Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skoojal (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 18 January 2008 (→‎Hermes, Plato and Manichaeism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
  • [[:|{{{1}}}]]
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:


January 12

Meaning of “Jailed”

This is both a Language question and a Humanities question. We hear about people being sentenced to jail, but their jail term is set to commence not immediately but some months down the track, e.g. Conrad Black [1], and Marion Jones [2].

Firstly, why don’t these sentences commence immediately, as they do for most other jail terms? Why do they need any more time to get their affairs in order, or whatever, when they’ve known for a long time this could be the outcome of the trial? What is their status pending their physical incarceration – are they under house arrest? Are they free to go about their daily lives and conduct their business? Do they have to report to the police on a regular basis? Do they have to surrender their passports to prevent them skipping the country?

Secondly, it seems to have changed the meaning of the verb "to jail". Once, it meant both the act of sentencing someone to a jail term and also causing them to be physically imprisoned. Now, it means the former but not necessarily the latter, or not yet anyway. A person skimming a paper and reading the headline "Conrad Black jailed" would be entitled to assume he’s now physically behind bars, wouldn’t they? Or are people cluey enough nowadays to know that jail terms don’t always commence immediately? In other words, "jailed" in a headline would formerly have been understood to mean "has been locked up", but now it seems to mean "either has been locked up or will be locked up, but you have to read further to know which is the case in this case". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they are not immediately jailed may have to do with the appeal process. Why the meaning of the word changed I don't understand. Need for snappier headlines? Rmhermen (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me at least, "jailed" means imprisoned, and "sentenced" means sentenced. The OED definitions also all seem to be synonyms of "imprisoned" or "confined", and not of "sentenced". If headline writers have been using "jailed" to mean "sentenced", they're being inaccurate. - Nunh-huh 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but they're all doing it. This seems to be the process of language change before our very eyes and ears. If enough people say the wrong thing, the wrong thing becomes the right thing. Why, only today I've heard radio reports, and seen and heard TV reports, about Marion Jones, and each time it was the unequivocal "Marion Jones has been jailed" - when in fact she's still out there in free-land until March. Apparently she can report to prison at a time of her choosing some time between now and then; it's nothing to do with any appeals process as far as I can tell. I just don't know whom to trust anymore! -- JackofOz (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know this, but after a person is found guilty or pleads guilty, sentencing usually doesn't take place right away. The judge usually schedules a date for sentencing. And of course in some cases the guilty party may be 'released' pending sentencing (in cases for non-violent crimes like fraud etc) and are expected to appear back in court for sentencing. In such cases people use this opportunity to flee the country. Also, I *think* it's possible for the judge to hand down sentencing but only give a later date for the beginning of the sentence, such as "[next week] you will appear at place x to begin your sentence". Other reasons for this delay is parole issues, appeal issues, the defence attorney may want to be heard on sentencing, the prosecution may argue against the defence attorney, etc. There may be mitigating circumstances that would make it difficult to go straight into jail, etc. Rfwoolf (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rfwoolf, but I didn't know that. Well, not the bit about sentences not beginning straight away. There's often a lengthy delay between conviction and sentencing, but once the sentence is handed down, that should be it. The stereotype one gets from movies and TV shows is the judge intoning "I hereby sentence you to XXX years in prison", and the convicted person being led away from the court room to spend their first night behind bars. I don't see why the existence of an appeal would automatically mean the imprisonment should be deferred. Appeals can go on for years, through various levels of court, and if the final appeal failed, and they'd never been to prison, they'd then have to start their term. Whereas, if they'd been behind bars during the appeals process, they'd have much less time to serve by the time the final appeal was heard - or maybe they'd even be out by now. Legally, they've been found guilty and been sentenced, so why shouldn't whatever punishment be applied forthwith. There may be cases where the commencement of the sentence is delayed pending appeals or whatever, but there are just as many cases where the appeal is conducted while the person is behind bars. It seems to be a quite recent development for jail sentences not to commence straight away, and the reasons, whatever they are, seem to have nothing to do with whether the conviction or the sentence is under appeal. I've only ever heard of it in celebrity cases, but maybe it happens in non-celebrity cases too. The perception remains, nevertheless, that celebrities get a better deal than other people. That aside, I honestly can't see what benefit flows to the legal system, or society, by (a) putting off the inevitable and (b) letting a convicted person decide the commencement date of their own prison term. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be forgetting that verdicts can be overturned, jail terms can be reduced etc. I presume if the judge feels there is a resonable chance this may happen, and the convict requests it, and there is no obvious danger or risk to keeping the person out of jail then there is no reason to deny the request (the same with any other bail request). If someone goes to jail when they shouldn't have or stays longer then they should have, there is NO WAY you can fix this. At best you can pay them compensation. However if you don't send a person to jail right away, you can send them later. It's not as if you're reducing the jail time. And as I said, I'm pretty sure this will usually happen only on request. Presuming the person doesn't feel their appeal has much chance, they'll most likely want to start their term as soon as possible rather then spend several months appealing in a cloud of doubt only to have to go to jail after that. Also, I don't know about in the U.S. but I'm pretty sure in most countries celebrity or not it doesn't matter (much). People only hear about it in the case of celebrities so they make a fuss but the law isn't that bad. The bigger problem, probably particularly in the U.S. is that celebrities or rather the rich have access to significantly better legal resources which makes a big difference. Also as the U.S. rarely allows much supression of the details involved in cases and it uses a jury system it's easily possible perhaps even likely that the jury is unduly influenced by the external coverage of a trial. The other issue perhaps is the difference in treatment of white collar crime but that's something for a seperate discussion Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One point: In a case heavily covered by the media in the U.S., the jury is usually sequestered, so it's doubtful they would be affected by media coverage of the trial. It's possible they could be affected by media coverage before the trial, which is why there is an intensive jury-selection process and perhaps even a change of venue to another county in the most extreme situations. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web site www diaries of doing time until the ice men cometh .co.uk will also give any person an inside view of the prison system for profit in the united states of america.It is an un-biased factual point of view,and explains the whole system.fluter.

PAGE NEEDS YOUR HELP!!!

HELP THIS PAGE Cold chill!!!--74.138.83.10 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many pages like that that need help on Wikipedia. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that ANYBODY can edit a page. Consider improving the page yourself. Wikipedia:How to edit a page would be a good thing to read first. You could also consider getting a username here. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how do i outsource on a small scale

I used to spend several hours a day copying and pasting responses to inquiries into my business. I've made a program that gets it down to just clicking a button to identify each e-mail and send the appropriate response and would like to take the final step of having someone else click the buttons instead of me. e.g. if I get an e-mail that says only "thank you", I click the 'thank you' button to identify that the e-mail should be answered with my 'you're welcome' form.

i'm thinking this identification could be done easily by anyone who speaks English, for example in India where call centers are frequently located (for example: Dell's). So, how do I go about purchasing a few minutes a day of someone's time to do this outsourcing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clickyclicks (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do get business services (depending on where you are in the world) where you get assigned a number like 1800 123 456 which goes through to a call centre and your own shared receptionist is briefed on how to handle enquiries. The receptionist also works for a variety of other businesses that also each have their contact numbers. They usually are capable of sending emails for you based on the enquiries, for example if a customer calls in and asks for a brochure of more information on a product. However, some of these are based in western countries like the USA, UK or Australia where it would probably be more feasible to use a service in India or elsewhere (there are more nad more 'hubs' these days for this sort of thing, no longer just India). As a search strategy I would look for call centres and business services in places like India. Good luck, and I'm curious about your program. Rfwoolf (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may also be interested in our article on Crowdsourcing and the Amazon Mechanical Turk. Haukur (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

calculation of Easter 1808

I am probably very stupid but can anyone tell me please where to find the date of Easter in 1808. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.195.10 (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 17. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, 194.171.56.13 found that by going to the Wikipedia article for Easter, scrolling to the bottom to find the list of external links, then clicking on the one that said "A simple method for determining the date of Easter". That is why Wikipedia is such a good first port of call, because for the most part the most informative links have already been assessed, whereas a search engine is rather hit and miss.--Shantavira|feed me 13:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I googled 'calculate easter', picked the first link, and after I had thoroughly checked the data on that website using computus, I posted it here. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happily Married Philosopher?

Could anyone provide the names of some philosophers who were happily married? It is difficult to find some who were married, none that I can find that were notably happy about it. Elokiah Tu'un (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were none. The presence of women inhibits rational thought. Ix Dschubba 12:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, not all philosopers are men.--Shantavira|feed me 13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the women on that list are not even philosophers. George Eliot? Hildegard of Bingen? Iris Murdoch? It is special pleading in extremis. What a joke. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


More like the presence of a philosopher inhibits all feelings of affection.
NOTE: this is no mere conjecture! You could smell Socrates coming before you could see him (he so rarely bathed) and boy did I cringe reading in Russell's autobiography how he realized the reason he hadn't had any closeness from his wife for many months was a bad case of halitosis that she could not bring herself to mention to him. Geez! (BTW, to the poster asking the question, the Bertrand Russell autobriography -- that part specifically -- may be an interesting reference for you to follow up on) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.5 (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to judge a happy marriage from a regular one, at least for philosophers I don't know much about. But a quick look through some of the Lists of philosophers page provides some possibilities. Some people listed may not quite fit a strict definition of "philosopher". Some may be closer to scientists or artists, but they are listed as philosophers above, so.. As for marriage, these people seem to have had non-terrible marriages, but I don't know how happy. Some had divorces and maybe some family conflicts, but that is pretty common even among the "happily married" (what are the required qualities of a happy marriage anyway?). So who knows, but some ideas: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Carl Jung, Alfred Russel Wallace (maybe?), Kurt Gödel, John von Neumann (was the 2nd marriage happy?), Thomas Henry Huxley, Charles Darwin, Niels Bohr, Thomas Jefferson, Douglas Hofstadter, Freeman Dyson... Pfly (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Socrates said "By all means marry. If you find a good wife, you'll be happy. If not, you'll become a philosopher." Xn4 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul and Patricia Churchland seem happy enough. They also are both philosophers.--droptone (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christine Overall [3], research chair at Queen's University and author of many works on ethics, is happily married. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Stuart Mill? Quorumangelorum (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula Gerlandi

Apparently there was this guy Gerlandus who worked out some sort of chronology, tabula Gerlandi or computatio Gerlandi, which was off by a few years from the conventional Anno Domini chronology. But I have difficulty finding solid information on this and Wikipedia comes up blank. Haukur (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page mentions him as from Alsace-Lorraine and coming after Bede: [4]. Rmhermen (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is he the same as the Gerlandus of Besançon discused here: [5] ? Rmhermen (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I find notes to note confuse him with John Garland of England but little information on the "Garlandus, a canon of Besançon in the 12th century" (EB). He apparently wrote about music theory as well? Rmhermen (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are French and Italian wikipedia stubs about that Saint Gerland, fr:Gerland d'Agrigente and it:San Gerlando. They don't mention the calendar, though. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is our man, because this mentions "Table de Gerland de Besançon (pour les années de 1044 à 1548)". 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are apparently two Gerlands of Besançon which appear in documents and are often confused. The one we're interested in wrote his treatise in 1081 and is cited as early as 1102, the other is mentioned c. 1132-48. The music theorist is probably Johannes de Garlandia?—eric 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerland gives 1081 as the date of his twenty-seven chapters, Computus.—eric 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you all! Looks like a redirect from Gerlandus to Gerland is reasonable. Apparently his tabula started in 1038 by his reckoning, 1045 by the AD system. It's used in some Old Norse documents, which is how I came upon it. Haukur (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to make Gerlandus a disambiguation page, that distinguishes between Gerland the mathematician and St. Gerland bishop of Agrigento, both from Besançon. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles for:

and disambiguation pages for:

And I still don't know who Gerland/Gerlandus is. Are some of these the same people?Rmhermen (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerland and Garlandus Compotista are the same. All the disambiguation pages should redirect to the same place. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Garlandus Compotista. His Dialectica, which may have been written before 1040, is the earliest complete medieval logic text still extant..." Wagner, David L. (1983) The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages. p. 135.
  • "...and the computus of John of Gerland, written in the eleventh century, were to be the most influential medieval treatises in this genre." Ibid. p. 232.
  • "...the Dialectica of Garland the Computist (i.e. author of a computus, or treatise on the calculation of almanacs), which may have been composed in Liège a little before 1040..." Kneale, Martha and Kneale, William. (1984) The Development of Logic. p. 199.
  • "Garlandus of Besançon is known for his Dialectica, a comprehensive textbook on logic which was probably written at the turn of the twelfth century." Marenbon, John. (1998) Medieval Philosophy. p. 152-3.
  • "...the Lotharingian scholar, Garlandus Composita (d. before 1086), refers in his Dialectica..." Webber, Teresa. (1992) Scribes and Scholars at Salisbury Cathedral, C. 1075-C. 1125. p. 94.
  • "Garlandus was associated with the schools at Liége, and in 1084 was magister scholarum at Besane" Ibid. fn. 53, p. 94.
  • "...Gerland in his Computus,...Author likewise of treatises on the abacus and on ecclesiastical matters, Gerland has usually been identified with a canon of Besançon who appears in documents of 1132-48,...It would seem, however, that this is a different person from the computist, who specifically gives the year of his treatise as 1081, whose 'floruit' is given as 1084 at Besançon by Albericus, and who is cited as early as 1102." Homer, Charles. (1924) Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science. p. 85.
  • "...Garlandus Compotista's Dialectica, a work from about 1080..." Radding, Charles M. and Newton, Francis. (2003) Theology, Rhetoric, and Politics in the Eucharistic Controversy, 1078-1079. fn. 34, p. 44.
The first (Wagner 1983) presents two authors, but "John of Gerland" and eleventh century looks like to be an error.—eric 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is as messy as it gets :) Our sources are confused, our articles are confused and we are confused. Haukur (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gays in Bangladesh?

According to your article, you said that people who directed and produced the film "A Jihad for Love" interviewed people in Bangladesh. It is this true that Bangladesh, a poor Muslim nation, has people who are gay and lesbian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.196 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be true to say that all countries have people of all sexualities. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our article LGBT rights in Bangladesh may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Homosexuality knows no national or religious boundaries. —Nricardo (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except those of Iran, obviously. Algebraist 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a hard time finding a homosexual of either gender in Vatican City as well. Dismas|(talk) 04:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, acknowledged homosexuals, anyway. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, you could feel as homosexual as you liked in the Roman Catholic church -- you just couldn't act on those feelings. --Carnildo (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poems written by Alexander Scriabin

As a pianist, I have found that Aleander Scriabin's (Russian Composer, 1872-1915) works for the piano are simply exhilarating to play. I own a copy of almost every work that he has written. However, in many of the books, there are excerpts of textual poetry that he has written to describe the various musical pieces. I have looked online for more of these poems, but to no avail. I read online that he wrote a lot of poetry, but I can find nothing textual written by him, other than his musical poems. I would love to find out more about what he wrote mainly because he is my favorite composer. Any help would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.31.199 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s some – [6]. Another reference is [7]. Apparently Faubion Bowers' book Scriabin: A Biography contains excerpts and translations of some his poetry – [8]. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


January 13

cult cure

If someone were to join a cult, say one that teaches a certain man is now god because he had killed the original god. Ok, so the family of the one in the cult wanted to get that person out, who would they hire? What is the name if someone in this profession? Thanks, schyler (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exit counsellor seems to be a reasonably popular term. You might want to see deprogramming as well. Algebraist 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deprogramming is the one. Thanks very much. schyler (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity/popular culture

Cross-posting with Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

For some time I've been working on the obesity article. It contains a commonsense but entirely original research section on the place of obesity in popular culture. I cannot imagine there are no academic sources that deal with this question, but I have had great difficulty in finding the most suitable (and accessible) sources on this topic. Would anyone know of a source that deals with this reliably? JFW | T@lk 06:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For scholarly articles on obesity in popular culture see list at [9]. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of Feminism

What's the listed principles and main points of view of feminism? Flakture (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? Here [10] and the article Feminist theory. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not, these contents are the expanded and ramified of some fundamental ideas that are wanted. 85.198.41.213 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly Madison

Who is Dolly Madison? I'm studying American History, and I can't remember who Dolly Madison is. When I search her name in Wikipedia, I get a pastry brand name. Maybe add a page? Also, I don't know who had juristiction to do this, but if you're in contact with the formatter of the Humanities Ask a Question page, maybe include a sample message, so the explanation just on how to write a message is clear. Thanks! 76.104.194.195 (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for Dolley Madison with an "e". Is there anything simpler than make a title and ask your question? The samples are in the list below the guidebox as actual people lay out their wishes. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a specific link to Dolley Madison at the top of the Dolly Madison article.--Shantavira|feed me 10:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the name "Goldstein" a Jewish family name?

Can any user please let me know whether the name Goldstein is a Jewish family name, or are there also non-Jews with this name? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Jewish names but yes, it's a Jewish surname (as in it was originally associated with Jewish people) with a rather 'interesting' heritage [11]. However there is probably no name nowadays and this definitely includes Goldstein which is held by people who are not associated with whoever the name originated from. In the case of Jewish people, since it's usually considered to descend matrilineally (see Who is a Jew?) but family names usually descend patrilineally there are going to be a lot of people who are neither considered ethnically Jewish by most definitions nor practice Judaism and definitely don't consider themselves Jewish; and have not been for several generations. They could be 95% black, native Americans, Asian and be atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus... In most cases I suspect someone with the surname Goldstein has some Jewish heritage as in at least one of their ancestors was Jewish but the One-drop rule is somewhat silly if forced (if someone self-identifies that's a different matter) Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wife taking husband's name

I have observed that in some countries wives take husband's name and in some not. What is the origin of this tradition? In what countries exactly does it takes place?217.168.3.246 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With every culture having its own rules, this is a very complex subject. You might start by looking at our personal name article, from where there are links to naming conventions in various countries....--Shantavira|feed me 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that many families in Tonga pass on the wife's/mother's name. Don't know why, though. Wrad (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off the subject but still relevant, some women in the U.S. will, upon marriage, start using their maiden name as their middle name and use their husband's last name as their own last name. Dismas|(talk) 11:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In quite a number of Western cultures, it is fairly common for a wife to take her husband's surname. She may or may not keep her maiden name in some way. This does not usually occur in Chinese or Korean cultures. Maiden name actually discuss this quite a bit Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at the article on Kinship terminology. There are some societies in which the rules governing a wife's surname are held very strictly, and other societies where they are not. There are also more than just two ways this has taken place. For instance, in the old Norse societies a person (this applied to both men and women) was given a first name, and then was given a surname based on the first name of the person's father. If it was a boy, the surname would end in -son or -sen. If it was a girl, the surname would end in -dottar. Examples: Eric Thorsen (Eric, who is the son of Thor), Sven Olafson (Sven, son of Olaf), Hilda Karlsdottar (Hilda, daughter of Karl), etc. After marriage, the person, either man or woman, would still be known by his or her surname before marriage - so that Hilda Karlsdottar would still have been known by that name after marrying Eric Thorsen. This practice has been almost totally abandoned in modern times, though. I just wanted to use it to show that there are more than two ways in which naming conventions have been created to deal with marriage. -- Saukkomies 4:23 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The Norse naming practice is still the norm in Iceland - see Icelandic name. Valiantis (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military garb

At the time of Waterloo some cavalry wore a crescent shaped thing below their neck. What is it called and what is it for? - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of the gorget worn by officers. By the early nineteenth century, it was a small crescent-shaped badge of commissioned rank. In most cases, wearing it also showed that the officer was on duty. Xn4 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living Gods

Is there a list of living gods on wikipedia? E.g. Aga Khan and Sultan of Brunei? MrsBucket (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's this - List of people who have been considered deities. Xn4 17:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Are you sure about your examples? The Sultan of Brunei is Muslim, no? And Aga Khan seems to be affiliated with a branch of Islam. Islam is a monotheistic religion, so no way either of those would be considered a god. —Nricardo (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A person believing in one religion may be himself considred a god in a different religion. Jesus was Jewish, but he is considered a son of God by Christians. Haile Selassie was Christian, but he is considred a God incarnate by Rastafarians. — Kpalion(talk) 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction recommendations

I'm heading to the library tomorrow, and after having finally gotten round to reading my Christmas gifts (The World Without Us, Anyone Can Do It (autobiography by Duncan Bannatyne), and Salt: A World History (hmm, no article on that one yet)), I figured it might be worthwhile coming here to see if anyone can recommend any interesting non-fiction available through the Warwick Library Service (mostly because I'm too skint to buy any more books for a while.) I've no major qualms about subject matter, so long as the book doesn't presuppose knowledge on the topic and is a fairly good read. Any suggestions? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Here are a few, new and old, that I have enjoyed and that appear to be in your library system, though I cannot vouch for any specific library:
Troublesome Words and A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, plus any of his travel books, if you like a good laugh;
The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots’ invention of the modern world by Arthur Herman;
Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman by Richard Feynman (though I am always a bit suspicious about the amount of fiction in an autobiography);
A Year in Provence by Peter Mayle;
A Brief History of Time, Black Holes and Baby Universes and The Universe in a Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking;
The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet, by Benjamin Hoff;
The Bottlebrush Tree: A village in Andalusia, by Peter Seymour-Davies;
Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a management revolution, by Thomas J. Peters. Bielle (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mutants : on the form, varieties and errors of the human body by Armand Marie Leroi. [12]
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins [13]
Touching the Void by Joe Simpson [14]
On Writing by Stephen King [15]
Rockpocket 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit sweeping, GeeJo. Any particular areas - Civil War history, hang-gliding, UFOs, pre-Raphaelite art? Xn4 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like unto Salt (a focused history), there is Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World and Rat: How the World's Most Notorious Rodent Clawed Its Way to the Top, and The Potato: How the Humble Spud Rescued the Western World , and The Big Oyster: History on the Half Shell and Spice: The History of a Temptation. Gotta love the titles. Rmhermen (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! The God Delusion is amazing. Try also,
Enjoy, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently enjoyed John McPhee's Uncommon Carriers, a recent non-fiction book where McPhee travels around the world looking at how stuff gets around (one chapter is about trains, another is about big rig trucks, another is about barges, etc.) and the people who make it happen. It's really pleasant and there's a lot of unexpected things, little tid-bits about one's everyday life that one never noticed. Unfortunately after typing all that out I see that it's not in your library system, so I suppose it's not all that valuable to you, but anyway it's worth taking a look at if you get a chance to, a pleasant book. Not like all those depressing-looking things that S.dedalus suggested. ;-) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that's enough to keep me busy for a while. I was deliberately vague as I'd rather try picking from a cross-section, and it looks like it paid off, as some on the list I've already read, and others I haven't. Thanks guys :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite non-fiction book is The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes. --Sean 14:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tikkun

Although you have "Tikkun" in wikipedia, there is no link to it in the side bar that comes up when you search for "Torah". This made it a lot harder for me to find out what the tikkun was called. please add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.88.220 (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pages that are presented are the result of a fully automated search function. There are several thousands of Wikipedia articles that prominently refer to the Torah. The page "Tikkun (book)" does appear for the search term "Torah", but only as number 156 in the list. There is no plausible way for us to make it appear earlier.
For future reference, the Wikipedia:Help desk is the best place for questions related to using Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


January 14

"Wars have begun that way"

In the movie The Hunt for Red October, the Soviet ambassador is warned that the situation with the Soviet and American fleets in close proximity (in a time when each country regards the other as a potential enemy) "is inherently dangerous -- wars have begun that way."

Have wars begun that way? (That is, by escalation from a local incident between military forces when neither side's government, although perhaps ready to fight a war, was interested in starting one.) Which ones?

--Anonymous, 23:30 UTC, January 13, 2008.

War of Jenkin's Ear?--Wetman (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Camlann. Wrad (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Seven Years War which began when Virginia Militia Lt. Col. George Washington and 40 troops had a run in with a Canadian militia ensign and his 35 troops, several thousand miles (and a couple months' journey) from their imperial authorities. Rmhermen (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a more modern example, Gulf of Tonkin incident is something not dissimilar. --03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.69.31 (talk)
The War of the Stray Dog must rank highly in these stakes. Algebraist 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A somewhat similar example where military exercises, rheoteric on both sides and various incidents and similar things created a very dangerous situation, albeit one which fortunately didn't actually lead to war Able Archer 83. To some extent the Cuban missile crisis is similar where the buildup of nuclear weapons too close for comfort on both sides (Soviet nukes in Cuba, US nukes in Turkey) nearly lead to war. The Six-Day War highlights a related case where one country effectively 'goads' the other country into war by putting troops on the frontline and otherwise making life difficult for the second country, even though the second country may know the first country was not going to invade it's a convient excuse to deal with a messy situation. Ultimately any situation where two sides who are incredibly antagonistic to each other and too close for comfort is a very risky situation since any mis-interpretation can lead to war. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the case that such proximity decreases the amount of time to resolve a problem. In the Cold War this got taken to entirely new heights with the reduction of reaction times to a missile attack to mere minutes—if the US detected a Soviet launch, they'd only have minutes to respond with their own launch before it would be too late to retaliate. Rather perilous. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue World War I began this way. User:Krator (t c) 12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the War of 1812. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The French and Indian War (1754-1755) between France and Great Britain began in that way, too. Indeed, none other than the person of George Washington himself was the instigator of this war, which began when Washington, leading a ragtag militia under orders from the colonial Virginian governor, got into a tussle in the Ohio wilderness with a French Canadian military expedition. The result of this minor skirmish out in the middle of nowhere, involving just a few dozen people was the full-on war between England and France. The results of this war was that England defeated France, seized Canada, and insured that the French would no longer seek to pursue a course of colonization in North America. -- Saukkomies 16:35 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rmhermen mentioned that above as the Seven Years War :) Which raises the interesting point of what to call that war! Adam Bishop (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, missed that, thanks for the correction. But yes, in Canada and England, this was known as the Seven Years War, but in the US it is known as the French and Indian War. Either name is okay to use. -- Saukkomies 19:35 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No matter. It's always entertaining to hear a historical event described by someone who learnt about it in another country :P The emphasis is very different, and certainly the adjectives and verbs intrigue. 79.66.24.40 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The Russians refer to what most people call "World War II", or at least their involvement in it, as "The Great Patriotic War". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers, everyone. I think several of them do not really qualify, but some do, so the answer seems to be yes. --Anon, 09:42 UTC, January 20/08.

How Many Bills has Bush passed into law?

I'm wondering how many bills he's actually passed. A source would be nice with your answer. Rentastrawberry (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to George W. Bush and Federal laws (as opposed to Texas laws). None. Bush never served in Congress. Congress votes on bills to make them laws. They send the law to the President. The President either chooses that the law will be enforced or he vetoes it. If he vetoes it, Congress has the option to override the President's choice and make it enforceable themselves. In the end, the President never, in any way, "passes a law", "votes on a law", or even remotely "makes a law". When people talk about "Bush's (fill in the blank) law", they mean "Congress' (fill in the blank) law that Bush wanted Congress to pass". -- kainaw™ 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the original poster was asking for how many Acts have been passed under the Bush presidency, not a discursive essay on the meaning of "pass". See List of United States federal legislation for links to Acts of the US Congress by year. Matching the dates against the dates of the Bush presidency will give you the answer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very rare that I ever meet anyone who understands that the President does not make laws. When it comes to Bush, there are many people who believe he somehow traveled back in time to create laws in the 70's (such as FISA). Therefore, I find it a huge assumption to read "bills he's actually passed" as "bills passed by Congress while he was in office". -- kainaw™ 17:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The President can of course give executive orders which sometimes have the force of law and when they relate to national security are often classified so we have no way of knowing for sure how many he (or any other president) has given Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the president's executive departments promulgate (that's the term they use) thousands of regulations every year. Both executive orders and regulations are laws just like any other law. What the president can't do is formally propose statutes, which is the type of law passed by Congress. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver testacles as medicine?

In this template. At first, when I saw, "Beaver," I thought it was vandalism. But the article on Beaver mentions this. Can anybody confirm this and does anyone know if there's a proper term for beaver testacles as medicine? Zenwhat (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is correct. Ancient naturalists believed that the beaver's testicles contained castoreum. According to Animal Acts: Configuring the Human in Western History, p70 (ISBN 0415916100) tradition held that the beaver "knowing that men are pursuing him just to get the liqueur which is so useful in medicine, will tear off his testicles when he sees himself pursued by hunters and abandon them as a ransom." (Unfortunately for the hunters and the beaver, castoreum infact comes from the nearby castor gland, not the testicles). Rockpocket 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see Pliny's Natural History 32.13. Also, the glands apparently contain some salicylic acid.—eric 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stick with aspirin, all other things being equal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public library use in the UK

What percentage of adults in the United Kingdom regularly use a public library? Tamsen (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council give the following statistics (from Introduction to the MLA pages 20-25)
    • 290.5 million recorded visits in 2005-2006
    • 48% of adults visit a library at least once per year – that’s over 19.1 million adults
62.136.167.175 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Recipe website that gives recipes according to what ingredients you have?

I'm sure I've heard of websites where you enter what ingredients you have available, and it suggests recipes based on these. What I really want to do is enter the basic things that I normally buy, and get recipes based on these. I'm fed up of trawling through recipes only to be knocked back by calls for wine or some stupid herb or any of the millions of ingredients that I can't afford as a student. I also want to be able to save the list of ingredients so that I don't have to enter it in each time (it's not likely to change much or often). ----Seans Potato Business 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not buy some nice Australian Chiraz in a screw topped bottle which you can drink on days you don't cook with it? (And that reply is solely because it was Sean who asked!) SaundersW (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can try allrecipes.com's ingredients search page though you can only search using five ingredients at a time. Alternatively, you can try their advanced search which gives you more options. --Julia (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recipezaar.com has that feature. You can also limit by other criteria like vegetarian or "simple".--droptone (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I have a missing ingredient, I adapt the recipie bu using something "similar" in it's place, or leave it out altogether. Astronaut (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's a major part of the recipe, calls for wine or specific herbs and spices can be ignored. They may make it tastier, but they're rarely vital. 79.66.24.40 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name

Can the origin of the name "FINEBERG", with this particular spelling be found? I am given to understand that it might be Russian or Ukranian. Ultraeagle (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll forward on the link from the Goldstein question above:[22]. A person who has that name could certainly be a citizen or national or Russia or Ukraine, but the name is in the German language and tends to be associated with the surnames assigned to Jews. It means "Fine Mountain," although it would have originally been spelled "Feinberg" (which is how a German would spell something that sounds like "Fineberg" in English). Googling the name, it looks like there's quite a few Finebergs now in Boston. --M@rēino 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is no doubt an anglicized version of the (Jewish) name "Feinberg". It is probably difficult to find one origin, because every time somebody named Feinberg immigrated to the USA they may have considered this change - or their immigration officers changed it for them. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Russian the originally German name Feinberg occurs as Фейнберг (see e.g. Samuil Feinberg), which is romanized as "Fejnberg".  --Lambiam 17:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This anglicized spelling is most common among Eastern European Jews who resettled in the United States or Canada (or perhaps in the United Kingdom), generally between about 1850 and 1920. The original name (Feinberg in the Latin alphabet, Фейнберг in Cyrillic) was common among Ashkenazi Jews, who lived before migration to an English-speaking country in a geographic belt extending from Germany across what are today the countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, parts of Romania, Moldova, western Ukraine, Belarus, western Russia, and Lithuania. Much of this territory lay in the part of the Russian Empire known as the Pale of Settlement. Within this region, there was a fair degree of mobility from place to place among the Jewish population in search of opportunities for livelihood or trade. So the surname Feinberg (which may have originated in more than one place) would probably have spread to many different parts of the Pale before people with this surname traveled to English-speaking countries and adopted this spelling. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China Factories - Foriegn Ownership

Can Americans or Foreigners own Chinese Factories? --1textloud (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Chinese factories, but I do know that it is common for foreign companies to run factories in China, although the middle management and below will all be likely Chinese. I know of a few people in China helping to run foreign owned factories. Steewi (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India Real Estate - Foreign Ownership

Can people who don't have citizenship of India own real estate there? --1textloud (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Indian High Commission in London website - "Are there any restrictions on UK nationals operating a partnership with an indian national in India? Are there any restrictions on property ownership? Thank you for your help.
Dear Sir, Please refer to your email of 28/07/04. There are no restrictions on UK Nationals having a partnership with an Indian National in India. They can also own property with the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. For further information you can visit the RBI website which is as follows. www.rbi.org.in With regards, Commerce Section". Hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buyouts by GM & Ford

Why are GM & Ford paying money for the employees to leave when they can be fired or dismissed? --1textloud (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have to consider many factors...1) The staff-morale of those who will continue to work for you 2) To avoid potential bad publicity 3) There will doubtlessly be rules and regulations regarding the removal of staff who have not acted outside of the terms of their contracts 4) To ensure good relations with your previous-staff... rehiring of previous staff is quite common so you should try to leave on good terms as possible 5) Strong unions. Think about it...If Ford just fired 1,000 employees without giving them a penny, what would the media do? What would the general public backlash be if it were dragged out infront of the entire press? They would risk those staff who didn't get sacked going on strike, they would risk a boycotting of their products, they might see a downturn in sales etc. I suspect that cost-to-benefit wise it is better to give modest redundancies payments when removing noteable chunks of the workforce than it is to just get rid of them. Also a lot of times the amount of 'redundancies' that make it into the newspaper headlines ignore the amount that will be lost through natural attrition (think that's the word - basically people leaving the firm and the firm not re-hiring anybody so as to reduce the number of people forceable made redundant) ny156uk (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with the above answer, but the most important word in that answer is unions. GM & Ford have signed contracts with the unions guaranteeing their members severance pay. If GM or Ford tried to break these contracts, they would likely get sued and lose. --M@rēino 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did Ford agree their employees to being members of UAW and allowing UAW to negotiate for them. The Battle of the Overpass says about 1 incident, but that did not conclude with Ford allowing UAW unless something major happened afterwards? --1textloud (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because historically a large amount of the potential 'talent pool' were union members and thus it was hard to not hire them? Companies are not all powerful (as some people consider them to be). They 'offer' jobs based on salary and terms/conditions of employment. If that salary/terms/conditions are not sufficient to ensure a steady supply of staff they have to reconsider their practices. Similarly the unionised-staff have to ensure that their own demands are not so much that they make it unappealing for the company to hire them in the first place. The 'power' can switch very quickly and both sides will almost always take advantage of their bargaining power. Be it scarcity of reliable/skilled workers driving up the price paid to each worker, or an over-abundance of reliable/skilled workers making it possible for the company to drive down wages. Unions are often seen as trying to 'limit' the workforce to drive up standards, but this can come at the expense of non-unionised members being 'frozen out' of the sector. Suffice to say it's all very political and as always in politics there is no definitively correct answer. ny156uk (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Buckingham Palace

Was Buckingham Palace reportedly built by the Duke of Buckingham ever known as "Buck House" or was it always called "Buckingham House"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.113.34 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is colloquially known as "Buck House" - I doubt if it has ever formally been known as that tho'. DuncanHill (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and did you know that the paint on the railing is called "Invisible Green", it is not black.--88.110.104.193 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't everyone have tea with Betty and Phil at Buck House of a Sunday? Bielle (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By Betty I assume you mean Brenda? Algebraist 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever seen "Private Eye" in Canada. Here, our reverent irreverence (or irreverent reverence) comes out as Betty, or Liz or even Lizzie. Bielle (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise you were from one of the other Realms and Territories. Interesting... I, of course, could never countenance disrespect to ol' Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, as he is the Chancellor of my University. Algebraist 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada recognizing independent states

My question concerns Canada and who (whether Parliament, Prime Minister, or someone else) decides to accept a country as being independent? Would Parliament need to decide, or would the Prime Minister have that authority? Or do we have to go to the Governor General (Queen's representative)? Maybe something else? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.70.59 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that diplomatic recognition (the term for accepting a country's independence) requires legislation, so Parliament would not need to act. I think that existing legislation gives the government, led by the prime minister, the power to establish foreign relations, including diplomatic recognition, with other countries. In practice, the minister of foreign affairs would probably recommend recognition. I would think that diplomatic recognition (particularly of a country as controversial as Kosovo) would need the approval of the prime minister. Once recognition was approved, it would be the job of the minister of foreign affairs to announce diplomatic recognition and arrange for diplomatic representation. This is based on some deduction on my part, and hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Marco polo (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's the same in Canada, but in Australia the power to conduct foreign relations, including establishing diplomatic relations or signing treaties, are part of the royal prerogative, and thus exercised by the Governor-General in Council, i.e. in reality by the Prime Minister and executive government. See also the royal prerogative article and its discussion of foreign affairs.
Of course, the prime minister and the executive is ultimately answerable to parliament and rules while it enjoys the parliament's confidence, so ultimately the parliament does have some influence.
See, for example, the case of Bill Skate, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, who resigned in 1999 owing to parliamentary non-confidence, at least one of the reasons for which was his decision to recognise Taiwan instead of China as the government of China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the usual practice is for governments to recognise other governments, not other countries per se. Governments have no easier a time deciding whether a particular foreign entity constitutes a "country" than we here on Wikipedia do, or whether or not it is "independent" (another very fuzzy term), so they avoid these issues entirely and just recognise (or not) the government of that entity. But if the government did decide to recognise a government it had not previously recognised, I cannot imagine the decision being made by anyone lower than the Prime Minister, or at least with his/her agreement. That's because, in countries with Westminster-style governments, all government decisions are, in theory at least, made by a Cabinet, which is chaired by the PM, and not by any one minister, including the PM. The reality is that the PM often decides matters and the Cabinet goes along with it. The decision is still announced as a "government decision", not a "prime ministerial" or "foreign ministerial" decision. That's apart from cases where a particular minister has a prerogative under a law to make a certain decision; but recognition of foreign governments is not controlled by domestic law, rather it's a matter of government/royal prerogative.-- JackofOz (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sultana disaster 1865

Where would one go to find the cemeteries where the bodies of the 1865 Sultana disaster are buried? Is there a searchable database of these burials and where a certain person might be found that was killed in the explosion? That part of the story seems to have been left out of the Sultana (steamboat) article and I am having trouble finding references to this.--Doug talk 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to this, many were buried in mass graves in Memphis. Here is a list of Sultana memorials. Here is the passenger list. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some would have been shipped back home for burial (or reburial) as well. Rmhermen (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy plain white rice

Sometimes in Japanese anime etc, you see people going crazy over "delicious" plain white rice. What's that all about? Plain white rice is pretty bland and boring, and not all that nutritious... ----Seans Potato Business 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In East Asian countries (China, Japan, etc) "good" rice is prized for its unique "rice fragrance". I doubt many people eat plain rice by itself, but appreciating the smell and taste of the rice is certainly part of the culture. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been near east Asia, but I've certainly had white rice which I would rank as 'delicious' on its own. </OR> Algebraist 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basmati! And while it's cooking, it fills the whole house with its nutty fragrance. Catrionak (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but good plain white rice can be pretty dang good, not that dry crap you find at Chinese restaurants. bibliomaniac15 23:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes just with a good soy sauce – yum! (Some people get into the quality of rice, choosing a product without those white marks in the grain for instance.)Julia Rossi (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love the steamed rice that comes from a Chinese restaurant. I love how it plops out of the little box still in cube shape. Most Westerners don't know how to make rice. They think all the rice kernels should be individual. That's dead rice. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fear Bibliomaniac15 patronizes the wrong Chinese restaurants. Algebraist 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never used to like white rice until I was roommates with an Asian guy. He really knew how to make it! Wrad (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was in an Indian grocery store yesterday, and they had an aisle of nothing but rice in 20+ lb. bags, all different kinds. --Sean 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many restaurants use long-grained rice, which, if not freshly cooked (e.g. left out for too long), becomes "dry crap" as Bibliomaniac would put it. But it cuts both ways - long-grained rice is also less glutinous and thus has better presentation (depending on your view) when served. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rice is nice, that's what they say [23]. Edison (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the earworm! But it's OK, because I had forgotten they sang anything besides "Green Tambourine." Catrionak (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earworm, you said? [24]. Edison (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I am old enough to remember it without the help! But thanks (I think!).Catrionak (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

What East, West and North africans race belong to?

They said that the Negriod race is Indegenous to South and Central Africa, so what East, West and North africans race belongs to?!--arab 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who "they" are, but "indigenous" means "Negroids" come from southern and central Africa originally. So the "Black Africans" of the rest of Africa must have migrated from southern or central Africa. Many residents of North Africa would be considered "Caucasoids" in the traditional three- or four-part division of the world's peoples into "races," but anthropologists today recognize that division as pretty meaningless. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Negroid. This is an old and discredited term. For more, see Race (classification of human beings). For an example of how migrations within Africa have overwhelmed earlier indigenous peoples, see Bantu expansion. In short, your question cannot be answered because the terms are not meaningful. Pfly (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Senate and democracy

In Hong Kong, people complain often and loudly that functional constituencies and appointments by the Chief Executive are undemocratic. Something about it will appear in the news at least once a week. Do they make similar complaints in Ireland about the Vocational Panels, university constituencies and nominations by the Taoiseach?

Do Irish people consider themselves to be living in a democracy? thanks F (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Seanad Éireann#Calls for reform? Algebraist 02:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American talk radio

Can you suggest an American talk radio over the internet that is not conservative?217.168.4.20 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air America Radio. Rockpocket 07:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
National Public Radio (broadcast on many public radio stations also available on the internet, see article) is quite balanced and has a lot of excellent programs, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek history accounts

The early olympics in Greece had an event called Pankration (a fighting sport combining wrestling with boxing); I read that one of the most famous of pankration fighters was a guy named Dioxippus - my questions are: which historical accounts tell of him?, who were the historians who wrote of him?, where can I find these historical accounts of him (are they online somewhere or published in certain books)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Dioxippus, which indicates that the most famous story about him is to be found in Arrian, whose texts are available online. 131.111.8.97 (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formalitate

What is it in Scotism? --Omidinist (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Removed. --Omidinist (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where in what country is cocaine legal like [in the same way as] cigarettes and alohol [are] in america?

where is cocaine legal like cigarettes in america?

In what country, if any, is cocaine legal in much the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are in America?

The cocaine article says


Is the "virtually" word unnecessary? I mean, there are, what, 194-196 countries in the world? Is cocaine legal in any of them?


thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.6 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Cocaine#Current Prohibition where the different levels of prohibition are discussed. Astronaut (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that subsection links to the article on legal status of cocaine which, unfortunately, does not include any references. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and only covers 16 nations. Astronaut (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

list of objects that on or in the vicinity of your person make you sexy

I read that certain objects will make sexy just by virtue of your being in their presence (or maybe vice versa), or maybe having them on your person. Can someone find or furnish me with a list of such items, please? I'm male and 20-something in North America (though not at the moment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.6 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is an object like that. It's called a Lamborgini. Beekone (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try getting some very unsexy friends. Next to them, you'll look better by comparison. Friday (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe personal grooming is the answer you are looking for? A shower, a shave, clean teeth, clean fingernails, clean clothes etc. usually work. Astronaut (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cynics might also point to Veblen goods and bling-bling. Personally, I think the contents and efficacy of any such list are extremely variable and individual and it depends on whom you wish to impress. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't listen to them - only heavy, gilded neck-chains with car logos do the charm, but the government is trying to keep it a secret ;) But seriously, I am not really certain it is a topic for the reference desk, unless you want to discuss the relativity of social norms of beauty (studied extensively in cultural anthropology). Perhaps we can sell this topic to science reference desk, as vaguely related to discussion on androstenone influence? ;) Just kidding. Pundit|utter 16:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe everything you read.--Shantavira|feed me 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, there is one object that, no matter who you are, no matter how unclean or ungroomed, will make you irresistable to women. That object, my friend, is a Lamborgini. I'm not kidding around here. Test the theory. What are you like 100 lbs overweight? Unibrow? Yellow, nicotine stained teeth? Perfect. Go get a Lamborgini and then tell me you don't get a woman within fifteen minutes. Beekone (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why do you insist on dropping the "m" in your wikilink text? --LarryMac | Talk 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about, Larry? Beekone (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't spelled it right. Don't make me post diffs. And since I'm here yet again, does anybody know the difference between a porcupine and an expensive Italian sportscar? --LarryMac | Talk 18:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn... anyways, the point is, chicks dig Lamboghinis. Beekone (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not as much as they dig station wagons. Friday (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-minded girls get with guys in Lamborghinis. Its the closest thing to a Jedi Mind Trick guys can have. Croat Canuck Talk 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize the questioner had specified what type of girl he wanted. Beekone (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he did say something that would make him sexy in general, not just to a particular kind, whereas I am of the opinion only the shallow girls would find him instantly sexy because of a lamborghini. I don't think there is any one object that can do the trick, except perhaps Axe body spray. ;) Croat Canuck Talk 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm such a moron. How could I forget Axe? It's like the layman's Lamborghini. Beekone (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hahahaha, yes, wheareas a Lambourghini could only get you 1, maybe 2 girls max, with Axe Body spray you can walk into any public building and every single good-looking girl in the place will come charging at you. Croat Canuck Talk 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And then you'll be lamenting that they won't all fit in the silly exotic car.. which brings us back to station wagons. Friday (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you all think he's about girls? He didn't write so, thus the only logical consequence is that he wants to find out about being sexy to all gender. Pundit|utter 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it is a he?  --Lambiam 00:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm male and 20-something..." 70.162.25.53 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just like 70.162.25.53 used my formidable powers of deduction. Male -> he. Indubitably. Pundit|utter 01:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be fair, the complete quote is "I'm male and 20-something in North America (though not at the moment)." Too much ambiguity there to make a definitive call. Gay male, 23, travelling in Europe? Pre-op FTM transexual, 27, somewhere in Asia? Who can say? --LarryMac | Talk 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "not at the moment" could also refer to being male. Pundit|utter 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A well sweated in sports uniform?hotclaws 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Doing the ultra-violent"

Hello wikipeople, I'm currently working on the ultraviolence article, after someone put a proposed deletion template there and a bunch of "citations needed". The article says that the term originates from Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, and indeed the terms "ultra-violence" and "ultra-violent" are used several times throughout the novel. The problem is that I'm not sure if the term refers to extreme acts of violence as defined on the article, or acts of sexual violence exclusively. I simply don't understand what the narrator is saying most of the time! I'm asking for the aid of anyone who gets the novel's language a little bit better than me, so they can explain to me what exactly Mr. Burgess is referring to with the term 'ultra-violence'. (And if you could point me to serious papers or studies regarding the term, that'd be awesome too!) Thanks in advance! Kreachure (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the novel, so this may not be a whole lot of help, but certainly in the film many of the droogs' acts of violence are non-sexual. This suggests that the term is not intended to refer exclusively to sexual violence. --Richardrj talk email 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been awhile since I read the book but I'm pretty sure it does not have an exclusively sexual-violence implication in the book. In some of the editions of the book there is a glossary in the back of the neologistic terms Burgess made up. I doubt this one will be in there, since it isn't one of the Polish/Russian slang words, but who knows. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I don't think this topic is best served by a separate article. Virtually anything you say about ultraviolence could go in the A Clockwork Orange article, where it's much more likely to be read and improved. I'd recommend a merge. --M@rēino 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word is a piece of Burgess word-play, being a play on "ultra-violet". As I also recall it is not restricted to sexual violence. SaundersW (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not suited to be mentioned only within the Clockwork orange article, precisely because Burgess may have meant something different from the popular use of the word nowadays. Kreachure (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think that's the case, then you'll need to find some articles discussing "the popular use of the word nowadays". Right now, the article doesn't even claim that anyone uses it except for Burgess and critics. --M@rēino 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just because the word might be used differently doesn't mean it deserves an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can yo tell the difference between criticism and abuse?

Or is it a matter of taste?217.168.0.21 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They overlap. There is a such thing as abusive criticism. I'd say criticism not intended to help might be called abusive, but that's just me. Wrad (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I invite a guest to a $$$$ restaurant and we get lousy service and food and shitty treatment, I may be inclined to venture criticism that is not "intended to help". But does that make it abusive? I might say something like that I have been severely disappointed by the lack of quality of the food and the utterly non-professional response to our complaints, not to help, but just to get that off my chest. But why should it be considered abusive as long as I make my opinion clear in a civilized way?  --Lambiam 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe instead of "intended to help", we could say "intended to be productive" or "constructive". I would guess that in the restaurant case, your goal would be to get a discount, or to demonstrate to your guest that you're displeased. Those are at least nominally positive aims. The personal abuse described by 212.51.122.6 below has no such constructive intention. jeffjon (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number one way to tell the difference is to see if it mixes in even a single ad-hominem, such as "only an idiot could have made this." The minute you go from the thing being abused (since you're referring I take it to pretty harsh criticism) to abuse of the person who's doing it, it's not criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.6 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oreboat Workers

Does anyone know where I might find records/names of people who worked on the oreboats early in the 20th century? I'm interested in people who lived in Illinois and Michigan, and I live in Minnesota. Would I be able to find those records somewhere in-state, or would I have to go to another Great Lakes state? Are there any online?

Thank you, 138.192.86.254 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe I'm being too skeptical, but I doubt there's necessarily going to be records, at least complete and comprehensive records. Oreboating is blue-collar labor, and the companies that hired them might not have seen any reason to preserve their employee files for posterity. --M@rēino 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest trying to find a local historical society, also ask your local librarian (they will be able to advise you on finding and searching archives). An approach to a relevant trades union could also be fruitful. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

how many people were killed by UN forces since WWII?

With reference if possible. I am also interested in how many people had been killed by diffrent individual governments, both from police, army or in prison. Mostly interested in EU member nation-states and US, Canada and Australia. But also all other nation-states. The stuff I already found on democide seems to be how many people were killed within a nation-state, but not exactly which nation-state was responsible. I know that it is kind of not possible to say this clearly, but for example I would include people died in Chile during Pinochet's regime as killed by Chile and US and so on. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean by "UN forces," e.g. military forces under command of the United Nations on United Nations expeditions, or do you mean, "by UN member states." Because those are very different things. Also I'm not sure how clear your methodology is — including the US for all deaths perpetuated by the Chilean government under Pinochet makes some moral sense but at what point are you separating the responsibility from the actual people who do it and those who indirectly contribute? You can always extend causality back further and further in such situations; do the states who crafted the Treaty of Versailles get credit for the deaths at the hands of the Nazis? Does that make any statistical sense, even if it makes some vague moral/causal sense? --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm having trouble with the piano and mostly trying to play with my fingers. I can barely read sheet music and mange to play both clefs. I also become instantly confused when the music requires you to play chords like this, maybe high C-E-G in eighth notes then to high C-D-F-A, or D-F-G-Bb. My question is how could you possibly play those chords on the piano with proper fingering, having proper fingering, and how to identify notes on the treble clef and bass clef. --Writer Cartoonist (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piano fingering depends quite a bit on context, but assuming no special circumstances I would finger the chords you mention like this:
(Where 1=thumb) 

C-E-G             C-D-F-A             D-F-G-Bb
1-3-5             1-2-3-5             1-2-3-5
Learning a new clef is difficult. There is no quick cure. I would do sight singing practice to work on it. Learn Solfege and sing the notes as you play; also buy an anthology of easy pieces and sight read a new one every day. You basically just need to work with the notes on the staff until your brain reads them as easily as written words. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'll vary from player to player as well. I think that I would tend to play both the C-D-F-A chord with fingers 1-2-4-5, rather than the 1-2-3-5 that s.dedalus prefers. Either way, you'll have to play the keys at different places than you usually would for a plain major C chord; probably sliding some fingers further up the keys and/or curling the fingers under a little more. It also might be affected by what's played immediately before or after those chords. jeffjon (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll mention that it does take a lot of practice before one can sight-read music from two clefs with any degree of fluency. When I was learning, my teacher made me practise each hand by itself until I could play them well before trying to combine them. That way I knew more or less what was coming up in the piece without having to read it off the music each time. By that stage, the sheet music is for checking when you forget a note rather than for reading as you go. Remember that reading music is a little like reading another language, and it will be some time before you're able to read it fluently. For now you'll have to work through it more slowly and take your time. It's frustrating, that's for sure. All the best for your music. It's well worth the work. Steewi (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphorical winter

Is the word “winter” ever used in the Bible to express isolation, doubt or grief? --S.dedalus (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You be the judge. There is a searchable Bible at BibleGateway. I looked for "winter" in the KJV, and there was a hit in the Song of Solomon that looked a bit unliteral. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that one but I think it’s talking about love as like coming out of a winter. Thanks for the great link though. I’ll see what else that brings up. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Blank

I've been trying to compile a list of US states that were once their own countries. So far, I have Hawaii, Texas, and Vermont. Anybody know of any others? Black Carrot (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's the California Republic, if you count that. Algebraist 06:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some claim the Provisional Government of Oregon counts. Pfly (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a possibility that the State of Deseret might be considered by some to have been a semi-autonomous and semi-sovereign nation for a while. If not in fact, then in practice it was at any rate... -- Saukkomies 10:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A similar question was the basis of the "Final Jeopardy!" on Jeopardy! a couple of weeks ago. However, they specified that the states had to have been republics under the same name. The four answers they considered acceptable were Hawaii, Texas, Vermont, and California. Really this is one of those questions that depends on what you count as a country. For myself, I count only the first three. --Anonymous, 01:55 UTC, January 17, 2008.
Would you count the southern states which left the Union and then founded the Confederacy in 1861? At least South Carolina seceded already in 1860, so wasn't she her own country in some months before the Cenfederacy was created? I know the Union and the northern states never recognised them as sovereign, but in practice I think they were. E.G. (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
West Florida was its own country for a short while. It is however not a U.S. state now, parts of it rather belongs to three differnet present states. E.G. (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOU

Is there a difference between an MOU document and a terms of reference? Is there set criteria that must be in the document? Have tried googling for a template with no success.

I am a community development officer with a regional council. Officers from 3 other neighbouring Councils will be working together on a regional music project for young people. Which document is best?

Thank you Janine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.252.55 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is merely for coordination purposes (that is, if it's a glorified memo) then it probably doesn't matter. If, however, there are legal concerns as to what sort of document is used and what criteria it contains, then consult a lawyer. Per the disclaimer at the top of this page, Wikipedia does not provide legal advice. — Lomn 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar sites to Amazon Mechanical Turk

I have been experimenting a little with Amazon Mechanical Turk and have earned a couple of dollars for 2 hours of my time. The system is fine: uncomplicated and stressless. However, the payment is terrible. That's why I would like to receive suggestions about similar sites for telecommuting that offer real payment.217.168.0.21 (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong but it sounds like classic market forces. If there are people willing to work for pennies (say, in poorer parts of the world, where pennies go further), then there's no way anybody is going to want to pay you more for the same work. You're better off getting in touch with a temp agency or something like that. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Mechanical Turk is so badly paid because the task are also so simple. But I am interested in the system (uncomplicated and stressfree, like stated above) applied to other kind of jobs.217.168.0.21 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's something called Rent-a-Coder for hiring programmers—I assume the tasks are more complex than those at the Mechanical Turk. However, my understanding is that the pay rates there are still abysmal by U.S. standards. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The code quality from Rent-a-Coder is also pretty abysmal. --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

humanity

What does a person be called who do not believe in different religion but believe in a god and humanity. 122.168.16.86 (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deism? --S.dedalus (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of "different" makes no sense. Different than what? -- kainaw™ 13:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably "different" from any specific, organized religion. I think theism is probably the best and most general term. Deism might work, depending upon the questioner's specific interest, but Deism sets up a kind of deus otiosus situation in which God exists, in some form, but doesn't directly intervene in human affairs - so miracles and most supernatural events are denied. ◄Zahakiel► 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agnostic. Beekone (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agnostics in general do not believe in a god. Agnostic theists do, however. Algebraist 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking your question literally, I believe the answer is Pantheism. Arguably, pantheists do not believe in different religion, but rather believe that all religions are the same. Pantheists also believe in "god and humanity", because the two are one and the same. --M@rēino 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the questioner wishes to know what to say when asked one's religion, if one does not wish to affiliate oneself with the familiar major religions and their complete dogma but still wants to affirm some shared values, such as belief in a Supreme Being and regard for one's fellow humans as children of that Being. For me, the solution is Humanism. (that would make such a person a Humanist. There are many flavors.) The Wiki page on Humanism is very informative. Quorumangelorum (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic JC-1 H2 Economics help needed

I just started taking JC-1 H2 Economics and some concepts confuse me. Could a friendly Wikipedian with Economics background help clarify my doubts?

According to my notes and lecturers, there are four types of resources: land, labour, capital (physical capital and human capital) and entrepreneurship. Isn't entrepreneurship a type of human capital? Isn't money a resource (and what type of resource is it)?

A free good is defined as a good that does not incur an opportunity cost because supply is plentiful relative to demand. Air is an example. So if demand for a free good increases greatly (e.g. due to air pollution), will the free good become an economic good?

Lastly, are issues affecting a single industry considered microeconomics or macroeconomics? I know microeconomics is about individual (people/business) decisions and macroeconomics is about the effects of these decisions on the economy as a whole. But my lecturer gave "Taiwan's local airlines hit hard by bullet train" as an example of microeconomics.

Thanks a lot!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.16 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such classifications tend to be somewhat arbitrary and up to an author's whims. For example, petroleum and various other minerals may be important resources, but are not really "land" and even less any of the other given types. And where do fish fit? Aren't human capital and physical capital two different kinds of resources? And so on. I wouldn't worry too much if what you are being taught in Economics doesn't make sense; that comes with the territory. Just remain critical, and for the rest, tell them on exams what they want to hear.  --Lambiam 08:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entrepreneurship is a term "older" than human capital. It helped completing the simple Neoclassical model of firms, since these are more than a bunch of capital and employees. Human capital was coined, if I'm correct, by Growth Theory, as simple physical capital accumulation proved insufficient to explain growth differences between countries. Why your teacher would think of separating entrepreneurship from other human capital may be related to the importance of the capitalist as the person who takes risks and combines the other production factors. But, as Lambian said above, don't worry too much about such subtleties
Money, or better, access to credit markets, could indeed be considered a factor. Monetary restrictions show from time to time in the analysis, but the basic models you are surely studying assume that you could contract (hire) as much capital as you need (in that sense money could be thought of as a part of the factor capital, as was the case of Adam Smith's analysis, for instance).
The OP is right in the analysis of free goods. A good is free as long as you could have as much as you want for free (or in more formal terms, a good is free if its demanded quantity is less than available supply for positive prices). If demand rises, or supply falls up to the point there's no more free "trade" of the good, then it will cease to be free. Good bye free air, welcome air bottlers.
Finally, the distinction between Micro and Macroeconomic topics is subtle. The whole economy could be considered in macro or microeconomic terms (see for instance, general equilibrium theory). So, your teacher may want to speak of the interrelations between sectors of the economy in Microeconomic terms (e. g. price adjustments after a competitor enters the market), or how a sector affects the economy in Macroeconomic terms (how much it contributes to GDP, how its price rises have affected the inflation rate, etc.). Pallida  Mors 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as the OP is an anon, I will note that OP stands for Original Poster and refers to the person who asked the question :P Skittle (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pallida, you rock! Now I understand about free goods. Maybe when I learn more, I will understand the classifications of resources better, but for now I will note that there are no fixed rules about that, right?

My worksheet has a few true/false statements and I have to explain my stand. But I don't understand this statement. "Positive statements are correct statements and normative statements are incorrect statements." Can you explain what it means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.8 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Positive statement and Normative statement.  --Lambiam 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what is meant by 'correct' and 'incorrect' in this case? Have the phrases been used in other questions that you were surer of? Skittle (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, Skittle. The intended meaning of correct/incorrect is, I guess, that of (scientifically) true/false, proved to be right/wrong, etc. Hence, economists struggle to show that statements of one of the two types are correct or incorrect, but could care less with propositions of the second type. (Not that they don't mean anything. It's just that arguments over their validity follow a very different path, and in the end, one must be prepared to accept different value judgements.) Pallida  Mors 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, thanks for showing me that article! Now I understand about positive statements and normative statements. So the answer is false because a positive statement can be incorrect. After my lecture next week, I think I will have to ask a few more questions. --165.21.155.13 (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Roman conquest of Britain a major strategic error - in retrospect of course?

Given that Rome invaded in 43 AD (notwithstanding that trading links had been established during the preceding 100 years), and further given that it took another 100 years before the Antonine Wall was built (to defend southern Britain from the marauding and rebellious Scots tribes), and further given the wet and cold weather, the rebellious and surly nature of the Brits and Welsh and Scots, the warlike tribal systems of local "government" then prevalent in Britain, and the uncertainty of what material wealth might be available to the Roman conquerors, and lastly given that the Roman Empire's resources were stretched too far by their presence in Britain causing weaknesses in their Germanic, Gallic and Meditteranean Basin satellite states, eventually causing the Romans to withdraw from Britain; can it now be safely assumed that the benefit of invading Britain and staying as long as they did was vastly over-rated and in fact, cost Rome dearly in the long term with no easily identifiable "profit" accruing to them? Or was it worth all the fuss notwithstanding all the foregoing contra-indications?? Thanks, but please don't answer "yes" or "no".81.145.240.38 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe well it was too good an opportunity to pass up. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of Catullus 29 I would say that perhaps the perspective you take is too broad. In Catullus' view, long term strategy didn't enter into it, Caesar just needed some money to pay his boyfriend - "Was it not this, one and only general, that took you to the farthest island of the West? So that fucked dick of yours, should consume two or three hundred thousand dinarii?" 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might of course be argued that Catullus' view of the matter was a bit too narrow instead of too broad. In retrospect, it's hard to tell - maybe the Romans might have prospered more by seeking to profit from trade with their neighbours and spending their resources on a really strong border defense instead of overstretching the empire with one conquest after the other, but such was not the Roman way of thinking, and the outcome of that scenario is doubtful at best. As regards the conquest of Britain, two things to keep in mind are that 1) Britain was a known exporter of tin (which was needed for making bronze), so it's not entirely true to say there was an uncertainty of what riches would lay ahead, and 2) the Celtic people on the Isles were cooperating with their relatives on the continent and Caesar was worried about a rebellion in Gaul being fed and supported from Britain. Whether the conquest was worth it in the end is hard to tell - we'd need lots of data on the actual cost of the occupation force and on the profits from trade and extortion - which, I'm afraid, is rather lacking in ancient sources (at least in the level of detail needed to take a serious stab at answering the question) -- Ferkelparade π 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take on it is that Brittania supplied so much raw resources to the Roman Empire including the mines of tin, silver, and lead, that the benefit accrued from just those minerals alone would have justified the costs involved of invading the island and keeping it as part of the Empire. Of course Rome could get these same resources elsewhere - and it did - but that does not negate the fact that the benefits outweighed the costs of maintaining Brittania as part of the Roman Empire, in my opinion of course... -- Saukkomies 19:44 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember somewhere back in college that Britain was considered somewhat of a wheatbasket in the late empire (like Egypt had been throughout the late Republic and early Empire, and this was partly how Magnus Maximus (?) was able to declare himself emperor with Britain as his base of support and operations. Any truth to that? Or were the resources he relied on the mining from York and Wales? Steewi (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My trusty historical atlas suggests that Britain supplied tin, lead, wool, and even gold (from Wales apparently). Also, apparently, bears and wolfhounds were exported to Rome for use in "the arenas". Pfly (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "good economy" defined by economists?

I don't know much about economics, that's why I ask this. The US pres. elections are also coming up, and the issue is being talked about more. For regular people, or those not familiar with economics, "good economy" I suspect means when things are affordable to them(cheaper food, lower gas prices, etc.) But what's a good national economy through an economist's perspective? What separates a bad economy from a good one?

And I have another question related to this. How does the stock market play in the economy being good or bad? I only know the basic idea of what a stock is: ownership of a company shared by people. I get that, but I don't get how that relates to the economy being in a good or bad state. I hear in the news about when stocks go down, the economy is going bad; but why?

I'd appreciate any answer, and please if you answer try to keep jargon at minimum! Thanks. 199.76.154.127 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a lot of things that make an economy good or bad. For example, a lack environmental damage, an abundance of factors of production, and an efficient (or fair, depending on ideology) distribution of them, and good regulation may be part of a good economy. This is a bit of a broad answer, and necessarily so, because I'd probably need 300 pages to explain what a good economy is. What may help you more, though, is what economist think about whether an economy is "going" good or bad, because this is more easily explained, with some wikilinks for the jargon. When economists are generally positive about the economy, they look at a few things, among which are the following:
    • Consumers' purchasing power is increasing.
    • Stable prices (inflation is low).
    • Consumers are spending relatively more money than before on buying goods, as opposed to savings.
    • Production is increasing.
    • Imports are falling, exports are rising.
  • On the relationship between stock markets and the "real" economy, that's somewhat harder to explain, and again, this is not 100% of it, just some examples. Forgive me if I'm explaining what you already know, but for clarity, the stock market is a place where shares of stock are sold and bought, at very high speeds, and very high volumes. Something to keep in mind is that most of the people who buy and sell shares do not really do so because they have any interest in the company itself. (There's some American/British confusion on "stocks" and "shares". Read Share (finance) - I write British) They usually do it because they can sell the shares later at a higher price, making profit at the transactions. Now, suppose I have some shares of a few different companies, and a rumour spreads that the day after tomorrow the whole city is going to be bombed by terrorists. This is obviously bad news for all the companies I have shares of, so I decide to sell the shares, but as no one wants to have them at high prices, I have to sell them for a really low price, so the market price of the share decreases. Then, five days pass, and no bombing. To get back to your question, here's the first part of the answer:
    The stock market is not a 100% accurate indicator of what happens with the economy. From the example above, stock markets can go down tremendously while nothing really changes in the "real" economy.
  • There is certainly some relationship between the real economy and the stock market. To continue the example above, if I happened to be the CEO of a company in the city of the previous example, and I wanted to buy some extra hugely expensive machines. To do this, one of the things a company can do is to give out extra shares. So, the CEO goes to the stock market, and asks "who wants more pieces of this company" (part of it is already listed on the stock market), and returns to his office with a pile of cash. When the stock markets are really low, because of a rumour in this example, his pile of cash is considerably lower. The buyers at the stock market didn't want to pay as much for his company as they would've three days before, and they probably didn't pay as much for, say 10% of the company, as that 10% was really worth. Second answer:
    The stock market influences the real economy in all kinds of ways, and one of those is that companies cannot easily obtain capital when the stock markets are low. From the example above, the company couldn't buy an extra machine.
  • Finally, keep in mind that the market for shares is not the only one out there. See Financial market. User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that, in simple terms, economists think of a good economy as one where "everyone is better off in economic terms", or, in other words, "everyone is earning more money", where "more" is measured in terms of what you can actually do with it.
The considerations that Krator mentioned are all used to decide whether everyone is better off. In terms of some key considerations, inflation needs to be low, otherwise your money is worth less tomorrow than it is today; growth is an important aspect, since "economic growth" means that there is more money in the economy overall; employment should be relatively high, which means most people are working and thus earning money; production, productivity etc obviously affect how much money is being generated; interest rates should be kept moderate - and this is related to inflation; the environment might also be a consideration: if you damage the environment, it will cost much more in future to fix it up, or you might lose a lot of natural resources, all of which will affect how well-off everyone in the economy is in the future.
Because the stock market is where people buy and sell chunks of (generally) the biggest companies in an economy, generally speaking when the economy is doing well, those biggest companies should be producing lots and earning lots, which means they are more valuable, and thus the stock market should go up. However, as Krator said, often many other factors make this relationship complicated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stock prices are the prices investors are willing for stocks. If investors are wiling to pay a huge amount of money, it means they believe the company is going to earn high profits from which they expect to earn dividends. The average investor researches companies well before buying their stock and their decisions are usually rational. If the major companies are doing well then the general economy is likely doing well too.
Also, people buy stocks with the intention of earning dividends or selling the stock. If the stock price goes down, it means the company is doing poorly and they're not going to get dividends. It also means they won't profit from selling the stock. This would lower investors' income, and that's part of the economy. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relation / Correction of Tanakh page with Ketuvim page

I apologize in advance if this is posted incorrectly or in the wrong place.

I was researching all of the "books" in the Tanakh and noticed that the beginning section of the main Tanakh page lists the common division of the Ketuvim differently than the main Ketuvim page.

As quoted from the main Tanakh page "They are sometimes also divided into such categories as the "wisdom books" of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs, the "poetry books" of Psalms, Lamentations and Song of Solomon, and the "historical books" of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles."
and

As quoted from the box on the main Ketuvim page "Three Poetic Books 1. Psalms 2. Proverbs 3. Job Five Megillot 4. Song of Songs 5. Ruth 6. Lamentations 7. Ecclesiastes 8. Esther Other Books 9. Daniel 10. Ezra-Nehemiah 11. Chronicles"

I am not familiar enough with this to be able to discern which is the correct breakdown. They may boy, in fact, be correct. However, in the interest of avoiding confusion, it should either be stated specifically that alternate breakdowns are used or have them merged into one.

Thanks,

71.138.122.142 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Kristen Jennings[reply]

  • I believe that the short answer is that when Tanakh refers to the books being divided into categories, it is just describing a way that some people may think about the books in Ketuvim, not what order the books appear in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

Primaries & caucuses

As I understand it, the 2008 primaries and caucauses are run by the parties. But, some state legislatures have changed the date on their primaries. Does that mean the state governments have control over there?71.218.17.131 (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primaries are run by the states and counties under largely the same procedures as general elections between candidates of different parties. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For many years there was a system set up in the US for primaries and caucuses that went unchanged. However, in the last few years there has been a number of changes to when the primaries of some states took place. There was a race between some states to get their primary held before others, which resulted in the shifting around of a bunch of the traditional dates of when these things took place. Because New Hampshire and Iowa have traditionally been the first states to hold primaries and caucuses, they had to shift their dates to keep them ahead of the other states when they changed the dates for their own primaries. One of these states, Michigan, has been punished for moving its primary ahead of the others by being boycotted recently by some of the presidential candidates. So, to answer your question, yes, the state governments do control the date that the primaries and caucuses are held. However, there are certain penalties that can be levied against states that become too extreme in their pushing against tradition, such as we've seen with the case of the boycott of the Michigan Primary this last week. -- Saukkomies 09:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only boycotting, but the Democratic Party has said that no delegates chosen at the Michigan primary will be seated at the upcoming convention. Corvus cornixtalk 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YEah, and I happen to live in Michigan, and I feel like because of this stupid ruling by the Democratic Party that they have basically taken away my voting franchise for the upcoming election! I mean, suddenly I'm no longer a citizen??? Way to go, Michigan legislators! -- Saukkomies 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book Review for The Memory Man

Where can I find book reviews of The Memory Man written by Lisa Appignanesi in which Toronto Star issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.19 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be online. You could check your local library (you're in Canada, right?), or ask someone with LexisNexis access to look it up. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

How does one calculate inflation with regards to the equipmented used by the armed services? For example, a ship of the line in britian that x pounds in the 1600s or a tank that cost x rubbles in 1938 would cost what today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.141.172 (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's tricky. You can use simple tools like The Inflation Calculator, which use some standard index (in that case, the USA's Consumer Price Index since 1800). But those simple tools don't measure things that you might want to take into account, like regional price variations or improvements in technology. For that, you need to do some subject-specific research. --M@rēino 14:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might take a look at a similar, recent question posed (weirdly) at the Mathematics desk Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#WWII_dollars. Anyway, you first need to convert the target currency (say, 1920s rubles) into US dollars of its time (1920s USD), and then convert those into modern dollars (2008 USD). The further back you go the harder it is to make the numbers make sense, because all of our indices are based on social indicators of what something might be worth at any given time, but these sorts of things vary widely even over the course of one century, much less four. There are many different indices you can use, some are more appropriate for a given situation than others. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Mareino hinted at above, you have to take into account the technological improvements. For example, a state of the art ship in the 1600s might have cost X dollars, and a state of the art ship today might cost Y dollars, but the ships aren't really very similar at all. Although they're both ships, the huge improvements in what the ships can do make them extremely dissimilar. As such, price comparisons aren't all that helpful. GreatManTheory (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California

Which universities and colleges are considered as "Southern California" as in part of Southern California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.207 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Southern California article? Any school in that area would be a Southern California school. Corvus cornixtalk 04:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also
Rockpocket 07:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab leaders

Why some Arab leaders like Saudi Arabia and U.A.E. wear the traditional Islamic dress and others Arab leaders like Lebanon, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Palestine and Iraq wear the Western clothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.207 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There can be fine nuances, but the most basic division is the Arabian peninsula and the Gulf vs. the rest... AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the image of themselves that they want to portray at a given moment. For example here is Pervez Musharraf in a Pakistani suit, here in military uniform as he says farewell to his military role and here in western suit after his resignation as head of the armed forces. Western suit = (roughly) "I am a modern leader", traditional dress: "I am a man of tradition" and military uniform: "I have the military behind me". Of course the semiotics of dress are a lot more subtle than that, but it's a broad brush beginning. SaundersW (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi Arabia is known for its conservatism. Wrad (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi Arabia is essentially an absolutist monarchy. And, speaking of an other absolutist thestic state (this one in Europe), when have you seen the Pope wearing jeans or his favourite Armani suit ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he does wear his favorite prada shoes. :) Pastordavid (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Africa

Which Western African nations wears the Boubou, in specific? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.207 (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boubou says that it is currently worn in a variety of countries. As the peoples of West Africa have not, traditionally, paid much attention to what the western world states are national boundaries, but were often nomadic, following food and water, I doubt that there is anything more specific to be said about "countries", aside from what the article contains. Bielle (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal buildings

What are some buildings in which metal is a prominent construction material (e.g. the Guggenheim in Bilbao)? Thanks.--Anakata (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better question would be what significant buildings of the past 110 years aren't made out of metal. Almost all skyscrapers have a steel frame, as do most low- and mid-rise commercial and institutional buildings. Masonry and wood are still used widely for homes and other smaller structures, but that's about it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And especially since the development of the international style, metal has become common as an exterior cladding for skyscrapers as well. --Anon, 06:00 UTC, January 17, 2008.
The Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. The Markel Building in Richmond, Virginia. The Central Library in Minneapolis, Minnesota. --LarryMac | Talk 15:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a photo of the Central Library at Minneapolis Public Library. And I apologize for my fellow editors' literalism and other jackanapery. --LarryMac | Talk 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Literalism and jacknapery? You seem to think the question meant something different than I did. What? --Anon, 19:03 UTC, January 17.
The question says "where metal is a prominent construction material" (emphasis added) with a specific example, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Your response, Anon, was not nearly so literal as the first, and I won't comment further on the picture that was added. --LarryMac | Talk 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one!

Yhe picture is of a modern building in which metal is a prominent construction material. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. It's quite clear what the OP was referring to, and it wasn't sheds. --Richardrj talk email 09:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really almost anything by Frank Gehry. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Media influence on

How much influence does the Arab or Palestinian Media have on the Palestinian population? -65.96.173.1 (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art relative?

Does anyone know if the australian performance artist Mike Parr is related to an earlier Victorian artist, 60's sculptor Lenton Parr? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kutuzov and Napoleon

Thinking of the French campaign in Russia in 1812 would it be true to say that Kutuzov proved himself to be a better tactician than Napoleon? 217.44.77.243 (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Political Appointments

How many political appointments is the President responsible for, not including federal judges? That is Cabinet members, department heads, ambassadors etc. I am hopefully wanting to see a hard number possibly with links breaking down the appointments.

thanks,--Czmtzc (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found List of United States political positions appointed by the Executive Branch, but with all those nasty warning tags at the top of it, I wouldn't be too confident of its completeness. Ah, but the talk page leads to Plum Book which appears to be an official list. (See Plum Book#External Link --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 06:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, WOW, over 7000 appointments, that is actually more than I expected.

Thanks tcsetattr. --Czmtzc (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney quote

Did he really say this?

"Rising gas prices are a sign of a failed presidency"; Dick Cheney, 1998 <------------ [name removed] thats about all I can find

Kushalt 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

That is one of those quotes that everyone repeats but nobody appears to know when or where he said it. In my opinion, if he really said it just as the quote suggests, it would have been used in every Democratic campaign in the last Congressional election. Therefore, it is more likely that he made a comment on the 1998 government's inability to control gas prices at the time and not a sweeping comment on the relation between gas prices and the Presidency. -- kainaw™ 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply! Kushalt 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Independence rough drafts!?

How many rough drafts did Thomas Jefferson write? 207.201.229.226 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)§§§[reply]

I don't know, but that's a hilarious question, I can see it now:

(Ben's journal:)
After long assault by England oh no that's not right
As all people, ours considers its liberty ah crap
When it comes time to, no
When after long consideration it comes time, no
When it comes time for one of History's great events, wait
When it comes time in the Course of Human events, or just! Yes!
When in the course of Human Events, it comes time, yes, not just time
When in the course of Human Events, it become high time, too slangy,
When in the course of Human Events, it becomes Necessary, there we go. Let's get the rest off right quick: When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. done, and...done.
Time to hit the hay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.20 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he chose to record the fact in his diaries, it is impossible to know how many drafts he wrote, because rough drafts are usually destroyed.--Shantavira|feed me 13:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have some of his rough drafts, showing the changes that occurred from the time Jefferson presented it to the signers to the time they came to a version they agreed upon. Wrad (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Rhode Island Religion

What where the religions in colonial rhode island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.106.168.20 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to George Berkeley: "four sorts of Anabaptists besides Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, and many of no profession at all." Touro Synagogue was dedicated in Newport in 1763, a year after Aaron Lopez and Isaac Elizer had been denied citizenship based on a law which may or may not have been passed in 1663 stating: "no person who does not profess the Christian religion can be admitted free of this colony".—eric 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rhode Island was founded by people who were not welcome in the Puritan dominated colony of Massachusetts. Of course, once they got themselves set up in Rhode Island, they too became intolerant of anyone else who was not Christian! -- Saukkomies 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

FDNY Memorial flag

I've seen these flags and decals. They were probably patterned after the POW/MIA flag. Except, the silhouette of a firefighter is featured up front, and the World Trade Center is in the background. Above the graphic, it says FDNY/MIA. Underneath everything, it says NEVER FORGOTTEN. There should be some lapel pins, etc., of this type of graphic available for sale. The money should go to charity. Does anybody out there feel the same way? Please let me know what you think. Thank you so very much.72.229.136.18 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing what "FDNY" stands for, and only guessing that "MIA" is "missing in action", I am at risk of tripping in a minefield. However, this sounds like the opening of a soapbox, rather than a Ref Desk question. Bielle (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FDNY. -- Coneslayer (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FDNY stands for Fire Department City of New York. And you guessed right about the MIA. This is not any type of soapbax opening. It's suggestion of any commemorative item with the FDNY/MIA graphic, that's all.72.229.136.18 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this is the Reference Desk, not a discussion forum. What, exactly, is your question? It sounds like a sales proposal, not something we can research and answer. -- Coneslayer (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing any sales. My question is if anyone out there agrees with me on a suggestion of commemorative items with the FDNY/MIA graphic, with the money going to charity, that's all.72.229.136.18 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which moneys will be going to charities, without any sales? Llamabr (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What charity? Personally I think we should not be expecting the pennies of a few mug sales to be paying for things like 9/11 rescue worker health care. The government should being doing that. In many cases, they are not. Put that on a mug and sell it. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I don't read anywhere in the constitution anything about providing healthcare for firemen. You might be referring to the government of the city of NY? Probably it's up to the healthcare providers or insurance companies who cover fire departments to do so. Llamabr (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes, Plato and Manichaeism

The Wikipedia article on Manichaeism says that Mani regarded Hermes and Plato as a prophets or divinely guided men, and saw himself as their successor. My question is, is this correct? I ask because I have never seen a source that makes this claim before. None of the works dealing with Gnosticism and Manichaeism that I have consulted (including A. A. Bevan's article on Manichaeism in James Hastings's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Geo Widengren's Mani and Manichaeism, Hans Jonas's The Gnostic Religion, Kurt Rudolph's Gnosis, and the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Manichaeism) say anything about Mani regarding Hermes or Plato as prophets.

Skoojal (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anything on that specific issue, but Mani does seem to have been somewhat consciously syncretistic in certain respects... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman decline

Please help. Did the roman empire fall because of imperial mismanagement or were there other more significant factors at work? Did Constantine do more to divide than unite the empire? Why did he succeed when Diocletian's system of governance failed? Sorry so many questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viola 3 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's some question you pose, Viola! It is actually enormously complex, and involves much more than just one or even several reasons as to what caused the Fall of Rome. You might start out reading the Wiki article entitled the Decline of the Roman Empire. However, the role of the Emperor in the collapse of Rome was not very significant when compared to the economic and social factors at work within Roman society in general. Constantine, in my own humble opinion, was fighting a brave retreat more than leading a new renaissance of Roman power. By establishing Constantinople in the East he was trying to salvage what he could of the crumbling Roman Empire - I believe he saw the writing on the wall for the Western part of the Empire, and was trying to bolster the East in order to keep some of Rome healthy. Diocletian is really the key to the puzzle, in my opinion. His attempts at preserving the Empire did succeed for a time, but ultimately Rome collapsed in spite of his valiant efforts due to complex reasons that went beyond the governance and administration of the Empire. There is an entire branch of both Sociology and History that deals with the rise and fall of societies, and includes in its study aspects touching on the economic, moral, health, and political. There is actually a fairly well-written Wiki article about this subject called Societal collapse. Hope that helps - and if you want more information you may follow some of the links at the bottom of those articles. -- Saukkomies 09:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literature / Poetry

Certainly, this question involves subjectivity. But, a valid question, nonetheless. If one were to ask for the "Top 100" (or Top Ten or Top Whatever) Authors of All Time, there is no right or wrong answer, of course. And the definition of "Top" is fuzzy, arguable, and subjective, at best. But, surely, all lists would likely include the "givens" such as Shakespeare, Joyce, Hemingway, etc. Top 100 Movies? ... Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, etc. Top 100 Actors? ... Olivier, Hepburn, Gielgud, etc. What would likely constitute the "givens" on a list of Top Poems of All Time? Poems, I say, not poets. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Possibly "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" (Shakespeare), "Do not go gentle into that good night" (Thomas), "The Raven" (Poe) are the first three that come to mind. Also perhaps Ullyses, Stop all the Clocks, Jabberwocky. These are of course, well known, rather than best, because best, as you say, is subjective, but That might give you a start on your own list (which I'm guessing you might be constructing). Steewi (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of "The Raven" first, then "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening", "The Road Not Taken" and others, even "A Visit from St. Nicholas" all of which are notable enough to have an article here. It seems a good place to start looking might be the master Category:Poems which contains many subcategories, each containing many notable poems. AUTiger » talk 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on a modernist kick at the moment, so I would add The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and The Waste Land. Plus some Yeats; possibly Easter, 1916? Algebraist 11:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add I Am by John Clare, my favourite C19 poet. He prefigured modernist questioning of self-identity in this famous poem, which is very moving when you know the history of his life and mental breakdowns. Also I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud by William Wordsworth should probably be in there. "The Whitsun Weddings" by Philip Larkin. "The Thought Fox" by Ted Hughes. --Richardrj talk email 11:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching back into the past a bit, I'd propose:
* "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" by Homer
* "Beowulf" by an unkown author
* "The Gathas" by Zoroaster
* "The Rubaiyat" by Omar Khayyám
* "The Aeneid" by Virgil
* "The Psalms of the Bible" attributed to David (this may not match the criteria, since it's a collection of poems rather than just one poem)
* "The Songs of Chu" by Qu Yuan and Song Yu (again, a collection of poems)
* "Oku No Hosomichi" by Matsuo Bashō (yet again another collection of poems)
* "The Rg Veda" by unknown authors (another collection)
-- Saukkomies 09:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Metamorphoses, Les Fleurs du mal (if collections of poetry are acceptable), Eugene Onegin (if a "novel in verse" is acceptable). 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget She Walks in Beauty by Byron as well as the Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Khan by Coleridge. Ooh, and Ozymandias by Shelley. All favourites of mine. Matt Deres (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Wrad (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theologians

It would seem that Greece would have produced the majority of theologians since the New Testament koine is close to demotic Greek. There would be less confusion over "repent" and other words that in translation cause great debate. Most of the theologians seem to be northern Europeans. Was it due to the need to interpret the words? LShecut2nd (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a critical point. Because of the difficulty in understanding the subtleties in another language, it is indeed quite impossible to be able to consistently and accurately convey the entire meaning behind any piece of literature when it is translated into another language. Not only is there the problem of understanding the various meanings behind a given word in another language, but one must also take into consideration what the cultural background was of the society at the time that the work was written in order to fully comprehend what an author is intending by the use of the language. This is usually something that is well beyond the reach of the average dilettante who is attempting to grasp an understanding of a translated text. The New Testament is such an example.
It is precisely for this reason that Medieval Christian Monks and Priests were against the idea of translating the works of the Bible into the common languages of Europe. Although such translations would be more accessible to the average person, these religious leaders believed that it would only confuse the unwashed masses if they began to read the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts in their translated forms. Once Martin Luther and others arrived on the scene in the Age of the Protestant Reformation, these reformers pushed to have translations of the Bible made in the languages spoken by the common people of Europe and elsewhere. The basis for this was that according to many of the reformers of Protestantism there was the idea that each person should be able to establish a direct connection to the Divine on his or her own - without the interference of someone else (such as a Priest). To accomplish this, Protestant adherants were encouraged to learn to read, and then to put their literacy to reading the Bible. It was viewed as unnecessarily complicated to try to get the average person to not only learn to read, but to learn to read Greek and Hebrew, and because of this the Bible was translated in order to make it more accessible to the average person. At first the Catholic Church tried to stop all such translations of the sacred texts, but eventually it had to succumb to the inevitable as more and more translations of the Bible became available. Today Catholics read from these translations just as frequently as anyone else.
Now, as to why there are many theologians from Northern Europe, it is due to the whole business of the Reformation and its fallout over the subsequent centuries, in my opinion. To understand the underlying ramifications of your question, it might be advised to study up on the Reformation, as it is perhaps the most pivotal point in Christianity. Hope that all helps. -- Saukkomies 10:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=185260966"