Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

May 20

Ex US Senator

I have been searching for weeks for the answer to this question and hope you can help.

I am looking for the name of a Senator who was an ob/gyn doctor before entering the Senate. He supported term limits strongly and imposed on himself a two term limit. He left after his two terms and went back to his practice after he left the senate. I think he was a Republican and was from the north central part of the country. I not sure of that fact.

Thank you

Elizabeth McLeod

Sounds like Bill Frist of Tennessee, although he was not an OB/Gyn. Cheers Geologyguy 00:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the official website of the US Senate, forty-seven physicians have served in the Senate; I can't, though, think of anyone who well fits your description, and I don't find any such person on the list either. :( Tom Coburn, FWIW, is the only ob/gyn-Senator in the 110th Congress, and he did hold himself to a three-session term limit when he was in the US House, after his service in which he returned to private medical practice; he happens, though, to hail from Oklahoma. Joe 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cardinal Richelieu

I have not long finished reading The Three Musketeers, with its depiction of Richelieu as a rather sinister and malevolent character. I was wondering how this compares with the real man? 80.177.38.137 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, our article on Richelieu is amongst Wikipedia's best work; the legacy section thereof may be especially useful (for my part, I would say that Richelieu was surely more nuanced than the character presented in The Three Musketeers but that, on the whole, he's probably not the best example of a Cardinal whom one might find). Joe 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are people like Richelieu-Cardinal Wolsey in England is another such-who were born to be politicians rather than churchmen; men, in other words, who are in the church through circumstances, rather than design. Richelieu stands astride his age like a giant, a man who put the interests of the state before that of his class, and the interests of his nation before that of his church. He was not the model of Machiavelli's The Prince; he was the Prince. Inevitably such men make enemies rather more than they make friends, and even Louis XIII, who was so dependent on his great minister, is said to have expressed some relief when he died in December 1642. It was not just the king who was pleased by his departure. According to Father Griffet, writing in 1768, the Cardinal "...was disliked by the people and I have known old men who could still remember the bonfires that were lit in the provinces when the news of his death was received." Cardinal de Retz claimed that Richelieu had created "within the most lawful of monarchies the most scandalous and most dangerous tyranny which may ever have ensalved the state." In his 1712 history on the reign of Louis XIII Michael Le Vasor wrote "I can look only with horror on a prelate who sacrifices the liberty of his fatherland and the peace of Europe to his ambition." This charge against the Cardinal-warmonger was later to make an appearance in Voltaire's Le Siècle de Louis XIV, where he says "...there was fighting since 1635 because Cardinal Richelieu wanted it in order to make himself necessary." For Montesquieu Cardianl Richelieu was, quite simply, a 'wicked citizen.'

Of course, none of this is fair or objective, and most of his later critics underestimate the extent to which Habsburg power, concentrated in Spain and the Empire, was a considerable danger to the security of France, especially after the onset of the Thirty Years War, which the Cardinal viewed in political rather than religious terms. But the image of the malevolent and scheming churchman made its way down the ages, emerging in the Romantic movement of the nineteenth century, in which the Cardinal is relentlessly vilified by poets and dramatists of all sorts. In a sense he became, in post-Revolutionary France, the archetype of all that was wrong with the ancien regime. In Cinq-Mars, Alfred de Vigny's novel of 1826, Richelieu's attack on the nobility is blamed for all of France's subsequent ills. It was in this form that the Cardinal-mad, bad and dangerous to know-made his way across the English Channel, where Vigny's novel inspired Edward Bulwer-Lytton to write a play, called Richelieu or the Conspiracy. Thus it was that the Cardinal, both sinister and witty, made his way on to the English theatre, one of the great stage villains of the age, depicted by Henry Irving, among others. Though barely aware of his existence before, English people discovered in the Red Eminence qualities that made him 'the man you love to hate.' And so it went on, back to France and The Three Musketeers, and back again to England in Stanley Weyman's popular novel of 1896, Under the Red Robe. From movie, to comedy, and even in children's cartoons, Richelieu lives. Better, I suppose, to be misunderstood and parodied than forgotten. Clio the Muse 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reynald de Chatillon

Why was he so hated by the saracens? Serendipity two 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Raynald of Chatillon article sounds like a good place to look for the answer ;) Dr_Dima.

The article on Raynald does not fully explain his true significance, and just why he was such a figure of fear and hatred for Muslims, who known him better by the name of Arnat of Kerak. The Muslim historian, Ibn al-Athir, refers to him as "a violent and most dangerous enemy of Islam." Even today he has some significance, and you will find him in statue form in Damascus, the capital of Syria, together with Saladin, his nemesis. Raynald did much to colour Muslim opinion of the whole Crusading movement. If the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem can be attributed to a single man, then Raynald has better right to that claim than any other individual. His ruthlessness, unscrupulousness, opportunism and brutality were to provoke Saladin into a furious offensive against the Crusader kingdom, that led directly to his victory of the Horns of Hattin.

It is important to understand that the enthusiasm for Crusading in the Middle Ages often owes as much, if not more, to greed and opportunism as it did to religious faith. The path to the Holy Land was the path often taken by the 'poor cousins' and the second sons, those who could expect no inheritance at home, and would only be able to make their way in the world by the practice of arms. In essence these men were little more than freebooters, and Raynald was the greatest freebooter of them all. He served the greater cause only as and when it suited him, and was quite prepared to attack fellow Christians for the sake of personal gain, fully demonstrated by his onslaught on Byzantine Cyprus. To finance the latter expedition he even extorted money from Aimery of Limoges, the elderly Patriarch of Antioch. According to William of Tyre, the chronicler of the Crusades, Aimery, was stripped naked, whipped, his head smeraed with honey to attract insects and then he was left chained in the open under the hot sun!

In November 1160 Raynald set out to seize the herds of Armenian and Syrian Christians, only to be taken prisoner by the Muslim Governor of Aleppo. He was only ransomed after fifteen years, emerging from his dungeon with a hatred of Islam far in excess of any love he had for Christianity. Indeed, there is very little evidence that Raynald had faith of any kind. Soon after his release married Stephanie of Milly, heiresss of the dukedom of Outrejourdain, the easternmost part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which dominated the caravan routs from Egypt to Syria from the castles of Shaubak and Kerak. It was from this point that he became a real nightmare for the Muslims.

By the 1170s there was a mood of relaxed co-existence between the Crusader states and their Muslim neighbours. Many of the Christian lords had adopted an oriental way of life, and were even viewed by the Muslims as possible allies in their own internecine struggles. But Raynald upset this delicate political balance. He was to launch attack after attack, chiefly aiming at plunder and mayhem. It is even suggested by Ibn Jubair that in his pirate raids in the Red Sea, Raynald intended, amongst other things, to make off with the body of the prophet Mohammed and hold it for ransom at Kerak. Peaceful co-existence was at an end, and Saladin took an oath to kill Raynald, whose offenses were made even worse when he tried to capture the Sultan's sister in 1187, breaking a truce to attack a cravan. Saladin was left with no option but to preach Jihad against the whole Crusader Kingdom. In this Raynald had encompased his own death and the fall of Jerusalem. Clio the Muse 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Eyemouth disaster

Is there any more information on the Eyemouth Disaster. The Wikipedia page is very poor. SeanScotland 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The google search (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22eyemouth+disaster%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) produces links that have books (if you are wishing to read up more), but also includes quite a lot of links that look like they might add more too. If you find anything further that is referencable your adding it to the existing article would help make Wikipedia better for the next person hunting for details about the disaster. ny156uk 08:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can give you one or two extra pieces of information, Sean, but you should really refer to Black Friday by Peter Aitchison for a full account of Britain's worst fishing disaster.

Eyemouth, a little port situated on the headlands of Berwickshire in south-east Scotland, was renowned for the courage and tenacity of its fishing fleet, men who had a reputation for putting to sea in conditions that made all others cling to the safety of harbour. But the storms of 1881 were particularly bad, and the fleet had been confined to harbour for days. Finally, at dawn on 14 October, conditions seemed to be improving and the little boats all put to sea, despite the fact that the pierhead barometer signalled that the weather was about to change for the worse. The fishermen were willing to take the risk, which is precisely why the Eyemouth fleet enjoyed such a high reputation, and why the port had become so successful as a base for the white fishing industry over the previous decades. The reputation of the local fleet for daring and profit had caused many migrant fishing families to settle there in the 1860s and 1870s, putting an extra strain on the tiny, inadequate harbour. For once the gamble failed: a terrible gale grew in intensity, swamping the boats. Almost all the dead were from Eyemouth, which in a tiny community, magnified the scale of the disaster. The dead left behind 90 widows of 300 children. The tragedy aroused the pity of the nation. A relief fund was set up, which drew in more than £50,000, a considerable sum for the day. Even Queen Victoria donated £100.

There is, however, another dimension to this story, which helped to contribute to the story of the lost fleet. Eyemouth was the 'poor cousin' of the Scottish ports. Ports like Wick, Fraserburgh, Anstruther and Dunbar had all improved their harbour facilities with the aid of grants from the Fishery Board and the Whitehall-based Public Works Loan Board. Eyemouth, despite the fact that it was the base for Scotland's most successful fleet, received not a penny in state support because the harbour trust was bankrupt, and the fishermen in debt to the Church of Scotland. The Church still had a right to a tithe, a full tenth of the fishermen's incomes, though similar demands had long disappeared elsewhere. This was the cause of much friction in the community and bitter legal disputes. It was only resolved finally when the Church agreed to surrender its rights for a one off payment of £2000, not finally paid off until 1878. During this time, while ports elsewhere were able to introduce harbour improvements, Eyemouth's remained wholly inadequate for the size of its fleet. The fishermen were compelled to do as they had always done: take to sea in all weathers with no safe harbour run to if things went wrong. The boats which tried to make it to the harbour on that October day were swamped on the rocks which served to guard the bay, in sight of their families standing on the shore. A local journalist noted "The terrible sight created a profound impression on the shore, where now women and children realising the perilous position of husbands and sons and brothers still at sea, were running about and weeping in wild distraction." It was a tragedy whose causes were human as well as natural. Clio the Muse 11:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Clio, you have no right to be English. I have adopted you, so you are now a honorary Scot, a great privilege! SeanScotland 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

British merchants in St. Petersburg

I'm looking for some information on the British merchant community on St. Petersburg before the revolution. Any ideas? Fred said right 08:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There may be some leads here. I think it's likely the Anglican church was central to the pre-revolution British community, as it was in Moscow, but info is scarce on the church website. You may find scraps in Charles Baird (engineer).--HJMG 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is actually quite a lot of detailed information of this subject, and I can supply you with a range of references, should you wish to take the matter further. But here, in any case, is a brief summary.

English trade contacts with Russia go as far back as 1553, when the Edward Bonaventure sailed into the White Sea. Before long the port of Archangel became the main point of a thriving commercial exchange between both nations, and in London the Muscovy Company was established. With the foundation of St. Petersburg early in the eighteenth century merchants based in Archangel and Moscow made their way steadily to the new capital on the River Neva. As the new city grew British traders acquired some of the finest properties, so much so that by the end of the reign of Catherine the Great the area between Senate Square and the New Admiralty Canal was known as the English Embankement. The mansions on the Embankment became the home of a number of important business people and other British residents, including Edward Cazlet of the Petersburg International Commercial Bank, Margaret Chamberlain, whose father had established a large cotton printing and dye works near the city in 1753, and Thomas Warre, a partner in a leading trading house. There also was to be found John Rogerson, a Scotsman who was the physician to Catherine the Great, and later Sir James Wylie, another Scot, who was doctor to Tsar Alexander I.

The 1734 Anglo-Russian Commercial Treaty extended certain privileges to the Petersburg community, which, when allied with the importance of Russian iron, tallow and naval stores for the British economy, ensured a vigorous and expanding trading environment. It was even suggested that for Britain the Russian trade was more important than that with the 'whole of the tropics.' Edmund Burke, the great Whig politician and writer, considered Russia to be "the most useful ally Britain had in the commercail sense." Because of this the British government maintained a close interest in the trade, and the Russia Company, which succeeeded the old Moscovy Company, had much political influence. In the 1790s the Company even managed to campaign successfully against the policy of Prime Minister William Pitt to force the Russians to give up the Ochakov Fortress, captured from the Ottoman Turks.

Although the privileges granted in 1734 wre eroded somewhat by subsequent commercial traties in 1766, 1793 and 1797, this had little effect on the general prosperity of the Petersburg community, which reached new heights towards the end of the century. Responding to French complaints about trade privileges granted to the British, Prince Potemkin responded "What would you like us to do, to behave in a manner detrimental to the needs of our merchants and landowners? The demand of the English for our goods is very great but ours for theirs is insignificant..." Russia continued to benefit from the inflow of English gold, as well as shipping services provided by British merchants, who were also the main suppliers of insurance and credit on the domestic market for goods destined for export. For the British commercial returns could reach as high as fifteen per cent, making life in Petersburg highly agreeable. James Brogdan, writing in the 1780s, found the life in Russia "in regard to variety of eating and drinking, far superior to the common made of living in England." Towards the middle of the nineteenth century a German observer commented sourly on the lifestyle and status of the English in the Russian capital;

...they have their own church and despising all other nations, but most especially their protectors, the Russians, they live shut up by themselves, drive English horses and carriages, go bear hunting on the Neva, as they do tiger hunting on the Ganges, disdain to lift their hats to the Emperor himself and proud of their indispensablness and the invincibility of their fleets, defy everybody, find fault with everything they see, but are highly thought of by the government and by all, because they think highly of themselves, and reside chiefly in the magnificent quay named after them.

Changing patterns of trade, growing competition from other nations, and the shift towards conducting trade from importing rather than exporting centres, brough a gradual decline to the merchant princes of Petersburg. Some held on to their position by diversifying into the Russian manufacturing sector, including Alexander Wilson, the British director of the Imperial Aleksandrov Manufacturing Plant. The Cazlet family acquired interests in tallow processing, as well as the Russian Steam Oil Mill Company and the Kalinkin Brewery. However, the heyday of the Petersburg community was over, so much so that James Wishaw was later to write in his memoirs "The English colony (especially those in society) was a large one and could dine out practically every night without meeting the same family twice. It was to decline all too rapidly in this respect, for the senior residents either retired or died off, and by the time of the Great War very few of the old families reamained." The coup de grâce was delivered in 1917. Clio the Muse 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! What can I say? A mere 'thank you' does not seem enough. I think you are wonderful, Clio! Fred said right 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Reich

Where did this term come from? 86.132.3.241 08:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The basic explanation is found in our article on Nazi Germany. Pastordavid 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(after e.c.) Reich simply means empire here, and the information under Third_Reich#Names explains the choice of name: Drittes Reich/Third Reich was selected in order to connect the German empire the Nazis wished to forge to the two older German empires, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (15th/16th century - 1806) and the Second German Empire (1871 - 1918). The first time the term was used in a post World War I context seems to have been by Dietrich Eckart in 1919. Arthur Moeller van den Bruck later wrote Das Dritte Reich in 1923. In 1939, the Propagandaministerium "advised" the media to stop using the term Third Reich because of parodized usage of "The Fourth Reich" by opponents and critics (suggesting the "Thousand-Year Empire" might, in fact, not last that long, which it didn't). Literal translation of the ministry's reasoning: "The far-reaching development that has taken place since then doesn't meet this historically derived title anymore." The 1943 edition of Georg Büchmann's "Winged Words" stated: "It wasn't so much the national circles themselves as their opponents that used the word more and more frequently, and with a sneering undertone at that." (From de:Drittes Reich) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The following dialogue from Casablanca between Captain Renault and Major Strasser illustrates the point (and then some):

Captain Renault: "We are very honored tonight, Rick. Major Strasser is one of the reasons the Third Reich enjoys the reputation it has today."

Major Strasser: "You repeat *Third* Reich as though you expected there to be others!"

Captain Renault: "Well, personally, Major, I will take what comes."

From imdb.com ---Sluzzelin talk 10:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Publishing in the Roman world

There was no printing in the Roman world, but my reading of Pliny the Younger's letters hints at a culture which could perhaps in some sense be called publishing - he writes about a readership for his writings, and if I recall correctly, reflects on the decision to circulate documents or not. Can anyone recommend a source of more information on this topic - to what extent were manuscripts copied and circulated, and on what basis? I am intrigued by the fact that a Google search on "Publishing in the Roman world" as a phrase returns no results, and ""manuscript circulation" "roman world" returns just seven.

Jphollow 10:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer your question, but if you Google "Roman empire" instead of "Roman world" you will get a lot more hits. Also bear in mind that the idea of publishing (which literally means to make public) has only existed since the advent of printing. Before that time, manuscripts were indeed copied by hand but weren't considered public. In any case, the public could not read.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is only a partial answer, based more on general knowledge than the specifics of the issue. We know that important Romans (like Pliny) employed a scribe, to which they would dictate their letters and other scribenda. The scribe would record this on a wax tablet or cera, which allowed for easy corrections. For many purposes, this was the final form. For a book, this wouldn't do, of course; if you wanted the text to be preserved for an extended period, you needed to have it copied to papyrus, or even better, parchment. Neither was cheap, and the latter was rather expensive. Since one of Caesar's objectives in writing his Commentarii de Bello Gallico was to present himself as the powerful figure in Roman leadership, he must have ordered more than just a few copies made, presumably at great cost to himself. Documents could further be circulated by arranging the physical movement of a single copy from one person to the next according to some roster. In general, I suspect though that most copies were made upon the request of the person wishing to possess a copy.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

From here:

When the Romans "published" a book, they went to a place where dozens or hundreds of literate slaves would create copies one at a time with pens. Both the citizens and conquered slaves were well educated. Greek slaves worked as scribes, translators, and teachers. Romans loved to read. Great libraries existed adjacent to the public baths. Patrons could read in leisure or borrow great works of science and literature.

There was a thriving publishing industry. Manuscript sellers were in the market place for those who wanted to own personal copies. First editions of one thousand copies were commissioned and best sellers sold over one hundred thousand copies in the arcade book stalls. But, each copy had to be hand copied with pen and ink.

Gdr 16:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While this may be so, we don't know on what the author of these lines – who appears to have a religious agenda in which an overestimate of the number of copies would not hurt their argument – bases these claims.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rome even had "newspapers" - the actae, hand-written broadsheets which discussed the political and social events of the day. Though government-run. Corvus cornix 19:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You get a lot more hits on publishing "roman empire", but very few of them are about the concept in question. I am raising the question of whether there was a concept that we could reasonably call publishing, in the Roman world, prior to the invention of printing. I am genuinely ignorant but I suspect there is an interesting seam of information here, and I thank Lambiam for the response. Jphollow 21:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Hi there, I got four questions about Ancient Rome.

1. Explain the role of each member of the Second Triumvirate and what happened to him?

2. How did the arts (literature, art, and ) help to glorify and legitimize Augustus's position of authority as emperor of Rome?

3. How were Roman amphitheatres similar to and different from today's stadiums?

4. What geographical factors would have protected the Eastern Roman Empire in the fifth century CE?

Thanks

Those are great questions. If I was a teacher of histoty, I might set them as homework. If you use the search box in the panel on the left, you can find some answers to your questions and other interesting material on Wikipedia.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's how it works: you come, you search, you answer. (Dang, I wish I could translate that into Latin.) Clarityfiend 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(ahem, pardon my butchering a beautiful language) vos adveho , vos quaero , vos refero. Pastordavid 19:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Let someone who actually knows Latin do it: venis, quaeris, respondes —Keenan Pepper 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In the immortal words of the Latin Wikipedia's page on "Latinitas", "Lingua Latina haud est simplex. Machinae interpretes vix possunt recte Latinam ex aliis transferre." (The Latin language is hardly simple. Machine translators cannot translate Latin from other languages properly.) —Keenan Pepper 21:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you ... much better. And, as an amateur translator (but obviously not of Latin), I stand properly chastized for letting a machine do my work.  ;) Thanks. Pastordavid 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not as alliterative as Caesar's version, but nice to know. Thanks. I think I'll add that to my user page. (Is it responde for the first person?) Clarityfiend 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"I answer" is respondeo. Responde is the imperative ("Answer!"). —Keenan Pepper 05:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Liaoyang

Your article on the Battle of Liaoyang is very sketchy. Is there any more information on this crucial encounter in the Russo-Japanese War? General joffe 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For "Battle of Liaoyang", Google returns 13,600 links.[1]

If you have the time and interest, please consider editing the article to add information on what you find. If you don't know how do this, please check the info I just placed on your talk page. Please be careful about copyrights and make sure you add verifiable sources. Please leave a note here, or on my talk page, or at the newcomer's help desk if you have any problems. Thanks. -Arch dude 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Commodity fetishism

Is commodity fetishism related to the concept of veblen goods? --Anakata 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

They're definitely related, though I think you might be able to argue that they are somewhat opposites in a sense. Commodity fetishism is giving values to good beyond their exchange-value (so to speak). Veblen goods require assigning values based upon the exchange-value. In the former the values are separated from the exchange-value; in the latter they are directly a result of it. --24.147.86.187 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Killed rappers

Is there a list anywhere on the internet of all the rappers that were killed??

Thank you 77.105.44.141 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Our Category:Murdered entertainers is made up mostly of rappers, although sadly many rappers who may not have reached the mainstream are killed in gang wars that may never even be reported. Laïka 11:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

May 21

Starting a Small Rental store (Canadian Regulations?)

Say I start a small rental store in Canada. I buy the movies from amazon.ca. Are there any Regulations in Canada that forces rental stores to pay dividents to the Hollywood corporations? --Eptypes 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You would be breaking Canadian copyright laws, as Canada is a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which protects the works of other parties to that treaty, of which the United States is one. --TotoBaggins 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have friends who own a convienence store and they rent movies. Granted, this is in the U.S., so your milage may vary. They pay a distributor a larger sum for a copy of a movie, something at least around US$30-50 per copy. There is some sort of law preventing them from just going to a store and buying a copy to rent out. I'm not sure of the details or laws that affect this. I'm fairly certain that it would be similar north of the border. Dismas|^(talk) 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your friends who own the convienence store, where do they contact the distributors in order to inform them they are going to rent it and to pay extra cash? --Eptypes 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're asking. They bought the business from a couple who were retiring. So when they took ownership, they just kept using the same distributor. I don't know how you'd go about finding a distributor. Their distributor comes once a week or so and has a list of movies that will be coming out the following week. They choose the movies that they are going to want and he comes back the next week with the movies as well as the list of movies that are coming out the following week and so on. It's a small town store, so they generally don't go for any of the more artsy films, they stick to the big name movies that more people will rent because if you buy a movie for $30 and only rent it out twice for $3 then you've just lost over $24. In this example, a movie has to be rented at least 10 times before the profit can start. Dismas|^(talk) 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works doesn't deal with Canada. Which Canadian Law/Regulation? --Eptypes 06:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it "doesn't deal" with Canada? Canada is a signatory to the convention. FiggyBee 07:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not have enough information I mean. --Eptypes 08:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, and the following is not legal advice. The very first DVD cover I looked at has the following text: "WARNING: The copyright proprietor has licensed this DVD for private home use only. Unless otherwise expressly licensed by the copyright proprietor, all other rights are reserved. Any unauthorised copying, editing, exhibition, renting, public performance diffusion and/or broadcast of this DVD, or any part thereof, is strictly prohibited." (Quite appropriately, this Warning was issued by the Warner Bros.) This is standard boilerplate, but my understanding is that this is backed up by law. Specifically, our article United States copyright law lists, among the five basic rights protected by copyright, the exclusive right to authorize others to distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. As far as I could discern, the Berne convention has no clauses that are specific to the situation, but it states that authors enjoy, in other signatory countries (like Canada), the rights which the laws of their own country (for movies more often than not the U.S.A.) grant to their nationals.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

@ Eptypes: The terms applied to Wikipedia "articles" apply equally to Reference Desk answers. (See e.g., Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, User:Dreftymac/Docs/RefDeskDisclaimer, etc.) dr.ef.tymac 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase: has there meen any civil lawsuits in Canada, due to illegal renting? --Eptypes 23:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The matter would be criminal. Bielle 00:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Buying DVDs from Amazon.ca to rent out would be illegal - end of story. If you do, the DVDs you rent are likely to have a warning on that they are not for rental, and any customers of yours would be liable to report you. TO operate such a business, you'd need to buy them from the relevant distributor, with the appropriate licensing. You should expect to pay significantly more for these DVDs than you would if you were buying them on Amazon.ca for your own private use. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, when you purchase a movie you purchase two things: the a copy of the film itself, and a license to use that particular copy. When you purchase at amazon or any other retainler, you are purchasing a copy of the film that automatically comes with a license for private use. In order to legally rent DVDs, you need to purchase a copy of the film that comes with a license for commercial, for-profit use. There are special distributors of these I am sure, but I have no idea who they are or how to find them. Pastordavid 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-42/ Copyright Act C-42 An Act respecting copyright. --Eptypes 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do the distributors have a special website for purchasing "for profit" DVDs i.e for renting? --Eptypes 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How does this question, and its very long answer, keeping finding itself at the top of the current day's questions? The original question was posted on May 15th. Bielle 03:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Until its answered, I don't want it to be archived. --Eptypes 03:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you google "DVD Distributors", you will find many sites like this one [2] that appear to answer many of your questions. Bielle 04:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, like that one which asks you to pay money to download the ebook? --Eptypes 05:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe First-sale doctrine and the Betamax case say that once you buy the dvd/video you can do with it what you will (including rent, sell, etc., but not copy, of course), excepting public performance, whether for profit or not. Blockbuster and others make special arrangements to have multiple copies available but small video stores can rent purchased copies as they like. I have a neighbor down the street that operates a small video store and I will ask them tomorrow to be sure.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Killing sparrows. :) --Eptypes 05:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Both of killing sparrows' links are to US law and US cases. Canadian law may well be different. As for paying "money to download the ebook", not everybody follows the Wiki philosophy and gives answers for free. I thought there were some sites in the Google response with lists of DVD distributors; perhaps I was mistaken.Bielle 05:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Infringement generally

27. (1) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner of the copyright has the right to do.

Secondary infringement

(2) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to

(a) sell or rent out,

(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public,

(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c), or

(e) import into Canada for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),

a copy of a work, sound recording or fixation of a performer’s performance or of a communication signal that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright or would infringe copyright if it had been made in Canada by the person who made it.

Has any lower courts or the supreme court of canada interpreted this section of the Copyright Act? --Eptypes 06:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eptypes, I actually read the entire Canadian copyright law last night and I have to say that I think you are going to have to get an answer someplace else. Video rental is not specifically addressed in the act in the context you are looking for. The ambiguity of law and the need for professional advice is illustrated by the above list which would seem to prohibit the sale of used books (sections a and c above). Have you thought of simply driving down to your local video store and asking someone, 'Hey, what's the deal on renting these videos, did you have to get a special license?' --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear Eptypes, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't keep moving your questions to the bottom of the page. I've asked this before, both on the talk page of your previous incarnation and here. I find it disorienting, and it means I have to scroll over more and more to find developments at more recent questions. If more users start doing that, it will create a mess. If you have a specific new or further question, feel free to post it, but don't repost all that went before. You can always link to the prior discussion.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. It's annoying and confusing. --TotoBaggins 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I did do research into this for a project I was doing where the warning said "for home use" this means if the person intended to have a private screening for profit of the copyrighted work this would go against copy right laws. But home use is a broad enough term to take into consideration renting out a copy of a video for a persons personal home use. There are no laws governing the rental of a copyrighted material canada has always been kinda lax when it comes to copyrights

U.S. Federal Anti-piracy regulations

When recently viewing a movie at a Regal IMAX theater, the usher stated (I paraphrase from memory) "Federal Anti-piracy regulations require that you turn off all electronic devices." I would like to know if this is true or not. So, does U.S. Federal Law require that all electronic devices be turned off before the start of a motion picture? (I facetiously pointed out that all wristwatches and pacemakers would have to be powered down as well.) thank you. --Rajah 05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be a good question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I crossposted it as well. --Rajah 06:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think that this is based on the cinema's own personal interpretation of US Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 506, Subsection a(1), which states "Any person who infringes a copyright willfully by for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain...shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code"; the cinema has interpreted the use of recording equipment within a cinmea as an attempt at willfull copyright infringement. As the law specifically states that "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement", by pointing out that cameras etc are not allowed, they can then show that someone deliberately, not accidentally, infringed copyright. As for all electronic devices, the usher was either mistaken or was also making clear that certain other devices (videophones for example), which are not usually thought of as recording devices, should also be turned off. Laïka 11:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It was an over-statement by the usher, perhaps under direction from his employer. All "electronic devices" are (according to some) sufficiently annoying in theaters to explain away such overreaching, despite the obvious absurdity when applied to surgically implanted medical devices. In the future, please do not crosspost identical answers in multiple places, a link should be enough. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the usher phrased it incorrectly, anti-piracy should have been copyright; Federal copyright regulations. However the point that you can't record the IMAX movie is accurate according to US Code TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 102 which basically says it's a violation of copyright law to record:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

It also points out that the law applies to current and future technology, so if tomorrow a new type of recorder could capture the experience of the IMAX movie in a new and unknown way it'd still be illegal. Anynobody 10:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Aryan

What would happen if a Jewish person had blonde hair and blue eyes during Nazi Germany. 213.106.248.77 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It would make no difference whatsoever. All German Jews were known to the authorities as a result of much legislation, including the Nuremberg laws of 1935. By 1938, their passports were marked as "Juden" and they were given a middle name ("Israel" for men and "Sarah" for women). Blonde hair and blue eyes are not remarkably unusual characteristics of Ashkenazi Jews - it's idle to speculate just how many of the 6,000,000 looked "Aryan". You might also find our article Racial policy of Nazi Germany instructive. --Dweller 09:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Phrenology? Wheee! "Race?" Wow. Just wow. The Mismeasure of Man, anyone? Utgard Loki 13:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin, there is absolutly no scientific evidence that skull of individuals of jewish decent are in any way different than those of any other race. If you disagree, please provide a source for your assertions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Nazis believed Jews had smaller skulls. Whatever -- as Hipocrite says, there's no such thing as a Jewish skull size. In the movie Europa Europa, the main character, a Jewish boy passing as an "Aryan," has his skull measured in front of his Hitler Youth group. The protagonist is freaked out he will be discovered, but the Nazi "doctor" declares that he is a Balt, I believe. I think the Nazis also believed Jews had a certain type of earlobe -- either attached or free, I can't remember. It was all pseudoscience. I once met a Stockholm-based rabbi who told me a story about one of his congregants, who escaped from Nazi Germany. She had been a child model and had her picture taken for one of those generic shots used in picture frames. She later learned the Nazis had used the picture as an example of a model Aryan child -- unaware the model was actually Jewish! -- Mwalcoff 15:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't provide any sources, except my own memory (and I understand why that would not be considered a proper source!). However, this does not change the fact that I still believe that what I said was correct, especially on the former existance of Nazi racial clinics. That point can still stand, even if there is disagreement over whether they were larger or smaller. (At least no concerns of racism have been raised.) There is, I think, little doubt that the Nazis definitely understood how to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews - given Hitler's obsession with removing them. And no, I would not consider removing my opinion: disagree as people may, I still believe what I have said to be correct. Perhaps a wikiarticle could provide more detail? (or, for that matter, a source)martianlostinspace 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make things up on the reference desk. You are, in fact, entirely, 100% wrong, as detailed in The Mismeasure of Man. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what I call consensus to delete. Fact as I believe it is, and slightly annoyed at being told I am making things up, it is not worth continuing or offending. Comment deleted. martianlostinspace 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As a practical matter, a Jew which could "pass for Aryan" would be in far better shape. With some forged papers they could hope to live unmolested. This wasn't as likely for those Jews who "looked Jewish". In the case of other ethnic groups, like Poles, children which looked Aryan were sometimes taken from their parents by Nazis and raised to be German. StuRat 08:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I don't believe in Phrenology, and I never intend to. Personality is nothing to do with ethnic group.martianlostinspace 10:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And now my message has been deleted entirely now. I accept what I said was wrong, offensive and inappropriate to the RD, and hope that anyone offended will accept an apology. Hope this helps.martianlostinspace 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you like girls?

Please somebody explain what people mean when they ask this question. It's usually asked by an older man to a younger man, with no clear meaning.
Is it a subtle way of asking if a boy/guy is gay or straight?
Am I right that it is an old-fashioned question? (I've only seen older men or older characters say it).
In popular culture: On the TV show 3rd Rock from the Sun Tommy is with Sally at a car dealership and the car salesman asks "Do you like girls?" and he responds "Yes, sorry".
138.130.23.133

Yes, it is a way to ask "are you gay?" It is a bit nicer than something like, "Do you like movies about gladiators?" or "Have you ever seen a grown man naked?" or "Have you ever been to a Turkish prison?" --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it means "are you gay" at all. I think its just a way to make conversation. Yeah its probably impolite as it could embarrass the person you are asking, whether gay or straight. -- Diletante 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the past, this statement was used to mean, "Are you straight?" I remember watching a TV show in which they interviewed a guy who had been drummed out of the US military for being gay. He said he never lied about his homosexuality. When he enlisted, he was asked, "Do you like girls?" He replied "yes" -- which was the truth. He liked girls because he likes all children. He just isn't sexually attracted to girls, or to women (or to boys, we hope). -- Mwalcoff 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re "or to boys, we hope" - I really wish people would not unwittingly perpetuate the assumption in many uneducated people's minds that a homosexual male is somehow more likely than a straight male to have paedophilic feelings, for which there is no evidence. It would be just as inappropriate for an adult male of any orientation to be sexually attracted to young girls as to young boys. -- JackofOz 02:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jack. I do not believe gay men have a predilection to pedophilia. I was just trying to further emphasize the difference between "liking" children and being sexually attracted to them. -- Mwalcoff 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, wait a sec. It also has to do with determining the maturity of a boy/young man. If you asked me "do you like girls?" when I was 9 or so, I might well have said "ewwww!". They have cooties, y'know! Tommy was pre-teen when the series started, too. So the script writers were playing games with several things - "are you gay", "are you old enough to have discovered girls" -- and then Tommy's usual sort of gag about being an adult in the body of a child. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking when you are talking about adults asking young boys this it is usually pretty obviously about maturity. "Do you like girls?" means, more specifically, "Have you reached a stage in your development where you have developed attractions towards the opposite sex, or are you still in that stage where you think they have cooties?" It's a wholly heteronormative/heterocentric question on the whole, for better or worse, and is not meant to identify sexual preference one way or another. --24.147.86.187 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then again, if you asked Hannibal Lecter "do you like girls ?" he might well reply "yes, I do, as their higher fat content makes them ideal for self-basting". StuRat 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In a TV documentary about WW2 which I saw within the last year, an American veteran said that at his induction exam after receiving the draft notice, the psychologivcal exam consisted of the doctor asking "So, do you like girls?" to determine if he was a heterosexual. Sorry, but I do not have a specific citation fot the TV program. It appears once to have been a standard code for inquiring about a man's sexual orientation. For other refrences to this as a standard question at induction see [3] , [4] , in the movie "The girl he left behind" [5] , [6]. The question was asked in the other sense of a female in the navy in the 1990's (page 13) [7]. [8] "An Army at Dawn: The War in Africa (1942-1943)" By Rick Atkinson (2003) from Google books refers to the question as a standard part of the WW2 draft physical, and says that 2 million Americans were rejected for psychological reasons often on no more basis than their answer to that question. Edison 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

May 22

Great Americans of the twentieth century

Besides a united states president, what three americans changed america in the 20th century? (which stand out on top)69.225.49.10 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well ... It sounds like someone would have to weigh the evidence and make their own judgement call on that ... perhaps even providing some clear and cogent rationale to back it up -- maybe in some reasonable form like an essay or paper? Pastordavid 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that we don't do homework here, and that this a call for opinions, not a reference question. Here's a hint to get you going on this for yourself: think of three important things that happened in the US during the 20th century. Do anybody's names come to mind when thinking of those things? --TotoBaggins 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another hint: Person of the Year. Here's another hint: greatness (depending on how you define it) does not always coincide with recognition ... since (apparently) small actions can have far-reaching consequences; such as the action of giving free homework answers anonymously over the internet to people who later go on to become world leaders because of their shrewd and wholly-subsidized opportunism. dr.ef.tymac 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are three hints: think about the greatest discoveries in science (such as in nuclear physics), in engineering (such as in manufacturing and aeronautics), and in electronic technology (such as in telecommunications). Human rights would be another good place to start. Okay, that's 4 hints. I lied.  :-) The Transhumanist    05:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes

Now that things are back to 'normal' I can now post my question. I'm looking for some more information on John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes, particularly his role in Scottish government during the reign of Charles II. Can anyone supply me with some additional details on his political career? SeanScotland 08:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Sean. John Leslie was a fairly important figure in Restoration Scotland, and one of the great political operators of the day. He was also a natural survivor. In 1663 he succeeded John Middleton, 1st Earl of Middleton as High Commissioner to the Scottish Parliament, effectively the Prime Minister of the day, though he was kept under close watch by John Maitland, 2nd Earl of Lauderdale, the Secretary of State for Scotland, based in London. Rothes had little in the way of formal education, though he possessed plenty of native wit, managing to stay afloat in political storms that destroyed far greater men than him. George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh wrote of him that "The subtelty of his wit obliged all to court his friendship." He was charged, amongst other things, with dealing with the religious problem presented by the obdurate Covenanter opposition, enjoying limited success in his efforts to stamp out dissent. His time as High Commissioner saw the first serious trouble of the Restoration period, with an armed uprising of the Covenanter underground, which concluded with the Battle of Rullion Green. Rothes, who, by his own admission, liked "sogeris [soldiers] above all the other wayes of living", was, in part, blamed for the troubles because of the severity of his rule. Lauderdale, with the approval of the king, decided to replace him as High Commissioner, taking on the position himself in combination with that of Secretary of State. Rothes was still too important to be replaced altogether, though, so he was 'promoted' to the office of Chancellor, chief legal officer of the realm, but without the same degree of political clout. He continued to occupy high office to the end of his life, intriguing against Lauderdale when the occasion suited him, but always emerging unscathed. Clio the Muse 00:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I love you, Clio! SeanScotland 10:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Stock market volume and volatility

I encountered a problem on correlation that is rather strange to me. I have got two sets of time-series data (N = 115) which have correlation coefficient of -0.0636 (Significance 0.01 - two tailed). However if I divide the data into two halves (N1 = 58 and N2 = 57) the correlation coefficient of first half becomes +0.6134 (Significance 0.01 - two tailed)and the second half +0.2317 (Significance 0.08 - two tailed). The data sets are related to stock market trading volume and volatility. Previous studies say that the correlation coefficient between those should be positive and significant. I am not a very statistics person. Can anyone help me what might be the reason for these results, in non-technical terms? How to interpret such results and relate it to the previous studies?

Thanks in advance.--202.52.234.141 08:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not crosspost. This question has also been posted (and answered) at the Mathematics section.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

United Nations

Just wondering what people's opinions is on the question: Is the UN capable and competent of keeping the peace in the post-Cold War order?137.166.4.130 11:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Helena

Unfortunately, that kind of question is not really suitable for the reference desk, since it asks for people's opinions. The RD is mainly for factual queries. You might want to read United Nations and the articles linked to from there, prior to forming your own view on your homework topic. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is a homework question, I would guess from the loaded nature of the wording here, that your angry conservative teacher would prefer that you justify an answer of No. -Czmtzc 12:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Czmtzc is reading the question rightly. It's a gnat's eyelash away from using the phrase "New World Order." Furthermore, what's being questioned is the dual condition of being capable (i.e. might sufficient, conditions providing opportunity) and "competent" (i.e. not weakened by internal waste). Yep. It's a tautology, and it begs questions. Utgard Loki 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Talmud

Why does Zohar call for the extermination of Christians ? Are the Jews still intent on carrying on this project ? See www.jfkmontreal.com/talmud.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.235.204 (talk • contribs)

That link does not refer to the Zohar (it's not a book of the Talmud), so it's difficult to deal with your question. However, I would point out that the site you link to is in no way a reliable source (a glance at its mainpage tells you that). And Jews are not intent on exterminating any segment of humanity (with the notable exception of Amalekites, who've not been identifiable since Biblical times, and even then, according to Maimonides, there was no imperative to genocide. Our article's really quite good, if uncited.). --Dweller 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It says that Jews are allowed to lie about their intentions. Did they follow the rules ? Did the Talmud lie to the Jews ?

As I said above, that page is not reliable. --Dweller 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"It" may say that, but the problem is that "it" is a webpage that also asserts that the Virginia Tech shootings are somehow related to the JFK assassination, as proved by an interview with comedian Jay Leno. The site could learn a lot from Alex Chiu on being credible and verifiable, and that's a low bar. There is no Jewish project to exterminate Christians. Your question has been answered. Please take your trolling elsewhere. --TotoBaggins 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a telling quote from the "jfkmontreal" website: "Salvador believes most 'professional' critics of the Kennedy assassination are financed by the U.S. Government, or the state of Israel, or both as a means of suppressing the truth by controlling both sides of the debate. Ironically, the author now believes the man who originally inspired him to uncover the truth about the Kennedy assassination is also a fake critic. That man is Yale drop-out and son of a Wall Street financier: Oliver Stone." Even by the high bars set by the Internet, this guy ranks pretty high on the kooky scale. -- Mwalcoff 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Some guy who changed millions of people's lives for the better

OK, apologies for this question, it might be impossible to answer but someone might know what I'm talking about. A few months ago on the RD (can't remember which one) a question came up about who has contributed most to the good of mankind. Someone came up with a guy who I had never heard of before, who had done, made or discovered something wonderful. He wasn't a human rights leader, politician or anything like that. I think he was some kind of scientist who had discovered or invented something. It wasn't one of the well-known drugs like penicillin. Does anyone here have the faintest idea who I am talking about? Many thanks, and apologies for the dopey question. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the dude! "Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people from starvation. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply." Thanks so much. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Impressive sleuthing. - MelancholyDanish

Civilization

This may be a dumb question, but is there a useful distinction between describing for example Babylonia or Babylonian civilization? When speaking of an ancient civilization I can't think of anything you would cover in one and not the other. For example the Maya civilization has an article that covers bascially the same topics as Babylonia. Should we standardize on one or the other? Is the only difference here that Babylonia was a state and Maya and some others were not? - Taxman ^Talk 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally it's up to historians. However concerning Maya civilization in particular, it's unusual IMHO to name it the Mayan state or simply Maya. Roughly the same thing is Ancient Egypt, which wasn't a state, but rather a civilization. --Brand спойт 17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Himmler's feudal settlements

What was the nature of Heinrich Himmler's scheme for rural settlements in conquered Russia? Captainhardy 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Lebensraum answer your question? Corvus cornix 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Else, try Generalplan Ost too, or Drang nach Osten for some historical circumstance. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Himmler had his own pet scheme for eastern settlement, which could be subsumed within the general thrust eastwards for lebensraum, but was quite distinct from the Generalplan Ost. All of the details are to be found in The Master Plan: Himmler Scholars and the Holocaust by Heather Pringle. The Himmler Plan aimed at more than just lebensraum: it was a bizarre scheme for creating a rural idyll in western Russia, harking back to earlier modes of existence, and a more 'authentic' and Germanic way of life. By this, racially pure soldier-farmers would live in medieval-style German houses. These ideas emerged in part from a work of 1929 by Himmler's close associate, Walther Darre, entitled Farming as a Source of Life for the Nordic Race. Himmler began to move towards a fuller elaboration of his plans with the foundation in 1935 of the Deutches Ahnenerbe Studiengesellschaft für Geistesurgeschichte, or Ahnenerbe for short, meaning 'something inherited from our forefathers. The Ahnenerbe scholars investigated a whole variety of things, from ancient house designs, 'Nordic' animal breeds and even, by Himmler's specific request, the sexual practices of the ancient German tribes! A model farm was also established at Mehrow to the east of Berlin, where some of the notions were tested.

It was after the invasion of Russia that Himmler began to look to wider horizons, working in collaboration with Konrad Meyer, a senior planner and agricultural scientist, on a scheme that could be presented to Hitler. This was called the Master Plan East. By this Himmler and Meyer envisaged the creation of three huge colonies. The first, stretching south of Leningrad, was called Ingermanland; the second, embracing chunks of eastern Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, was known in the plan as Memel-Narew-Gebiet, and the third, incorporating large parts of the western Ukraine and Crimea, was Gotengau. All three of these areas were to be completely 'Germanised' within a twenty year period. All Slavs and the 'racially unwanted' were to be killed or enslaved, and the areas repopulated with small villages of German and SS settlers. Each village, Himmler told Felix Kersten, his personal masseur, "will embrace between 30 and 40 farms. Each farmer will receive up to 300 acres of land, more or less according to the quality of the soil. In any case a class of financially powerful and independent farmers will develop. Slaves won't till this soil, rather, a farming aristocracy will come into being, such as you still find on the Westphalian estates." The villages would be dominated by a manor house, occupied an SS or Nazi party leader, a little bit like the feudal lord of the manor. Such was Himmler's view of the Nazi Millenium. Clio the Muse 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Boozy Britain

The Brits have a reputation for heavy drinking. Is this a recent thing? 86.131.255.228 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The very definition of a loaded question. Hammer Raccoon 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I'm British, and I'm pretty sure we do have a reputation for heavy drinking (at least that's how we think of ourselves, I haven't surveyed all foreigners yet). It's perfectly reasonable to ask for how long we have had this reputation. How long we've been drinking heavily would be loaded, but that might not be what the OP meant. Algebraist 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Even whether Britons being heavy drinkers (or more problematically, binge drinkers) is a recent thing or not has been a topic of much serious debate, the historians seeming to say that it has certainly been the case for a long time. As for how long we've had a reputation for this sort of thing, I don't know. If only Clio were here! Skittle 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

They certainly were not known as drinkers to Americans. Americans had, and still have, a vision of the British that is quite abstemious and fey. On the Continent, on the other hand, I would imagine that 20th century travel has made other populations increasingly familiar with the football fan of the species, and this might slant things. For actual alcohol consumption per capita, Scandinavian countries have the Brits beaten, but they may stay home more than the Brits do. (England's worst crisis with drink was probably surrounding the Gin Lane-era, when distilling became a major industry for England and the government encouraged it. Our article says that .25 of all the houses in St. Giles at the time were gin shops.) Utgard Loki 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to compare statistics on the percentage of people in different countries who suffer from alcohol problems. According to Alcoholism, "In the United Kingdom, the number of 'dependent drinkers' was calculated as over 2.8 million in 2001" (sadly, a definition of 'dependent' is not given), which is around 4.6% of the population. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing the Anne of Denmark article recently, and I noticed that the Danes seem to have been heavier drinkers than the British in the early seventeenth century. Anne's father, Frederick II of Denmark, was apparently a prodigious drinker: his drinking glass, which I have read is on show at Rosenborg Castle, held three quarts of wine (I do hope it was merely ceremonial, because that's one serious wineglass). At Frederick's funeral, the clergyman observed that he might have lived somewhat longer if he hadn't drunk so much. The visits of his sons Christian IV of Denmark and Ulric, duke of Holstein, to Britain tended to degenerate into extensive binges, drawing comment from the Brits. I have this original-research theory that Anne herself became an alcoholic: her liver was found to be wasted after her death at the age of forty four, and she had been suffering from gout and dropsy. Racking my brains for a British king who died of drink, I could only come up with Harthacanute: say no more. qp10qp 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the Institute for Alcohol Studies, the UK ranked seventh among 45 countries in per-capita alcohol consumption in 2003, behind Luxembourg, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Ireland, Germany and Spain: [9]. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Clio is here, Skittle!

Actually, not that much has changed, and these things, and the moral and social concerns they raise, tend to move in distinct historical cycles. In the early seventeenth century Parlaiment passed no less than four statutes against drunkeness in a short twenty-year period. However, as Utgard Loki has indicated, the first great moral panic over patterns of alcohol consumption came with the the emergence of the Gin Craze in the first half of the eighteenth century, so vividly illustrated in William Hogarth's print, with its depiction of decay, violence, death, suicide, corruption and infanticide. The damage caused by rivers of cheap gin was only really brought under control with the introduction of legislation in 1751, the same year that Hogarth's print appeared. Gin Lane made an immediate impact on popular consciousness, on a public that was well-versed with the horrors of the gin cult, which included the case of Judith Defour, tried at the Old Bailey in 1734 for murdering her own child to sell its clothes to obtain more of the spirit. But Hogarth, it tends to be overlooked, was aiming his criticism not at alcohol consumption as such, but specifically at the cult of gin, considered to be a feminised drinking culture, symbolised by Mother Gin or Madam Geneva. At the same time as Gin Lane he also produced Beer Street, with lusty Englishmen drinking from foaming tankards! One version of this has a weedy Frenchman being manhandled by a strapping English artisan carrying a jug of beer. Public drunkenesss was frowned upon, rather than consumption in large quantities of the 'right kind' of alcohol, particularly by men, which was rather expected. The real change in attitude comes with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. It was one thing for agricultural labourers to consume huge quantities of beer and cider, and quite another for those charged with minding machinery to do so. Urbanization, moreover, made drunkeness a much more serious social issue, just as it had during the London Gin Craze, because concentrated heavy drinking could easily become a major problem of public order. It is only really from this time that tea-drinking was prompted as an alternative, and more wholesome, cult for the great British masses. Concerns about drinking, and the occasional moral panic this induced, resulted in stronger and stronger systems of licensing control. But, yes, nothing much changes. The British have always been drunkards; the British always will be drunkards. No Continenatl cafe culture for us, thank you very much! Clio the Muse 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sublime Hogarth print, see Gin Lane.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, for beer, it was ever the "healthy" drink for the Protestant countries. It is not merely Hogarth who sees it as good stuff. We have, of course, "small beer" as a requisite of human life in all sorts of contexts. Additionally, we have a nice Dutch tradition that I only know from the visual arts of "healthy" beer (Franz Hals's The Jolly Toper being one, but also shown in Vermeer and others -- men with their beer and their wives taking a few delighted sips). Additionally, my favorite Samuel Johnson poem, a parody of Thomas Warton, reads (sorry for doing this from memory, folks, and blowing a line):

Hermit hoar in solemn cell

Wearing out life's evening grey

Smite thy breast, sage, and tell

Where is bliss, and which the way.

.

So I spoke, and speaking sighed,

Scarce restrain'd the starting tear.

And he with ____ replied,

Come my lad, and have some beer.

Beer was a corrective to silly excess, to viciousness, and to violence, as beer-drunken men were supposed to fight in a clumsy and non-lethal way. Utgard Loki 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, back in those days it was much safer to drink beer than water - there were all sorts of nasties in the water, which were killed off by the brewing process. -- Arwel (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Story (Short?) about a Door of Light

I recall, in elementary school, of reading a (short?) story about a door that appeared in the main character's life. The door was only seen by him and was golden or lighted. The door only appeared to him every 10 years or more. Each time he was tempted to go through the door but then decides not to. The only time he does decide to go through the door was when he was an old man. Then the story ends. Does anyone know the name and author of this story?! - --Juliet 19:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally reminds me of The Door in the Wall, but H. G. Wells. It was published as The Door in the Wall and Other Stories, and we don't have an article on it. It appeared to him every ten years or so, and he first enters it as a school boy. He only enters it once or twice more, and the last time he is an (old?) man and he actually dies. [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Novelists in their books

Are there any works of literature where the author makes reference to himself in the third person? Secret seven 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

See Author character. Another one, not mentioned in the article, is Money by Martin Amis. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clive Cussler puts himself in every one of his novels (as mentioned in the Cussler article). Pastordavid 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov in Murder_at_the_ABA. I am suprised that I was able to recognize the title out of the hundreds listed in Isaac_Asimov_complete_bibliography. -- Diletante 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Asimov also notes himself in Thiotimoline to the Stars as "a semi-mythical scientist named Azimuth or Asymptote". — Lomn 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And in one of his novels there is a reference to "non-Asenion robots", also using a misspelling of his own name. Ah, the Isaac Asimov FAQ page has the details. --Anon, May 22, 23:00 (UTC)

For me this brings to mind The Inqusition of the Books, chapter 6 of the first part of Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. Believing Don Quixote's delusions to be caused by reading too many books on chivalry, the priest, with the aid of the barber, decides to purge his library. During the course of their examination they come across one particular book;

"The Galatea of Miguel de Cervantes", said the barber'.

"That Cervantes has been a great friend of mine for many years, and I know that he is more versed in misfortune than in verse. His book has some clever ideas; but it sets out to do something and concludes nothing. We must wait for the second part he promises, and perhaps with amendment he will win our clemency now denied him. In the meantime, neighbour, until we see, keep him as a recluse in your room". Clio the Muse 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Philip Roth has a series of novels where the main character is named "Philip Roth" and appears to be very similar to himself. But whether the character equals the writer of the book is not necessarily the case (most obviously in something like The Plot Against America). zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Situational Irony

Can anyone recommend some examples of classical literature that is full of situational irony and cleverly-constructed absurd situations existing between people? I'm thinking of Shakespeare's plays, for instance. "The Office" (both US and UK) is a good modern example. - MelancholyDanish

You may be using situational irony in a specialized sense. I would generally regard it as arising from a situation where a person's perceived purpose or motive is not the real one and where this situation causes a second line of commentary. In that regard, I see it sometimes in the "cringe humor" of "The Office," but not all that frequently. What do you mean by situational irony? Utgard Loki 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually mean a few different things. In the first instance, narratives in which ironical situations are fond of happening often, as in "Catch-22," where things are generally always absurd, but in a thoroughly realistic and convincing way. For instance, "There were six men and a Scottish terrier living in Major Major's farmhouse, and five of them and the terrier were agents for the FBI." Or when Milo Minderbinder bombs his own squadron to make a business deal. The world of politics is full of craziness like this on a daily basis. In the second instance I mean really convoluted situations like the ones in Shakespeare: in "Hamlet," for instance, Hamlet is hoping to kill Claudius so that he can avenge his father's death; Laertes is attempting to kill Hamlet so that he can avenge his father's death; Fortinbras is trying to take over the kingdom so that he can avenge Hamlet's father's defeat of his father in war. Or in "Twelfth Night," where Viola is dressed as a man and falls in love with Duke Orsino, who is in love with Olivia, who won't have anything to do with him but falls in love instead with Cesario, who is actually Viola, but ends up marrying her twin brother.

Fun things like that. - MelancholyDanish

Ivy League acceptance - rigorous requirements?

Sorry if this section doesn't match my question too well, I thought that "society" might fit this, plus the fact that I'd expect the people here to have more knowledge about academics than in other categories.

Hello, I'm worried about a little thing concerning my future, if I'd say so. I don't know if I'm aiming too high, but my philosophy is that if I think I can pull something off, I'll do so. As of what Google results have brought it seems that one has to be some kind of a prodigy to get into an Ivy League university. I'm currently in 8th grade, hence my first words, but I do believe that I must set goals that I can achieve. I score excellent scores at my subjects, and teachers have expressed how they feel about me as [insert-special at something], for example, language studies. The thing is, I'm grateful that when my family moved to where I live now, I got into a MYP class, we could say it's a junior-IB class. The latter IB, after compulsive schooling, has admission tests, MYP plus a GPA of at least 9 (3.6 GPA in the US system) is pretty much a straight ticket to IB for me, though. I am confident that through IB, I can get great scores, too. To summarize and paraphrase what I just said, does IB help in admissions? And do I even stand a chance? I feel slightly embarrassed as I feel like I don't have a realistic concept in my mind of the requirements of an "elite" university. Regarding extracurricular activities, what does it mean? Would I have to have ECs at junior high already? My only hobby outside school and general outdoor activity (not EC..) is music, I compose, play several instruments et al. IB has CAS, does this count as EC, even though it's actually required in order to receive an IB diploma (not that much of an extra)? Does it help that I speak Russian AND Finnish at a native level (both are my mother tongues)? And my English is.. well, I hope you can judge it based on this text, then there's Swedish and German that I'm currently learning. Oxbridge, for instance, will accept you in advance under the condition that you score a certain amount of points in your final IB diploma. Does Oxbridge compare with the top universities in the US in this sense? Thanks in advance :).. By the way, I don't crave for any of those universities, but I'd at least want to study abroad, and at a place that's challenging enough for my academical abilities. --88.193.241.224 23:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A good approach might be to write to the admissions office of 3 or 4 of the schools you would like to attend and ask them the questions you have asked here. Consult with your school guidance counselor for help in writing the letter. Your writing in this question is somewhat unclear and informal, I would work on that also. Good luck!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd echo killing sparrows remarks, especially on your writing, not to criticise you in any way, but because clear and concise expression is usually a bare minimum for serious consideration (even here on WP). As far as advice: 1) be as flexible as you can in terms of your expectations, especially regarding the most competetive schools; 2) even if you don't get in to your top choice as an undergrad, you still might go on to graduate or professional school; and 3) some prestigious institutions can be rather lonely, since competition is fierce and you are no longer "exceptional" once you get in (if you do get in, then you're either "just another" very bright person, or a blood relative of a prominent benefactor, or both). Very best wishes in your academic and personal endeavors. dr.ef.tymac 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge are in general as prestigious as the top universities in the US or anywhere else. It sounds like you might eventually want to go on for a Master's or even Ph.D. If you know what fields interest you most, you can do some research to find out where the top people in those fields are, and focus your attention on those schools. I've never been involved in the admissions process, but from what I hear, evidence of taking initiative, having a passion (with moderation!) for something, and social aspects of extracurricular activities, all carry some weight, for instance having organized events, or having served on some board or committee. See also our article University and college admissions and relevant articles referred to therein, and possibly other relevant articles listed in Category:University and college admissions.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"if I think I can pull something off, I'll do so. " — it's a beautiful philosophy, except when it doesn't work. Everyone has setbacks occasionally, failures and denials. One of the tricks to being a well-rounded person is learning to accept occasional failures and realizing that life goes on and to try harder next time. Just a tip. Don't build it up for yourself so that there is no alternative — keep a good goal, find out what others did to succeed, assess your chances realistically, be grateful if it works out, don't be crushed if it doesn't. --24.147.86.187 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

May 23

Shi'a majority

Since I know that Iran, Iraq and Lebanon are shi'a Muslims majority countries but what about Syria? which religion is the majority religion? Shi'a muslim? Sunni muslims? or Christians?

The Wikipedia article on Syria suggests that approximately 90% of the population are Muslim, and that 74% of these are Sunni. You can read the relevant section here. Carom 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually according to the Demographics_of_Lebanon Lebanon is 60% Muslim 39% Christian. 41% of the population is Shi'a. So while a majority of Muslims are Shi'a, they are not a majority of the full population. Always remember when you think of Lebanon that they are one of the more diverse states in the middle east. --Czmtzc 12:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbusto

Why did Arbusto change it's name to Bush Exploration?71.112.145.250 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Googling "Bush Exploration" turns up this article [10] which contains two suggestions: 1) that the word "bust" contained in "Arbusto" -Spanish for "bush"- was not a positive connection and 2) that Bush's father, who was then the US vice-president, was. I could find no official explanation of the name change. Bielle 05:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Has Scotland Yard or SIS verified that they gave Richard Tomlinson his hard drives back?

I was wondering what proof do you have that Richard Tomlinson, ex-MI6 spy, really recieved his things back from SIS and if the new blogger.com blog is really his?

Richard Tomlinson violated the user agreements rights of Blogger.com, so who if it's not Tomlinson, is really behind the blogger.com blog and are the posts giving factual information?

Also can you get a copy of the gag order and get a comment if it really caused the blocking or deletion of the blog or not?

Thank you for your time.

WWII Pacific Theater

I'm doing a project at school that has to do with WWII Pacific Theater Aviation. I need to Make a list of planes and there characteristics (Weight, armament, etc) But I dont know enough airplanes to research. I need enough to make 150 facts about their characteristics. So could you help me with a list of planes that were used in the Pacific Theater by the United States and those used by Japan??? That would be very helpfull....

Category:World War II Japanese aircraft and Category:World War II American aircraft should be a good starting point for you. Carom 03:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WOW thanks!!!! I wish I would have found this earlier!!!

No prob! Carom 03:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's no need to get a zero on your project, when we are here to help you ace it. StuRat 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Arthashastra

I want to know the author of the book "ARTHASHASTRA" My.Email ID is <removed to avoid being spammed> Regards,V.Radhakrishnan.

The article Arthashastra has that information. Bielle 05:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Barbatio

I was looking for an article on the Roman General Barbatio, but he only seems to receive a passing mention in your page on Constantius Gallus. Is there anywhere else I should look, or does anyone have any more details on his life and career? General joffe 07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Ammianus Marcellinus' Roman History Barbatio, an unpopular man "of rude and arrogant manners", was married to Assyria, a woman "neither silent nor prudent". An indiscreet letter she wrote to Barbatio got into the hands of Constantius II and, not being one to forgive and forget, he promptly beheaded both. This despite Barbatio's betrayal of Gallus being instrumental in Constantius' rise to power in the first place; there is a moral in there somewhere. See also his brief bio in William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1870) for an overview of his career. Rockpocket 08:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I started a stub based on this info, but its late here so if anyone is interested in expanding it, be my guest. Rockpocket 08:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you didn't include the info above in the article ? StuRat 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It was very late at night and I wished to go to sleep, so I started off the stub off with the reason he was notable, otherwise it may have been deleted, and hoped others may expand it. If no one beats me to it, I'll flesh it out later today. Rockpocket 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism and Christianity

Is Catholicism and Christianity or Catholics and Christians the same thing?

Dudforreal 08:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are a Catholic (see Catholicism), then you are also a Christian (see Christianity); if you are a Christian, you are not necessarily a Catholic. Bielle 09:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Christian denomination might be useful. -- Azi Like a Fox 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other relevent links are Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Reformation. Pastordavid 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that I will make mistakes in the following, but a genetic model might look like this.

1. Christian
   1. Syrian
   2. Coptic
   3. Eastern Orthodox
   4. Roman rite (Roman Catholic)
   5. Protestant
      1. Anglican (Episcopalian, Church of Scotland, Church of Ireland, Church of South Africa, all from the Church of England)
         1. Methodist
         2. African Methodist Episcopalian
      2. Lutheran
         1. Churches of Sweden, Denmark, Norway
      3. Calvinist derivations: Presbyterian
      4. Congregationalism
         1. Baptist
         2. Church of Christ
         3. Assemblies of God

There are theological derivations and historical factors that complicate this, but this is a first stab at it, anyway. Utgard Loki 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, that is a pretty good overview for our purposes here. Pastordavid 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Susan Richmond and the Somme

Does anyone know anything about the English actress Susan Richmond and her work as a volunteer nurse in the First World War? Judithspencer 11:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Natars?

A webgame, Travian has computer-controlled tribe called Natars. Is this tribe real like the other tribes of game? I found couple of pages in Google saying it could have something to do with either India or Persia. --88.114.53.178 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't any apparent connections you find most likely to be misleading, if you are interested in the real culture of real peoples? --Wetman 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be an excellent question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat 14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see why Entertainment is any more appropriate, since the question is about a people group with a computer game only providing the context. Anyway, a cursory search shows no relevant results for "Natar" or "Nataren" (another rendition in Travian). However, there is the Nataraja, a dancing posture of the Hindu god Shiva. That's a cultural tie to India (and perhaps what you found), but not really a good link to say that Natar is based on India. Based on the Nataren description at the Travian wiki, though, this is an entirely fictional tribe. The "world's most advanced ancient civilization, that suddenly vanished without a trace" just doesn't (can't?) have a historical basis. — Lomn 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Which is grammatically correct?

By default these keys are not activated, however, it is not very difficult to do so.

By default these keys are not activated; however, it is not very difficult to do so.

By default these keys are not activated. However, it is not very difficult to do so. --Seans Potato Business 15:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Grammatically, either #2 or #3 would be acceptable, but neither is actually semantically proper, as the "to do so" is vague. If it were "not very difficult to activate them," then either #2 or #3 would be fine. (A semicolon either separates comma-delineated sections of complex lists or, most commonly, separates two independent clauses where there is usually not a coordinating conjunction. The conjunctive adverbs of "however, therefore, thus," and "so" are a frequent cause of confusion.) Utgard Loki 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Identify this village in Ontario?

What is this village, town or city? 44°12'26.62"N 78°49'50.40"W --Sonjaaa 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The closest two place names I found were on this Lake Scugog site: Starr's Beach to the north and Washburn Island for the peninsula to the south. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I would say it is the co-ordinates for someone's cottage, right on Lake Scugog. MapQuest puts it here: [11].There is not much in that area but homes and cottages. The location is about equidistant from Little Britain to the north, Janetville to the east, Caesarea to the south and Seagrave to the west, and not one of these places has much more than a bank, a variety store, a bait store and 3 churches.Bielle 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This map of Starr's Beach places the orange YAH pointer close to the home or cottage in question. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)