit. However, you wouldn't normally refer to such a division as a "subsidiary". In my view the term "subsidiary" implies a separate corporation. --Mathew5000 23:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither am I all that familiar with New York law in particular, but laws relating to this subject tend to be similar across North America. It would seem that your question is more semantic than legal. The term "subsidiary" is more of a business term than a legal one.

Yes, the law is very concerned with "related corporations", and whether corporations are dealing "at-arms-length" with each other, as these issues are incredibly important to corporate law in general. But whether or not a certain "entity" should be properly termed a "subsidiary" of a corporation or merely a component of the corporation itself is basically an issue of business semantics, and rather irrelevant to the law.

But I sense there is more to your question than this. Perhaps if you would expand on it, I could be of more help. Loomis 00:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses and input. Here's why I'm asking: In New York State a corporation cannot sue in Small Claims Court. I have a letterhead that says "ABC Services", and at the bottom of the letterhead it says "A Subsidiary of the XYZ Corporation", which I added a long time ago thinking, on my own and without legal advice, that if I ever needed any "protection" that incorporation could offer I might be able to build a case. The XYZ Corporation is a real S-Corporation that I formed long ago. So I go into the local Small Claims Court in an attempt to recover money from a deadbeat client, and the judge says I'm a corporation and can't sue in Small Claims Court. I said, no, I'm not a corporation, I'm a "DBA" that is a subsidiary of a corporation. He said, no, you're a corporation, and in my court I always win (just like on TV). He really didn't sound like he knew what he was talking about. If he was wrong, I'd like to go back with a reference in the law, or something so I can get my money back without pursuing it in the regular court and having fees use up all of the recovered money.jefitzge--jefitzge 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to pursue the matter, you should get some advice from a real lawyer. --

Mathew5000 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not familiar with American Law. What's a DBA? I'm actually facing a very similar situation up here, so I'm actually pretty concerned with what happens! Keep me posted! Loomis 23:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

DBA stands for "doing business as." I might own and run a corporation called "Larry Mac, Inc." but conduct day to day business as "Mom's Homemade Apple Pies." Thus various legal filings would indicate "Larry Mac, Inc. DBA (or perhaps d/b/a) Mom's Homemade Apple Pies." --LarryMac 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand the whole situation better. I've often heard the term "Doing business as", and possibly even the abbreviation "DBA". But I've never heard of any entity being described as "a" DBA. I guess that's what threw me off. Again, I should warn you, don't take what I say as the indesputable truth, as I'm not a member of the Bar of the State of New York, as so whatever I have to say is simply educated speculation.

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a DBA. The term DBA is merely used to explain the case of when a corporation is using a name other than its "official" corporate name to do business with. I'm pretty sure the concept of a "numbered company" exists in the US as it does in Canada, but even if it doesn't, I'm sure the following example will be helpful.

Here, the "official" name of many corporations is very often simply a number, as in "123-456-7890 Canada Inc". Of course nobody would actually use a bunch of numbers to do business, so, one would incorporate a company "123-456-7890 Canada Inc." and add in its corporate articles "Doing business as 'Joe's Pizza'". Everyone would know the company as "Joe's Pizza", yet officially, its name would be "123-456-7890 Canada Inc."

"ABC Services" is nothing more than a corporate pseudonym. Unfortunately, that prick of a judge was actually right (trust me, I've encountered my fair share of that kind!) "ABC Services" is not a subsidiary of "XYZ Corporation". In fact, it's not a separate entity at all. That's what totally threw me off about your question. You asked whether a subsidiary of a corporation must itself be a separate corporation, or whether it may simply be an "unincorporated entity". In fact, "ABC Services" is neither. It's neither a separate corporation, nor an unincorprated entity. Rather, "ABC Services" is merely the name that "XYZ Corporation" decided to go by in conducting its business. Sorry I couldn't give you better news! Best of luck. Loomis 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)