Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg HagermanBot]]Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

March 11

US Prohibition and Religion

I was just curious, the text of the 18th Amendment prohibited the "...manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States..."

Were religious groups such as Catholics and Jews, who practice the drinking of wine for certain religious ceremonies, such as the Catholic Eucharist or the Jewish Passover Seder somehow provided with some sort of exemption? The words of the amendment seem black and white. I can't possibly see how a court could somehow interpret it in such a way as to provide an exception for religious ceremonies. But perhaps they did. Is anyone aware of the legal status of the drinking of wine for such ceremonies during prohibition?

In a similar vein, forgive me for my ignorance of Catholicism, but is the Eucharist meant to be practiced by the "underaged"? Do Catholics get around this somehow (either through strictly legal means, or perhaps just out of the fact that any decent cop would tend to "look the other way") or do they bow to those secular authorities restricting the drinking of the sacremental wine to adults above a certain age? Loomis 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a great question about the 18th amendement and its conflict with religious ritual. Looking forward to the answer.

As for the latter, I cannot answer for Catholics, but would mention that in all the Jewish rituals I've encountered, grape juice is offered as a stand-in for wine for the underaged in all but the most exceptional of once-in-a-lifetime ceremonies (The bar mitzvah ritual, for example, traditionally uses real wine, but juice is often served to the celebrant and his friends at the reception). Jfarber 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Although http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/inglis10.htm isn't as great a reference as I'd like to provide, its account of the Volstead Act matches well with my recollections -- that is, yes, there was an exemption for sacramental wine (though many congregations chose to go for grape juice in the spirit of prohibition...I admit, no source on this). I wish I had a resource handy that could be more authoritative. Your comment on the constitutional problem raised is a very apt one, but I suspect the First Amendment defended the exemption just as it now defends the use of peyote, for example.

As far as underage practices, I imagine it varies--in many Catholic parishes, it is rare for any parishioner to take the wine except on special feast-days (Holy Thursday, for example). In my Episcopalian parish, wine is served to any baptized communicant, including children, although many kids (and some adults) choose not to take the wine. The amount of wine consumed, especially when taking communion by intinction, is very small -- I'd guess not much more than is present in some cough medicines, but I have no statistics on that. Hope this helps, Jwrosenzweig 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been to a winery cum restaurant in downtown Los Angeles which says that it was allowed to stay open to produce wine for the Church during Prohibition. Corvus cornix 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cum restaurants?! California, you so crayyyy-zee! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, Latin cum is different than English cum... (Wait, that didn't turn out right...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez...I ask a question wherein I cite such holy sacraments as the Eucharist and somehow it degenerates into a comparative analysis of various varieties of cum. But by all means, don't stop! I'm only human, and I'm just as fascinated by the nasty side of life as anyone else! ;--) Loomis 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this sort of similar to that "Hitler" rule, whereby if carried on long enough, in just about any discussion on any topic, Hitler will invariably be mentioned at some point or another? :) Loomis 09:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to distract from these fabulous double entendres, but all of the Catholic churches I've been too water their wine down, I assume partially to save money and also because a devout Catholic is supposed to fast before Sunday service. So the "mouthful" of wine isn't even a mouthful. As far as Judaism goes, I also know that grape juice is considered acceptable for adults who can't drink wine (i.e. allergy, recovered alcoholics). Natalie 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The mixing of water & wine in the Catholic eucharist is based on its religious symbolism, rather than frugality. The wine used is generally quite inferior in the first place, so it's quite cheap to begin with, and the amount of water used generally is not enough to make a big difference in cost. - Nunh-huh 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that at least to a certain extent, even among law abiding citizens with the best of intentions, a certain, nominal amount of "underage drinking" is unavoidable, whatever the law states. For example, my drinking career began when I was merely eight days old! At a Jewish circumcision ceremony, a bris, it's traditional for the mohel to dip a small piece of cloth or a small bit of cotton in a tiny amount of liquour, and put it into infant's mouth to suck on, so as to sedate and to a certain degree anesthetize the poor little guy from the little bit of pain he's about to experience. Yes, I suppose the mohel that performed my circumcision may have been breaking the law by "serving liquour to the (very) underaged", but I'm not mentioning names! Loomis 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Typically it is not illegal in the U.S. for people under 21 to consume alcoholic beverages in the context of a religious ceremony. For example, see section 235 ILCS 5/6‑20 of the Illinois Liquor Control Act, which provides that it is legal for someone under 21 to consume an alcoholic beverage in the "performance of a religious service or ceremony." Obviously the law will be different in other places, but I would be surprised if there is any state in the union that does not have some similar provision. Crypticfirefly 03:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that parts of the Prohibition movement were motivated by anti-Catholicism. Some rather ignorant folks associated sacramental wine with drunkenness, and of course broader ethnic stereotypes, particularly about the Irish, played into this. One is reminded of the famous "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" slur, from the 1884 election.--Pharos 08:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

United states, a nation of swindlers

Who is the US historian whose thesis is that the US is a nation of swindlers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.190.86.19 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Personally, I haven't heard of the US being referred to as this. However, I know that Immanuel Kant referred to the Jews as a "nation of swindlers". -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not one who wished to be treated seriously, that much is certain. Clio the Muse 10:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it was probably a lot more publicly accepted in 18th century Europe. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the context of Kant's statement: [1]. -- Mwalcoff 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's Washington Irving, in A History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty, by Diedrich Knickerbocker. --Shirt58 11:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ps: I might have found an e-text of this, but it's taking ages to download, so I'll check again after I've done the dishes and tidied the kitchen.

Can't find those exact words in either volume 1 or volume 2. A Google of 'a nation or swindlers' first hit is an article in the online journal JSTOR containng that very phrase with reference to Washington Irvine, though... --Shirt58 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the JSTOR article, and it casually uses that phrase in a discussion of his work; it does not imply the phraseology is from his writings. Neither does the book use any variation of "swindle" or call Americans a "nation of" anything. I should point out that the book is not actually a history of New York, but a humorous mock-epic pseudohistory– which does though, deal with the theme of its heroes being swindlers.--Pharos 08:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I completely agree with you. --Shirt58 10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in Walter A. McDougall's book Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828, which is revolves around "We remain, as we have been in most of our history, a nation of hustlers." ---Sluzzelin talk 13:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HoL Reform

As there are ongoing preparations (or consultations or whatever you want to call it) concerning the Reform of the House of Lords, I have the following question: Suppose, the House of Lords resists any legislation brought forward by the government (and supported by the Commons) which would change the composition of the HoL. What would happen then? On the one hand bills which are supported by the Commons can receive Royal Assent even with the Lords dissenting, on the other hand I (though vaguely) remember having read in Erskine May, that each house has absolute authority on matters of its composition or the election of its members. As far as I know, questions concerning the election of a MP respectively concerning the eligibility of a peer to sit in the HoL are still dealt with by committees of the respective house. To make it short: Has the HoL any power to veto a House of Lords Reform Bill based on its "right to decide on its composition itself" or am I somehow mistaken here? Thanks a lot (oh and by the way, if you find some, I'd appreciate references in your answer) --Mbimmler 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mbimmler, the Commons, in successive stages, through the course of the last century, determined both the powers and the composition of the Lords. The Lords' resistence to Lloyd George's 1909 Peoples Budget led directly to the introduction of the 1911 Parliament Act, which limited their powers in Money Bills, first and foremost, as well as other Public Bills. When the Lords attempted to resist this they were threatened with the creation of additional peers, and sensibly gave way. The Parliament Act of 1949 reduced their powers still further; and their composition was altered by the Life Peerages Act of 1958. Finally, the House of Lords Act of 1999 limited the hereditary peers in the house to 92, and they are now exceeded in number by the life peers. Erskine May forms a great cornerstone of the British Constitution; but that very Constitution, as I am sure you are aware, is one of the most fluid and malleable in the world. You will find more specific details on the decline and fall of the House of Lords here [2]. You might also be interested in Unfinished Business: Reforming the House of Lords by Ivor Richard and Damien Welfare. Clio the Muse 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this was enlightening. --Mbimmler 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the House of Lords can now only delay legislation by 12 months, the house of lords legislation will eventually get through, although i doubt government will except it because it will cause a long political 'headache', and will hold up popular legislation thus angering the people and possibly causing a riot. im pretty sure it was avote only involving parliment not a referendum so it is not set in stone yet.--Lerdthenerd 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lerd, you need to think a wee bit more deeply about some of these issues. English people do not, as a rule, 'riot' over delays in Parliamentary legislation, no matter how popular! Indeed, many may see such delays, and a slowdown in the endless encroachment of busybody government, as something of a blessing. Clio the Muse 10:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks clio but, i'm sure the point of government is that they represent the views of the people, the British people did not vote in labour so they could waste time on unimportant issues such as house of lords reform, they voted them in on important issues such as the economy, hospitals, schools ect. this house of lords reform and the new method for voting in judges in may seem popular, i for one would like to see a seperation of powers in the courts but the house of lords reform will "open a can of worms", and i prefer if government focused on more important issue such as hospitals and so on.--Lerdthenerd 11:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I agree with you completely, Lerd: there are indeed far more important things than reform of the Lords, just as there were far more important things than outlawing fox hunting. Nevertheless, reform of the constitution formed part of the Labour manifesto, which, I imagine, very few of the people who voted for them ever read. But I come back to my essential point: English people simply do not riot over politics. Are you English? If you are, you must surely know this yourself. Clio the Muse 11:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

yes im british. But in 1989 people mass protested (possibly rioting) over council tax.--Lerdthenerd 11:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

the disadvantages to consumers on impact marketing?

Everywhere i look, its always internet marketing and advantages of it. I need to know about the disadvantages on consumers on impact marketing on a broader scope, not just internet marketing. This is very frustrating...Please help me by pointing me in the right direction.

Moonshine in Canada

What is the legal status of privately distilled spirits in Canada? Is it covered in the Criminal Code of Canada? I'm fairly sure it is illegal but I'm not sure if its one for the cops or one for the revenooers. Lowerarchy 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all crimes are covered in the Criminal Code. With regard to moonshine, you'd have far better luck looking to the Food and Drugs Act, and in particular, its regulations. (BTW, what's a "revenooer"?) Loomis 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BATF -- AnonMoos 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BATF? The question was about Canada. To my knowledge we haven't become the 51st state just yet. Loomis 09:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You wanted to know what a "revenooer" was (as distinct from local law enforcement personnel). AnonMoos 15:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a revenooer is moonshiner lingo for an IRS employee. I was trying to get into the spirit of things. Lowerarchy 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it's Revenue Canada that plays the same role as the American IRS. Still, the IRS and the BATF are two completely different organizations. I'm lost. I think I'll just quit now while I'm ahead. Loomis 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is...privately distilling spirits is not permitted in Canada without a license. The relevant act is the Excise Act (2001); paragraph 60, section 1 states, "No person shall, except in accordance with a spirits licence issued to the person, produce or package spirits." The Act can be read here[3]. --Charlene 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez! Good find, Charlene! Who would have thought that the prohibition of moonshine would be snuck into what appears to be no more than a simple tax act. Rather odd, actually. I've just gotta know, Charlene, how the hell did you know that? :--) Loomis 13:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

the chimes of normandy france

i would like to how to find the history on the chimes if any one can help thanks

There are many churches in Normandy with sets of bells: see also carillon. --Wetman 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Les Cloches de Corneville is an operetta Englished as The Chimes of Normandy. According to French Wikipedia, the plot was inspired by a legend of the bells of Corneville-sur-Risle in Haute-Normandie. A page with more information recounts: during the 100 Years War, the English pillaged the abbey of Corneville; they loaded the town's bells onto a boat on the Risle in order to expropriate them; the boat capsized, and the monks recovered all but one of their bells; but the missing bell can miraculously be heard answering the others. One more odd tidbit: the Russians gave Corneville a bell dedicated to peace among peoples, recently declared a historical monument & now part of the carillon at a country inn with a charming restaurant.[4] Not sure where any connection to that old abbey leaves off & the tourist trap tale begins... Wareh 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions about USA

I am Ranga from India. I dont have any uncle or brother in USA and hence asking this question directly to you. 1)Are all TV channels available in all cable companies & satellite companies in USA? Or is there any exclusivity there? For example, can I watch any national channel available in Comcast or is there any channel which I cannot watch in Comcast but can watch in Time warner cable? Is there any Disney or NBC channel (company specified just for example) which I can see exclusively in DirecTV but cannot see anywhere in comcast or DishTv? 2)Is there exclusivity in content? For example, is there any song I can hear in XM and cannot hear in Sirius? Is there any song I can hear on MTV and cannot on Channel V?

Thanks, Ranga

There are a few exclusivity deals here and there, but not for major networks, who want to reach as many people as they can to attract more advertising revenue. Some providers do have exclusive services, like DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket (though I don't see too many non-Americans being interested in that), and on occasion, a provider will opt not to carry a certain channel over cost/licensing issues, but usually they get hammered out, as it can be bad for both sides. For the most part, they should not have any problem getting all or almost all of the major channels & networks through one provider or another. On the music side of things, usually there aren't any exclusive deals, as much as first-play deals, where MTV or another network will be the first to show a certain artist's video/play their single, I would imagine there have been a few exclusive tracks/titles here and there, but it's not very prevalent. Cyraan 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also "packages" with several levels of cost, so that you can buy a "basic cable" package which will probably carry ESPN and USA Network, but you would have to pay extra for, for example, The Food Network. And then HBO, Cinemax, etc. have their own packages. There are also certain networks which are only available on digital cable, so unless you have a digital converter, you can't see them at all. Corvus cornix 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. In general, television companies (whether cable or satellite) pay third parties to carry their television channels. Most (and by that i mean almost all) companies have a standard selection of maybe thirty to sixty of the most popular channels (like CNN, Discovery, and Cartoon Network, to name just a few). You will almost always have these thirty to sixty channels available with any given provider.

Some carriers do run more 'niche' channels, and due to the lower appeal some of these channels are carried by only a few providers (or even just one). For example, DISH Network carries a channel called Free Speech TV, but DirecTV does not. This is pretty much just a matter of DirecTV's preference; it's not 'exclusive' in the sense that there's some kind of contract preventing DirecTV from carrying it. Also, some of the more specialty channels (like Boomerang) may only be available with one of a carrier's more expensive packages, and this also is determined more or less by preference. As an example, Mediacom carries CourtTV as part of their basic package (at least in Iowa), but as of this year that same channel is only available in the 'premium' package on DISH Network.

Lastly there are some channels which are actually 'exclusive' by design. Satellite companies all have their own in-house channels that are only available with their service. DirecTV and DISH both have channels advertising their own services, and naturally DISH wouldn't carry a channel designed to advertise DirecTV products, so that's definitely a DirecTV 'exclusive'. DirecTV also has a channel called 'The 101' which is used to air free concerts and stuff like that. Mediacom in my area carries a channel called 'Mediacom Mainstreet', which is used to show-case local realty offerings and the like.

Also see the NFL Network. The NFL is demanding huge fees to carry the channel, and Time Warner Cable has refused to pay up. -- Mwalcoff 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

2. As for the music question, it depends. Sirius or MTV or whoever may get the rights to air a concert or something, in which case you could consider that concert exclusive. But in general it would not be especially useful for an artist to limit his songs to one carrier (since it would diminish his visibility). Sirius and XM definitely do have exclusive channels, though. ~ lav-chan @ 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't all copyrighted music in the U.S. under ASCAP or BMI? Wouldn't that allow any radio station to play any song so long as they pay the rights fees? -- Mwalcoff 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's obviously two completely separate questions, and the second sort of depends on the first. The answer to the first question is of course no; i could write a song right now and it'd be automatically copyrighted, but it would not be covered by the ASCAP or BMI. Most popular music probably is, though. That in mind, it's hard to answer the second question. Do authors (or labels) choose to register all their tracks with those organisations, or just their singles? I would assume all of them (because even songs that aren't broad-cast on the radio need royalties paid on them if they're used for something else), but maybe not. If the answer to that question is yes, then maybe the copyright holder can choose not to grant a licence to a station for certain songs. And if the answer to the question is no, then obviously the station couldn't play the song without special permission anyway. I dunno. ~ lav-chan @ 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Google

How do Americans like Google? What ever your answer may be, tell me why. -Ranga.

Hi, Ranga! Though ordinarily the reference desks are for questions of fact, the second part of your sentence makes it sound like you're asking our opinions. I'm sure there are enough Americans here that you could at least find out what a few posters to the Wikipedia Reference Desks think of Google, though I'd point out that this is NOT a random sample of Americans -- most average americans don't spend their time answering questions here. That said, for what it's worth, here's my opinions/experience:

1. When used effectively, thoughtfully, and wisely, I find Google to be comprehensive, relatively intuitive, and exceptionally powerful. I think the Google interface is elegant and ergonomic, and the simplicity of presentation is much more effective than, say, MSN or AOL's search tools. Their advanced functions seem to cover what I would otherwise want to use Boolean language for. Their results are presented usefully, with the information I'd actually want to know, and in ways that most often allow me to decide if a link is worth pursuing. Notably, I teach information literacy (including how to make the most of tools like Google); I have graduate work and teaching experience in searching and researching; I AM an expert in this, and I use Google. That said...

2. Like all tools, Google is only as effective if it is used well. MOST users would get a lot more out of Google (and out of knowing when NOT to use a search engine) if they had some training. In my experience and informed opinion, some Americans who think they do NOT like Google, or do not like it for certain uses, have no real beef with Google -- instead, they misunderstand the potential for tools to do our thinking for us, and have not yet taken ownership of the fact that, no matter how advanced technology gets, it takes real skill, knowledge, and the right attitude and understanding to use any tool as effectively as possible. This is true of Google, and it is true of Wikipedia, and it is true of the Reference Desks. Jfarber 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Americans who like Google. I do too! Clio the Muse 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but Ragna wants to know WHY, Clio :-) Jfarber 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On that point I can provide no better answer than the one you have already given! Clio the Muse 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aside from using Google as a tool (which I personally love) some people have political issues with Google, mainly due to its willingness to collude with China in censoring access to the Internet. I haven't heard of any mass boycotts of Google for this, but I imagine there are some people who don't use Google for moral/political reasons. Natalie 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Art History

My high school doesn't offer an Art History course, and since I've been interested in learning about the subject for as long as I can remember, I thought I might ask what books anybody here might suggest that are essentially surveys of Art History. I'm looking for basically what the AP course gives you, but since I have had very little experience with textbooks that don't make me fall asleep, I was hoping somebody here could suggest a well-written non-textbook Art History survey-type book. Not TOO big. I plan to take a course on Art History in college, but I'd like some general knowledge anyway beforehand. Thanks, Sashafklein 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no texts to recommend (though others surely will), but if you are an American student, you might ask your school if they partner with (or are willing to partner with) the Virtual High School -- that way, you could take the AP Art History course through your own high school, even though they don't offer it. Jfarber 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Art History class I took in college was a joke. But you should be able to get everything I got out of my class from Wikipedia, reading a bit on major artists such as Vincent van Gogh and Leonardo da Vinci and Pablo Picasso and Monet etc. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Janson's History of Art is a pretty standard text. You can get some idea of its contents at the online study guide. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There are so many choices, Sashafklein, that it's difficult for me to make a specific recommendation. However, one of the best general introductions is E. H. Gombrich's The Story of Art. It's almost seven hundred pages long in the paperback edition, though; but what can you expect from an account that begins with cave painting and ends with Brancussi! A World History of Art by Hugh Honour and and John Fleming is also quite good, though it's even longer than Gombrich! On modern art specifically The Shock of the New by Robert Hughes is a good introduction and a great read. Clio the Muse 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Both my old US High school AP Art History class, as well as my current college use the same text general Art History text book: Gardner's Art Through the Ages Vol. 12. I like it, and my professor thinks very highly of it as it goes from prehistory (e.g. Cavemen) to modern day, and includes Asian, African, and South American art for a more global perspective. Bear in mind that as it is Art history, be ready to learn and undertand underlying historical times and events as precursors and influences to the art itself.

My other suggestion is go to a major city and check out their art collections, such as DC's National Gallery of Art, NYC's Metropolitan Museum of Art, or Chicago's Art Institute of Chicago. Nothing beats studying a peice like seeing the original. Zidel333 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler Book I inherited

Good day to you,

I have recently inherited a book on Adolf Hitler, and I have been unable to locate it anywhere in the library or online however; it was brought back by my uncle who was in WWII with my father. ≤ – — … ° ≈ My question is, Do you have some sort of information on it in your archives? I would like to have a value placed on this book for insurance purposes, should I have the book repaired or left alone. I need history on this book so that I will know which direction I need to follow. Your help will be greatly appreciated. It is completly in german and I don't read or speak the language.

It is Tilted " Adolf Hitler" Bilder Aus Dem Leben Des Fuherers : Herausgegeben Vom Cigaretten/ Bilderdienst Hamburg/Bahrenfeld

I believe it is by: Der Reichstagspralident dor dem Deutlhen Reichstag zu Nurnberg am 15 September 1935

I think the publishing information is: 1501.-1600. Taulend Auswahl und kunletlerilhe Bearbeitung dere bilder dieles Werkes lagen in den Handen des Reihs=Bildberiherltatters der NSDAP, Heinrih Hoffmann, Munhen Das ganzleitige Titelbild ilt die Wiedergabe eines Gemaldes don B. Jacobs Entwurf fur Einband und Titel don O.H.W. Hadank, Berlin Graphilhe Geltaltung: Carl Ernlt Poelhel, Leipzig Copyright 1936 by Cigaretten=Bilderienlt Hamburg=Bahrenfeld Printed in Germany Druh und Einband don f. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig***Thank you qwkfingwrs

This is difficuly to answer with any degree of precision, without seeing the book and the quality of the photographs. Much depends, moreover, on whether it is a first edition or not, and the condition it is in. But to be perfectly honest with you this kind of thing was churned out in huge quantities, and it is unlikely to have any great value. However, to be sure you really have to seek the advice of a specialist in rare books. You should not have any repair work done prior to this. Clio the Muse 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding to Clio's wise words, anything contemporary dealing with Hitler has a market. You're unlucky in that a publication date of 1935 postdates his rise to power. If you had a book about him dated 1932 or earlier, there would be far less chance of it being a mass-circulation issue. --Dweller 12:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some info on the book can be found here. It was printed in over two million copies. You can buy a copy (first edition, condition "very good") from US$ 99.71.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you need help in German, I can help you. Write in English on my German. In your describtion there a lot of mistakes in german language. discussion-page-- Jlorenz1 08:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Poet Laureate

In 1341 Petrarch was crowned poet laureate in Rome for his epic poem called "Africa". He was the first person since antiquity to be given this honor; some 1000 years. This would put it then in about the 4th century, since he was of the 14th century. Whom was this previous person before Petrarch? Of Rome or of Greece or...? --Doug ^talk 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely Gulielmus Peregrinus, court poet to Richard the Lionheart, preceeds Petrarch by well over a century? I cannot say, though, if he was accorded that title specifically. I do not believe that the formal designation existed in classical times. Clio the Muse 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It was it was Theodosius who killed the Roman title, see Theodosius I#Proscription of Paganism. In his attempt to christianise the empire he abolished anything vaguely pagan including the Olympics. The Olympics and other games were when laureates were usually crowned but I don't know if there was ever any consistency between life laureateship and short term holders of laurels. It did actually outlive Theodosius with Claudian [5] having probably the best claim to the last of that title by a Roman but the job was in effect privatised, with him being employed by Stilicho rather than the state. Ah it seems Attius Tiro Delphidius may have been the last officially crowned at an olympics in the time of Theodosius, here is a latin poem about him by Ausonius meltBanana 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. Looking up these references at a quick glance it does appear that in fact it was in the 4th century when all this type history took place. This will be a lot for me to obsorb. I will be studying it, now that I have some great leads to work on. Thanks for these leads and this great information. --Doug ^talk 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetics-related free press release posting places

I'm trying to figure out who to find some press release places and news aggregators online that specialize in news about cosmetics and skin care. I have a big list of free places to post press releases, but it's a lot to go through. Does anyone have any suggestion? 66.183.217.186 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Balkans

What language did the Balkans use in the 5th century A.D.? Were they part of the Ancient Italic peoples? Did they use a language from Greece or Italy or France or some other western European languages around this time period? --Doug ^talk 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would guess, Greek in the south, some Latin (i.e. the predecessor of modern Romanian), and in addition, dispersed groups of Illyrian, Cimmerian, Thracian, Celtic, and Eastern Germanic speaking peoples. Not all that many Slavs until after the Avar debacle of 602 A.D. AnonMoos 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the people near the Danube may have spoken the Dacian language, an extinct language related to Albanian. The Huns, who spoke a Turkic language, harassed the area around today's Serbia. They did have some Slavs with them. -- Mwalcoff 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The page on the Balkan linguistic union has some sketchy information on contacts between Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian linguistic groups between the 1st and 5th centuries AD. The dominant language in Illyria to the west of the Balkan peninsula was still Vulgar Latin, in the urban settlements anyway. The map on this page shows an extensive distribution of Eastern Romance or East Latin over the whole of the northern Balkan area at the beginning of the fifth century [6]. To the south-east the ancient Thracian language was still in use, though it had disappeared by the 6th century. Further south the dominant language was Greek. Clio the Muse 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a great answer. I have much to work on now. That was most helpful!! --Doug ^talk 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Stamps

Are all U.S. stamps in the pd? - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The USPS article says: All U.S. postage stamps and other postage items that were released before 1978 are in the public domain. After this time they are copyright by the postal service under Title 17 of the United States Code. Written permission is required for use of copyrighted postage stamp images. ~ lav-chan @ 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One minor exception/clarification to the above: though stamps which are produced via approved licensed USPS vendors (like Flickr partner Zazzle) are fully legal US stamps, these stamps (and their images) are neither public domain nor the copyrighted property of the USPS, but of the original copyright holder of that image. (For more on this, see Zazzle's user agreement would do as well as any). Jfarber 15:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

March 12

This IS a Homework Question!

Well not exactly, but it's the closest thing to a homework question I've ever asked here as it pertains to a real-life academic project.

Tuesday evening I'll be giving a talk to MBA students on the subject of the outsourcing of labour to underdeveloped countries.

We've all heard those (very exagerated) stories of poor Vienamese workers getting paid 25 cents an hour to manufacture shoes for Nike and the like.

Naturally, our initial reaction is that this type of business practice is exploitative and inhumane.

My argument is that this reaction is unwarranted for the following reasons:

First, we're not taking into account the cost of living in these countries. Yes, 25 cents an hour sounds pitiful, until one takes into account the fact that such basics as a loaf of bread, a quart of milk, or a month's rent are equally dirt cheap. In fact, the wages these people are paid are generally significantly higher than those paid by whatever alternative employment (if any) available in these countries offer, allowing them to lead a far more comfortable life than they would had they not been offered these jobs.

More importantly, companies like Nike aren't forcing these unfortunates to work for them, rather, without these jobs, many of these workers would die because without a job, they simply wouldn't be able to afford the basic necessities of life.

Finally, it's the most basic of simple macroeconomic theory that as demand increases, and supply decreases, price goes up. In terms of the market for labour in poor countries, offering additional jobs only increases the demand for labour, when these jobs are taken, the supply of labour thereby decreases, all naturally having the effect of increasing wages in the aggregate.

The gist of my point is that this practice is not only not exploitative or inhumane, but rather very beneficial and helpful for poor countries, with the ultimate possibility of actually helping these nations' economies rise out of poverty and into prosperity.

What I'm looking for is any critique or thoughts anyone might be able to provide concerning my argument and this controversial issue in general, if anything, so that I may be better prepared for the Q&A session that I'll be conducting immediately afterwards.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide any sort of feedback for me regarding this "homework" question! :) Loomis 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The salary is not the only concern. Assuming anyone gives you questions of merit, they will certainly ask about the working conditions. A factory run in a develped country will most likely include things like a reasonable work day (8 hours), a reasonable break period, and some reasonable rules for employee treatment. In an undeveloped country, warlords can easily take over. They can create a factory and run it as a slave camp. They can beat or even kill employees. They can be forced to work 20-hour days with no breaks. Basically, there are no rules for humane treatment in an undeveloped country. Now, the counter-argument. When those conditions exist and people discover it, companies like Nike tend to pull out of those areas completely. Sometimes they will stay and send people in to improve the conditions. We have a system where people demand products made in humane conditions, so the supply tends to come from factories with humane conditions. That does not mean that all conditions are humane. They are not all humane here in the United States - which is definitely not underdeveloped. But, the end result is a good one for all involved except the warlords who lose their ability to rule by violence. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Workers in such factories often suffer irreparable tissue damage from being exposed to carcinogens and toxins such as benzene that are used in production. With no affordable health care, and companies taking advantage of lax environmental laws, workers often die young and with shockingly high rates of liver damage, lung damage, cancer, and so forth. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to health concerns on the individual worker's level, there may also be environmental problems on a communal level (depending on the industry). Outsourcing from environmentally regulated countries to countries with no clean air and water acts and so forth, can be viewed as unfair because it externalizes the risks while keeping the profits close to home (of course in cases such as our climate, there will be a delayed global backlash, but the main environmental impact will still be felt by the ecosystems and communities in the target countries). On a national political level, there are also worries of increased dependency and loss of democratic sovereignity. I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of people, publications, and NGO's discussing these issues in depth. So .... do your own homework! :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also on the health note: the ones working at the factories often don't have transportation available, so they must live close to the plants..and this obviously causes some problems. It's not like they can live in a clean area and commute every day. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! All great critiques. Your feedback has inspired me to perhaps focus on Mexico. I've always been pro-NAFTA, though I feel it requires a "beefing-up" in the sense that it should require that Mexican factories live up to Canadian and US standards regarding health, working conditions, pollution etc., basically all the critiques you guys have offered, plus strong anti-corruption enforcement to make sure these standards aren't overlooked by bribed officials. To my knowledge, though terribly poor and corrupt by Canadian and US standards, I've never heard of any "warlords" being in control (except perhaps in that unruly Chiapas region in the south). My feeling is that if NAFTA could be improved to such an extent where the only alleged "exploitation" involved would be economic, in the form of dramatically lower wages paid to their workers vis-a-vis their northern neighbours, still, this arrangement, though appearing exploitive, could only have the effect of increasing the standard of living of the Mexican people quite dramatically, and once again, possibly pulling the Mexican economy up from its current impoverished state to who knows...possibly one day being on par with Canada and the US. Any thoughts? Loomis 09:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

At least one wikipedia article already covers this in some depth. Note you seem to be assuming that treating people extremely poorly because it's better then the alternative is okay. Many people wouldn't agree. For example, some people might argue that Africans who were enslaved in America were better offer then they would have been had they remained in Africa. Even if this is true, I don't think slavery is any less reprehensible. Slave owners definitely weren't doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and they were supposedly the more 'civilised' people. Point being, just because people working in sweatshops are better off then many of the people around them, doesn't mean they aren't necessarily reprehensible as a concept. I would argue it is possible to run a factory in the an undeveloped country with resonably humane conditions and pay (not talking about in any way comparable to first world here). It will be more expensive and the incentive to use such a factory will be less but it is IMHO possible. The problem is of course, when people say no sweatshops, they usually mean made locally (or perhaps in another developed country). Whether this is better then sweatshops is of course debatable but since many people are protectionist they often in fact prefer it that way. Also, note on your point about purchasing power. While it's true purchasing power need to be consider and the pay may be better then many other jobs in tha area, their wages even when purchasing power is of course still terrible by first world or even resonably developed third world standards. As for your comment about NAFTA, well I don't know that much about it. But you IMHO have a bit of a naive view of the way things may work. While it may help, the reality is if the US have their way there is no way in hell Mexico will come close to being on par with the US. This is undesirable for the US (any developed country has similar attitutes). One of the biggest problems in the Americas IMHO is that the US is so big compared to everyone else they can basically dominate everyone around them and especially since they are a superpower, their interests rarely coincide with the rest of the Americas (bar Canada perhaps). It is in the US's interest to make sure that the rest of the America's don't get too strong either economically or politically. However increasingly, Brazil especially is realising they have power and this is in tandem with the way the developing world is realising they need to cooperative since their interests are often vastly different from that of the developed world. They also realise that free trade can in fact benefit them, they just need to ensure they don't let the developing world force their vision of free trade on them. So in that sense free trade agreements may work, but only when developing countries don't allow themselves to be pushed around too much. Fortunately, various political and social changes also mean that in a lot of the developed world, there is now some real pressure for fairness and certain things have also forced the developed world to realise that the sorts of tricks and games used with the developing world often backfire. Even the US is starting to realise that while supporting dictators and warlords which like you may sound like a good idea in theory, in practice it usually ends up nasty. 203.109.240.93 11:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an extremely cynical view of the United States and the American people which I don't share. Why do so many people seem to think that the US is hell-bent on keeping the rest of the world in poverty and misery for its own selfish ends? For example, the article on the humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake notes that the US government contributed just under a billion dollars, with the private sector throwing close to an additional 2 billion. All together the US contributed close to 30% of the total humanitarian aid provided for victims of this immense natural disaster. Of course the anti-American cynic will always complain that being the richest country in the world, they could have given more, and that any aid they did provide was nothing more than a purely selfish PR tactic to give the false image that the US actually cares about the rest of the world. I just don't buy that. Is it at all possible that this aid was at least in part based on genuine compassion?

But I didn't come here to get into a debate about anti-Americanism, but rather to get some extra insight into the socio-economic pros and cons of outsourcing jobs to poor countries. You say that I have "a bit of a naive view as to how things work", that "[i]t is in the US's interest to make sure that the rest of the America's don't get too strong either economically or politically" and that "the reality is if the US have their way there is no way in hell Mexico will come close to being on par with the US". With all due respect, IMHO it is your understanding of world economics that is quite naive. Take a look at the article on the economy of South Korea, for example. Fifty years ago it was a dirt-poor third world country. To quote from the article:

"Just after the Korean War, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world - yet, today's South Korea is in the league of the wealthiest nations: Per capita gross national product, only $100 in 1963, exceeded $20,000 USD in 2005."

And further on:

"Following the Japanese occupation and the Korean War, the Syngman Rhee administration of the newly formed South Korean state used foreign aid from the United States during the 1950s to build an infrastructure that included a nationwide network of primary and secondary schools, modern roads, and a modern communications network."

You see, the so widely held belief that US wealth and prosperity has been, and can only continue to be achieved through the exploitation of third-world countries, as sensible as it may seem, is absolutely, completely false, and based on a poor grasp of international economics. The US helped South Korea to transform itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest in less than half a century, because it was in the best interests of both countries for South Korea to thrive. You also seem to have casually dismissed the Canada/US economic relationship, yet offer no explanation. Why should Canada be an exception? The fact that Canada and the US carry on what is most likely the most mutually beneficial trading relationship between any two countries in the entire world can be attributed entirely to the fact that like the US, Canada is a wealthy country as well. The US would only benefit all the moreso if Mexico was as wealthy as Canada. And if South Korea can undergo such a radical transformation, why not Mexico? Loomis 13:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't get into the debate above, but you may be asked about child labour. One of the more difficult situations a manufacturer has to deal with is when local managers hire young children (under 12) to work in their factories. Many say that giving the children the chance to work means they won't go hungry; unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in most practical examples. Children are more likely to die or be injured in childhood than kids who don't work, are more likely to not be in school (which of course means they won't be able to get a better job when they grow up), and are more likely to be exploited in other ways - sexually, economically (by taking back their entire wages for "boarding costs", or by giving them only enough food to keep them alive), and otherwise. Also remember that countries such as South Korea became wealthy en masse due to outsourcing, but that millions of individual Koreans paid the price. The ones living in comfort today are less likely to be the children of sweatshop workers than the children of managers and other white-collar workers who already benefitted from significant advantages before the Americans came.

There's also the related problem of providing education in communities businesses set up around their factories. I've heard time and time again local managers call development societies or co-operatives "suckers" (or something similar) for giving aid money to set up a school, since "I would have done it anyway". Then why didn't he at any time in the 25 years since he began managing the plant? --Charlene 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis actually have fairly good points. But Loomis, if you come here to the Philippines, you'll find that multinational companies and free-market economists here have always said the same arguments. These people still believe in the invisible hand that guides the economy - the global economy. But let me tell you about the other side of the debate. Business process outsourcing is only a small part of the overall hegemony that involves economies and cultures of different peoples. Here in our country, call centers are thriving. If an employee gets regularized, he can earn more than P20,000 a month. National activists here believe that amount is not enough to raise a family on. But that's not all. Time here is literally being bent to suit the needs of the United States. Call center agents, mostly young Filipinos, work at night and sleep at daytime. Even bars and other entertainment venues are changing their time to accomodate call center agents. And then there's the issue of health risk. They drink huge amounts of coffee, and smoke cigarettes to keep their body awake all night. And take note, I'm not talking about sweatshops here. These are call center companies that serve American clients, and their working conditions are good. But despite all that, there is still an incredible damage to the Filipino people. If you're a fresh graduate here now, it's almost as if you can only either be a call center agent or a nurse. Activists protest that we no longer produce a generation of bright minds with a heart for the nation and with a taste for history, for example, and literature, culture, etc. We only produce call center agents whose only expertise is how to speak the english language with an American accent. That's all that matters. And all the while, we are losing our identity, if we still have it at all, because people here seem to make Americans the standard and their heroes for everything. Everything is interconnected. And I guess what Adam Smith failed to observe is that the invisible hand also dominates and punishes invisibly and severely. I remember reading an article where a Filipino graduate of, if I remember correctly, agricultural engineering, in the University of the Philippines (a really prestigious university here) ended up as a nurse in the US. She can't help it, she says, it pays more to be a nurse. It's disappointing. And when I was in the university myself, I really used to hate America with all my guts, what with the spirit of scholarly rebellion all over the place. You see, it's not all about how much workers here or abroad get paid. It's also about what is sacrificed to be able to live. I understand that Americans consciously do not intend to harm others, but such is the state of things. One author once said that a touch of another culture is enough to kill another. Moonwalkerwiz 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a final thank you to all you guys. The lecture went EXTREMELY well, thanks in good part to your help. I'm truly grateful to all of you for your contributions. This, to me, is indeed the RefDesk at its best. Loomis 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

MY SMALL FAT GREEK QUESTION.

Are greeks really very cunning and crafty as they are portrayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.215.141 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask when exactly they are portrayed like this? -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, you can't make such sweeping generalisations for a whole nation of people and their culture. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read Boys' Weeklies, a brilliant dissertation by George Orwell which, amongst other things, focuses on the comic absurdity of thinking in terms of national stereotypes. You should find this in any decent collection of his essays: my own copy is that published in 2000 by Penguin Books in England. The essay itself was written almost seventy years ago, but it continues to have a universal relevance, with all due allowance being made for the passage of time and the changes in the forms of cultural presentation. Anyway, here is how the world, at least part of it, was presented to English schoolboys in illustrated papers just before the outbreak of the Second World War:

FRENCHMEN: Excitable. Wears beard, gesticulates wildly.

SPANIARDS AND MEXICANS: Sinister, treacherous.

ARABS AND AFGHANS: The same as the above.

ITALIAN: Excitable. Grinds barrel organ and carries stilleto.

SWEDE: Kind hearted and stupid.

NEGRO: Comic, very faithful.

The French are always described as 'Frogs' and the Italians as 'Dagos' The Americans, when portrayed, speak an old-fashioned, stage Yankee, along the lines of Waal, I guess..., and the Chinese speak an atrocious pidgin, using expressions like Me thinkee. It's all quite absurd, of course, showing a world filtered through late Imperial stereotypes. Obviously the way in which people are depicted has changed dramatically, but the fashion of reducing whole communities to a single characteristic, good or bad, remains. Please avoid the temptation. The Greeks are as diverse and varied as everyone else; as diverse and varied, I dare say, as your own people and nation. Clio the Muse 09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

James A. Michener wrote in his usual style of fact and fiction about this phenomenon. I am fairly certain it was in his novel Chesapeake. He reproduces text from schoolbooks of the day and then puzzles his characters when they discover that the reality isn't as simple as they were taught. --Dweller 11:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me second that recommendation. It is a rather good novel. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more articles you might like to look at: outgroup homogeneity bias, trait ascription bias, and, on the other hand, stereotype inevitability, and intercultural competence. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group members

Is there any Bilderberg Group member here? Just wondering who's going to be the next US prez and whether Gordon Brown is gonna take over from Blair or not. Also, is Howard going to make another miracolous comeback? N.B. E-mailing or normal mail is fine, obviously I don't need to tell you my address... Cheers 203.109.240.93 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Bilderberg members would bother with editing the Wikipedia Reference Desk, or doing any other productive work for that matter. That said, I don't think that their favorites necessarily assume power every time. For example, I read reports suggesting that most Bilderbergers were unsatisfied with Bush and did not want to see him reelected in 2004. He may not have been fairly reelected (see our articles on Walden O'Dell and 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities), but nonetheless he retained power. (edited) Marco polo 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

British Spies

Who was the British spy I believe his name was Scotland who was born in Africa and joined the German army and then became a mole after World War I and rejoined the Germany army in 1939. He rose to the rank of Lt General in the German forces and kept passing information on to the brits and when the USSR caught him they couldnt believe such a high ranking officer was a spy? And alos who was the British spy for the Soviets who had been a commie in youth and joined the service witht he expressed intent of helping the Reds? --Stalin1942 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who 'General Scotland' was, or indeed if he ever existed; but on your second question you can take your pick from the Cambridge Four-Guy Burgess, Donald Duart Maclean, Anthony Blunt and Kim Philby. This circle of traitors is sometimes known as the Cambridge Five, although the additional member has not been identified with any certainty. Clio the Muse 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I'm not familiar with any individuals who meet the criteria of your first question; it's possible you are referring to someone like Juan Pujol Garcia, Jona von Ustinov or Kazimierz Leski. The second part of your question can probably be referenced by the article on the Cambridge Five, although I don't know specifically which of the four proven spies (or several alleged "fifth men") you are referring to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carom (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

It's possible you are conflating two (or more) persons, here. Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr was rumoured to be in contact with British intelligence during the war, although I'm not aware that any definitive evidence of this has emerged. You may be confusing him with another, actual British agent to produce the character "General Scotland." Can you provide any additional information? Carom 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember the details about "general Scotland", but from what I remember he lived in a German African colony and at the start of the war was interned because he was of Brit dissent. Eventualyl he was captured by the Brits and sent back to the Germans as a double agent. After WWI he went into deep cover living a normal life but returned to the service afetr the rise of hitler. He rose to lt General and was captured by the Soviets in 1945. He also testifed against his former colleagues at Nuremberg. --Stalin1942 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Could the OQ be thinking of Rudolf Hess, who flew to Scotland during the war? Corvus cornix 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a superb conjecture, Corvus cornix! Hess was born in Alexandria, and was generally known in the inner circle of the NSDAP as the 'Egyptian', both because of the place of his birth and his sphinx-like appearance. He did indeed fly to Scotland in May 1941, though he could hardly, by any measure, be described as a British spy, and few of the other details outlined at the outset in any way fit into his military and political career. Clio the Muse 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the 1958 movie "The Two Headed Spy", about the exploits of a German officer named Gen. Alex Schottland, who passed information to the Allies. Schottland was played by Jack Hawkins. The movie is said to be based on a true story, but whom it's really about, I have no idea. The IMDB summary of the plot includes this: "World War II spy thriller based on true story. British secret agent (Jack Hawkins) successfully infiltrates Nazi military, achieves rank of general during WWII. He gains full confidence of entire Nazi high command, including Fuhrer Adolf Hitler himself, save one suspecting German officer (played with evil panache by Erik Schumann). All the while Hawkins passes war-winning information to Allies assisted by two loyal Berlin contacts, first Felix Alymer [sic] and then nightclub singer Gia Scala. ... ". The only reason I knew to search for this is that I saw this movie on TV when I was about 15, and I remember that at one point in the story General Schottland's surname, which is the German for Scotland, was a point of discussion amongst his fellow officers. I remember absolutely nothing else about the movie. Strange how little details stick in the mind. JackofOz 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice reply, Jack. Thanks for the information. Corvus cornix 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, follow-up question: is that movie really based on a "true story", and if so, what or whose true story? Lupo 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does atheism make people better-off?

Is there a study anywhere of the effect of nonbelief on, for instance, personal happiness? That is, there's an argument that goes, "whether or not religion is literally true, it's good for people"--is there any empirical backing to this claim? Some sort of sociological study of atheists comparing them to the general population? grendel|khan 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to prove that religious people are necessarily any happier than atheists. Chapter 10 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins deals with this very issue. -Wooty Woot? contribs 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What about fine-grained details? I.e. rather than "religious" to "atheist", perform a pair-wise comparison between every major belief system. Also, while I'm wishing, I'd like to study more than "happiness"; are there any notable trends in wealth? Education? Etc? With suitable care taken to avoid having the statistics lie - e.g. atheism may correlate with education, but that would be education -> atheism, not atheism -> education. Also, I don't have a copy of Dawkins' book, so while I'm wishing I'd like this to be a published study in a publically accessable domain. 137.99.164.170 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A study was actually done on education vs. religious activity in the US. For most religion, activity in their religion and education had an inverse relationship. For Judaism, it seemed to be unrelated. For Mormonism, it was directly correlated (the more educated a Latter Day Saint is, the more likely they are to be active in their church). This study is buried somewhere at www.adherents.com. The Jade Knight 06:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know of any sociological studies on the relationship between belief or non-belief and personal happiness, but I am reminded here of Saint Manuel the Good, Martyr, a novella by the Spanish existentialist philosopher Miguel de Unamuno. It's about a priest who has lost his belief in God but says nothing to his parishioners because he recognises how central faith is to their lives and personal happiness. Clio the Muse 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, any such question also gets tangled in plenty of other issues, such as the whole "which comes first" bit, even if a study were to show a correlation between atheism and unhappiness. Do people choose atheism and become unhappy as a result, or do "originally" unhappy people tend to decide there is no God? Also, how much of a person's success is determined by the reputation of their group rather than its "inherent qualities" (most would say that the disproportional presence of African-Americans in U.S. prisons is a result of racism and negative self-image and nothing to do otherwise with "being black")? It may be that atheists are simply distrusted enough to become unhappy/unsuccessful. (In a recent poll in which Americans were asked who they'd be willing to vote for president and were given a list of generic "outsiders" and minorities — a woman, a black man, a Mormon, etc. — the atheist was the only one to earn under 50% of this vote, right after an open homosexual. So there's that to consider as wel.) — Lenoxus 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The poll, by Gallup, was misleadingly titled Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates. Apparently they put "atheist" on the poll as a joke. grendel|khan 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the result of a Pew Research Center poll of 3,014 American adults:

• • Percentage saying they're "very happy" by frequency of worship attendance:
• Weekly or more: 43%
• Monthly or less: 31%
• Seldom or never: 26% -- Mwalcoff 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, exactly what does that mean? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears to mean that people who attend church more frequently are more likely to consider themselves very happy. I'd like to see the actual survey. grendel|khan 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing a study where Christians who go to church live on average about 2 years longer than ones who don't. However, it occurred to me that they spend about 2 years of their lives in church. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, here's the link: [7]. -- Mwalcoff 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A related survey showed recently that conservatives were more charitable than liberals Blog issue. DDB 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A problem with this question is the assumption that atheism and religion are mutually exclusive opposites, which is not the case in common usage. For example, Buddhism is regarded as a religion, yet it is (typically) non-theistic. The strict meaning of atheism as a disbelief in a deity or deities may not hold for Buddhism, but the common looser meaning, nontheism does. See God in Buddhism for more on the topic. Pfly 07:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion can make people unhappy. There's people who have a fear of god, people who are shamed and made to feel guilty by their church... etc...

Anyway, if religion if something that you enjoy and it makes you feel good, then I guess it can be said to be good for you, but then the same could be said for doing things like painting or playing an instrument... --Candy-Panda 12:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is He?

Who is Who

I am trying to get info about a Haitian person lived around 1845

Named: A. Garochel

Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Albander (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

This is awfully vague but I suppose you might take a choice of Charles Riviere-Hérard or the Emperor Faustin I or Jean-Baptiste Riché or Jean Pierre Boyer or Jean-Louis Pierrot or Lysius Salomon, all among the more prominent Haitians of the time. Clio the Muse 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the questioner may be seeking information about a person named A. Garochel. Given the lack of Google hits, he was apparently not famous.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess is either (1) the name is misspelled (2) he's a relatively minor historical figure or (3) this is a genealogical query. I'm sort of leaning toward (1), given that there doesn't seem to be anyone named "Garochel".--Pharos 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Return question to Albander: Where did you find the name mentioned?  --Lambiam^Talk 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Architecural style?

I've been wondering for ages whether there is a proper name for the architectural style used in a lot of UK buildings in the 1950s and early 60s, it's obviously a branch of Modernism but I'm not sure if there was a proper name for it. It's characterised by concrete frames around the windows, metal framed windows, usually brick facades but sometimes white stone and thin lines. Here are some photos of the kind of thing I mean:

• http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/eee_debenhams001.JPG
• http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/ccc_highstreet005.JPG (buildings on the left)
• http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/ddd_abovebar009.JPG
• http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/ddd_abovebar010.JPG

Some of these have Art-Deco/International Style influences but these buildings are later than that. The BBC Television Centre is another very good example of the style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GaryReggae (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

While the International style article claims that this style was finished at the end of World War II, the article Modern architecture states that the international style became the dominant postwar style. If these rather uninspired buildings can be said to embody any style at all, I would say that it is a late, utilitarian, and watered-down version of the international style. In the case of the fourth building listed, as you say, there are some art-deco characteristics. Marco polo 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've known it called "shopping precinct un-chic"hotclaws**== 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about soft core brutalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism 195.27.12.230 11:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dietary Laws

Kosher is the word used to describe food which Judaism allows for Jews, and Halal is the word to describe food which Islam allows for Muslims, i.e., Dhabiĥa Halal and Kashrut. Are there any dietary laws for Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. and for atheists such as those who ran the former Soviet State? Diligent 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Many Hindus are vegetarians (see Vegetarianism#Hinduism), and so are some Buddhists. However, there are no particular dietary laws for Christians, and there are definitely none for atheists (being that atheism is not a religion). -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But quite a lot of people have different taboo food and drink. Cat chop anyone? meltBanana 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How about in the ancient Egyptian culture? Diligent 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lent#Customs_during_the_time_of_Lent has some material on Catholic dietary restrictions. --TotoBaggins 02:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most major religions are against cannibalism. Brownie points to whoever can cite scriptures to this point.--Pharos 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not find and specific Egyptian food taboos, [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/diet.htm here] are some references. As for biblical cannibalism here is your handy recipe card. meltBanana 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I intended this as a joke, some people may find it offensive Hmm most religions seem to have a prohibition on the consumption of semen too Nil Einne 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually (in the Netherlands traditionalist) catholics follow strict dietary laws, which specify when to which food. No meat (therefore fish) on friday etc. C mon 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

About Christian dietary laws: I vaguely recall that there is a period where Christians are supossed not to eat meat and are meant to eat fish instead. In the middle ages there was the debate that otter was a fish. In some countries it was tradition not to eat meat on fridays (the day when Jesus died). On the whole, most christians today are quite happy to ignore these old rules. As someone (St. Paul?) said a long time ago: "It is not what enters through the mouth that is unclean, but what sometimes comes comes out" (something similar; I guess that he was refering to lies, insults, and falsehoods). Then there many cultural taboos (which largely depend upon the person in question): canibalism, not eating cat, dogs, horse etc. Hmm Horseflesh, makes a man strong. :) Flamarande 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're partly right. It comes under fasting. This website[8], although tailored to a specific understanding and denomination of Christianity, points out that fasting originally meant "going on a disciplined diet" and not "not eating at all", at least in Christianity. This page at catholicism.org [9] mentions, though, that it wasn't that you were supposed to eat fish: it was that you were supposed to not eat meat. Many people ate dairy or vegetarian dishes on Friday. However, there were also political/economic reasons. After Elizabeth I succeeded to the English throne and the practice of the Anglican faith became codified, laws were enacted forbidding the eating of meat on Friday (and soon after that, Wednesday) in order to prop up the fishing industry. Most Englishmen at the time couldn't imagine going a whole day without some kind of animal flesh. --Charlene 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Magna Carta and Myth-Busters

I don't understand why this section in the article on Magna Carta is titled "The Myth-Busters". Any ideas? --Spundun 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Magna Carta has a significance in English constitutional history far in excess of what the document actually achieved. It might, in a very real sense, be said to have transcended real history and achieved a mythical status. By the late eighteenth century a number of people were beginning to question the assumptions about the document, particularly in relation to the development of Parliamentary sovereignty, hence the Myth-Busters heading, which I personally feel is out of place and far too glib. It has, however, nothing whatsoever to do with the television show you have linked. Clio the Muse 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) When that section was introduced[10] the preceding text contained five mentions of a mythical aura the Magna Charta had allegedly acquired by the Stuart age, and it is this "myth" that is supposedly busted. The first of these, introducing the notion of "myth", was changed later from "mythical aura" to "almost mystical status"[11], leaving the later mentions (in particular the next one) somewhat orphaned. I've reinstated the word "mythical" there, but I have to agree that even with this change the text remains a bit cryptical.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the belief that Jews deserve eternal damnation considered antisemitism?

I've checked the antisemitism article, but not much is said about this. Any help? Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"deserve"? Any religion's opinions about another's aren't necessarily racist, but the way in which they are framed could be. A traditional form of Christianity might say that non Christians have no place in Heaven. But saying that a group "deserves" damnation begins to sound racist to these ears. --Dweller 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement does not sound like it is referring to the Jewish religion. It appears to claim that all Jews, even Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu Jews deserve damnation. So, yes, it is an antisemetic statement. It could be less offensive as, "Those who deny Jesus due to adherence to the Jewish faith are destined for damnation." Then, it is a religious, not a racist statement. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kainaw, what is a Hindu Jew? A Christian Jew? An Islamic Jew? I'm not familiar with the way you're using the term Jew, and request clarification. Jfarber 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to understand that "Jew" has to completely different meanings? In one sense, it refers to people who are descendent from those who used to (and some have recently returned to) live in the region of Judea. In another sense, it refers to those who practice the religion that came from those who used to live in the region of Judea. If you are referring to the race, there is no limitation on the religion. There are people who, if you ask them what race they are, will say "Jew". Then, if you ask them what religion they are, they will not say "Jewish" because they practice another religion (or no religion at all). I hope it isn't too much of a shock that not all Jewish people practice the Jewish religion. You know, there are even people who are not Jewish that have converted to the Jewish religion. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is a Hindu Jew the inverse of a Jewish Hindu: "Hindu Jew" = "Jewish Hindu" ^-1 ? Actually, I think Kainaw is referring to the ethnic group Jews. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I've never heard of any respectable Christian denomination singling out Jews as deserving eternal damnation. Rather, from my rudimentary understanding of Christianity, anyone who does not accept Jesus as his lord and saviour is doomed to eternal damnation. Jews aren't being singled out, rather, all non-Christians are viewed to be deserving of the same fate. That said, I don't see that belief as particularly anti-semitic at all. I really don't feel any harm being done to me when I hear a Christian tell me that after I die, I'm destined for hell. I really couldn't care less what others believe will happen to me after I die, so long as they respect me while I'm alive.

It's actually rather similar to that rather peculiar, yet still, very much appreciated staunch support evangelical Christians have for Israel. I'm not at all well versed in the New Testament, but from what I understand, these Christians are strong supporters of Israel based on their interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Apparently they believe that according to Christian prophesy, the Jews are meant to re-establish their presence in Israel, up until the time of Armageddon, at which time some two thirds of the Jews will die, Jesus will return, and the remaining third will accept Christ, and go to heaven. Or something like that. I'm really not entirely clear on the details, nor do I care to be. What's important though, is that in this "pre-Armegeddon" world we live in presently, many Christians are staunch supporters of Israel. The fact that I find their motives, from my perspective at least, to be rather odd, is to me rather irrelevant. For the time being they support Israel, and for me, that's all that really matters. Loomis 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, there may be some sects that do say that anyone who does not accept Jesus as his lord and saviour is doomed to eternal damnation. After all, Christianity is a very broad church with many conflicting dogmas. But the mainstream Christian churches do not teach that. There is no single human spokesperson for "Christianity", so you have to be careful about whom you choose to believe about this. JackofOz 02:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz, would the ones that DO believe that, be considered antisemites? For instance George Bush? Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, imo. If anyone, anyone at all, who does not accept Jesus as his lord and saviour is said to doomed to eternal damnation, then that would apply equally to Jews and non-Jews. I can't see that that position would be anti-semitic as such. JackofOz 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. I don't see it as anti-semitic either. And thanks for the clarification, Jack, food for thought. I'm just curious, Kirby, why you seem to believe that George Bush, an Episcopalian (a very closely related denomination to Anglicism) would fall into the category of those Christians who do believe that all non-Christians are doomed to hell. Loomis 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming because of reports like this and this. ~ lav-chan @ 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This question came from reading Talk:Antisemitism#There_is_definite_bias_in_the_text. Some users were saying that even if the rules applied equally to Jews and non-Jews, it is still antisemitism. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a long thread and I don't have time to read it all. But I noticed one part that was talking about the Nazis' discrimination against Jews, gays and Roma people. In that case, it was definitely anti-semitism because the Nazis selected certain particular groups of people, of whom the Jews were one, and did terrible things to them. They were all identified with their groups, with a different coloured arm patch. It wasn't a case of persecuting any people at all that they considered not to satisfy their twisted concept of what a German was. But this becomes simplistic. If their thesis was expressed as broadly as I just said, would it then have ceased to be anti-semitism per se? No, because a German Jew is no less a German than a German gentile - also true for gays and Roma - so the whole basis of their notion of true Germanness was grotesquely flawed from the start. JackofOz 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any (Christian) doctrine that Jews "deserve" eternal damnation, but there is a long-standing notion that the Jews are cursed because of their alleged guilt in the death of Christ. This goes back to what Paul wrote in 1 Thess. 2:14-16; in the Wycliffe version:[12] "For, brethren, ye be made followers of the churches of God, that be in Judaea, in Christ Jesus, and ye have suffered the same things of your even-lineages, and they of the Jews. Which slew both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and pursued us, and they please not to God, and they be adversaries to all men; forbidding us to speak to heathen men, that they be made safe, that they fill their sins evermore; forsooth the wrath of God before came upon them till into the end." The last words, in the Vulgata usque in finem, in Koine εις τελος, have been interpreted as meaning "till the end times", although the more usual later interpretation (for example in the King James) is "to the utmost degree". However, this supposed curse (the wrath of God) then was seen as pertaining to the condition of the Jews in this world, such as the diaspora (cf. the image of the Wandering Jew), and not implying eternal damnation. After all, the same Paul wrote in Romans 11:25-26:[13] "Forsooth, brethren, I will not that ye unknow this mystery, that ye be not wise to yourselves; for blindness hath felled of part in Israel, till the plenty of heathen men entered, and so all Israel should be made safe. As it is written, He shall come of Sion, that shall deliver, and turn away the unpiety of Jacob." So Israel (the Jews) will be saved in the end.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the mechanism for salvation (saving of the soul) of all Jews is the same as it is for Peter, and Paul and Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary and you and I... That mechanism is admitting and accepting the Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is after all the only thing that distinguishes Christian from Jew and without it the Jews can not be saved or escape eternal damnation whetheer believed to be deserved or not. Diligent 08:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: I've always been curious about this. According to that line of Christian thinking, would a righteous Jewish person, who lived a good, noble life be treated after death any differently from an evil Jewish person who stole, murdered, raped, cursed God (jaywalked) and was generally not very nice? --Dweller 09:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer that by asking several questions: What happend to Adam and Eve when they chose to eat of the tree of good and evil? What happened to the Isrealites who upon the return of Moses decided they prefered idolitry to God? What is the consequence for anyone who lives a good or a bad life for themselves instead of for God? Diligent 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I don't know. That's why I'm asking you. I'll restate the question, because I don't understand your reply. If all non Christians are "eternally damned" then after death is there a consequence for being an evil eternally damned person rather than a good eternally damned person? --Dweller 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Christians believe that works do not get you into Heaven; that you can not “earn” your way into Heaven. Diligent 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So a non Christian might as well worship Satan, decapitate small children and steal altar-pieces, as it makes no odds to their afterlife. OK. --Dweller 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact there are many death bed conversions especially in prisons where people have been incarcerated for the worst possible crimes. Diligent 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Diligent, it might help your understanding if you read a little more widely. Might I suggest that you have a look at Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg, a Scottish writer who challenged the whole ethical and doctrinal basis of Calvinist notions of predestination? What you are advancing here comes close to the most perverse forms of heresy, including the Medieval notion of the Free Spirit. Clio the Muse 13:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I am curious as to what sort of perverse heresy Diligent is guilty of. I don't see anything save a rather weak connection to predistination in his argument at all. Care to clarify? GreatManTheory 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He is actually quite confused, GreatManTheory, advancing notions of faith over works in a Calvinist fashion, though I do not think this concept, and its full implications, have been properly digested. I was reminded both by Dweller's remark and Diligent's response of the Heresy of the Free Spirit. As I understand it, this Medieval doctrine was based on the contention that once any given indvidual achieved a state of grace she or he could not fall from this, regardless of their earthly actions. You will find more detailed information on this in Norman Cohn's Pursuit of the Millenium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists in the Middle Ages. Clio the Muse 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Humm.. But isn't this the very basis of remaining a Jew instead of Christian conversion? Isn't the assumption the same that by just being a Jew you are saved? Faith without works is not suppose to get you anywhere but works alone can not get your there either is what I have alwasy been taught. Just becasue I referenced predestination does not mean I subscribe to it entirely as a belief but rather that my knowledge of it helps me to know where my beliefs are at. My personal guiding principle is constant communion with God, i.e. not praying five time a day as the Muslims do but simply not ending the first prayer that was begun. I ask God moment by moment what is the right thing to do, can he clarify His will by telling me what to do. sometimes His response is immediate and sometimes over time but the point is constant communication in order to keep myself from taking charge. Diligent 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A naked statement to the effect that Jews 'deserve' eternal damnation is anti-semitic; but it also happens, in a far deeper sense, to be anti-Christian. The whole concept of hell is so complex, subject to considerable variations in and between faiths, that it is difficult to give a precise and succinct answer to this; but since the debate has focused so far on forms of Christianity it is from there I take my point of departure, specifically from the position of the Catholic Church. In the traditional view the souls of unbaptised children, all unbaptised children, are neither in heaven nor hell but in limbus infantum. The second limbo, the limbus patrum-the limbo of the fathers-was where the souls of those who died before the advent of Christ were confined, but who were still considered to stand high among the just: this would include, of course, all of the great Jewish patriarchs. By the Middle Ages the established Catholic position was that all who did not accept Christ as their saviour and-just as crucially-the authority and teaching of the Church, were destined for Hell, understood in a very literal sense. This would embrace heretics as well as heathens, as Innocent III, the greatest of the Medieval popes, made plain when he said 'There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved', a dogma confirmed by Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum, a bull of 1302. However, all this was changed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, and is generally known now as Vatican II. In The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, one of several documents to come out of this gathering, it is specifically written that The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible church. This was followed by Nostra Aetate, which says, amongst other things, that the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in non-Christian religions, and that God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church also says that the church has a special relationship to both Jews and Muslims because of the common reverence for the prophet, Abraham. In 1999 Pope John Paul II simply said that Hell was 'absence from God'. The 'presence of God' thus must be seen to embrace both Jew and Gentile.

I therefore repeat the observation that I made at the outset: an unqualified statement to the effect that Jews, because they are Jews, deserve Hell belongs to secular, racist and anti-semitic doctrines, in whatever guise they happen to come. Clio the Muse 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• However, if a Semite is a person who lives their life for themselves instead of for God then being anti-Semite might be a good thing instead of bad. Diligent 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That is an induction from particular cases to general principles, which seems to me to be the very essence of prejudice and irrationality. It's the syllogism of the simple-minded. Clio the Muse 11:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that's not what a semite is. Your definition would describe almost everyone on planet Earth, with a few significant exceptions. JackofOz 11:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Diligent, that sounds like an appalling misunderstanding of Judaism. It also sounds like racism. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase it, so that no-one will think that. --Dweller 11:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to revise or rephrase but first I need more detail as to why all of you object??? What is it you find so offensive about this comment??? Diligent 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Read again what you have written, Diligent, and what I said in reply. I will try to make my point a little simpler. You may feel that any given individual deserves to be condemned for her or his actions, but you advance far beyond this in suggesting all similar people, all those whose actions have not been observed, should likewise be condemned by association: hence the syllogism of the simple minded. It's profoundly unchristian, and simply makes you look as if you are developing an abstract anti-semitic platform, which I feel sure is not the case. Please be careful in your choice of words. Clio the Muse 12:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was a Jew! --Candy-Panda 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 18:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, wrong. Indisputable according to the majority of modern historians, the historical Ribi Yehoshua was a Torah-teaching Pharisaic Ribi Jew and his 1st Century followers were neither the practitioners, nor the foundation of, any other religion. Take your unhistorical (for good research, see Geza Vernes, Hyam Maccoby, James Parkes, Harvey Falk, Jerusalem Synoptic School), misojudaic (antisemitic), Christian church originated beliefs out of this discussion. As a sidenote, "Jesus" is not the historically accurate name, since it is the Anglicized pronunciation of the Greek translation (Iesous) of the Aramaic version (Yeshua) of his actual Hebrew name (Yehoshua ben Yoseif). Noogster 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My answer: Yes. It's definitely antisemitism. In fact, historically, it is the archetypal form of antisemitism that has caused the death and dispersion of millions of the Jewish people. Historically documented (i.e. citable/verifiable on Wikipedia) antisemitism usually consisted of either Christians or Muslims attempting to make Jews convert from Judaism with the belief/teaching that they are eternally damned otherwise. The most ignorant, antisemitic comment in the discussion so far: "However, if a Semite is a person who lives their life for themselves instead of for God then being anti-Semite might be a good thing instead of bad." A Semite is a person whose ancestry goes back to one of the ancient peoples of the Middle East. Jews are Semites, but so are other groups including Arabs and Persians. Therefore misojudaic (from Greek, hatred of Jewish things) is more accurate. Noogster 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

March 13

Perfume Ingredients

What are perfumes mostly made of, like WhiteDiamond(made by Elizabeth Taylor)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.36.187 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Ask again and I'm going to apply your post directly to my forehead. :) Have you read our article on perfume? It contains the common ingredients. --TotoBaggins 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do special commissions get paid?

I'm curious whether members of ad hoc committees such as the current Bob Dole / Donna Shalala one looking into the Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal get paid, and if so, how much? Google didn't help. Thanks. --TotoBaggins 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

According to this copy of the Executive Order creating the commission [14], they don't get paid. Private citizens on the committee, if any, can apply for a per diem for transportation and expenses, if there's any money for it in the budget. --Charlene 11:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! --TotoBaggins 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the copyright term in China?

Or in other words, from which year and on are works made in China encumbered by copyright. I've searched Wikipedia, Google and even asked a law professor with a blog about chinese law without getting an answer. As I understand it, China didn't formally have copyright until the late 80's, does this mean that anything made before that date is free for all? Or does the copyright apply retroactively for some number of years? – Foolip 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright in China lasts until the Communist government says otherwise.

(That's supposed to be a joke) The Jade Knight 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Copyrights in Red China are a joke. The government couldn't enforce them if it wanted to (and it doesn't want to). It makes a token effort to crack down every now and then, but that's about it. Clarityfiend 08:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course they can enforce it, they just don't want to. And it can have benefits, like providing hosting space to counter the ridiculous DMCA. 203.109.167.159 09:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While your opinions of China's enforcement may be resonably accurate, this isn't answering the question. Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China however should give some idea Nil Einne 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A law that isn't enforced, nor was ever meant to be enforced, hardly qualifies as a law. Nonetheless, these works of fiction can be rather entertaining! If you're in for a good laugh, I suggest you read the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. It's a rather lovely work of fiction, a real page-turner. Note the dedication to human rights, democracy, freedom, etc... Loomis 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One Billion Pounds

If you go to London today and ask a Londoner this question. "If one billion pounds of money is divided equally among 1000 people. How much money does each person get?"

What would the answer be?

211.28.123.23 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that many wouldn't know. There's considerable confusion about the British billion, as opposed to the American. Common usage seems to have gone American. Nigel Planer's Nicholas Craig character in one of the hilarious Nicholas Craig Masterclass series in the early 90s, made a hilarious comment that I pretty much remember verbatim: "Billion" is a very powerful word because no-one actually knows what a billion is; it's just a very big number that begins with a "bilabial explosive B". --Dweller 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to guess. I just did some original research and asked my colleague here in London. His answer was "One thousandth of a billion pounds, of course". Gandalf61 12:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect most would say 1 million Nil Einne 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I take it, then, that the British notion of one Billion being 1,000,000,000,000, or what the rest of us would call one trillion has fallen into disuse? If so, it's about time! If not, well, at least we don't have to deal with that ridiculously antiquated £sd system anymore, whereby a pound is made up of 20 shillings or 240 pence. In any case, I should say that I'm quite the Anglophile. I absolutely adore England, as well as the rest of the UK, and all of their adorably quaint traditions. Loomis 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am from the UK, and I've never had the notion of a billion being 1,000,000,000,000 - i've always though of it as 1,000,000,000 --194.176.105.40 11:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's some information in the article on long and short scales. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent find, Sluzzelin. The "Notes on usage" section is particularly good. --Dweller 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a middle-aged Australian and I can remember when "billion" meant 1 million million here. One thousand million was called just that, a thousand million. But times change, and now a thousand million is called a billion. JackofOz 00:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm 23 and English and grew up referring to 1 thousand million as an American billion, but think I'm probably amongst the last people to do that. Now even the BBC use it in the American sense, and I do to (which slightly pains me). It's really funny this came up I was just thinking the other day we should have a campaign to bring back the correct meaning of billion. A thousand million can be called a milliard I believe.137.138.46.155 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a Name

What is the professional name of a restroom attendant? 66.190.204.89 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Greg

Do you mean what is their official job title? My usual quicksearch shows plenty of actual job postings for washroom attendant as well as my favorite but unofficial journalistic nomenclature, the lavatory laborer...but gives much more results for Bathroom attendant, which even gives a wikipedia entry, albeit a somewhat informal one. I suspect, depending on the culture and the formality of the restroom in attendant, you'll find the usual variances of synonym from washroom to bathroom to restroom showing up in the job title. Jfarber 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With absolutely no disrespect to those who actually earn a living by this occupation, indeed, with complete respect for them for having the strength of character to do what's necessary to feed their families, the idea of having a "professional name" for a restroom attendant, would be to me, if I was a restroom attendant, exteremely condescending. Yes their may exist patronizing euphemisms to describe the occupation as a "profession", but to me, again if I were a restroom attendant, the most accurate and more importantly the most respectful term I'd appreciate being referred to as would be just that: "a restroom attendant". If you're not convinced, check out the article describing the "profession" referred to by some as a "sanitation engineer". Loomis 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the title would change depending on what a bathroom is called in whatever country they're working in. I'm guessing that in the UK they wouldn't likely be called "bathroom" or "restroom" or "washroom" attendants, if only because that room is generally called the "toilet" in the UK. --Charlene 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In US English, a "bathroom" would be found in a private residence. "Restroom" is a widely used term, possibly even the most common, for a public lavatory. Euphemistically, you'll hear the "Ladies' [Room] / Men's Room" --Deborahjay 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could debate all day about which jobs qualify as professions and which don't. I think it's an antiquated and snobbish notion. These days, all workers are required to act professionally in their jobs, or out they go - which is as it should be, imo. Whether the jobs themselves are "professions" is hardly relevant. What a sanitation engineer does to "act professionally" is obviously different from what a neurosurgeon does to "act professionally", but that's because the nature of their work is different. JackofOz 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with you here Jack. My point was just that euphemisms that may be meant to protect people's feelings often backfire. For example, I don't know if there are any WalMarts in Australia, but up here, they have this silly practice whereby they refer to their employees as "associates". Perhaps some WalMart workers may actually be flattered to be referred to as a WalMart "associate", but if it were me, and I was working for minimum wage at a WalMart, and they started referring to me as a WalMart "associate", perhaps I'd bite my tongue if I really needed to retain the job, but what I'd feel like saying is: "Would you please quit with the whole "associate" bullshit! I'm no "associate" of WalMart, I'm just a minimum wage worker, which I'm perfectly fine as being. Just please quit the whole "associate" bullshit, as I actually find it quite insulting to my intelligence". Loomis 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't have WalMart here, but I've certainly heard of them. I have a similar example, but from the opposite perspective. Fletcher Jones and Staff is an Australian clothing manufacturer and retailer, at one time one of the world's largest. When Fletcher (later Sir Fletcher) Jones founded the company, he wanted all the employees to be more than just employees. So he set it up in a way that they all part-owned the business, and thus had a vital stake in its success. They were truly "associates". (I'm surprised this is a red link; I must do something about that.) (The article now exists. I had nothing better to do. :) JackofOz 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Though rare, at times a supposed "co-op" is indeed a genuine "co-op", owned in part by its workers--its true "associates". Though I've never heard of him before, my hat goes off to Sir Fletcher, for being one of the few to not only refer to his employees as "associates", but to actually mean it by actually sharing in the company's ownership with its workers. Loomis 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Among other uses of the term, I've heard restroom attendants referred to as "valets". Thedoorhinge 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegatarianism

How is it perfectly okay to kill another being when it is not okay to kill another human? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brutal. Catastrophe. (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

People who eat meat would say that since many species kill and eat other animals, why should humans be any different. See Ethics of vegetarianism. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all people who eat meat feel that it is always and in every case, or ever EVER, "perfectly okay" to kill another being. I and many other ethical omnivores accept our place in the food chain, but do not kill except as a way to provide food. Many of us, in many cultures and many ways, also give thanks to the animal for giving its life that we might eat. Some of us refuse to participate in the cruely to mass food production and pain, and insist on only eating that which we hunt and kill ourselves; still others only buy local, or eat animals which are raised for food and could not survive alone in the wild, or kill reluctantly, and apologetically, but feel it is necessary to protect the viability of wild populations and environments which have been mostly destroyed by other humans over time.

In other words, some of us feel it is necessary for us, for all sorts of reasons; many of us feel that it is desirable, and is something we are willing to account for emotionally in order to eat meat; but only some meat eaters, AFAIK, think it is "perfectly okay". (Incidentally, just to be pre-emptive, by "necessary" I mean subjectively so, not that I somehow think it is impossible to live a healthy, full, and vegetarian life. It's just not the life for me.) Jfarber 15:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite hard to live without eating other animals. Splintercellguy 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a range of explanations for this: one explanation states that animals have a different moral status than humans, because humans have either free will, the ability to feel pain or a soul. To me these are obvious cases of anthropocentrism. C mon 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think religion have a bit to do with it too. The Christian Bible, for example, says that the animals are here for the humans, and which ones are ok to eat. Since something like 1/3 of the world are Christians, that's bound to have an effect. And of course, it says not to kill other humans. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Depending on your version of the Bible, it says, "Do not kill." It does not say "Do not kill other humans." We just assume that it is referring to other humans. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Old Testament explicitly states certain animals as permissible food. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 18:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, "do not kill" is a translation of the original. Is the word used in the original language actually "kill", or would it be more like "do not commit murder"? Corvus cornix 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed quite recently, here. The 10 Commandments prohibit "murder", not killing per se. JackofOz 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, Wirbelwind. The Christian Bible does indeed contain restrictions as to which animals are prohibited to eat in its Old Testament. Yet for some reason these restrictions have been waived and apparently no longer apply. For example, I've never heard of any Christian abstaining from eating pork despite the fact that it's explicitly forbidden in Deuteronomy 14:8. On the other hand, violate the Old Testament's ostensible prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22, and to many Christians, you're in for BIG trouble. This particular aspect of Christianity is one I'll never understand. Loomis 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Christians defend it by pointing out that in Romans one of the apostles was told that all food is good to eat and that the prohibitions no longer exist. However, that doesn't explain why Christians who point to Leviticus to justify their prejudice against gays and lesbians don't also follow the other non-food requirements in Leviticus - not wearing mixed-fibre clothing, purification after sex, childbirth, and menstruation, celebrating Yom Kippur, preventing the disabled from becoming priests, quarantining those with skin infections, etc. etc. --Charlene 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As for myself, I follow Deuteronomy and abstain from eating those animals which it prohibits the eating of. I actually find some sense and some comfort in the fact that one facet of this dietary code seems to me at least to be aimed at forbidding the eating of the higher orders of animals, those exhibiting a significant amount intelligence, emotion and sentience. I feel that it's a great misconception, based on a terrible mistranslation of the Bible, that pork is forbidden because pigs are "dirty, disgusting animals". On the contrary. Scientists consider pigs to be very intelligent creatures in relation to chickens cows or sheep. Perhaps even more intelligent than dogs or cats. The fact that relatively intelligent animals such as pigs, dogs, cats, dolphins, all the way up to our closest cousin, the chimpanzee, are all forbidden for human consumption is to me, at least, very comforting. For example, the fact that the Bible tells me I'm forbidden from eating my dog for whom I love so much and for whom I'm relatively certain has the capacity to love me back, is of great comfort to me. But that's just my take. Loomis 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an interesting philosophy of diet. Eat those that are less intelligent and sentient. What a convenient way to solve philosophical problems. I wonder, if I have cannibalistic tendencies like this man right here, and I saw a little girl in a coma, given that like that man, I have a fetish for little girls and even necrophilia - would I be allowed to eat the little girl based on your philosophy, Loomis? Forgive the brutality of the question, but I'm always interested where the limits of morality are concerned. And what about fetuses? Can I eat them, too? Moonwalkerwiz 06:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, as long as you aren't breaking the law, you can eat whatever the hell you want. I'm not really sure what your point is though. I was just explaining where I draw the line between what I do eat and what I don't. Unless you're a cannibal who'd kill and eat your own mother, you too, whether you're willing to recognize it or not, draw your line somewhere as well. Are you an omnivore? If so, would you eat any animal, including humans? No? Why not? Are you a vegetarian? If so, why do you feel it's ok to eat unfertilized chicken eggs but not chickens? Are you a vegan? If so, why do you feel it's ok to kill one form of life, plant life, but not other "higher" forms of life, such as animals. Oh I get it, you're against eating any form of life at all. My question to you then is, how do you manage to survive living only on salt, vinegar and water? Yes, the line I draw between what I eat and what I don't is indeed arbitrary, just as yours inevitably is. Loomis 13:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vinegar is made by exploiting life - it's made from alcohol, which is made by allowing living yeast to digest simple sugars. The yeast necessarily die during this process. (Don't know whether this is on topic, but it is factual!) --Charlene 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected by Charlene! How shameful of us humans to exploit and kill such noble life as yeast for our own selfish lust for vinegar! I therefore restate my question Moonwalker in a more appropriate manner: How do you manage to survive living only on salt and water? Loomis 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was because Jesus showed people it was ok, and even ate pork himself? I seem to recall something like that, but it's been years since I went to church, so I might have made it up (like they did with the Bible! j/k j/k don't kill me). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Much more complicated than that; Jesus is not recorded as having eaten pork. This site covers a lot of it, but disagrees. As does this one. Generally, I seem to recall being told that it was to do with a new covenant being formed... Skittle 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. That's what I always thought. A clean slate. A tabula rasa. A new covenant. The "old rules" no longer apply. Except the one about gays of course... Loomis 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Paul of Tarsus was clearly a Christian, and his writings, included in the New Testament, have also been important... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Because to my knowledge cows taste better than humans. Hannibal might disagree, though. -Wooty Woot? contribs 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To your knowledge? Just how did you acquire this "knowledge" that cows taste better than humans? I, for one, have no idea what humans taste like. Perhaps we're delicious. Yet you seem to be implying that you have some first hand knowledge on the subject.......hmmmmmmmm...... ;-) Loomis 04:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought human flesh is supposed to taste bitter. But then again, coffee is popular. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you've been eating yourself, like a scab or when you bite your nails? 1234 - numbers!

According to my son, boogers taste salty, does that make him a cannibal?24.183.96.173 15:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope...or, at least, (s)not unless the airborne particulate in your area is full of little, tiny pieces of skin and hair cells instead of the usual pollen and dust. Jfarber 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, without wanting to perpetuate our debate about the meaning of "fact", is it really the case that Deuteronomy forbids the eating of dogs, cats, dolphins and chimpanzees? Are they specifically mentioned there, or is there a generic reference to certain kinds of life forms which includes these animals? JackofOz 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack, I hope you didn't take that whole "fact" debate too seriously. I didn't mean any offence whatsoever. Rather, as you've once described it, it was nothing other than "robust intellectual debate" between friends. I hope you didn't take it in any other way.

As for your question, Deteuronomy 14:4-5 first lists a few animals that are permissible to be eaten. 14:9-10 deals with which water creatures are acceptable (that takes care of the dolphins, as dolphins have no scales, and are therefore forbidden). 14:11-20 deals with "winged things"; which are permissable and which are not. The "water animals" and "winged things" (including flightless birds), having being dealt with, all that remain are the wingless "land animals", which are dealt with in 14:6. According to that passage, only those land animals which both 1)chew their cud and 2)have cloven hoofs, are permissible. Dogs, cats and chimpanzees neither chew their cud, nor have cloven hooves, and are therefore forbidden.

I recognize that it's all laid out in a rather bizarre fashion. A natural and understandable reaction would be "Cud-chewing and cloven hooved? Why are those animals that are permissible being described in such a bizarre fashion? Why not just say "don't eat pigs or cats or dogs or chimps?"" To that I say, were those Middle Eastern Israelites who first received these laws even aware that chimpanzees, for example, even existed? Of course not. If the Bible told these people "Thou shalt not eat chimpanzees", they'd likely be left scratching their heads, "what the hell's a chimpanzee?" Actually, your particular home continent is an even better example of why the laws would be described in this way. When was the first time a non-Australian-Aborigine ever came into contact with a kangaroo? 200 years ago? Maybe 300? It would be all the moreso bewildering to the ancient Israelites if the Bible said "Thou shalt not eat kangaroos". Once again, the reaction would be nothing other than complete confusion. "What on Earth is a kangaroo?" And that's assuming their were actually ancient Hebrew words for chimpanzees or kangaroos, which of course there weren't. I hope that's it's now a lot clearer why refering to those permissible animals as "cud chewing and cloven hooved" rather than identifying each one by name, makes a lot more sense. Is a kangaroo "cud-chewing and cloven hooved?" No. And that's exactly how Australian Jews are able to classify their meat as being unkosher. [User:Loomis51|Loomis]] 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my question nicely. FYI, our article on kangaroo says: The name was first recorded as "Kangooroo or Kanguru" on 4 August 1770, by Lieutenant (later Captain) James Cook on the banks of the Endeavour River at the site of modern Cooktown, when HM Bark Endeavour was beached for almost seven weeks to repair damage sustained on the Great Barrier Reef. Cheers JackofOz 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original point, who says its not ok to kill other people. If it was a choice between starving to death or killing, I hope I'd kill. I think the real reason is if you feel you can kill someone to eat, whats to stop someone killing you to eat? But if all the people get together and agree not to kill each other, but to kill and eat animals, we're all better off. Much as some people think morals come from God, or from some logic or whatever, normally they are just practical ways for groups of people to succesfully function.

Pedophile in California

I have been searching unsuccessfully for news articles on a convicted pedophile in the early 1990's I believe in the San Jose or Redwood City area. From what I know, this man is currently in prison in California (or maybe in a mental institution), used to work for IBM and was considered a mathematical genius. Does anyone know where else I can look? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juliet5935 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Do you mean a pedophile? Nil Einne 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did. Read the question... (Edited title accordingly...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 21:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia category for convicted child sex offenders. Not sure that'll be helpful or not, but, if the person you're trying to identify is notable, then, maybe ... --Keesiewonder ^talk 00:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

An intellectual reading list for a Christian man

A good friend of mine is a devoted Christian (happily of the "Jesus said to wash your feet" school, not the burgeoning "Jesus said to napalm your village" school). He's been reading various religious books, but sadly of a rather lowbrow Chickensoup variety. I owe him a favour, and I'm that sad kind of person who repays all favours with books. I'd hope to buy him something religious, but rather more horizon-widening and higher-brow than the stuff he's been reading. He's a smart guy, so I've no doubt he can handle the Big Guys, but he's led a sheltered life, so I think a Koran or Pirsig or even Maimonides might be too much culture-shock for him right now. What can I get for him that will broaden and deepen his religio-philosophical world, without making him think I'm trying to sneak him an instrument of The Devil? I ask with all humility, as my own understanding of Christian theology is firmly Sunday-School, and I might do well to be buying two copies of the chosen book. I'd really appreciate your recommendations. Is Aquinas accessible? Darryl Revok 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Screwtape Letters is improbably both fun and Christian. --TotoBaggins 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know he's read that, because "Screwtape" is his nickname for me. He thinks it's an insult; I take it as a compliment. Thanks for your suggestion, however - clearly we're on the right track. Darryl Revok 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The God Delusion. Just kidding. But on a more serious note, have you heard of Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if your friend is interested in philosophy, perhaps Critique_of_Pure_Reason by Immanuel Kant would be good as well. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My best guess is Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be. In a very different vein, if your friend is a confirmed Dante fanatic and is interested in what Medieval mysticism did with Aristotelianizing Neoplatonism, Christian Moevs' recent The Metaphysics of Dante's Comedy (ok, that was a big "if," but I found the book remarkably challenging on an almost devotional level: it confronts the reader with ways the mystical tradition's way of looking at the universe is truly Christian & at the same time true to the universe, even, perhaps somewhat cheesily but intelligently, invoking quantum mechanics). And option C, if you were thinking, yeah, he'd like to know more about Medieval mystics, but no way he wants to read a scholarly monograph on Dante's metaphysics, well, there's a new anthology just out in paperback, The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism (Modern Library Classics), edited by Bernard McGinn. Wareh 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' essays—they tend to be more erudite than his books, and many of them are quite brilliant. The Jade Knight 06:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Be careful in your summations... I know a man as you describe who's views seem overly simplistic and questioned him as to the copy of St. Matthew he carried in his left breast pocket what proof wine was that in the pocket on the right. He said he did not know what proof had been inside the bottle for a passerby had handed him the name of a website written on the bottle’s label. The name of the website was hand written and in barely visible red ink I could hardly see it read “Wikipedia – everything not yet known by man.” 71.100.166.228 23:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow completely... What wine? Could you clarify? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that long ago since I made recommendations on some of the great Christian texts. Your question, Darryl, now gives me an opportunity to deepen and extend this. I take you at your word that your friend would be like to expand his understanding without being placed in the risk of intellectual-or spiritual-overload! Anyway here are the texts I consider to be among the essentials, arranged in no particular order of importance;

• St. Augustine, The Confessions. This is an account of the passage from sin to sanctity by one of the great thinkers of the early church, and has the added merit of being a very good read. Slightly more demanding, and considerably longer, is his magnum opus, The City of God.

• Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ. Short, accessible and profound: O quam cito transit gloria mundi-how quickly passes the glory of the world.

• John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress and Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners. What more need I say?

• Bishop Eusebius, A History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. The first post-biblical history of Christianity, written by a friend of Constantine the Great.

• Saint Teresa of Avila, The Life of Saint Teresa by Herself. A great book by a sixteenth century saint and mystic, one of the treasures of Spanish literature.

• Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. This had to be on my list, especially as you asked about Aquinas. It is not difficult to read, but there is a lot of substantive material here, and it may be too high a mountain to climb in a first attempt.

• Ancinius Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy. Written by a former advisor to the Gothic king, Theodoric, on the eve of his execution. A wonderful little book, in which the author explores the path to ultimate truth through the revelations of philosophy.

I would be happy to answer further questions you may have on any of the above. Best wishes. Clio the Muse 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to say it, but I will anyway: Clio's picks are all winners (though I might hesitate to put Eusebius or the whole Summa Theologica in your friend's hands before any of the others; there are various short introductions to Thomas' ideas that make an easy introduction, with titles such as A Summa of the Summa, A Shorter Summa, and Aquinas's Shorter Summa: Saint Thomas's Own Concise Version, of which I think I'm going to give my fall term Medieval Latin class Richard J. Regan's Aquinas: A Summary of Philosophy as a quick cover-to-cover read to acquaint them with the bigger scholastic project). Wareh 00:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In another vein, Life of Pi has some good philosophical/theological content, a good plot, and a vicious man-eating tiger. - AMP'd 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• How about Stages of Faith by James W. Fowler, Letters & Papers from Prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and, for a piece of fiction, The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky (I like the Pevear & Volokhonsky translation)? Just a thought ... --Keesiewonder ^talk 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gospel of Thomas. He's probably never seen it, it's short, and some people think it's as close to the sayings of the historical Jesus as we'll ever get. --Wetman 04:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Saturday matinees were epochs when I was a small boy. Which three books would the time traveler take with him back to a virgin future was asked but never answered. What three works are essential? I do not know but here are two that may get your friend started looking for more:

• Tremmel, William C. Religion: What Is It? Holt, 1984. PB Text (ISBN 0-03-062834-2).

• Smith, Huston. The Religions of Man. Harper and Row, 1958. (Orig.), Repr. 1965. (ISBN 0-065-090093-1 CN43, PL); (ISBN 0-06-080021-6 P21, PL). A historical and philosophical examination of the major religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The author’s approach to each is sympathetic and unbiased. Diligent 05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Inferno, Dante Alighieri, of course, plus the Purgatorio and Paradiso; but almost culture-shock and if he's been schooled to regard Catholics as servants of the Devil, probably not a good idea (even though Dante rips the church and various bishops and popes to pieces IMO). At first I was going to be smart and suggestion Plato's Symposium, but that falls into the culture-shock category; but might he enjoy The Apology, do you think? Or would that shake his Faith overmuch maybe? I'm not Catholic, but thoughts of St. Francis just crossed my mind, and who's that nice poet - St. John of the Cross, no? Tolkien's actually very religious but could look demonological I suppose; and you have to be prepared for The Silmarillion, which is Tolkien's quasi-Bible of the First Age of Middle-Earth; but like C.S. Lewis all his writings are flavoured by his religion, in his case High Anglican or CoE or whatever exactly it was. And hey - the Metaphysical Poets, as styled by Penguin or Pelican or whomever compiled their collection; Herbert, Wallace, Donne et al. Especially important, tell him, to read that stuff aloud.Skookum1 06:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Afterthought: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Might bend his head a bit, but may also soften him to religious readings outside the usual Christian pale. And for something just very nice, also readable, but also (again) poetry, Tennyson's Idylls of the King.Skookum1 07:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For a good outline and interesting read, packed in a fine little book, I strongly recommend A History of God by Karen Armstrong. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My favorite book is The Demon-Haunted World. I do not believe it talks about religion, but it is a skeptic's bible. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Godel_escher_bach, The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment, MFUPATA. dr.ef.tymac 03:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "The Death Of Death" (Short version of the longer full title), by John Owen. That will make his head spin, and it is a lesson in logic that one can not forget if read. Zeno333 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You present that as one of a number of options. Another would be that they can forget it. Is that what you meant? JackofOz 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to everone - what a lot of great suggestions, most of it stuff I'd never heard of, and mostly stuff I can find cheap too :) Darryl Revok 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

March 14

Norse Gods' Symbols

Hi, I'm researching the symbols for some of the main gods and mythological beings. Here's my list (I've filled in what I know):

• Thor - Mjollnir his hammer
• Odin - The valknut
• Baldr
• Eir
• Freyja - Hildisvini, her boar
• Loki - Possibly the snakes at Urnes Stave Church but only from this site.
• Tyr - T rune (Tiwaz rune
• Sol (goddess) - S rune (looks a bit like Σ)
• Mani (god) - possibly mannaz rune (mani and mannaz are quite similar]]

Can anyone confirm or deny any of the above? Thanks, Bioarchie1234 07:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bioarchie, there may be some confusion between Freyja and her brother Freyr, who also rides a boar, by the name of Gullinbursti. Although Freyja is associated with Hildisvini, her sacred symbol appears to be the cat, whereas Freyr's symbol is the boar. Tyr's symbol is the spear, an attribute of justice as well as a weapon. Sol carries the shield Svalin. I do not think that Baldr has a sacred symbol. Perhaps is should be mistletoe? Clio the Muse aka Loki 08:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a one-to-one correspondence between each god(dess) and a symbol attributed. "Symbolism" could be interpreted broadly, and some god(desse)s would likely have had more than one, some might lack them completely. I also am puzzled by the selection. How come you've included Eir, Sol and Mani, but not, for instance, Heimdall, Bragi and Iðunn? What do you need this information for? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Loki is associated with the serpent of midgard or Fenric the wolf.--Lerdthenerd 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just for personal research. I included Mani and Sol so I have all the days of of the week (minus Saturday because that's Saturn's day). Mani's is Monday, Tyr's is Tuesday, Odin's (or Woden's) is Wednesday, Thor's is Thursday and Freyja's (or possibly Freyr's - I'm not sure) is Friday. Sol's is Sunday. Also I included Eir because I thought there might be a particular sign for her - she's a healing goddess so I thought the sign might have been thought to protect the wearer. I left out Heimdall, Iðunn and Bragi because they're not days of the week. But I included Loki because although he's not strictly a god, I like him. He is a bit mean at times though. Although Baldr only appears primarily in his death-story (or so I've been told), I like that story so I included him.

Lerdthenerd : Thanks for that, I should have thought of that (after all Jormangund, Fenrir and Hel are Loki's children!) Also, thanks to Clio the Muse for the help with the symbols. You're all very knowledgeable!Bioarchie1234 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Algernon Sidney(1622-1683) involved in the constitution of Pennsylvania or not?

Hallo, sorry for my bad English. Most of the webpages SydneyHistory.htm,1911encyclopedia and algernon.shtml mention, that Algernon Sidney was involved in working out of the Pennsylvania constitution, but NNDB writes: "... (Algernon Sidney) was warmly supported by William Penn, with whom he had long been intimate, and to whom he is said (as is now thought, erroneously) to have afforded assistance in drawing up the constitution of Pennsylvania. " So, what is right, what is wrong? It is for a german writing competition in Wikipedia. Article about Algernon Sidney is here in work. Thanks in advance -- Jlorenz1 08:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jlorenz, I've had a close look at the articles by Ficalora and Baker (your first and third links), and the one simply duplicates the information given in the other. Both read like hagiography, and what is worse there are some gross errors of both fact and interpretation. The NNDB article is considerably more detached and scholarly, and I personally would place far more reliance on what it has to say on the matter. Incidentally, this is a restatement of the 1911 edition of Britannica, which does not support Sydney's involvement in the Pennsylvania constitution, as your arrangement of sources would suggest. You should try to dig out, if you can, The Life and Times of the Hon. Algernon Sydney by Alexander Charles Ewald, published in two volumes in London in 1873, and the only full-scale account of his career ever written. I imagine you will only find this in a good research library. More accessible, and considerably more up-to-date, is Algernon Sydney and the Restoration Crisis, 1677-1683 by Jonathan Scott, published by Cambridge University Press in 2002. You should also look at Charles the Second by Ronald Hutton, published by the Clarendon Press in 1989. Clio the Muse 09:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Clio the Muse, thanks for your answer, but your suggestion isn't a solution, because NNDB is from 2006 ("(as is now thought, erroneously) " and the other sources are older. I've written Jonathan Scott and Thomas G.West, but I've no hope to get an answer. Thanks although Johannes -- Jlorenz1 10:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Look again, Jlorenz: the wording and is now thought erroneously refers to the suggestion that Sydney was involved in drawing up the Pennsylvania constitution, not to the encyclopedia article (I repeat, the NNDB is simply the same information presented in the 1911 edition of Britannica). In other words, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that Sydney collaborated with Penn on this document. In my estimation the articles by Ficalora and Baker have little in the way of practical value. If any of what I have written here is still unclear to you I will be happy to offer further explanation. Clio the Muse 11:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a letter of William Penn's dated 13 October 1681 which talks of talking with Col. Sidney and drafting ideas on constitutions although Sidney said William's ideas were little better than Turkish government (i.e. despotic). This is quoted in William Penn and the Founding of Pennsylvania: 1680-1684 but it says that it could be referring to Henry Sidney, Algernon's brother who Penn certainly wrote to. It may be that there is more evidence to prove it wasn't Algernon: there is an article about it in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography "Who Was 'Colonel Sidney'?: A Note on the Meaning of the October 13, 1681, Penn-Sidney Letter," by Peter Karsten [15]. Or he may not be regarded as having a major part in the drafting as his views were so at variance to Penn's. meltBanana 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To add further confusion:

Penn looked for help to his old friend, John Locke, lately engaged on a similar task, and to Algernon Sidney, for whom he had recently undertaken the rough and uncongenial work of a contested election. The original manuscript of the Framework of Government for Pennsylvania preserved in the archives of its Historical Society is written in Penn's hand, and contains interlineations and notes in the handwriting both of Locke and Sidney. Leighton, Clare (1930). The Making of William Penn. pp. p.348. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

However, this and the letter given by meltBanana above are referring to the first Frame of Government, repudiated by the Colonial Assembly and substantially revised before approval in 1683 of the second Frame of Government and first constitution.—eric 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Source of the Arabic phrase "لا مؤثر في الوجود إلا الله"

Hey all. I'm doing some study on a poem in which it would behoove me to find out the source of the following Arabic phrase: لا مؤثر في الوجود إلا الله. The meaning is basically "none but Allah has dominion over creation", and it is used primarily in reference to tawhid, or the unity of God in Islam ... however, I'm curious about the source of the phrase. Does anyone happen to know? Is it from the Qur'an, from the hadith, from somewhere else? I haven't been able to find an exact-word Arabic Qur'an or hadith search online, and googling the exact phrase didn't help much either (largely because I don't actually know Arabic). Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. —Saposcat 13:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The ethics/laws behind rewards for partaking in experiments/studies

(ramdbling) Hypothetical question here: Ive heard of these studies that go for approx 30 days and pay a pretty good lump sum (Ive seen one at $6000) once complete. Now, I remember from my undergrad days there was tons of psych students doing their thesis experiments or whatever and offering little prizes or rewards for partaking. After, further discussing with one such psych student they told me that it was part of the "ethical code" to reward the participant regardless if they finished the study or not. So, this leads to my question. Could one not complete one of the major studies (a study along the lines of the one I mentioned in the beginning) and still must be awarded, by some ethical guidelines laid out by the APA or soemthing, the compensation money? Whats the word on this?

Thanks!!! 65.200.190.242 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)moe.ron

This is pure speculation, but i'd have to assume that in any situation like this there is some kind of contract or other agreement made by both parties, and whether the 'subject' receives compensation for not completing the study would be determined there on a case-by-case basis. The nature of the experiment also probably has something to do with it — if it's something with no risk (like a simple survey), it makes sense to me that they'd get no compensation if they don't finish. If it's something else that could possibly impact a person's health or whatever, it seems more likely they'd be compensated even if they quit early. Obviously if somebody gets sick because of the experiment and they have to quit, they're not gonna be left with nothing to show for it. ~ lav-chan @ 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(famous?) seminude woman in lima with flag painted on her body

Hello,

I just saw a weird short fragment on television, involving a woman in Lima who was almost completely naked, and who had a flag painted on her body. She took a shower in a fountain. Her action had to do with Chilean occupation of land that used to be Peruvian. Can anyone tell me who she was and what exactly she was trying to do? Thanks,Evilbu 15:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens, are people still protesting about the outcome of the War of the Pacific after all these years? Surely it's time to move on? Clearly not, at least judging by the outbreak of the recent Maritime Dispute. Clio the Muse 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

According to this newspaper, which also has a videoclip, her name is Reina Loo, and she is a Peruvian topless model. She'd had the Chilean flag painted on her body, and protested by washing it off in a fountain in Lima. The reason was said to be an on-going dispute over territorial borders (the one linked to by Clio). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of better understanding latin american politics I watched the vidclip of the naked chick in the fountain. For a partial explantion to her publicity stunt see here. meltBanana 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Idylls of the King Help

I'm reading Alfred Lord Tennyson's Idylls of the King, and in need of some help. For clarification purposes, this is NOT homework, I'm curious of other people's ideas, and wish to better understand the work.

• First, the article on the Idylls of the King is in need of, and currently undergoing, major revisions and Sparknotes does not cover the Idylls. In lieu of this, are there any other cites worth recommending covering the Idylls both in plot, background information, trivia, and comparison to other Arthurian works?

• Secondly, I came across a Biblical proverb reference that I don't fully understand: "there is a lion in the way" (The Holy Grail, line 642). Please explain.

• Thirdly, my professor mentioned that as Tennyson made King Arthur as a metaphor for Prince Albert, and because in the Balin and Balan Idyll, the emphasis on minor (e.g. lower class) characters can be on some level a socio-economic reference to Victorian England. How far can this be applied, and how true do you think this to be?

• Fourthly, Tennyson changes the character of Arthur to be reflect the character of Albert, how far do these changes go, and do they disrupt the legends?

• And finally, is there anything you feel I should know and understand about the works thus far? I fear my professor is not doing a good job explaining this peice as much as I would like.

Thanks in advance, Zidel333 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but if you are studying this under a professor then it sounds like homework to me even if you are not going to be marked on it. I did not know what "there is a lion in the way" meant but I looked it up on this thing called the internet and read a bit of the bible (not too much so it didn't hurt) and understood it. Searching for "Morte d'Albert" may explain some of the supposed allegory. Any good edition of the work should have an introduction and notes. F. E. L. Priestly's Tennyson's Idylls and The Fall of Camelot: A Study of Tennyson's Idylls of the King by John D. Rosenberg are two fairly modern studies. meltBanana 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, this is NOT homework. My professor does not assign homework, nearly all our grades are dependent on class partcipation, and exams. Also, homework implies grading or at least verfication that it was done; the info I requested is not specific to any assignment, but rather pretains more to my general understanding of the work, and (quite frankly) my curiosity. Secondly, I'm a Wikiholic, and the fact no real resource is availible to me online bothers me. My mind is usually swimming with random info, and questions, and usually I just look it up and move forward. In this case, I could not do it, so I figured I should ask.

If you're going to claim not to be rude than don't be rude, and than insult me. I'm not stupid, please don't treat me as such. Zidel333 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not think I insulted you, I am sorry for any accidental insult given. I did not say I wasn't going to be rude just that I did not mean to. Your questions are of such an epic nature that it is difficult to tackle them without over summarising. "How does it reference victorian socio-economic stuff?" "How does a link to Albert make it different to previous version?" that is an awful lot of study. As I said searching for "Morte d'Albert" will tell you it was a charge levelled at the work by Algernon Swinburne and not a particularly substantive criticism. As for "there is a lion in the way" it is from Proverbs 26:13 and is a silly excuse used by a sluggard for not going out and doing anything which Lancelot suggests he has been like. TTFN meltBanana 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychological characters

Hello, I remember there have been several books written on the different types or stereotypes of personalities and psychological characters found in human societies. I know there has been several of them written at the end of the XIXth, begginning of the XXth Century but I guess there might be some more recent ones too. Could anyone point to the references of some of these books. Thank you. 81.241.155.171 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Beliefs similar to the somatotype theory? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Origination of the name "Goth"

The first Avignon Pope was Clement V. His real name is "Bertrand de Goth", which I assume is Bertrand of Goth. Goth apparently is a region or type of people. What does this mean exactly, that of "Goth". How did that become a part of his name? --Doug ^talk 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked out Goths? They were a Germanic tribe. Sacked Rome and all that. Pretty important from the 4th through the 6th centuries. Bertrand there was probably descended from a few of them; for a period a branch of them (the Visigoths) had control of lots of France, including the region of what would later be Bordeaux, where Clement was (much later) born. That the last bits have any connection to the name is pure conjecture on my part, though. --24.147.86.187 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Blank in revolvers

There was a tradition to put a blank in your 6 shooter in the XIXth Century. Is this correct and what purpose did it serve? 81.241.155.171 22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard that the guns' constructions made them prone to misfire. If all six bullets were loaded in the gun, a shot was liable to go off by mistake and wound the owner. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

sir andreas de harcla

sir andreas de harcla was born around 1276? in northern england. He served under king edward the second as a soldier doing battle with the scottish forces along the northern border. He was knighted for his courage and valor; however he and his brother john were beheaded for political reasons and their heads ended up hanging from the london bridge. my question is; were the de harcla family of noble heritage before andreas became famous? and was the harcla castle (in cumbria)built long before then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.42.52 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

This mentions his father, "Sir Michael de Harcla, sheriff of Cumberland", the same office that Andreas held. Clarityfiend 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle, was the son of Michael de Harclay, who was Sheriff of Cumberland, an important political and legal office, from 1285 to 1298. Although the family was of noble origin, before Andrew it did not rank amongst the higher nobility of England. The Wikipedia article says that he was born about 1276 at what was to become Hartley Castle, though the manor was in the possession of the Clifford family at that time, and was only granted to Andrew around 1315 after it was confiscated from Roger de Clifford. It was only fortified in 1323, from which time it was referred to by its present name. Andrew was among the most loyal of the followers of Edward II, occupying a number of important posts on the northern border, and serving in the Scottish wars. But it was for his role in defeating Thomas Earl of Lancaster, leader of the English baronial opposition, at the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322 that he was created Earl of Carlisle by the grateful king. However, increasingly conscious that the northern border was almost impossible to defend against repeated Scots raids, he entered into secret negotiations on his own initiative with King Robert Bruce, with the intention of securing a return to some kind of normality, particularly important as Edward seemed to have lost all interest in effective defence of the north. When Edward discovered this Andrew and his brother John were arrested and condemned as traitors. Both men were hung, drawn and quartered-the ghastly penalty for traitors at the time-and the title forfeit to the crown. People who are interested in the history of warfare might care to note that the tactics used by Harclay at Boroughbridge-dismounted archers supported by spearmen-were to form the prototype of those later used at Crecy and elsewhere, and allowed England to dominate the battlefields of Europe for over a century. Clio the Muse 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

James S. Pitkin Quote

I found the following quote attached to someones email and would like to find more about James Pitkin and the book/letters/manuscript that was written. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Quote follows:

"And then again, when you sit at the helm of your little ship on a clear night, and gaze at the countless stars overhead, and realize that you are quite alone on a great, wide sea, it is apt to occur to you that in the general scheme of things you are merely an insignificant speck on the surface of the ocean; and are not nearly so important or as self-sufficient as you thought you were. Which is an exceedingly wholesome thought, and one that may effect a permanent change in your deportment that will be greatly appreciated by your friends."- James S. Pitkin

Thanks, Darrell P.S. can't find anything on internet, google, yahoo, quotes etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.104.31 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

March 15

Book list

(WARNING: the following will reveal the plot of a film and might spoil sitting through it. Do not read if you have not yet seen the 1960's film The Time Machine (1960 film).) At the end of the 1960’s film The Time Machine Filby comments that someone like George would not go back to a virgin future and start a civilization from scratch without first having come up with a plan. Looking at the library he sees that there are three books missing and asks what three books George would have taken and the film ends there. So it got me to wondering, what three books would be the best candidates to take into a virgin future to start a civilization from scratch? Diligent 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)