Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

September 11

Computer Virus Attacks

Hello. Why is someone unsuccessfully attacking my computer with the same virus several times in a row each day? My anti-virus software blocks all their attacks. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer #1: It is probably a virus running on a zombie computer. The virus is trying to spread itself. Don't take it personally.

Answer #2: Are talking about some sort of attempt to get through your firewall? Or does your virus scanner say you have a virus detected on the machine? If it's the former, then #1 probably applies, but if it is the latter, you probably have a virus, and your a/v software is not actually eliminating it. --72.83.173.248 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you take your question to the computer reference desk? Wonderful as us historians etc are at the study of computer virusesology (I am sure there is a wonderful history, legal system and philosophy etc to them) you may get a more detailed answer over there.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Project Help!!!

I am a scholar at Baltimore Polytechnic Institue, and I have a world history project that is due on Dec.17,2008. My topic is on the Cuban Revolutionary War. Before i can begin to work on my project, I must answer a few questions. The only question I need help on is:How is this topic tied to the national theme which is "conflict and compromise"? It may sound really simple but when I tried to answer nothing came to my mind. I dont want the answer because that would be cheating. I just need someone to rephrase it to make it sound more understandable. Thank you. 71.166.2.154 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

HI, 71.166. This is an excellent topic and I will help you in any way I can. However, what you have submitted here is, in my reading, just a tad too ambigious. Which Cuban Revolutionary War do you have in mind; that of Jose Marti and others against Spain, or that of Fidel Castro against Fulgencio Batista? By 'national theme' do you mean that all students have to structure their work around the same general heading? OK, on the assumption that we are talking about Castro I would reverse the two elements, looking at the conflict as a consequence of the failure of compromise; the failure, in other words, of the forms of compromise allowed for in representative democracy. Here the important thing to look at is Batista's coup of 1952, in which he overthrew President Sacarras and cancelled the planned elections. But that is as far as I go, because I now suspect you are going to tell me that your topic is on the earlier anti-colonial war! Clio the Muse 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

People's unwillingness to reveal their salary figure

Why do people hate it when a person ask them what's their salary or how much money they make? Oidia (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly answer this question if you tell us how much you make. --Nricardo 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone in the world, but my sensibility is it is a mix of various factors. Salary is to some extent linked with worth for many people, so it's very touchy. A person may be embarrassed for themselves if they are making too little, and they may be embarrassed or uncomfortable for the questioner if they think their salary is larger than the questioner's or others within earshot. Not knowing which of these scenarios will be revealed adds a whole new layer of ambivalence. Then too, they may not be embarrassed at all, but just leery of jealousy if the questioner makes much less, or condescension if the opposite is the case. That just scratches the surface I think.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To Nricardo, I'm a high school student and work part-time. I make about AU$4,000 a year which is about US$3,320. Oidia (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better than Fuhghettaboutit. In my strange little world, this has always been one of those questions one "simply doesn't ask" other people - others include their political preference, their religion, their sexual practices, their sexual orientation, or whether they wipe their ass from the front or the back. If they want to tell you, they'll tell you soon enough. Cultural practices determine which subjects are OK to ask about and which are off limits, and cultural practices differ from place to place and from time to time. So, as always, society is to blame. -- JackofOz 07:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The strangest behavior is when a boss flashes the figure of your rise/raise on a card, as if he were showing you a pornographic picture. Also, the word "thousand(s)" isn't spoken. $1,500, or 1.5k, becomes one fifty, which as a juvenile would be $1.50.69.201.141.45 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In some places, such as India, there is less of a taboo about this. I think that we in the West live in societies in which people are supposed to be equal. Revealing that one is paid much more or less than another destroys the cherished illusion of equality. In societies such as India that may be more accepting of inequality and in which people want to know their place relative to others, it may be more acceptable to discuss pay. Incidentally, the taboo on discussing salary can work to the advantage of employers. A few years back, one of my company's competitors set up shop in the same city and began hiring away staff at my company. There were offers and counteroffers. In this context, my colleagues began discretely discussing their salaries with each other. This was in most people's interest, as it allowed us to go to management and say that people at the same rank were making, say, $8,000 more per year. This enabled those with lower pay to demand raises or else look into opportunities with the competitor. By sharing information on our pay, we were able to "bid up" our salaries. It was interesting to see the effect of breaking this taboo. Marco polo 13:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noticing that this social stigma benefits employers because they can negotiate everyone's salary separately. APL 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have worked for companies where the contract of employment stated that it was a sackable offence to reveal one's salary to anyone. Needles to say, the pay was crap. DuncanHill 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.228.107 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dilbert has it right!DuncanHill 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There's been the opposite effect in Australia, with the advent of Australian Workplace Agreements. Now, two people working in the same place and doing virtually the same job can be paid quite different salaries, depending on their smarts with negotiation. That's supposed to be a fair system. In places like the Commonwealth Public Service, previously everyone knew what everyone else was paid because the pay scales were set by legislation and there was no capacity to alter them. Now, it's very different, and my experience was that nobody on an AWA ever discusses their salary with anyone except their boss. -- JackofOz 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

attribution of well known quote

"Life is what happens to you while your busy making other plans." or "Life is what happens to you while your planning something else."

I was sure this was one of Mark Twain's gems that was borrowed and altered a little by John Lennon to fit the rhyme and meter of a song. I've tried to track this down but found no authoritative definitive attribution (complete with source) and no mention of Mark Twain in this connection. The people at the reference desk always seem to be able to do better than me.

Can you find this for me? GrahameKing 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it attributed to various people, including Henry Ford and John Lennon (now there's a great pairing!). Others can possibly come up with an authoritative source. -- JackofOz 07:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Note that you'll have a better time searching if you use the grammatically correct you're rather than the possessive your.) --72.83.173.248 11:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon wrote it in his song Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy). -- kainaw™ 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I do have a bad habit of putting "your" for "you're". But correcting that hasn't helped. I guess I will have to put this in the too hard basket and let good old John get the credit. GrahameKing 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick googling shows it may be uncertain, but I'd always thought it was Margaret Millar - it is mentioned in the preface to an old (1950's?) book I have by her hubby so she certainly said it, the question is was she first. More if I ever find the book.John Z 06:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Millar's quote is similar to Lennon's: "Life is something that happens to you while you're making other plans." However, there are claims that she adapted it from other people's quotes (ie: Betty Talmadge). After being sued for "Come Together", John became rather protective of his reputation and made it clear when he adapted someone else's work (as he did with "Imagine" - based on Yoko Ono's poetry). I have never seen anything where he states that he used someone else's quotation directly. -- kainaw™ 12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender Differences

Hi, I'm writing a piece on gender differences and need a few facts and statistics. Before I get the nolle prosequi of Gender differences - I've looked through the article and it didn't really have the info I wanted. Furthermore a google comes top lists men vs women jokes - not what I'm after. What I'm after is the extremes if you like - how do men and women compare in sport, science, arts and literature. Who has the most emmys/nobel's etc. And I'd also like, if possible, some of the "worsts" - crime, obesity, illiteracy, drug abuse, suicide. Thanks for any info and/or links! --Fir0002 10:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful; facts and statistics only tell part of the story. If you look at something like Nobel prizes, or athletic achievements, you will find differences in performance between men and women - but what does that tell you about gender differences? If more men than women have won Nobel prizes for literature, does that mean men are better writers? Are men more able to devote themselves to literary careers? Or are Nobel juries biased towards men? What about athletic performance? Does the fact that the men's world record for the 100m sprint is faster than that for women mean that men are more fit? Are there inherent differences in maximum physical potential? What about crime - if men commit the worst crimes, does that mean men are inherently more violent, or is this a result of socialization or economic factors? In gender studies, determining the causes of disparate performances is the real challenge. If you want more than just a surface treatment of these issues, you will probably need to leave the Internet and dig into some more academic references and journals studying sex differences and gender studies. - Eron ^Talk 12:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of these differences are narrowing or have narrowed over time, so beware of that too. If you're considering an area of human activity that has antiquity to it (say art) the discrepancy may appear enormous because of the relative recency of women's "emancipation". Compared to, say tennis, which has a modern era of just a few decades, in which huge strides have been made. Tennis also gives you a good illustration - see The Battle of the Sexes --Dweller 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah maybe I should have made it clear at the start that I'm not writing a serious scientific study - we just need to do a persuasive piece for english (so we can twist facts to our hearts content :). Oh and for the record I don't think there's much in the question either, what I intend to do with my piece is to examine the strengths and then weaknesses of males and conclude with that the are equal in average (kind of like the concept here) --Fir0002 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I once took a Psychology of Gender class in 2002 and the professor said that pretty much the only difference that held up to rigorous testing was that males tended to masturbate more frequently. Charming I know. Vranak 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect to those commenting on sports, I find it interesting that while on average men tend to be stronger than women and so their sports records in strength related fields tend to be better than those of women, recently as more women have been competing in extreme endurance type sports such as ironman competitions, it looks like women's records are likely to surpass men's. Crypticfirefly 04:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Romania

please account for weakness of romania in time 1918 to 1940 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol the King (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strength or weakness is relative. One obvious reason for Romania's weakness was that it was one of the least economically developed regions of Europe. Therefore, it could not afford to equip its armed forces as well as more affluent nations such as Germany. Also, it could not hope to equal the strength of its much larger neighbor, the Soviet Union. Marco polo 13:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• A good article to read would be Romanian Campaign (World War I), which gives you a feel for just how devastated the Romanian people and infrastructure were after WWI. --M@rēino 13:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly common misconception that the Peace settlements of 1918-19 saw the end of the polyglot empires and the rise of the nation state. It would be truer to say that in place of a few large empires came several smaller ones, each with their own minority problems. Romania more than doubled the size of its territory at the end of the Great War, but in the process acquired minorities that made up close on 30% of its total population: Hungarians and Germans in Transylvania; Ukranians and Russians in Bukovina and Bessarabia. Romania, like Czechoslovakia and Poland, exposed the weakness and contradictions of the whole Versailles process. The country was weak because the peace settlement was weak. For so long as Germany, Hungary and Russia remained quiescent, and for so long as forms of international security and alliances, like the Little Entente, remained in place, and only for that long, the country could contain its internal problems. The illusion was shattered in 1938 with the Munich Agreement and in 1939 by the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Beyond the problem of security, there were other factors contributing to Romanian weakness. Its territorial expansion belied deep internal problems; rich in some ways, disastrously poor in others. In 1930 some 80% of the population lived in villages, poorly served by the transport and communications network. Infant mortality, moreover, was the highest in the whole of eastern Europe. Land reform proved elusive and the political system was dominated by corruption and patronage. The onset of the Great Depression deepened these underlying problems, giving rise to new waves of xenophobia, particularly acute in the anti-semitism of the Iron Guard. Oil, the one asset that the country possessed in great quantities, was, paradoxically, the source of even deeper problems, because it caught the eye of Hitler and a resurgent Germany.

By 1940 the circle was complete: collective security and French guarantees were gone. Romania now had a choice between surrendering to Hitler or surrendering to Stalin. Stripped of terrritory by Hungary and the Soviet Union, in 1940 German troops were allowed passage to the oil fields of Ploesti, as the country was tied in to an aggressive Axis war machine. Clio the Muse 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Explaining Average Annual Growth Rate and Percentage Change

I have to present budget trend numbers and I need to find a simple way to explain the difference between the Average Annual Growth Rate of the budget across 12 years and the Percentage Change of the budget across the same timeframe to decision makers who don't understand complexity. Can you give me simple definitions of the two concepts? 207.225.131.10 13:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand your question, the difference is easy to explain. The percentage change over 12 years is the difference between the last budget total and the first budget total (of 12 years ago), as a percentage of the first budget total. The average annual growth rate in the budget is simply the average of the percentage changes from year to year during that period. Marco polo 13:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several notions of average, the most common of which is the arithmetic mean, which however may not be the most appropriate choice here. For example, consider two budgets each growing over two years:

1. start of year 0: 10K, year 1: 20K, year 2: 100K;
2. start of year 0: 10K, year 1: 34K, year 2: 119K.

Then budget 1 grew by 100% over the first year and 400% over the second year, giving an arithmetic mean for the average annual growth of 250%. Budget 2 grew by 240% over the first year and 250% over the second year, giving a smaller arithmetic mean, namely 245%. Yet the actual growth of budget 2 was more. It may be better to use the geometric mean of the ratios, which (converted to a percentage) is the same as the constant annual growth (constant percentage) that would have resulted in the same percentage change over the total time period. For budget 1 that is about 216%, for budget 245%.  --Lambiam 14:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• You might try to explain it to them in terms of the stock market, which most people like to think that they understand. If you're doing well, you can get 10% average annual growth on your stock portfolio. After 12 years, all those 10% gains multiply up nicely (not add up! tap 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1... into your calculator), and your portfolio is 3.1 times larger. If you've only been getting 8% average annual growth (1.08 x 1.08 x 1.08 ...), then after 12 years your portfolio is only 2.5 times larger. --M@rēino 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Annual growth rate is

AGR = (T[n+1]-T[n])/T[n] annual growth rate for year n

Percentage change is

PC = (T[last]-T[first])/T[first] * 100%

202.168.50.40 00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the population of Southern Asia, and the population density?

I would like to know what the population and population density of Southern Asia? I need to know for school. I have serched and could not find the answer. I need to know asap so I can get my work done. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.46.12 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This depends on how your class defines Southern Asia. South Asia typically includes the following countries: Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka. Afghanistan is also often included. Conceivably, "southern Asia" could include still more countries. What you need to do is go to the article for each country in the region as it is defined in your class. You can click on the countries I have listed above to get to their articles. If you need more countries, you can find them using the search box at the left side of the screen. For each country in the region, write down its population and its area. Then add up all of the populations and all of the areas. You now have the population of the whole region. To find the population density, divide the population of the region by the area of the region. This will give you the population per square kilometre (or per square mile). Marco polo 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good source to check as well. Although you cannot define the countries you want all at once, you can get numbers specifically for a region called 'South Asia.' Just click on Data (left nav bar) and then select South Asia from the dropdown. Good luck. World Bank Stats -BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.8.221 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The World Bank defines South Asia as the countries that I have listed above, including Afghanistan. You can use their website to get population and area totals for South Asia. If your class's definition of "Southern Asia" includes countries that I haven't listed, then you will need to add the population and area numbers for those countries to the totals for South Asia. Marco polo 19:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rochester, MN 2007 Population

What is the Population of Rochester, MN for the year 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.7 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Only estimates can be given until after the results of the 2010 census, which will be reported in 2012. Corvus cornix 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

folded cloth

I heard on BBN that if a cloth was walded up and placed on the table it meant the serveant could clean or take the items from the table. If the cloth was folded and placed on the table it meant that the men were not though with the meal and would return thus the serveant not removing anything.So in 1John 20 verse 4 it says the cloth that was around jesus head was folded up and place in the same area where his head would of been.Is this ture and where can one find or read about in the bible.It meant jesus was returning from the dead and the cloth was in the tomb of jesus and where he was layed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.167 (talk • contribs)

It Ain't Necessarily So.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Was service at the Last Supper à la russe or à la française? When they sat down, were the napkins folded in a bishop's mitre and standing up on the cover plates? One always wants to know these things... --Wetman 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

what does Koninia mean other then to be together or love one another.

I believe the word you have in mind is Koinonia ( Κοινωνία ). -- AnonMoos 20:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

DOES ONE HAVE TO BE BAPTISE IN ORDER TO GO TO HEAVEN.lIKE TO KNOW YOUR TAKE ON THIS QUESTION.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.167 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give advice regarding the state of your immortal soul. Please contact a licensed religious professional. - Eron ^Talk 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read the article on Baptism yet? That may give you a starting point. ◄Zahakiel► 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Luckily "Heaven" doesn't exist so don't worry about Baptism. Being worm food is equal opportunity. Beekone 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is as much evidence that God/Heaven doesn't exist as there is that it does. A.Z. 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true, A.Z. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. -- JackofOz 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, mate. You don't have to believe in these things, but a lot of people do. Heaven did not cease to exist for them on the day you became an atheist. -- JackofOz 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the first guy. Don't put your immortal soul in the hands of anonymous wikipedia enthusiasts. Go to a more authoritative source: God, the Bible, a preacher, something. Wrad 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish people generally discount the need for baptism. Edison 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• The questioner is obviously asking from a non-atheistic, baptism-compliant viewpoint... if we're going to actually try to "help" on this reference desk, rather than just speaking to hear our own typing, it might be good to answer in the spirit with which the question was actually asked. If a question comes in about Wiccan beliefs and practices, we should answer in that setting. Same goes for Islam, Judaism, Agnosticism, etc. etc. ◄Zahakiel► 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat it either way. If you don't get around to being baptized this time around, the Mormons will do it on your behalf once you expire. Eat, drink and be merry.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification here, though I realize it might have been a joke. Mormon baptisms for the dead are dependent on the readiness of the person they are being baptized for. So, technically, "Eat, drink, and be merry" does not apply in that case. One would have to prepare for and accept the ordinance, just as with a living baptism. Wrad 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As well as reading the baptism article linked to earlier, you might want to read the articles on salvation, heaven and the afterlife. Skittle 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My initial response was flippant, I agree, but in spirit I was quite serious: we can't answer this question. The existence of Heaven, the efficacy or necessity of baptism - these are all questions of faith that are not susceptible to our analysis. And debates over the "correct" answer to questions such as these have probably led to more bloodshed than any others. We can answer a question regarding the attendees of the Council of Trent, or the tenets of Stoicism. We can even explain the particular views on baptism held by various religions. But we can't answer the original question; all we can give are opinions. - Eron ^Talk 00:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely what the user asked for... our opinions. In any event, those who gave serious answers did just the right thing, linking the questioner to articles already written that can give some fairly NPOV answers, unless those articles had the misfortune of being vandalized recently. ◄Zahakiel► 04:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My take is no. A.Z. 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First up, I can't understand how Zahakiel knows the questioner comes from the background she assumes. Second up, the questioner is asking for our take on the question of the existence of a heaven and the need for baptism to attain entry to aforementioned 'location'. This seems to me to open the book to a wide range of opinions. Maybe the questioner has been raised in a strict environment which has not previously permitted her/him a comprehensive view of the religious world and all its options and is now looking over the parapet to check out the 'real' situation.

I think I recall from somewhere that God, in the Christian sense, ultimately forgives everyone, this being the case I can't quite see the value of baptism as a means to reserving a place in the paradise of the hereafter.

I am an atheist. So my answer is no. Richard Avery 10:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am male, so there seem to be assumptions going on on several sides here. I should like to point out, however, that there are such things as educated assumptions. In other words, from the very wording of the question, we can gather a lot of information without having to ask explicitly. Your statement was, "I can't understand how Zahakiel knows the questioner comes from the background [s]he assumes." I didn't assume any particular background for the individual, only what the question he or she asked was intending to get at. Let's look at the question itself: "DOES ONE HAVE TO BE BAPTISE IN ORDER TO GO TO HEAVEN." It seems to me a reasonable assumption that the user believes there IS a Heaven to which one might go, otherwise why ask? At the risk of over analyzation, my reading of the question was the obvious one. A Jewish person, or one asking from a Jewish perspective, would not even think to ask that question. One who was entirely unfamiliar with the Christian belief system wouldn't have it occur either, so yes, we can tell basically what the most likely angle is from which to approach helping the individual here. If we've somehow misread the question, the user can re-post and correct us, that's fine... but it's still no excuse for soapboxing or saying, "Well, I'm a this-or-that, so I don't even think the question is valid," or some such polemic. You yourself have given a perfectly valid take on the matter, by the way.

It bears mentioning, also, that I am not singling out any particular post in my above statements. It just seems to me that we should keep our focus tightly on what we're actually at the reference desk to do. ◄Zahakiel► 15:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in the hypothetical case that the questioner is asking from a Baptist perspective, the answer is no. Acts 16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.", which I think is fairly unambiguous. It doesn't say "Believe and be baptisted...". Whilst baptism is something Christians are commanded to do, failure to do so does not, in itself, mean you don't get to Heaven.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC) See also Eron's link Baptism#Comparative_summary also.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My take is that those who write in capitals have no chance of going to Heaven. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The questioner absolutely does not restrict the question to a particular Christian sect or even to Christianity, The article Heaven will provide an overview of the views on various Christian and non-Christian movements.In the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican (Episcopal) and Methodist churches, baptism is considered to have supernatural power and to effect a miraculous change [2]. In some other Christian churches it is symbolic. The Heaven article says "The Catholic Church teaches that only those baptized by water (symbol of purification/internal cleansing), blood (symbol of martyrdom), or desire (explicit or implicit desire for purification) may enter heaven and those who have died in a state of grace may enter." Catholic and other historically related churches by logical necessity allowed for the entry to heaven of the good people of the Old Testament, who did not receive the rite of baptism introduced in the New Testament. Modern Christian movements have sometimes claimed that unbaptized people could enter heaven, such as babies who died without baptism and with no sin other than Original sin. In many Christian traditions baptism was done to infants; in others, it was a choice made by an adult, and it has seemed illogical that a loving God would create a church in which a faithful young adult, not yet baptized, would have no hope of heaven if they fell to violence, accident or disease. Some Christian writers of the 1600's (one of the Mathers, I believe) would have unbaptized babies writhing forever in the hottest pit of hell because of original sin, on the grounds that their suffereing for no fault of their own was the other side of the coin of the eternal unearned bliss they would have enjoyed if Adam had not sinned. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) famous hellfire and brimstone sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God " has a great likelihood of hell and a difficult path to heaven. Another Christian Protestant church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, says "For ELCA Lutherans, the resurrection that completes the victory of Christ over sin and death is not intended for Christians alone" [3]and thus baptism would not seem to be required for entry to heaven. U.S Southern Baptists "consider Christian baptism to be an ordinance for believers only, by immersion only, and as a symbolic act, not having any power in itself." [4] so that it should not be a strict requirement for admission to heaven. A Presbyterian church says "For Presbyterians, Baptism is an initiation into the church community, as ordered by Christ. It is a public confession, not a private one, of faith made in the presence of others and does not guarantee access to heaven. Un-baptized people are not denied salvation."[5]. There you have statements about Roman Catholic and 3 Protestant bodies. Edison 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's correct... and all from the Christian tradition, so while it is true that the questioner does not restrict the answers to the Christian view, it is obvious (as I mentioned above) that this is the most likely angle being sought, and your reply properly reflects that understanding. Buddhism and Hinduism (for example) do have concepts of Heaven, but they are not connected to a baptism-ritual in any way resembling the Christian view. So you do have to look at the entire statement to see what is being asked. ◄Zahakiel► 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the question, it was in the hypothetical case. In a question with such an enormous range of opinionated answers, you can't assume anything.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell knows? If you're too worried about it go for a Pascal's wager type of reasoning. I assume the service is free (probably incorrectly); quick splash of water and you got it covered just in case. If my advice helps put in a good word when you get up there will ya? 38.112.225.84 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven/Public Domain

Is Beethoven's music in the public domain. If so, when did it become public domain. If not, will it ever and when? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidm617617 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the PD. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

However, specific performances and recordings of his music often aren't. --Carnildo 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1898

What was the political impact of the Spanish defeat?Rodrigo II 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, see William Graham Sumner's essay "The Conquest of America by Spain", lamenting the end of healthy neutrality. —Tamfang 22:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For the United States the impact of the 'splendid little war' was quite clear: it joined the club of imperial nations. For the people of the Philippines and Cuba, directly or indirectly, it had simply substituted one colonial power for another; or as Jose Marti put it "To change masters is not to be free". But the greatest impact of all was on Spain itself.

For the Spanish the final loss of what reamained of their once huge overseas empire brought on a deep mood of national introspection. It was El Disastre, a 'time of lies and infamy', so said Antonio Machado, one of the Generation of 98. Over 60,000 men had died in the conflict, mostly of disease; and as the troops arrived home one weekly newspaper declared that "...they bring us something more terrible than the plague, anamemia, dysentery or tuberculosis. They bring with them the truth." Some retreated into what was called 'Regenerationism', which on the one had called for a new emphasis on old Spanish 'values', of home, of church and of fatherland, while on the other denouncing the perceived moral and 'racial' failures of the Spaniards. The whole tendency was condemned by Miguel de Unamuno, amongst others, as 'morbid and masochistic.' But there were positive solutions put forward in answer to the 'problem of Spain', solutions that looked towards reshaping attitudes and institutions. Ortega y Gasset declared that Spain "Should create, not just absorb from abroad."

I suppose in the end the real problem comes down to one simple fact: Spain became an Empire before it became a Nation. The final loss of the Empire began a new quest for the Nation, an exploration of political and cultural identity. But there were huge problems, gaps in the political fabric too wide to be mended. Unamuno predicted "With the empire lost and confined within our own home, we will soon have to confront two social problems that would will absorb all of the rest: that posed by the working-class movement and that posed by the regionalist movement." The regionalist movement became pronounced in Catalonia, the most economically advanced part of the country, forward-looking and optimistic; a place that began to think of itself as 'the nation' and of Spain merely as 'the state'. But the state, and the the monarchy remained tied to worn-out dreams. Having learned little or nothing from the disasters of '98, Spain joined France in a colonial campaign in Morocco, whose long-term consequences were to be equally bad. It deepend the fissures within Spanish society, increasing working-class hostility towards the army, with bloody consequences in the Tragic Week of 1909. Just over the horizon of history an even greater tragedy was beginning to take shape. Clio the Muse 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One could say the impact on the world was eventually greatest (for good or bad I won't dare say). Every superpower will crumble after a few hundred years or so, and Spain's time was up, one might argue. The bigger issue was which power was going to take over. Given that the US was already in a serious expansion mood - they had gained their independence, 'conquered' the southern states (not really the right word) and 'won' the west (or lost, from a Spanish point of view) in a very short period of time (a century being rather short for such a huge amount of land). So now I actually wonder why they stopped there. They took Cuba and the Philippines, but why not Mexico? That would have been a logical continuation of the western conquests - especially when Spain crumbled. Or Canada? I believe they tried that, but failed. Instead they bought Alaska and Hawaii (for a nickle and a dime), which made strategical sense, I suppose. DirkvdM 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The British Empire was still strong at the time, so going after Canada was not an option. --Carnildo 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They did try, though, in the American war of 1812, so they seemed to think it was an option. After all, they had already won their independence war against Great Britain, so the idea wasn't too strange. And then a century later they took on Spain and won. So some sensations of megalomania would seem appropriate (if that is linguistically possible :) ). DirkvdM 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Note, by the way, Articles of Confederation XI: Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States. —Tamfang 05:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Ann Hargreaves Murder

I'm looking for information on the full story of the murders committed by a Joseph Lawrence and the victims, and the court outcome of the trial of his own murderer, Billy Hargreaves, who was the father of Joseph's most well-known victim, Jessica Ann Hargreaves. I've searched Wikipedia, The Court TV Crime Library, and countless other sites, but found minimal information on Jessica's murder and none whatsoever on the other murders committed by Joseph Lawrence, and the murder of Joseph himself is only mentioned in a single sentence along the lines of "Joseph Lawrence was murdered by the father of Jessica Hargreaves." I want to know more than just how many were killed or the alledged hauntings of the Wheatsheaf pub where Jessica was killed, I want to know who else fell victim, how, why, and other such key facts that are needed for me know the full story. can you help?

~A Curious Individual --71.88.110.162 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It may help us to help you if you could say when and where this happened. DuncanHill 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In England, Jessica was murdered at the wheatsheaf pub. sometime in the early 1900's. --71.88.110.162 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wheatsheaf is a very common pub name in England, do you know which village, town or county? DuncanHill 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have found this website, which says the murder took place in 1908, and that the Wheatsheaf is in West Boldon. DuncanHill 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest contacting local newspapers from the area (West Boldon is in Tyne & Wear, but was formerly in County Durham), as they may have archive material on the case. The public library service in the area may also have information. DuncanHill 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I live in the U.S. and became interested after seeing a short article on the alleged hauntings, so, I wouldn't know any of the local paper names, or anyone with remotely helpful knowledge... --71.88.110.162 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The library service is run by South Tyneside Council, and their webpage is here [6]. I feel sure that if you were to contact the library then someone would be able to at least give you some better pointers to help you in your research - librarians tend to enjoy a bit of historical detective work! DuncanHill 23:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, i'll try that. thanks for the help! --71.88.110.162 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

South Shields Museum may also be a good place to ask, you can find them here [7]. DuncanHill 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just saw a one hour special "A Haunting: The Wheatshead Horror" on Investigation Discovery. The whole thing came off as pretty absurd. Things flying off the wall. People's bodies being taken over by ghosts. I found one article about the episode from The Evening Chronicle (Newcastle) located here: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/tm_objectid=14702824&method=full&siteid=50081&headline=chilling-tale-of-psychic-and-ghost-of-murdered-girl-name_page.html

Here's an interesting embellishment: "After they purged the pub of the ghosts, they managed to dig up a lock of Jessica's hair, a heel of her shoe and small rags from her clothing."

Well first of all, how do they know these items were hers? On the tv show this turned in to them finding the bit of hair and a HUMAN BONE. Wow, that's a bit of a jump from a "heel of her shoe". The whole thing was pretty eye-roll worthy.

The article mentions the psyhcic's name as Suzanne Hadwin. Another, more recent article about her can be found here, wherein she came to fame for being paid by a County Durham council to get rid of a local ghost: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6783/is_2008_Feb_20/ai_n28494579/

I'm pretty sure this is her facebook, it looks like the woman in the "A Haunting" show: http://www.facebook.com/people/Suzanne-Hadwin/716773748

And this is a facebook "fan club" group of sorts: http://www.facebook.com/s.php?init=q&q=suzzane+hadwin&ref=ts&sid=bb8f571f3f1a841d6e542cf5b657bc79#/group.php?sid=bb8f571f3f1a841d6e542cf5b657bc79&gid=11001332154&ref=search

I'm sure she could be contacted for an update on this interesting story.

Also mentioned in the story was "Psychic artist" Lana Grabinskis, here website can be found here: http://www.thespiral.co.uk/

I didn't find anything on her website about this specific haunting, but again, she might be useful in contacting for an update on this story.

-- GIR (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't find something

I've never done this, anyways, I can't seem to find anything upon the subect of Pacific Islands Clothing. Is there anything On this? I can't find anything!75.143.216.241 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an article on such clothing in general, but you can look at the pages listed in Category:Polynesian Clothing for specific items, like Muumuu or Lava-lava. - Eron ^Talk 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Palmyra and Rome

What impact did Palmyra have on ancient Rome? Gothicus 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it had an impact far beyond the confines of Rome, Gothicus; and next time you celebrate Christmas Day, if you do celebrate Christmas Day, you might care to give passing thanks to Palmyra and Queen Zenobia!

A rich trading centre, Palmyra was also vital to the defence of Rome's eastern provinces, especially after Ardashir created a new Persian Empire on the ruins of the Parthians. It was Prince Odenathus of Palmyra who drove back the Persian invasion of 262AD, for which he received the title of of totius Orientis imperator from the grateful Gallienus in Rome. But Zenobia, his wife and successor, was altogether more ambitious. Mindful of the decline of Roman power, she constructed the Palmyrene Empire, an echo of that of an earlier Arab queen, Semiramis. Palmyra under Queen Zenobia was the centre of many cults and religions; but standing above all was Sol Invictus-the Unconquered Sun. This cult had previously come to Rome in the form of Elagabalus Sol Invictus. It was discredited, to some degree, by association with the decadent Emperor Heliogabalus, though it never entirely went away. After Aurelian defeated Zenobia he built a huge temple to Sol Invictus on his return to Rome, a celebration both of his triumph and a way of harnessing the power of this supreme God. It was the first serious attempt to create a unifying religion for the whole Empire, a way of binding the fragments together after the prolonged Crisis of the Third Century. Aurelian was god on earth and the Sun was god in heaven. In 274AD the Emperor declared that the annual festival of Sol Invictus would fall on the winter solstice-25 December. And it was thus that Christmas came on a star, from the east and in the company of a Queen! Clio the Muse 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Palmyra. If you have Gibbon's Roman Empire, he deals with Palmyra at the time of Zenobia and Aurelian in his Chapter on the reigns of Claudius Gothicus and Aurelian and refers us in a footnote to Edmund Halley in Philosophical Transactions, meaning Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there (Philosophical Transactions, Vol. 19 (1695-1697), pp. 160-175). Clio gives us signs of knowing even later works, too. Xn4 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

September 12

Traumerei

I'm planning on learning the arrangement of Traumerei by Schumann to play in front of my orchestra, but I can't seem to find the arrangement of the orchestral accompaniment. I know there is one because I have it on CD. Foxjwill 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And I presume you are asking if we could help you find it?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. Don't be a pedant. Recury 13:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the small print of the CD booklet mention the arranger somewhere? A version by Leopold Stokowski exists, but I don't know if that's the one you're looking for. Skarioffszky 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend following Skarioffszky's suggestion. There's also an orchestrated version by Johann von Herbeck (for piano and orchestra) and there might easily be more and even adapted adaptations. On which instrument do you intend to perform, on the piano? I ask because there are also orchestrated versions for solo violin and orchestra etc, Träumerei is such a popular earworm with so many versions on so many "Best of ..." albums, ---Sluzzelin talk 02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I could have sworn I wrote that I play cello. Ah, well. :) Foxjwill 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gustav Stresemann

I read an article recently that suggested that Gustav Stresemann was the one senior German politician who might have stopped Hitler. The Wikipedia page says that his death further 'tilted the slippery slope towards towards World War II.' Can either of these statements be supported? Captainhardy 07:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of and yes, Captain. Hitler's rise to power was, in one way at least, the failure of democratic politicians to solve the crisis of the Great Depression. After Bruning, von Papen and Schleicher (that spelt right?) had come and gone, the Depression was still there. Stresemann, if he had survived to see it, could have been a "fourth lifeline" for Hindenburg before having to resort to Hitler. Other than that, personally I don't think it's fair to say "Gustav Stresemann was the one senior German politician...". Maybe there were other politicians who could have, but circumstances didn't work in their favour.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tilted the slippery slope?! How on earth does one tilt a slippery slope? Sorry, sorry; please forgive the levity, Captainhardy; this is a good question. Unfortunately, it is not one that can be answered with any real authority, because so much depends on hunch and guesswork. I have seen statements to the effect that Stresemann was the one individual who could have given real leadership to the 'middle ground' in German politics in the crisis that followed the Crash of 1929; that a new form of Protestant Liberalism may have been shaped from the ruins of the DVP, Stresemann's own party, and the DDP. He certainly had the personal and the organisational skills; but there is nothing to suggest that the hemorrhage of votes away from middle towards the Nazis could somehow have been prevented by force of personality alone, even if the personality was Stresemann.

The only possible grounds for serious counter-factual history would have been if Stresemann had stood for the Reich Presidency in 1932. The possibility was certainly discussed before his death. People often assume that Hitler came to power by electoral means; he did not. At no point did he obtain a majority in the Reichstag. He was, rather, 'elevated' to office by a small clique drawing on the constitional powers of President Hindenburg, himself lapsing into a state of senility. The Presidency, therefore, was the crucial political factor in Hitler's Machtergreifung. So, no Hindenburg, no Hitler. Stresemann, as President, is most unlikely to have appointed Hitler as Chancellor. But even then there may have been factors not completely within his control, not least of which was the attitude of the German Army, which had its own political agenda in the winter of 1932-3. Hitler happened; that much we do know. Clio the Muse 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas More

Thomas More was both a Catholic saint and a knight, so how does one correctly refer to him? St. Sir Thomas More? Sir St. Thomas More? I'm lost, please help! 63.224.137.5 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Both Sir Thomas and St. Thomas are acceptable titles. I would probably depend on the context in which he was been discussed as to which would be more apt. You would not, however combine the two. Pedro |  Chat  10:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sainthood would take presedence over knighthood I'd imagine.87.102.16.32 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if you accept the authority and legitimacy of the Roman Catholic pope in declaring him a saint. Henry VIII and his successors certainly don't. More was executed for the very reason that he refused to accept Henry's authority over that of the pope in spiritual matters. However, I'm sure that, as a mark of courtesy, the British Royals and the British Government would refer to More as Saint Thomas More if they were discussing him with the Vatican, for example. In other contexts, it might be Sir Thomas. As Pedro says, it would never be St Sir Thomas or Sir St Thomas - choose one or the other. -- JackofOz 23:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's certainly never both, although I've seen Sir (Saint) Thomas More. Xn4 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. That might be acceptable to use in a certain context on a one-off basis, to indicate that he was both a knight and a saint, but in a text with many occurrences of his name, you wouldn't repeatedly refer to him that way. The reason for this is that the general formula for saints' names is "St <given name>" (eg. St Peter) or "St <given name> <surname>" (eg. St Elizabeth Seton). Names such as St Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Avila, St John of God etc are simply variations of St <given name>, to distinguish them from other saints named Francis, Teresa or John. Whatever other temporal titles the person may have had are ignored for this purpose. King Louis IX of France was canonised, but he's known as either "King Louis IX" or just plain "St Louis", depending on the context. However, popes who've been canonised are often called, for example, Pope St Pius X. I guess the Vatican can make its own rules when it comes to popes. They probably consider that election to the papacy, although achieved via a conclave where human cardinals vote, is the hand of God at work and thus the title "Pope" is not really a temporal one. I'm just guessing here, though. -- JackofOz 06:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've come across "Pope Gregory I (St.)", I think. If so, it was in a reference work on the popes. See something like the Oxford Encyc of Popes (if it exists) or a similar title. 203.221.126.156 07:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Louis is sometimes listed in genealogies as King Louis IX the Saint (the dynasty also includes Louis VI the Fat, Louis VIII the Lion, Louis X the Stubborn), and on the other hand he's also presumably the eponym of San Luis Rey – so called to distinguish him from other Saints Louis. —Tamfang 06:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen Saint Sir Thomas More but not Sir Saint with or without parentheses. The reason may be that Sir Thomas was canonized, but Saint Thomas was not knighted. —Tamfang 06:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Corresponding address of the presidents and the prime ministers of the world

Sir, I want the corresponding official address the the country heads ( presidents and priministers) of the world. How do I get ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.144.65 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that your correspondence will be answered by some sort of combination of intern and computer, not be at all personal, and not have any influence on the person you send it to, who will never personally come anywhere near your letter? --72.83.170.138 12:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom lives at 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA. DuncanHill 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Queen of the United Kingdom lives at Buckingham Palace, London, SW1A 1AA —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International used to include many such addresses as part of its regular "appeals". I often found the recommended style of exalted honorifics ("His Honorable Excellency" or whatever) + name of third-world scummy dictator (such as Idi Amin) to be somewhat incongruous... AnonMoos 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International was my first thought too, but searching their various chapters and websites, I only found addresses for specific campaigns (along with their very specific instructions on how to address it, what to write, what not to write etc.), I didn't find a comprehensive list of nations' leaders. Another way to get these addresses: Go to Wikipedia's corresponding articles (on Russia, Liechtenstein, or Uruguay e.g.) and click on the official government or presidential websites featured in the External links sections. It didn't take me Iong to find official mail addresses for sending letters to leaders or their office. . ---Sluzzelin talk 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can get the names of the office holders from the CIA. With that information, you could then write to the embassy for each country. 152.16.16.75 01:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The address for the President of the United States is: The White House / 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW / Washington, DC 20500 Again, as stated above, don't expect a personal reply. Dismas|^(talk) 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Man in the iron mask

who was the man in the iron mask? Charles Ironside 12:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an article (Man in the Iron Mask), but it reaches no definite conclusion. DuncanHill 12:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because we're not supposed to reach our own conclusions. We report what others have published, and there are many published theories, none of which has received general acceptance in the outside world. -- JackofOz 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

Is there a map which shows places where hostile action is being performed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.29.132 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is one at the top of Ongoing conflicts. Adam Bishop 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Which does not include Zimbabwe. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because there isn't significant military armed conflict in Zimbabwe now. AnonMoos 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Garibaldi and South America

Hello. I have very good answers here when I asked early questions about South America, for which I am very thankful. Please, I now wish to know a liitle more about the experience and the influence of the Italian patriot Garibaldi on the continent. There is a little on his encyclopedia page here, not as much as I would like though. What lessons did he draw? How did it effect his future actions? Did he leave any political legacy in South America? Was he an inspiration for local radicals. Sorry so many questions. TheLostPrince 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And hello to you!

You will find much of what you need here in Garibaldi's own memoirs, The Life of General Garibaldi Written by Himself with Sketches of his Companions in Arms, a large part of which is concerned with his experiences in South America. What did he learn from his time there? First and foremost, he learned to handle men; learned how to make the best use of soldiers who could not be moulded in terms of conventional military discipline, an experience he later carried to Europe. He learned that if he was to expect obedience and constancy in battle he had to relax the rules of formal military etiquette, relying much more on personal charisma and leadership by example. He learned the first lesson of all great commanders: adapt to circumstances and make the most effective use of the resources to hand. Above all, he learned versitility and resiliance. He was to be an inspiration for many, including Bartolome Mitre, who fought alongside him in Uraguay, and was later to become President of Argentina. Garibaldi's example was also important to people like Eloy Alfaro, the great Ecuadorian Liberal, who was to adopt many of the same political causes. He was also an inspiration for Benito Juarez in Mexico and Antonio Maceo Grajalesin Cuba. In Joseph Conrad's novel Nostromo Don Jose Avellanos speaks the words of Garibaldi when he says that Costaguana must take 'her proper place among the nations of the earth.' And who can conceive of Fidel Castro and the Granma expedition without bringing to mind the example of Garibaldi? Clio the Muse 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'average' Wikipedia user

I have to present a proposal for using MediaWiki for a large corporate wiki in a couple weeks. In the list of concerns I've been given is: "Wiki's are too hard for an average user to use." I thought of countering this with a brief list of "average" Wikipedia users (who are not computer experts). I know "what is the average  fill in the blank  of Wikipedia users?" has been asked here (and on the Help Desk) many times. My intention is to describe 5-10 users in a brief bio, such as "JoeX is a hedgehog breeder who just learned to use email last year. He has edited over 30 articles in the last six months." If anyone would be interested in being represented as an average Wikipedia user, I would greatly appreciate it. Just leave a note on my talk page. -- kainaw™ 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Think about how many average users will read this. The ref desk in-crowd will probably not qualify. It would make more sense to check out random users and leave a note on their talk page. DirkvdM 19:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding DirkvdM's RefDesk hypothesis, that's probably correct. Nevertheless, asking the same question on the general Help Desk might prove more fruitful, as it probably represents a greater cross-section. Also, I am absolutely certain there are Wikipedia:Userboxes and user categories that specifically provide self-selected ratings of computer skill. You could probably collect this information automatically using a few well-constructed Google queries -- but then the "leave a note on my talk page" strategy may work too. dr.ef.tymac 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Help Desk questioners might also not represent the typical Wikipedia user – and there is also a marked difference between "readers" and "editors". For any facility used by people because they want to rather than because they have to, the "average" user of the self-selected group of users of that facility will naturally not consider the facility too hard to use. The average violinist does not find the violin too hard, and the average chess player does not find chess too hard. It does not tell us anything about the "average" user in general. So whatever the outcome of any such survey, do not expect it to be a powerful argument against the hypothesis that wiki's are too hard for an average user.  --Lambiam 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Another approach might be to point out that wikis are so easy to use that Wikipedia gets vandalized hundreds of times an hour. Umm... okay, so maybe that isn't a good approach.  :-) You could use Wikipedia as an example, pointing out that the syntax is easy to learn and that Wikipedia has dozens of teen administrators. The fact that Wikipedia has over 2,000,000 articles has to say something about the ease of use. 152.16.16.75 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Have them run through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. They'll learn the basics in less than half an hour. Wikipedia is quite complicated due to its sheer size. We need rules and complicated coding to fulfill our needs. If you start a corporate wiki, you don't need any of the complicated stuff. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When I set up a wiki for my family, several managed to add info to it, half of them also logged in and signed, despite being almost complete computer illiterates, knowing little more than how to use email. However, the concept of indentation to indicate what they were reacting to was too complicated for them all. Mind you, the same goes for more than half the Wikipedians, even experienced ones, who indent all over the place, or not at all, without an apparent plan. So the basics are easy, but there are lots of intricacies that aren't. But the point is that almost anyone can participate because of the simple basics and if they do something wrong, that can be corrected by others, from which they can then learn. That is the great strength of a wiki. DirkvdM 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is too hard to use. And I think tutorials in general suck, and should only be used if you're going to learn how to do something that could be potentially dangerous if not properly done. The best way to learn is to do things. To click on the edit button and see what happens, to click on other buttons and see what happens, to change things, click on "Save page", and see what happens. Unfortunately, lots of people seem to be afraid to do this. A.Z. 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read the Wikipedia tutorial (a part of it, obviously). Besides sucking like other tutorials, in that it makes things look a lot harder than they are, it actually makes it look like people who edit Wikipedia are employees of someone. A.Z. 05:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an article dedicated to that learning-by-trying: Wikipedia:Sandbox. Still better is learning by example. Even after almost three years of editing Wikipedia, often when I want to do a specific thing, I don't look it up in any tutorial (which indeed hasn't helped me often), but instead try to remember where I saw that in another article and then copy it. Or I try to find an article where that feature would likely be used. DirkvdM 08:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do that too. A.Z. 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Violin"

When I was young, I saw a photo in an encyclopedia under the "art" heading. It was a black and white picture of a back view of a nude woman with dark hair sitting on a desk (or other flat surface). She had f-holes like a violin on her back, and if I remember right, she was turning her head to one side. The picture is called "The Violin", I don't know who it is by. I need to find out who the photographer is, and find a picture of it. Can anyone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.30.50 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You must be thinking of Le violon d'Ingres by Man Ray (1924). It shows Kiki de Montparnasse seated from behind, wearing a turban, reminiscent of Jean-Dominique Ingres's famous La Grande Baigneuse (here you can see her in Le Bain Turc), and Man Ray added the F-holes to the image. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. Kudos! --Sean 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Toronto neighbourhood

Which Toronto neighborhood has the most Latin Americans, Caribbean people, Central Americans, and African-Canadians(w/ ancestry)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.71 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not for sure, but Little Jamaica is a possibility. 199.71.183.2 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

September 13

Ion Perdicaris#The Perdicaris incident

Could somebody please name me the american ships that were sent to Morocco during this incident?--Tresckow 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A pretty full listing of the ships involved can be found here. There are two other books, if you have the patience to sort through the snippets, or get them from a library, here. Here is the account given in T.A. Bryson, Tars, Turks, and Tankers (Scarecrow Press, 1980), p. 44:

“ The Sultan's counter-proposals fell short of Raisuli's demands and by May 27 negotiations had reached an impasse. On May 30, some sixty-five hours after departing Santa Cruz, Chadwick's South Atlantic Squadron, with Brooklyn in the van, Atlanta second, followed by the gunboats Castine and Marietta, entered Tangier harbor. Chadwick went ashore and immediately conferred with Gummeré and Sir Arthur Nicholson, British Minister. On May 31 the British warship Surprise steamed into Tangier from Gibraltar. On June 1 Admiral Jewell arrived with the ships of the European Squadron. The world looked on as seven American warships anchored in Tangier harbor in support of diplomatic efforts to release Perdicaris. In the meantime, Barker's battleships had arrived at Lisbon. At length, the Navy Department decided to send Barker's ships to Gibraltar to await further orders. ”

Wareh 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tresckow 16:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sad poems

Does anybody know any sad poems? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, "sad" is subjective. That being said, I would offer: Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening and Do not go gentle into that good night. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Lewis Carroll's poem "A Boat Beneath a Sunny Sky", which you can read about here has always made me quite sad. --JayHenry 07:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would go for I Am by John Clare, written near the end of his life when he was struggling with mental illness. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-saxon poetry often has a sad melancholy edge, in poems such as The Wanderer and The Seafarer. All written in Old English though so you need a good translation to really get the poetic sense. Our article on Deor translates its most famous line as "that passed away with respect to it, and so may this.", hardly very poetic sounding! Others translate it as "that went by, so may this" or "That was overcome, so may this be". So good poetry, but unless you read Old English, something may get lost in translation. Cyta 07:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has ever had a dog will find "The Power of the Dog" [8] by Rudyard Kipling affecting. DuncanHill 09:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, somewhat "sad" ... The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

The Highwayman by Alfred Noyes. I've loved that poem since I was a little kid. Corvus cornix 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

to make it less anglo-centric: Loreley#The Lorelei by Heinrich Heine Translated by Aaron Kramer or the, in the US totally unknown and very teary ballad John Maynard by Theodor Fontane set on Lake Erie: [9]--Tresckow 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

...where youth grows pale and specter-thin and dies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.158.67 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

More from outside the anglosphere: Since childhood, I have always found Rilke's Der Panther very sad. Not beautiful, smiling, nostalgic, or heroic sad, but downright depressing and malignant sad. ("The Panther - In the Jardin des Plantes, Paris"), 1902, from Rilke's Dinggedichte ("Thing-Poems").

For South American poetry, the title of Pablo Neruda's Poema 20 (from "Veinte poemas de amor y una canción desesperada"/"Twenty Poems of Love and a Song of Despair", ) is translated The Saddest Poem in English. ("Puedo escribir los versos más tristes esta noche." / "I can write the saddest poem of all tonight.") (Google will help you find it, I'm not sure I should link directly to translations, for copyright reasons) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So much of the best of all poetry is sad, it's hard to know where to begin. The love poems of W. B. Yeats are sadder than most, as we know he longed hopelessly for Maud Gonne for most of his life. Try The Song of Wandering Aengus and Memory. There's also a grain of truth in G. K. Chesterton's rhyme - "The great Gaels of Ireland are the men the Gods made mad. For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad." Xn4 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sad? Have you read A. E. Housman? If not you should. Into my heart an air that kills...Clio the Muse 01:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tread Softly by Yeats.[10] Vranak 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the famous Burns poem To a Mouse is imbued with existential gloom and pathos.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I second To a Mouse -- absolutely beautiful (but sad) poem ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 06:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

This little gem, "Postage Stamp" by the New Zealander William Hart-Smith, always has that effect on me:

If you should ever have to

part from someone dear, tear

yourself away, be sure

the tear is where

the perforations are. Please,

please do not ever

recklessly sever, sheer

yourself from someone other

so that their stamp is torn

and you have part of their

living, bleeding

flesh at your side worn. -- JackofOz 08:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

W.H. Auden's "As I Walked Out One Evening" has always seemed sad to me, or rather melancholoy. I love it. Crypticfirefly 01:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

D. H. Lawrence's poem about the snake at the watering-hole. It is heart-rending. There is also the one that begins, "The pain of loving you / Is more than I can bear." 161.13.1.225 19:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

In the same line, W. H. Auden]'s Stop All the Clocks, repopularised by Four Weddings and A Funeral is a poem for a dead lover. It's definitely a sad poem. Steewi 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Britain and the road to war

What were the main factors leading to Britain's decision to go to war with Germany in 1914? Would it have been possible for the country to have remained out as it did when Germany and France went to war in 1870? 86.132.5.45 10:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Feels like - Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first. Lanfear's Bane 10:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to directly answer your question, but what has always struck me as one of the more stupid decisions in the run-up to WW1 was the German attempt to build up a bigger and more powerful surface navy than Britain's -- because for Germany its navy and overseas colonies were more of a symbolic show-the-flag international prestige type of thing, rather than having any great practical importance. By contrast, Britain was a maritime power which was not self-sufficient in food production, and so was basically dependent on shipments of food from overseas to avoid starvation -- which meant that Britain would do whatever it took to match and exceed Germany in the naval arms race, regardless of the cost. In the end, when WW1 came, the German surface navy didn't really seriously challenge British sea power outside the North Sea, but building the navy had very seriously soured British-German relations preceding WW1.... AnonMoos 15:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read our article World War I, although the article is weak on the causes of the war and particularly on the reasons for Britain's involvement. Of course, the situation was very different from the simple bilateral conflict between Germany and France in 1870. Probably the biggest difference was the system of alliances: the Triple Entente and the Central Powers, or Triple Alliance. Russia, a member of the Entente, was allied with both Serbia and Britain, and Britain had also pledged to defend the neutrality of Belgium. Armed with this information, you can find the answer by reviewing the linked articles. Let us know if you have any further questions. Marco polo 16:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There was certainly no obligation on Britain to go to war in 1914, at least not until the German army crossed the Belgian border, thereby violating the 1839 Treaty of London. The country was not tied into the European alliance system. The Triple Entente of 1907 was merely an 'understanding' rather than a commitment. Indeed, by the summer of 1914 relations with Germany were friendlier than they had been for years, as disputes over the Berlin-Baghdad railway and the Portuguese colonies had been resolved amicably. In the years of the long Edwardian summer educated opinion in Britain was far more favourable to Germany than autocratic Russia or republican France. C. P. Scott, writing in the Manchester Guardian, declared that war against 'our German cousins' was unthinkable.

So, what went wrong? It may no longer be fashonable to give weight to personalities, but the deteroration in Anglo-German relations owns so much to the personal intervention of dear old Kaiser Bill, the perpetual adolescent. His attitude towards Britain-and to his uncle-was made up of a complex mixture of admiration and envy. Britain had a grand fleet, so he wanted one too, disregarding the view of Bismarck and Moltke that an understanding between Britain and Germany could only be based on the latter's disinterest in seapower. The tragedy was that the Kaiser's ambition, in his juvenile style, was not to mount a serious strategic challenge to the Royal Navy, but to match Uncle Eddie in playing at sailors. Bernhard von Bulow, Imperial Chancellor to 1909, wrote of the Kaiser,

What Wilhelm II most desired was to see himself at the head of a glorious German fleet, starting out on a peaceful visit to England. The English sovereign with his fleet would meet the German Kaiser at Portsmouth. The two fleets would file past each other, the two monarchs each wearing the naval uniform of the other's country would stand on the bridge of their flagships. Then after they had embraced in the prescribed manner, a gala dinner with lovely speeches would be held at Cowes.

It was snobbery; it was one-upmanship. The political cost, though, was high. The Kaiser's hobby began to look aggressive and unwelcome, especially so after the Agadir Crisis of 1911. For Britain maintaining a lead over the Germans in the naval race was not a question of prestige; it was a question of national survival. But, in the end, as I have indicated, the immediate British decision to go to war hinged on one thing, and one thing only: Germany's behaviour in the summer of 1914. If there had been an eastern Schlieffen Plan, if the war had been confined to the east, instead of brought to the west, it is quite possible that Britain would have remained aloof, just as in 1870. Clio the Muse 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My recollection of what I read in The Guns of August some years back is that Tuchman lays great stress on the issue of Belgium. I think that, despite the declarations of war in the east, and even after the French declaration, opinion within the British government was split about whether to enter the war. Britain saw itself as the guarantor of Belgian neutrality, however. Once Germany invaded Belgium, there was near-unanimity in the Cabinet that Britain had to enter the war. (Incidentally, Clio, you're right about the political cost of the High Seas Fleet, but the military cost was significant, too. The resources devoted to building the fleet, which accomplished virtually nothing, would have significantly augmented Germany's land forces. Paris might have fallen.) JamesMLane t c 05:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, James. Thank you for raising that important point. Clio the Muse 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you overplay Britain's favourable disposition towards Germany in the "long Edwardian summer". At least in some quarters - perhaps outside the educated elite - there had been an underlying atmosphere of suspicion for decades, led by "Tuetophobic" newspapers and periodicals such as Lord Northcliffe's Daily Mail and Leopold Maxse's National Review, not to mention the literally hundreds of invasion scare stories since George Tomkyns Chesney's The Battle of Dorking in 1871 - including, in particular, William Le Queux (The Great War in England in 1897 and a long list of others), Robert Erskine Childers (Riddle of the Sands) and Hector Hugh Munro (When William Came).

In the background, we have German interference in Britain's affairs - the Kruger telegram in 1896 - and sniping at France, Britain's ally, the First Moroccan Crisis in 1905 and the Agadir Crisis in 1911.

The original questioner may want to read Causes of World War I. -- !! ?? 15:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you open a bank account without an address?

I'm a transient and have no address where I can receive mail. Can I still open a bank account, so I don't have to carry all my cash with me?

I do have an e-mail address I check frequently. Also, this is in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.158.67 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that in the UK some banks will offer bank accounts to people in your position, though it is not easy. Do you have an equivalent of the Citizens Advice Bureau near you? They may be able to give advice and support, also it is probably worth contacting banks directly and asking them. Best of luck! DuncanHill 12:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I also found this link which wants to sell me the morsel of information. What do you think the person has in mind or knows that we don't? 81.182.158.67 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:Some years ago (*cof* 25 years *cof*) I opened a bank account in a French bank through my own UK bank. It was called, as I recall it, a "compte etranger en francs". I would imagine that your own bank would have some kind of correspondence with a bank in Europe that they can use to open account for you there. However I have been able to use a Visa debit card to draw cash from my own UK account from cash machines all over Europe, in and out of the EU, as well as in Australia and the USA. I suspect maybe you don't need to carry cash now! SaundersW 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, read your question more carefully. SaundersW 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Has a bank refused your money? The only reasons I can think of that they would do that is tax or other legal stuff. A Swiss bank account perchance? Maybe Luxembourg? DirkvdM 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your IP address is in Budapest. When I was last sure of the answer to your question, a good place for 'numbered accounts' was Liechtenstein. Failing that, it isn't so hard for a traveller to get an address. In most countries, you can rent a mailbox from someone who will give you an address which doesn't include the word 'mailbox'. Or you may be able to find a friend who will let you use his or her address for your account (and, indeed, for other purposes). Xn4 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

what's this numbered account thing then? 81.182.158.67 01:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

See Numbered bank account. Xn4 02:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That terminology used to baffle me, too. Don't all bank accounts have numbers, I mused. Then I realised that these accounts are identified by number only, not by name. -- JackofOz 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It has become harder to open a bank account in the UK because of precautions against money laundering, especially from terror-related activities. Once you can open one account, it does get easier to open another. You need to prove your identity, for which a passport or driving licence will work, and also something like a utility bill with your name and address. It appears that if you can get the Prince of Wales to help you, then some of the difficulties can be resolved. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaundersW (talk • contribs) 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time, it wass possible (at least in the US) to get a passbook account. The bank wouldn't have to mail a statement for these accounts, so they'd have little need to know your address. I'm not sure if passbook accounts are still widely available, though. The Photon 17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

scientology inventor

i heard someone say that Elrond invented scientology. is this true? i though he was just a character in a book, so does this mean he was real??? did all the things that happened in the books really happen then?? thank you, ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.229.148 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Either you misheard or someone was pulling your leg. See our articles on L. Ron Hubbard and scientology. Gandalf61 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless they were just saying "L Ron" SGGH ^speak! 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is bizarre, in The Hobbit (video game) elrond is well known for his cupboard ("elrond's cupboard = L Ron Hubbard").. Elrond gives you some food etc...83.100.255.59 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Partition of India 1947

Please account for the rise of the Muslim League and its role in the partition of 1947Soliman M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soliman M (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see our article Muslim League. Marco polo 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some unfortunate explanatory gaps in that article, Marco. Most seriously, it seems to suggest that the League, after Jinnah's return to India, started to perceive the Hindu majority as a 'threat' without making any attempt to explore by what route this conclusion was reached. Indeed, a casual reading might even suggest a direct causal relationship berween Jinnah's reappearance and the alienation of the Muslim minority from the Hindu majority.

What is important to try to understand, Soliman, is why the League, which fared so badly in the elections of 1937, had become the dominant political movement within the Muslim community less that ten years later. Begin here by looking at the mistakes Congress made after the pre-War elections. There was little or no attempt to reach a political understanding, or to share power, with the League. More seriously, an attitude of Hindu chauvinism became increasingly prevalent, challenging aspects of Muslim culture. Amongst other things Muslim school children were obliged to sing the whole of Vande Mataram, parts of which went directly against Islamic belief. It was the direct experience of Hindu domination in provincial government that made the Muslim people more receptive to the message of the League, that a Hindu 'Raj' would be an even greater threat than the rule of the British. It was only now that the call for Pakistan began to acquire serious momentum.

The second factor you have to consider is the political impact on India of the coming of the Second World War. In protest at Lord Linlithgow's declaration of war on Germany on behalf of India in his capacity of Viceroy, all of the Congress governments resigned. The British now began to treat Jinnah and the League as a serious political force, not as yet warranted by the actual influence they enjoyed. When Linlithgow made his statement of war aims in October 1939 Congress was defined as a Hindu organisation, accepting, by implication, that the League spoke for the Muslims. With great skill Jinnah stepped into the political gap, condemning the stand taken by Congress and offering support for the war effort. When Sir Stafford Cripps came to India on his mission in 1942 Jinnah gained further political ground, amplified by his opposition to Congress's ill-judged Quit India Movement. The League made steady progress in the Muslim provinces, especially in the Punjab and Bengal, so much so that its vote increased dramatically in the elections of 1946. It was from this point that partition became the new reality of Indian politics. Clio the Muse 00:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Time Line

I just got finished reading this book and to tell you the truth I do not get this story at all or what went on in it. It's not that I can't pay any attention but for me it is almost impossible to read these poem like books. Anyway every book that I do read I keep a time line of the major events that happened in the story. It's just a fun little thing I like to do even though I don't like the book. However I am asking if someone could do me a favor and just take up a few minutes of your time (who has read the book) to make a major event time line right here so I can make a document putting your words in to my own words and of course crediting you. Thank you so much!22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary in the article Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde gives a good synopsis, although it doesn't have a time line, per se. 152.16.188.107 23:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Government Information

I need to find information on the Articles of Confederation, Bill of Rights, 1-5 Amendments...and so forth where do I go for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.169.16 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Have you read our articles on Articles of Confederation, and the United States Bill of Rights? Splintercellguy 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

September 14

Divine Comedy

Which translation of The Divine Comedy is usually considered the best? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.190.135 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is my personal opinion, but I find the Pinsky translation of the Inferno superlative--so rich and colorful, with nary a forced rhyme (it's a hell of a lot easier to rhyme in Italian than English, so Pinsky uses a lot of Yeatsian off-rhymes to wondrous effect). I don't know, however, if he ever got around to translating Purgatorio or Paradisio--or whether he ever intended to.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There was an interesting review of a few translations of the Divine Comedy in the New Yorker of a few weeks ago. It is still online here. I thought it was pretty interesting, as it discusses some of the different approaches to translation of this that have been taken, since the original rhyme scheme is basically impossible to replicate in English. --24.147.86.187 13:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting book on translating poetry is Le Ton beau de Marot, by Douglas Hofstadter. He looks at the different approaches (faithful to form vs faithful to literal content) and compares translations of The Divine Comedy as well, though he elaborates more on translating Eugene Onegin and, of course, on A une Damoyselle malade by Clément Marot. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter which translation you choose, try and find one that's annotated. Or get the Cliff's notes. There's no shame in using notes to understand what's going on and what's happened during the story, especially if it helps you learn. Dante, like Shakespeare or Chaucer, totally goes down easier with some annotation. Beekone 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While the Hollanders' translation is pretty good, I thought the New Yorker review of it was good as encouragement to read Paradiso but lousy as a survey "of a few translations." Ciardi's version was brought in at the end as a comparandum, but it mangles the spare beautiful poetry of every passage Acocella admires. The non-occurrence of the name Mandelbaum in the review was criminal; Mandelbaum's translation meets all the criteria Acocella set herself for a rival & holds its own to the Hollanders' poetry. I feel pretty confident in the following summary: before Mandelbaum, only Binyon and Longfellow (perhaps a more idiosyncratic choice on my part) are worth remembering among verse translations; after Mandelbaum, only the Hollanders are worth considering for a verse translation of the whole Comedy—their version is not quite as purely Dantean, being a bit smoothed and padded in spots, but it is probably slightly more "readable" (dubious virtue) than Mandelbaum, and some people might confuse that for eloquence. As is probably clear, I recommend Mandelbaum. (Pinsky is fun to read but freely chucks out most of what is Dante's poetry; I'm assuming the questioner wants to read the content of Dante's poem.) Wareh 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to appall Dante purists and say that I personally enjoyed Dorothy Sayers' translation more than some of those held in high esteem above. Having said that, I acknowledge that most English translations of epic poems that aim at rhyme mangle the poem on multiple occasions, and Sayers' version is certainly guilty of this. Anonymous questioner, Wareh's comment to you about wanting to "read the content" is a good one for you to consider--if you want to "enjoy" the Divine Comedy, personally I'd pick a short section, and read it in as many translations as you can find until you find the one that you are most excited about reading. If you're looking for the "most faithful" or "most accurate" translation (note: of course I do not mean to imply that a "most faithful" translation can't also be the one that excites you most), follow the advice given above by those who preceded me. I don't think either motive ought to be looked down upon--anything that gets someone reading Dante makes me smile. Jwrosenzweig (editing anonymously) 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.34.128 (talk)

I recommend the translations of Lawrence Grant White (in iambic pentameter) and Melville Best Andersen (in the style of traditional English poetry). The original translation in English by Henry Cary, which was so beloved of Keats and the Romantic poets, is the most ringing and ponderous in certain parts (no one has ever improved on the speech of Ulysses in this translation: "Recall from whence ye sprung! Ye were not made to live the life of brutes, but virtue to pursue, and knowledge high!"), but (as the previous example demonstrates) it's also almost totally incomprehensible and often wading through it feels like trekking through the deeper muds of hell. 66.112.241.248 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Thanks for the other names. I hadn't seen Grant White and Anderson before ("before Mandelbaum, only..." was presumptuous of me), and Grant White has a certain basic eloquence—I might look further into it to give its qualities a chance someday. Anyway, just for completion, I'll add that it's hardly too much trouble to learn Italian to read Dante, since a reasonable person might well think that a properly informed encounter with Dante's poem is one of the highest purposes of human existence... Wareh 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Victor Emanuel II

How important was he in the ascent of fascism? C M Flea 05:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, C. M. First of all, I think you mean Victor Emmanuel III rather than Victor Emmanuel II, his grandfather, who died in 1878, well before Fascism was conceived. Anyway, if by the 'ascent of fascism' you mean Mussolini's assumption of power in October 1922 then Victor Emmanuel's role was not just important, it was decisive. Forget the mythology surrounding the March on Rome and the Fascist Revolution. Mussolini did not seize power; it was handed to him by the midget King. If Victor Emmanuel had taken a different road, which he might very well have done, Mussolini is likely to have become no more than a footnote in history, yet another failed Italian politician.

The thing is, you see, though Italy was a parliamentary democracy, the monarchy possessed considerable residual powers, including the right to appoint the Prime Minister, even if the individual in question did not command majority support in the Chamber of Deputies. A shy and somewhat backward individual, the King hated the day-to-day stresses of Italian politics, though the country's chronic political instability forced him to intervene no less than ten times between 1900 and 1922 to prevent parliamentary crises.

Fascist violence had been growing in intensity throughout the summer and autumn of 1922, climaxing with the rumours of a possible coup. Victor Emmanuel had all the means at his disposal to sweep Mussolini and his rag-tag Blackshirt army to one side. General Badoglio told the King that military would be able to rout the rebels, no more than 10,000 men, without any difficulty. Thereupon Victor Emmanuel ordered Luigi Facta, then Prime Minister, to protect Rome and draw up decree proclaiming martial law. The troops were totally loyal to the King. Even Cesare Maria De Vecchi, commander of the Blackshirts, and one of the organisers of the March on Rome, told Mussolini that he would not act against the wishes of the monarch. It was at this point that the Fascist leader considered leaving Italy altogether. But then, in the minute before midnight, so to speak, he received a telegram from the King inviting him to Rome. By midday on 30 October he had been appointed Prime Minister, at the age of thirty-nine, with no previous experience of office, and with only 35 Fascist deputies in the Chamber. Thus it was that Italian democracy died.

So, why; what happened to make the King change his mind? We can not be absolutely certain, though the explantion that he later offered in his memoirs-that he feared civil war-can safely be discounted. It would seem that he received some 'alternative' advice, possibly from Antonio Salandra, an ultra conservative politician and former Prime Minister, and General Armando Diaz, that it would be better to do a deal with Mussolini. There were also pro-Fascist elements in his immediate family, including Margherita of Savoy, his mother. Whatever the circumstances, Victor Emmanuel showed weakness in a position of strength, with dire future consequences for Italy and for the monarchy itself. Clio the Muse 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

researching novels

I'm interested in the process of researching a novel. In particular, I would like to know what main differences exist between research for popular novels and literary ones. My interest in this was especially piqued by reading in some book about George Eliot that some critics have accused Romola of being overresearched. This struck me as rather odd, but it makes sense if you allow for a few implied caveats. 203.221.126.156 08:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin with I am not really sure that you can draw a clear distinction between the 'popular' and the 'literary'; some great literature has also been popular, judging by sales. But in terms of researching the subject there may be no difference at all between the 'light-weight' and the 'heavy-weight'. In other words, there may be as much research, perhaps even more, going in to, say, tosh like the Da Vinci Code as there is in Daniel Deronda or any similar work of literature. Clio the Muse 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Clio. Yes, I had expected something like that might be the case, but I'm primarily curious about different types of research, although the amount interests me as well. Dan Brown did a lot of research for his masterly piece of c---, but all of it was superficial, including at least one basic factual error (crediting Zimmerman as a pioneer in cryptography, when in fact he pinched some other people's work). Usually, this doesn't seem to happen, and they seem to get the facts right. I'm curious about whether this is expected of literary writers to the same extent, or can they rely on characterisation and language, and then just research specific focal points of their novels without as much attention to bald factual detail (a psychological writer might read Freud or Jung, for example). Any insights are always appreciated. 203.221.127.147 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A few novelists are reputed to do a massive amount of research. Leon Uris comes to mind. But I don't think it's common, and the most prestigious novelists never seem to do it. I think novelists generally strive for a response, and if they can achieve this without exhaustive research, they do. That's why they generally write about what they already know, or what no one knows. People who care deeply about accuracy tend not to become professional fabricators. -Kent, 129.174.54.141 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More on the Massacre of Glencoe

Hello. I read comments here quite recently about the 1692 massacre of the Macdonalds in Glencoe, Scotland. I've gotten very interested because of this and chosen it for a school project. I live in Glasgow so my dad is taking me up on saturday to have a look at the place. Ive read what your encyclopedia says and some other stuff as well but i still dont fully understand. Why was nobody charged with murder? Why were the MacDonalds chosen instead of anyone else? How closely was the king involved. Why was the Campbell regiment chosen? Did there captain know why he was going to Glencoe? Thanks for any help you can give me. Yours sincerely, Donald Paterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Paterson (talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy your trip. For those visiting Glencoe, Coire Gabhail - the Lost Valley, Geograph has pictures - is worth a look, but only if you have the time and are properly equipped.

The Massacre of Glencoe article has some of the answers. See the "Inquiry" section for the strange legal aftermath. It also quotes the Master of Stair's letter to Sir Thomas Livingstone instructing that the "troops posted at Inverness and Inverlochie will be ordered to take in the house of Invergarry, and to destroy entirely the country of Lochaber, Lochiel's lands [i.e. Clan Cameron], Keppoch's, Glengarie's, Appin and Glencoe. I assure you your power shall be full enough, and I hope the soldiers will not trouble the Government with prisoners." So, initially at least, the MacDonalds of Glencoe were not specifically targeted, the Camerons getting first mention. The king did not take much interest in Scottish affairs, except insofar as they might impact his war with France. My understanding is that Argyll's regiment was nearest to hand and was picked for that reason. The fall guy commander on the spot, Robert Campbell of Glenlyon, is said not to have been aware of the purpose of his expedition, which was kept as secret as possible.

It should be easy to get John Prebble's Glencoe out of a library. It's not exactly dispassionate, but quite comprehensive and a good read. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Donald, let me answer your several questions in turn, adding a little to the information that Angus has already supplied.

Why was nobody ever charged with murder? The answer to that is fairly simple: it is highly unlikely that any murder trail could have been limited to the conduct of a few officers on the spot. Inevitably the waves would have moved upwards, to John Dalrymple and ultimately to King William himself. The Scottish Parliament did ask William to send Captain Robert Campbell and other officer's of the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot home for trial, though no action was ever taken.

As Angus has said, the target for the 'extraordinary action' was initially much wider, embracing just about all of the Jacobite clans in Lochaber. It was scaled down because there were insufficient troops free for the purpose. In the end Dalrymple decided that an example should be made of the MacDonalds of Glencoe, first, because they had earned his particular animus, and second, because they were vulnerable. When you have made your visit to Glencoe (one of my favourite spots for mountain climbing!) you will be able to understand just why this should be so. You see, the narrow valley is not a fortress: it's a trap, one that could easily be sealed at both ends.

How closely was William involved? He signed the orders for the killing, but the evidence suggests that he never gave the matter his serious attention. For him it was a minor problem, which he delegated to his Secretary of State. It certainly reveals a lot about his attitude towards the Highlanders; for I doubt even William, no matter how impatient, would have given his consent to the wholeasale slaughter of an English or a Lowland community.

As Angus says, the Campbell Regiment was on the spot; but there were others just as near, including that of John Hill (who, contrary to the assertion of the Wikipedia page, was not the colonel the Argyll Regiment) at Fort William. It was Dalrymple, looking to the outcome, who chose the Argylls, with the apparent intention of putting a gloss of traditional clan rivalry on an act of official policy.

If you read the orders handed to Glenlyon on the evening of 12 February 1692, the day prior to the Massacre, you should be able to deduce by the threatening tone adopted that he had no prior indication of his task, which, incidentally, was badly executed.

I'm guessing you are somewhere in your early teens? In whch case I would second Angus' recommendation of Prebble's account, a 'rattling good yarn'! There are others, including one by John Buchan, though far less satisfactory. The best 'serious' treatment of the subject is Paul Hopkin's Glencoe and the End of the Highland War. Serious in that it contains every conceivable fact; but his prose style is unbelievably dull. R. C. Paterson's Lord of the Isles, a general history of Clan Donald, also has a useful chapter on Glencoe. Clio the Muse 01:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster Followers

Anyone happen to know the total number of followers for said monster? The religion is pastafarianism.

Nobody actually follows it in the same way that one would follow islam or christianity. That's kind of the whole point. Capuchin 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah but you could say the same thing for Scientology. Anywho... I guess you could ask how many people would be willing to believe that the FSM was real. (whether or not every friday is a religious holiday) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.21.81 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Er no actually, you can‘t say the same thing for Scientology -it‘s followers take their religion totally seriously whereas ‘Pastafarianisns‘ are parodying organized religion.. It‘s an internet phenomenon and intended to be humorous. Natalie West 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very careful to claim that the intention is humor, Natalie. The wikipedia article definitely stays away from that, and asserts that the intention was to make a (rather serious) point. That said, people online seem to treat it as any kind of humor, which it really isn't. /65.219.168.142 06:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys should have a look at the home-page for some people that take it really seriously. They dress up as the FSM and worship bird defecatory in the shape of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.21.81 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've converted everyone on the chatroom for Arizona Diamondbacks to it after I invoked him by cooking pasta and turned an 8 run deficit into a win..hotclaws 06:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

HA! Good one. :) Anyway, I have a friend who considers himself pastafarian, but I asked him, and he says he doesn't really think it exists. I'm sure most (not all) pastafarians are like that. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Composer/Songwriter

Who wrote the music and lyrics to 5 Foot e Eyes of Blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.110.178 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

According to most sources, Ray Henderson composed the tune. Joe Young and Sam M. Lewis wrote the lyrics. There's more information in the article Has Anybody Seen My Gal? ---Sluzzelin talk 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears she has grown a little bit since the song was written, from 5′ 2″ to 5′ 2.7182818...″! (Sorry, I shouldn't pick on the OP's typo.) — Michael J 21:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Driver's license

If you're passing someone and you accelerate to 70 mph (in a 55 mph zone) is that speeding, or are you allowed to speed up while passing someone?

Also, if you are at the point which convention of another ticket (already recived) would result in a driver's licenses being suspended, can you move to another state, and get a driver's licnesse prior to the suspension? A) What would happen after your origional state tried to suspend its licnesse? B) Would you start off with points in the new state for "violations" accured before you got the licnese in that state? XM 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Not legal advice - merely a link to the Highway code) You don't give a country or state (I'm assuming you live in the US, though), but in the UK, you must stay below speed limit even when overtaking (Highway Code says "You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle" while Green Flag says "Only overtake if you are 100% certain that the road ahead is clear and you can overtake within the distance without going too fast for the conditions or breaking the speed limit") - the idea is that if the car in front is travelling at the speed limit, there's no reason to overtake. Not all US states use the point system, so in theory you could move to one of those states, but our article doesn't list which ones these are. Laïka 13:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do live in the US (Arkansas), and am close enough that I could move to Texas. Texas appears to have a point system as well. My two concerns then are A) If I move to Texas and get a TX drivers licensse before my trial, what happens when I get convicted--will Arkansas seek to suspend my drivers licensse? If so, what will happen? And B) Do my points transfer? Thanks XM 14:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything over the speed limit is speeding. There's an unspoken 5-10 mile buffer zone in most cases, but if a cop gets the urge he can pull you over for doing 56 in a 55. If someone is traveling at 55 mph in a 55mph zone you can't legally pass that person. Beekone 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The unspoken premise of the question seems to be, if the speed limit is 55mph, I have a legal right to do 55 by passing the person doing 53 (even if I have to go 70 to do so). Not so. Wareh 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where following the actual law may sometimes be dangerous and stupid. When passing, you should aim to spend as little time as possible in the wrong lane. But yes, you can get a ticket for this- speed laws are not aimed at traffic safety, they're aimed at generating revenue. Friday (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd put that differently, Friday. Speed laws are aimed at traffic safety - that was what the legislators were about. All too often, though, those who enforce the laws (usually traffic police) do it in such a way as to generate the maximum revenue, often with quiet encouragement from the local and/or national governments who benefit from the money. So, instead of targeting notoriously dangerous roads, it's normal to find that the enforcement people get busy on the better roads, where travelling above the speed limit is less dangerous so more people do it.

Returning to the OP's question, in the UK all speed limits apply while overtaking. It's quite normal here to find speed checks at the best places on a difficult road for overtaking, because overtaking is the one time when most drivers see no harm in breaking the speed limit. I don't know of a country where there's an exemption for overtaking. Xn4 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Violin and Clarinet duos

It's often been said that the violin is the instrument that most closely resembles the human voice. This claim has also been made about the clarinet. I wonder, therefore, why there is no music (that I can think of) in the standard classical repertoire that features violin and clarinet as a duo, eg. in a concerto. Does anyone know of such a piece?

The closest relative I'm aware of is Max Bruch's Concerto for Viola, Clarinet and Orchestra - meltingly beautiful, well worth repeated hearings; and I know of a few chamber works for viola, clarinet and piano. But violin, clarinet and piano?? -- JackofOz 15:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia knows all - see clarinet-violin-piano trio. Gandalf61 15:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How true. Thanks for the link, Gandalf. -- JackofOz 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the only concerto for violin, clarinet and orchestra I've been able to discover is one by Thomas Christian David (born 1925). There must be others. Anybody know of one? -- JackofOz 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Google[12] suggests other obscure pieces. Apparently Elsa Ludwig-Verdehr & husband Walter Verdehr have performed more than one of these (the David you mention; by Richard Mills; by Stephen Chatman; by McMaster University Prof. Emeritus William Wallace; by James Niblock; by Dinos Constantinides [Concerto of Psalms]; with other completed commissions mentioned by Paul Chihara and Ian Krouse). There also seem to be such double concertos by Erkki-Sven Tüür and William Thomas McKinley ("Lucy" Variations). I may have mangled some details, since this was a quick survey. Wareh 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy grail

Is the historic quest for it true? Is it accepted that Holy grail is a person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.48.98 (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I dare you to read the atricle on the 'holy grail' first. However, in the words of Stephen Fry complete "loose stool-water" and "arse gravy of the worst kind", when of course referring to 'The Da Vinci Code' and all that sail with her. Lanfear's Bane 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of being too bold, I'll just add that, in answer to "Is it accepted that Holy grail is a person?", the only reasonable answer is "No, not universally, and not even nearly so." At best, we can say that some authors have put forward the grail as person theory, and some find it convincing. I personally don't, but that, as they say, is neither here nor there. 71.112.34.128 06:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Book About Restaurant Kitchens

Dear Wikis, I am trying to remember the title of a book, which is about what happens "behind the scenes" in a restaurant kitchen. The book discusses the many nasty things that go on back there, such as dropping food and putting it back on the plate, "recycling" food, etc. There are probably many books about this same subject, but can anyone throw around some titles? Many thanks is advance. 198.240.130.75 15:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell? In the Paris part of the book he describes how he works in a kitchen, and how such things happen to the food. He also says that the more expensive the restaurant, the more fingers have touched your food before you est it. SaundersW 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look through Anthony Bourdain's bibliography, since he often writes about that sort of thing. Recury 18:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitchen Confidential, by the aforementioned Anthony Bourdain? --LarryMac | Talk 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitchen Confidential fo sho. My wife's a huge Bourdain fan, so I've been inundated with these second hand stories for a longtime now. Beekone 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Construction Law terminology

I am looking for an on-line glossary or dictionary of construction law terminology. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archlandinc (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How's about Glossary of Legal Terms Related to Construction Law SGGH ^speak! 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

BLOWBACK

Funding Ho Chi Minh during ww2, Al Queda during the cold war, etc. is that considered blowback (CIA definition)? Or is it only for US policies?--Mostargue 17:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

blowback gives a more subtle defintion - but if you mean 'karma' or 'what goes around comes around' or 'do as to others as you would have done to you' the answer would be as you guess a tentative yes.83.100.255.59 17:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Al Qaeda was formed after the Cold War ended. The US funded Osama bin Laden and other mujahadeen fighters (and in doing so indirectly allowed Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons), but never funded Al Qaeda as such, as that group was mostly formed by people pissed off about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. --Sean 19:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Osama bin Laden wasn't a "mujahideen fighter" -- he ran his own little volunteer supply and logistics organization in Pakistan. And the U.S. didn't "fund" him in any particularly direct sense (he had plenty of Arab money of his own). At most, the CIA coordinated logistics and supply with his organization. AnonMoos 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • They gave him training, but I agree that there's a distinction. --Sean 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Amusing trivia: in the Cold War-era action movie Rambo III, the eponymous hero fights alongside the future Taliban against evil Communists. If I remember right, he plays some Buzkashi with them, and then later fights off a Soviet attack helicopter with a bow and explosive-tipped arrow. :D --Sean 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It couldn't be the Taliban, because the Taliban didn't begin to emerge as a distinct movement until the mid-1990's, after the Soviets had been expelled, and a few years of confused Mujahideen chaos had ensued. A lot of the problems of Afghanistan were due to the fact that Pakistan always insisted on funneling major support to the most reactionary extremist forces in Afghanistan, first Gulbuddin Hekmatiar, then the Taliban. Pakistan refused to let the U.S. operate within Pakistan to aid the Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets unless a large amount of money was given to good old Gulbuddin, and the Pakistani intelligence service (the ISI) followed a systematic policy over 15 years of fostering Wahhabism in Afghanistan. AnonMoos 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said, *future* Taliban. --Sean 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The future Taliban were mainly rather young students in 1988... AnonMoos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thames Festival

What is this about? What does it celebrate? Finally i know it starts tomorrow but what time and until when? Simply south 21:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It celebrates the Thames! The website [www.thamesfestival.org] says The Mayor’s Thames Festival celebrates London’s river with amazing open air arts, pyrotechnics, illuminations, river events, street theatre, massed choirs and music. This year marks the festival’s 10th Anniversary and we are celebrating in style - from the Al Fresco Ballrooms in unique riverside settings, to themed feasts on Southwark Bridge, to the festival’s climactic event, a spectacular Night Carnival and fireworks display.

The festival was launched in 1997 with a stunning high-wire walk across the River Thames and over the years it has grown incrementally to become one of London’s largest annual events. In 1998, a year on from the wire walk, we delivered the first Thames Festival. There was an international food and craft market peppered with street theatre and music and two large scale events: a mid-river concert on a floating stage and a night carnival. It was a modest start, but even then the festival’s character started to establish itself - one based on celebration, transformation and participation.

Essentially, we want to provide a celebration for London and its river, a city centre party if you like, one that is free and open to all. We want to close roads and bridges and transform them with culture. We want to educate and transform people’s ideas about the river, too. Most of all, we want people not just to be spectators, but to be active participants in this spectacular London event.

Adrian Evans, Festival Director.

It's on the 15th and 16th September, website has more details. DuncanHill 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It starts about lunch time an goes on till late evening (ten or eleven, I think), along the stretch of the Thames between Westminster and Tower Bridge. It's fun! I was there last year, and will be going tomorrow. Enjoy yourself! Clio the Muse 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what happens, sort of. Simply south 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientology

I was reading the article about Scientology when some facts started to unease me. According to the articles ( Scientology, Scientology vs. The Internet, Operation Snow White, Operation: Freakout...) Scientologists can sue anybody and get away with it? If it's a Church then how can it own these and how can it trademark and have legal actions by writing a few words?! It seems ridiculous to me, how can they have the right to sue anyone for critizing the religion, I thought there were rights to protect the Religion and Speech of individuals? What happened to those rights that are protected by the US Constitution? Thanks for your time (Lawyers can really help me out here, so label yourself as one!)

P.S.- After Operation Snow White and Operation: Freakout; why isn't the Church of Scientology labeled as a criminal organization? They use inimidation, harrassment, entrapment etc... and those are felonies, and if any other group did that then they would be labeled likewise.

Thanks yet again! ♥ECH3LON♥ 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[13]--Mostargue 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't legal advice, and I'm no fan of Scientology, but I'd have thought that freedom of religion, speech and association does not extend to what could be interpreted as vilification of a legally established religion. It's one thing to proclaim that your own religion is the best, but publicly referring to another in inflammatory and negative language is a different matter. -- JackofOz 03:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is that it's even murkier than you suggest. Some inflammatory and negative language would indeed be protected by the First Amendment. "Scientology is a religion for fools" would be an example. On the other hand, lawsuits are expensive. A critic of Scientology who voices such a criticism, is sued, and wins, may look at the resulting legal bills and resolve not to criticize Scientology again. JamesMLane t c 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To address the other part of the question: There is no limitation to the abilities of non-profits, including churches, to own trademarks and copyrights. I ould image most denominations have trademarked their major emblems. Rmhermen 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz, your take on free speech frightens me. I can and do vilify established religions all the time. Scientologists usually use copyright, trademark, and libel as their litigational tools. -- Diletante 16:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I second your first sentence. Why in God's name would a "legally established religion" be afforded special protection against vilification that supercedes an individual's constitutionally protected right to free speech?!

JackOfOz and other non-United Statesians are not subject to the US Constitution. The Australian Constitution does not have an explicit right to free speech. --Sean 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

True (afaik, but ianal). However, we certainly do have anti-vilification laws here, e.g. Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, and rel;igious organisations have figured prominently as plaintiffs. -- JackofOz 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ech3lon, you might like to take a look at Scientology and the legal system for some insight into your question. That article also discusses the "Church's" reception in other countries, notably Germany, Belgium, France and Russia, as some points of comparison to its status in the U.S. and England. Also, the Church does have the right, as does any other organization, to protect its copyrights and defend itself against libel and slander; the question is whether it is always acting in good faith or attempts to game the system by using frivolous litigation to harass, silence and bankrupt critics whose criticism is legitimately constitutionally or otherwise protected. See also: Scientology controversy, especially the section on dealing with critics. 38.112.225.84 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Short selling

Say you've sold a company (like SCO) short, and the company does something that causes trading of the stock to stop (like filing for bankruptcy protection) before you can cover your short. What happens? What if the company files for bankruptcy? --67.185.172.158 23:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this shouldn't happen. See a useful article here. Xn4 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you short a stock, you could conceivably find yourself in a short squeeze, in which you must go bankrupt or purchase the stock you have sold short at many times the price for which you sold it. See James J. Hill for a 1901 example with a railroad stock. I like to think of a short squeeze as an economic Wedgie (i.e. the squeezing of your shorts). You have limited potential gain in a short,(because a stock cannot go below zero per share) but unlimited loss (because there is no limit to how high the stock could go). Edison 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Shouldn't happen" doesn't mean "couldn't happen"! I don't see an answer to the original question in the above responses or the useful article linked to. So the question remains: Suppose the situation of the question does arise. What is the legal situation then? Could the lender force you to cover, even though they would be (attempting to) force you to do something impossible, as you can evidently not buy stock that is not being traded? If they did (attempt to) force you to buy the stock, and you can't comply for the simple reason that the stock is no longer traded, what would happen next?  --Lambiam 14:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

September 15

Chinese Communist Insults

Can someone provide a list of Chinese Red insults like social imperialist, trotskyist, running dog, counterrevolutionary, left deviant, wrecker, liquidationist, etc etc --Gosplan 00:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if this counts as an insult, but my particular favourite is Mao Zedong's contention that imperialism was nothing but a paper tiger. When he said this to Nikita Khruschev in relation to the United States he was told "Yes, but it has atomic teeth." 'Revisionist' or 'Capitalist-roader' were probably the most frequent epithets used against Mao's domestic critics. Clio the Muse 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't leave out "lackeys"! See also Five Black Categories... AnonMoos 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hooligans! Gangsters!" Edison 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

High resolution scans of portraits

I was wondering if someone could point me to where old portrait paintings of people might be. Is there a source for high resolution or decent resolution scans of paintings? Thank you. --140.233.214.155 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried our articles and our Wikicommons? Rmhermen 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Karafuto

What happened to Japanese people after Russians came?K Limura 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article Sakhalin Oblast says that most of the Japanese residents returned to Japan after the Second World War when the Russians took possession. According to the 2002 census, 333 residents - .06% of the population - reported themselves as ethnic Japanese. - Eron ^Talk 03:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There were some 400,000 people living on Karafuto when the Soviet offensive began in early August 1945. Most of these were of Japanese or Korean extraction, though there was also a White Russian community as well as some indigenous tribes. By the time of the ceasefire approximately 100,000 had managed to cross to Hokkaido. The military government established by the Soviets banned the local press, replaced by their own Japanese language paper, as well as confiscating cars and radio sets and imposing a curfew. Local managers, bureaucrats and the like were made to aid the Russian authorities in the process of reconstruction, before being sent to labour camps, either on North Sakhalin or Siberia. In schools, courses in Marxism-Leninism were introduced, and Japanese children were obliged to sing songs in praise of Stalin.

Bit-by-bit Karafuto lost its Japanese identity. South Sakhalin Oblast was created in February 1946, and by March all towns, villages and streets had new names. More and more migrants began to arrive from mainland Russia, with whom the Japanese were obliged to share the limited stock of housing. In October 1946 the Soviets began to repatriate the remaining Japanese. By 1950 most had been sent, willing or not, to Hokkaido, though they had to leave all of their possessions behind. They also had to leave behind any currency they had, Russian or Japanese, so arrived on the Home Islands penniless and homeless. Today some keep alive the memory of their former home in the meetings of the Karafuto Renmei. Clio the Muse 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Clio the Muse and Eron for good answers.K Limura 02:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Green in non-western cultures

I'm really struggling on finding resources for this subject. So far all I have is a little on Islam. Any ideas? Wrad 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In Indonesia, a traveler who wore a green sarong told me that locals told him that that is a colour for women. He didn't care and wore it nonetheless. Anyway, he was Scottish, and Scots have a tendency not to care to much about what other people think about the way they dress. :) (actually, he was from Orkney and would probably be insulted if he read that I called him Scottish .... ) DirkvdM 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in many countries it implies Green politics.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Or Irishness, I suppose, even outside Ireland.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Or envy... or naivete... Could we have some context, Wrad? The Evil Spartan 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All I'm looking for is non-Western cultures. You provide the context from there. All I'm getting so far is western stuff... I'm working on the Green article, and I want it to have a worldwide view. Wrad 00:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Resplendent Quetzal's green feathers are significant in Mesoamerican culture, for one. In addition to a more worldwide view, though, I should point out that the article really needs better organization (and the trimming of some irrelevancies and duplication of similar material that should be group together, like the Celtic symbolism)--Pharos 04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I can't really see how to organize it until I see the difference between fact and fiction... Wrad 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One potential problem is the lack of blue-green distinction in some cultures or languages. Here are some pages making various claims, which I would not trust without proper reference to a reliable source:

• http://crayola.com/colorcensus/americas_favorites/display.cfm?color=273
• http://www.sensationalcolor.com/content/view/1057/144/
• http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jassie.darwin/manticlight04/colours.htm

 --Lambiam 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust order

How, when and in what circumstances did Hitler give the holocaust order? Selim the Sot 05:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

While directly citable wording may be lacking in its minutes, the Wannsee Conference (20 January 1942) is generally considered to be the first overt discussion attributable to Hitler of the systematic and comprehensive extermination of the Jewish people known as the "Final Solution." See also evidence of a much earlier event (July 31, 1941) when Nazi official Hermann Göring, on instructions from Hitler, ordered SS Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich to implement a "total and final solution" in to the so-called "Jewish Question." This latter link goes on to discuss Hitler's involvement on other occasions predating Wannsee. -- Deborahjay 08:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This question, or questions very similiar to it, have appeared now on at least three occasions since the time I began work on the Humanities Desk. So, trawling back through the archives, here below is an extract from an earlier answer I gave. Clio the Muse 22:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a cool and dispassionate mind, DeepSkyFrontier, and I admire the logical way that you have arrived at your conclusions. I do, however, have some additional information and argument that might be of interest to you, all of which I have based upon Laurence Rees' monograph, Auschwitz: the Nazis and the Final Solution., in the edition published by BBC Books in 2005

By the spring of 1940 it was becoming increasingly clear that the policy of of using the General Government as a 'racial dustbin' was causing huge logistical problems. In May 1940 Himmler addressed the issue in a wide-ranging memorandum, in which he rejects 'the Bolshevik method of physically exterminating a people as fundamentally un-German.' (Lees, p.45) He goes on to say that I hope to see the term 'Jews' completely eliminated through the possibility of large-scale emigration of all Jews to Africa or to some other colony. When Himmler discussed this proposal with Hitler he was told that it was gut und richtig (good and correct). But, as you indicate, the tenacity of England effectively put an end to all such notions by the autumn and winter of that same year. The problem in the General Government remained, and got steadily worse with the arrival of additional deportees.

Moving further down the line to the summer of 1941, when mass killings were already underway in Russia, we have Göring's memo to Heydrich of 31 July, asking for a blueprint for 'the execution of the intended Final Solution of the Jewish question.' However, as Lees says (p.84), the discovery of a document in the Moscow Special Archive casts some doubt on the particular significance of Göring's memorandum. This contains a note from Heydrich, dated March 26 1941, in which he says With respect to the Jewish question I reported briefly to the Reich Marshal and submitted to him my new blueprint, which he authorized with one modification concerning Rosenberg's jurisdication, and then ordered for resubmission. This document has to be taken in the context of the coming invasion of the Soviet Union-which was expected to collapse in a few weeks-and the continuing deadlock with the British in the west. In other words, the new destination for the Jews of Europe was no longer Africa, but parts of conquered Russia, including areas expected to be under the jurisdiction of Alfred Rosenberg. It seems clear that the 31 July document should be read against the background of forced migration, rather than mass murder as such, though in practical terms the end result would have been just the same, as most of the deportees are likely to have frozen to death in the east with the onset of the Russian winter. However, it was the specific actions of the Einsatzgruppen-particularly in the shooting of women and children-that raised yet another set of problems, and a further quest for solutions. The decisive moment here, it might very well be argued, came in August 1941, when Himmler visited Minsk, and saw the work of the killing squads at first hand.

The Minsk killings, and the complaints, amongst others, of Lieutenant-General von dem Bach-Zelewski, that the sheer personal horror involved was having a severe psychological impact on the men in the Kommandos, pushed Himmler along the path of a less 'bloody' solution to the whole issue. He already had before him one possible 'clinical' way out: mass-killing had already been tried and tested in the euthanasia programme, with poison gas being used to kill as many as ten thousand people in mental hospitals in Wartegau and West Prussia between October 1939 and October 1940. The need for new killing techniques-soon to be explored in places like Auschwitz-,the continuing build up of Jewish deportees in the ghettos of Poland, and the unexpected stubbornness of Soviet resistance, demanded that the whole issue be re-examined from top to bottom. Amongst others, Josef Goebbles, the Propaganda Minister, was lobbying Hitler for more radical solutions, urging the expulsion eastwards of all the Jews of Berlin to already grossly overcrowded ghettos, like that at Lodz. The way out of this deadlock was the authorisation of the first mass gassings at Chelmno, close to Lodz, in late 1941.

Given Hitler's method of working, and his dislike of committing himself to paper, we will never know for certain when outright murder took the place of deportation as the favoured solution to the Jewish question. If I were pushed to choose a specific time-frame, on the basis of the evidence as it presents itself, it would be October 1941. By then the decision had been taken to send all of the Reich's Jews to the east, even though the war with Russia showed no sign of ending. In November, in a conversation with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler said that he wanted all Jews, even those not under German control, 'to be destroyed.' (Lees, p. 110) Here, in essence, is the agenda of the Wannsee Conference, where the populations detailed for elimination included those living in areas not even under German control, including England. The following month the gas vans of Chelmno began their work.

Against this whole drift of events and policy, the Wannsee Conference has been allowed to carry far too much weight. The decision on mass extermination, it seems highly likely, was conveyed by verbal insruction alone by Hitler to Himmler sometime in October. Wannsee was merely a forum for ensuring maximum bureaucratic complicity. Those who attended, with the exception of Heydrich (and even he was not yet in the uppermost ranks of the party leadership) were by and large men of the second-division, like Martin Luther from the Foreign Ministry, representing Ribbentrop; senior bureaucratic funtionaries, in other words, implementers of policy, rather than formulators.

Anyway, that's it. Sorry to have gone on at such considerable length, but you have raised issues worthy of a thoughtful and detailed response. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Clio the Muse 10:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clio you were amazing as always. I knew that Martin Luther had said mean things about Jews in his old age, but I never had known that he was actually a functionary of the Third Reich Foreign Ministry. Edison 01:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Edison; but you see there is that Martin Luther and there is this Martin Luther! The latter, incidentally, ended the war himself in a concentration camp, having unsuccessfully attempted to supplant his boss. Clio the Muse 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tudor gender politics

Thinking about gender politics, what impact did sexuality have on the governance of Queen Elizabeth I? Shelly Carey 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, her position as "Head" of the Church of England, for one thing. Some (imho silly) people seemed to think a lady couldn't be a "head" of the Church, as Henry had been. So she had to convert herself, from being a Head to a Governor. QEII still is the Governor. I think her decision to remain celibate provided a few more problems, though, in finding an heir.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Might want to rad up on the article: Queen_Elizabeth_I#Virginity. The Evil Spartan 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin with you have to remember that a female sovereign came to the throne faced with a whole set of preconceptions about the weakness and limitations of women. Some sources liken rule by a woman to that of a king in his minority. In other words, a queen in sole authority was best governed by her counsellors 'like a child'; that wise men were needed to compensate for her perceived 'lack of judgement'. It was also suggested that since women were less able to control their passions than men, they were all the more likely to turn into tyrants. There were certainly forms of 'discrimination', if that is the right word, though it is perhaps not quite accurate to suggest, as martain does, that the shift in Elizabeth's title from Supreme Head to Supreme Governor was entirely 'silly'. This was a time when women were not allowed preach or deliver the sacrements; so any 'sacredotal' element had to be removed from the Queen's functions. In practical terms, though, she still held all of the political power over the church enjoyed by her father, including the right to appoint bishops. She was never hesitant in expressing her views, moreover, on matters of detailed clerical proceedure, as her disputes with Matthew Parker and Edmund Grindal attest.

The other major issue that has any bearing on 'gender politics' was the question of her marriage. This was an area where Elizabeth had to proceed with extreme care. While a king could marry a subject, she could not, or at least if she did she risked serious discontent among the others. While a king could marry a foreign princess and not risk compromising the national interest, she could not, because her power would pass wholly, or in part, to her 'sovereign lord.' The marriage of her sister Mary to Philip II of Spain had shown the political and strategic dangers of a foreign alliance. And while the king could take lovers and have illegitimate children, she could not; for the scandal and outrage that would have ensued would have been impossible to contain. It seems to me that her relationship with Robert Dudley, though close, was never consumated. Elizabeth had too much political sense for that.

For any monarch marriage was a political issue; never more so for Elizabeth. She had before her the the example of her sister and the even more disastrous example of her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, who moved from one catastrophic marriage to another, that in the end lost her the throne. Elizabeth teased her counsellors, and her subjects, with the prospect of her marriage, though it seems clear that she intended to retain the hold on power to the end that she could only enjoy as the 'Virgin Queen'. She may, as Robert Cecil claimed, have been "more than a man and in truth somewhat less than a woman", but people were to look back on her time with some fondness as they lived under the 'manly' and disastrous rule of the Stuarts. Clio the Muse 00:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll just underline some of Clio's wise words above by adding that when Elizabeth I became Queen, the concept of a woman as a national sovereign was fairly novel, at least for Europe. In the Middle Ages, a country's king, emperor or prince had been both a political and a military leader. No English monarchs had faced no foreign wars, and many had had to fight off rebellions and invasions to hold their thrones. It was only as the modern world emerged that a reigning queen became a possibility. The English political and military system consisted wholly of men - and it stayed like that until the twentieth century. All electors, all members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, all commanders, officers and other ranks of the army and the navy, all members of all of the professions, all bishops and all clergy, all members of corporations, were men. The universities did not admit women. There was an institutionalized view that men were capable and rational beings, and women were not. So Elizabeth faced a masculine Establishment which found it hard to come to terms with her, not just as Queen but even as a political being. Like most monarchs of her time, she faced constant challenges to her authority and struggled to establish herself as a figure commanding loyalty. She never really felt secure against a succession of plots and intrigues, and of course she faced the threat of foreign invasions as well as threats nearer home. Xn4 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is so comprehensive, I won't even attempt to add any substance, but I had to jump in when I realized that no one had called to our attention The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women by good old John Knox. Even a cursory familiarity with the text would give you a nice idea of the challenges facing any woman of power in that era. User:Jwrosenzweig (editing anonymously) 06:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.34.128 (talk)

The said work, J. W., had an unfortunate counter-blast for the dear old Scottish fire-eater: Elizabeth refused to allow him to set foot in England. Clio the Muse 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

She may have had the body of a weak and feeble woman, but she had the heart of a king, and of a king of England too, apparently. Cyta 09:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

clickimin

Has anyone got a really detailed resource on click(h)imin, also is there any way of knowing if it was once tall like the brochs of scotland and islands?87.102.47.225 09:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a short article at Broch of Clickimin, which calls it 'well-preserved'. A web page at themodernantiquarian.com here says it was reconstructed in the 1850s, but there's a better page at shetland-museum.org here which says "The broch itself was built around 200 AD, and originally consisted of a tower some 19.8 m in diameter and probably some 12 - 15 m tall." I hope this helps you, and I'll add a link to this site to the Broch of Clickimin page. Xn4 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Female editors

Are there many female editors here or is it mostly guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.115.223 (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are many, many female editors here. Why shouldn't there be?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As regards the proportionality, there was a similar question a number of weeks ago. Someone arrived at the figure of about 10% female, by checking how many people were displaying female userboxes. Obviously that's guesswork, though: most users don't tell us what gender they are, never mind user boxes. You can't see anything on my page, for example. Isn't this for WP:RD/M, though? martianlostinspace ^{email me} 12:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have the impression that far more than ten per cent of the most active editors here are women. Of course, only a small minority choose to say which sex they belong to, and there's no reason why anyone should. It would be very hard to arrive at a reliable figure for the English Wikipedia, and I don't think it matters, but it would be much easier for Wikipedias in some other languages. People who write about themselves in French, Spanish, or Italian, for instance, usually tell you their sex quite soon through using the masculine or feminine forms of the adjectives which refer to themselves. If someone knows the answer to your question for any of those Wikipedias, then I'd be surprised if the proportions were much different here. Xn4 00:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No user box, but female and proud! Clio the Muse 00:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the defensiveness ["Why shouldn't there be?" (Shantavira)] and negativity ["I don't think it matters" (Xn4)]. The questioner never suggested there shouldn't be female editors; and obviously it matters to them otherwise they wouldn't have asked it - whether any one else agrees or not is neither here nor there. -- JackofOz 04:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure it matters. What doesn't matter is "to arrive at a reliable figure". Xn4 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I use a deliberatly neutral name to stop people making assumptions about me..hotclaws 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the miaow-association, you mean? DirkvdM 08:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think an estimate was made about a year ago that the majority of wikipedians are white American males. Not 100% sure about that, but quite possible... · AndonicO ^Talk 00:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At the English Wikipedia, most probably, but not on Wikipedia as a whole. Follow the links at the bottom of the hme page. The English Wikipedia has 2 million articles, the German one 600,000, the French 560,00, the Polish 425,000, the Italian and Dutch 350,000, the Portuguese 290,000, the Spanish 280,000 and the Japanese will probably be big too, but I can't read that. So those languages together have many more articles than the English and there are Wikipedias in many more languages. You also have to take into account that many non-English speaking editors are partly or even mostly active at the English Wikipedia (such as me), while the reverse will be much less likely. DirkvdM 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Medieval calendars

How did they count or keep track with time during the medieval ages? Did they have months? Days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.129.79 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

They used the Julian calendar, which is essentially the same as our own (the Gregorian calendar). They had all the same months and weeks and days, although they were not as dependent on it as we were. The differences really come down to the way they expressed the dates. In the written documents that we have, they were more likely to refer to a day by the name of the saint or church festival associated with it (today is apparently the feast day of Our Lady of Sorrows, so they would probably write that rather than "September 15"). They often also used the Roman system of Kalends, Nones, and Ides, so today would be "the sixteenth day before the Kalends of October". For years, they used the same years as us, although sometimes it is confusing because the year started on different days in different places - the calendar is essentially the same as ours but New Years wasn't always January 1, sometimes it was Easter (which varied from year to year as it does now), or the first day or spring, or some other day. But rather than specifying the year, they often used the regnal date of a king (an English writer would use the English king) or the Pope (religious writers and especially, of course, the Papal bureaucracy). So for example, if you wanted to write today's date in the style of the medieval Papal bureaucracy, you would say "the sixteenth day before the Kalends of October (or since it's a feast day, "the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows", and everyone would know what that meant) in the third year of the pontificate of Benedict XVI". As for hours of the day, that actually was very different. There was no such thing as midnight; the day started at sunrise, or sometimes sunset, depending on the time and place, and they would say "three hours from sunrise" or whatever time they needed. I'm not sure if there is a good book about this topic, but there are books like "A Handbook of Dates for Students of British History" by H.R. Cheney that deal with it in the introduction. Adam Bishop 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What really threw me when I first started work on Medieval and early modern history was the way in which years were calculated. For example, an event I knew had happened in, say, January 1293, was falling according to the sources I was examining in 1292. It was only on further examination that I found that the calculation of the year was not from January to December but from April to March, so January 1292 was really 1293! Clio the Muse 23:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Old Style year began in England on 25 March (viz., Lady Day). This is the Feast of the Annunciation, marking the day on which the Archangel Gabriel told the Virgin Mary she would conceive the Son of God, and is exactly nine months before Christmas Day. Thus, the argument ran that the Christian era began with the Annunciation of Jesus and not with his birth. In the Julian calendar as observed in Russia, the year began on 1 March when first adopted in 988, then from the late 15th century on 1 September. This was different from the regular Julian calendar, established in the Roman Empire before it was christianized, in which March was the third month, although in former times it had been the first month (hence the Latin numbers in September, October, and December).

In most of Europe, 1 January was adopted as the first day of the year during the 16th century. Scotland fell into line in 1600, and Russia in 1700, but in England and the American Colonies, the calendar year ran from 25 March until 24 March until 1752. Xn4 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Satan Star

hello,

Is there any official or true name for the 5 pointed star in a circle associated with satan (not nessercerily(spelling?) any one like this one with a goat in it but any 5 pointed star in a circle)?

Also what do the symbols mean at the points of the star and what language are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plague of Death (talk • contribs) 12:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See Pentagram. Dismas|^(talk) 12:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Satanic symbol, the five symbols are supposed to be Hebrew letters which spell "Leviathan". (I cannot verify that as I can't read Hebrew.) - Eron ^Talk 12:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew letters בזנרץ, transliterated, form bznrts, in which ts is a single letter. This can be vocalized in many ways, using only a and e(i, o and u would have shown up as a mater lectionis), for example Abezenerets or Bezanarets. Presumably one of these is an alleged name for Satan.  --Lambiam 13:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The pentagram article seems to be showing a symbol with different letters, these ones:לויתן. How would that transliterate? - Eron ^Talk 13:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Those shewn in the article (under "Satanism") match those on the cover of The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, in which (as in the article), it is said they spell Leviathan. DuncanHill 13:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

...and there it is in the first line of the Leviathan article. (Apparently my problem may be an inability to read English, as well as Hebrew...) - Eron ^Talk 15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Short vowels aren't marked with matres lectionis except finally, and classically there are no initial vowels (though the consonants aleph and ayin are now silent). —Tamfang 03:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• How would you know to start with the B? --Sean 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You might not, but the "Ts" letter appears to be shown in its special word-final form... AnonMoos 13:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask, necessarily. —Tamfang 03:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The image was uploaded on August 1, 2007 with the summary Old symbol originally used in Medieval times, and immediately used to replace an older logo with the text לויתן in the Template:Satanism. As these two actions are the only edits of the editor in question, it would seem pointless to ask this editor for an explanation, but it smacks of a joke or "original research". It appears in the logo of a website dedicated to "the world’s first Black Metal porn film", and here it is suggested that it has been used by the band Cradle of Filth, a claim of which I could not find a confirmation.  --Lambiam 11:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work tracking that down and fixing the template. Now afte spending so much time on this particular question, I'd better be off to confession. - Eron ^Talk 16:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nude celebrities!

What's the big deal with pictures of nude celebrities? I'd imagine men who look at pictures of nude women care more about the way the women look than who they are. They can't get them for themselves anyway, so what's the point? If Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Paris Hilton came to me and said one of them was going to strip for me, I'm sure you'd guess my choice. On the other hand, when it comes to these two women as themselves, my preference is the exact opposite. JIP | Talk 12:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine somepeople have a thing about celebs...87.102.43.253 14:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think modern society as a whole has "a thing about celebs." Any activity is more interesting when done by a celebrity, getting naked included. See Celebrity as a mass media phenomenon. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As a proud Brit, I'd pick the queen any day! --Montchav 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it like blasphemous or something to be saying this stuff about the queen? ;) The Evil Spartan 00:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's that we know something about them. There are lots of very pretty anonymous nudes, but their anonymity is a sort of veil; with a celeb, we know something of the personality that goes with the titties, and that makes the image more alive. – What I don't get is folks who collect explicitly fake celeb nudes. —Tamfang 03:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's not "a thing about celebs", it's that we know something about them. If there were a picture of, say, some hot guy from college nude, this would be much more exciting than a picture of some anonymous guy, even if they look the same. A.Z. 04:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's why porn movies that are basically just with two naked guys having hardcore sex are so extremely boring. When we don't know anything about them and there's no story, it's just two silly moving bodies. However, if the guys actually have a life besides having sex, and do more than just fucking, and talk and go to work, etc, then it's interesting to see them having sex. A.Z. 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous porn stars may be boring, but celebrities have opened their mouths and removed all doubt... FiggyBee 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Total number or Americans in uniform in 2007

Is there an unbiased source who can answer this question: how many active and reserve troops does the US have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertastar (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Robertastar 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of Defense says they have 1.3 million on active duty, and 1.1 million in the Reserve and National Guard. Not sure whether that's considered an unbiased source or not, but one assumes that they would know. - Eron ^Talk 16:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that Jane's could tell you, but you have to pay for a subscription. Corvus cornix 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The department of defense is about as unbiased of a source as you'll probably find. I'm not sure what you would necessarily consider unbiased though. The Evil Spartan 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That would make an interesting article - for every country, how many (and what percentage) are on active duty (and in combat zones), in reserve and 'on call' (ready to join the armed forces within a certain period of time). I suppose the US and especially Israel would score very high. Although it could be hard to use comparable definitions for some countries. In Cuba, everyone receives military training of some sort, just in case the US attack again despite their promise. They even have a special day for that every year (dia de defensa), when the whole country simulates repelling an invasion. So there, 100% would be 'on call' (and what is that called, btw?). DirkvdM 08:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Humans and Iambic Pentameter

I am looking for works (either fiction or non-fiction) that shed light upon the human condition. In other words, literature that explains the motivations and complexities and ambiguities and puzzling emotions which being a human involves. That is a rather broad category, but I'm sure that you won't disappoint.

On a more specific note, I really like works of prose that could have been poems: prose-literature which, if you break it down into lines, proves to be in the form of iambic pentameter. Much of Moby-Dick, (of course), is written this way, as are a number of Bradbury stories and James Thurber's children's classic The Thirteen Clocks. Where are the works of iambic pentameter in prose?

Thank you all!! 161.13.1.225 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

1. Light on the human condition

In the case of fiction, all of the really major novelists do just what you describe. Among them are Balzac (see La Comédie humaine), Dostoevsky, Henry James, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, William Faulkner, Thomas Mann, F. Scott Fitzgerald, E. M. Forster, Boris Pasternak and Graham Greene. Much the same is true of the major poets, though poetry tends to cast its light on the human condition in metaphor and riddle. Xn4 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Iambic pentameter

I believe that Beloved has portions in iambic pentameter. It certainly has something to say about the human condition. --Sean 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't iambic pentameter, but it's some of the best writing in the English language today. Corvus cornix 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual Property/Copyright

Does IP/copyright exist within a legal contract?

That is, is the contract document itself able to be protected from use by other than the parties who developed it (i.e. the lawyers or the party commissioning the lawyers to develop it), and/or the parties who eventually put the contract to use (i.e. the signatories to the contract in its final format)?

Example: Organisation A commissions Law Firm B to develop a generic property leasing contract for Organisation A to issue to it's subsidiary companies to use in their property dealings.

Does copyright exist, and who owns it?

--Alan2008 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can certainly claim copyright over things like copyright licenses themselves (the GPL, for example, begins by noting that the document itself is (c) the FSF). As a consequence I wouldn't be surprised if contracts themselves could be copyrighted, but remember that the language, not the ideas, would be what was copyrighted. As for who would own the copyright, that would be decided like any other copyright — it would depend on the contract between Organization A and Law Firm B in your example, whether it was "work for hire" or not. --24.147.86.187 21:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Red China's aid from defeated Japanese

I've read that an important part in the development of the PLAAF was training from captured Japanese in 1945. I'm looking for info in post-WW2 relations between captured Japanese who became advisors and Red chinese. What role did the defeated Japanese who were captured in Manchuria in 1945 play in advancing Red China's military and industry? How did they view each other? When were the Japanese returned to Japan? If anyone knows any print or online resources Id appreciate it. --Gosplan 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

September 16

Name of Canadian river?

What is the name of the river that flows through Sainte-Marie-de-Kent, New Brunswick?--Sonjaaa 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A map here shows that it's on the Bouctouche River. Xn4 01:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow you have sharp eyes to be able to read that! :) --Sonjaaa 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese in Manchuria

Was there resistance to Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931?K Limura 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be Resistance with a capital R: see Invasion_of_Manchuria#Secession_and_Resistance and Anti-Japanese Volunteer Armies. In fact, this invasion was the base for all the tensions between modern Japan and China. The Evil Spartan 05:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How much does a vintage world war 2 plane cost?

How much does a working, vintage, world war 2 plane cost? That people fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plain Buff (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What sort of plane did you have in mind? For a genuine WWII fighter in flying condition you're looking at around a million USD, and there aren't many left so they don't come on the market very often. Post-war P-51Ds come in at around half a million. Most "warbirds" flying today are actually trainers like the T-6 Texan or even the well post-war T-28 Trojan - you can pick up one of those for around 2 to 3 hundred thousand dollars. FiggyBee 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This answers my questions perfectly. Plain Buff 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

Medieval Hunting

What were the traditions of hunting with birds and hounds? Was it a competition or a sport? How did the event take place and what were the rules to participate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.228.21 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For birds, see Falconry. For hounds, see Hunting. Hounds were used for hunting animals such as the stag and the wild boar. In the Middle Ages, these were sports rather than competitions, directly descended from ancient hunter-gatherer ways of getting food. The sports had (as they do now) plenty of traditions, and where there were rules they were chiefly informal ones to do with keeping to the traditions (especially social distinctions) and not endangering others. The relevant laws were mostly to do with poaching - that is, who had the right to pursue game (viz., the birds and animals hunted) and who did not. In most countries, sporting rights (the right to pursue game) generally belonged, as now, to the landowner, but in some areas (such as the royal forests of England) they might also be reserved for the king or some other office-holder. In the modern world, such sports are usually also controlled by laws to do with public safety, animal cruelty, environmental nuisances, the preservation of protected species, etc. Xn4 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a pretty good medieval hunting article, it has a bit about birds and hounds. Adam Bishop06:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

Views of 'Otherness' in Medieval Europe

How did Europeans view other races and other cultures, African or Asian, strangers and enemies? Wild Winnie 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Most Europeans in the Middle Ages would never have come across an African or an Asian, unless perhaps a Jew or a Gipsy. To the south and east of Europe, the Moors, the Turks, the Arabs and others were generally seen as the enemies of Christendom, although not without reason. The treatment of the Jews in medieval Europe was occasionally good, more often not. But then Europeans treated each other pretty badly, too. Xn4 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They didn't really think of them as other races, just other religions. They understood "religion" as Christianity, but only in the form of what we call Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholic and Orthodox did not always get along, and as the middle ages progressed, the worse their differences became. The west often portrayed the Orthodox Greeks as soft and effeminate and somehow not quite truly Christian, and they could appeal to classical Roman texts like the Aeneid where the Greeks were cunning and deceitful. Essentially, a complex political system was "the other" to western Europe! As for other forms of Christianity, it was simply new and heretical and was to be stamped out as quickly as possible (the Cathars particularly). Heretical movements were usually assumed to come from some foreign land in the east (the Cathars from Bulgaria, for example). The east also had a huge number of pagans right up to the 15th century, and pagans were to be killed or Christianized. Judaism were an accepted religion but it took a lot of effort by the church to protect the Jews. Secular rulers kicked them out of their countries every once in awhile. Basically every horrible anti-Semitic legend you can think of was considered true by the average medieval person. They were doomed to wander the earth because they had killed Christ, and as soon as they converted, Christ would come again; so, why don't they just convert to Christianity already? To the west, south, and southeast was another strange religion, Islam, which was originally assumed to be a heretical offshoot of Christianity. To a medieval Christian it couldn't be anything else! Most people would never encounter a Muslim, and would be far more likely to run into a Jew, except in Iberia. During the crusades and afterwards, there was a lot more contact with the Muslim heartland, so they were understood somewhat better, but they were still "other". Whereas Christians descended from Abraham legitimaely through Sarah and Isaac, Muslims descended illegitimately from Ishmael, son of Abraham and the slave-girl Hagar, hence the alternate names for Muslims, "Hagarenes". They were also called "Saracens" and one etymology of that word claims it to be the Latin "Sara sine", "without Sarah", haha. Beyond that, there was very little contact with other races. When the Mongols arrived, Christians assumed the Mongols were Christian too (as they had a common enemy in the various Muslim states), and were confused and disappointed when that wasn't quite true. Hinduism or Buddhism was unknown, although they had vague knowledge of India and China, and they knew that luxury goods like silk and spice came from there. Adam Bishop 06:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

Of course, that depends on who 'they' were. Such (and any) knowledge, if any, was largely kept by the scholars (monks and such at the time). I wonder if ordinary people had any thoughts at all about what lay outside Europe. Or beyond the next village, for that matter. The 'outside world' was largely the nearest town or city, or wherever the yearly market was held; that was a grand outing, which most would never make, I suppose (note that I'm not too knowledgeable about such details). There were depictions of what was out there - monsters and headless people. All very scary and best left alone. Although I also wonder who ever got to see even those pictures, because they were in books and most people would never even have seen a book, let alone looked inside one. Actually, I wonder if commoners even had a concept of Europe. DirkvdM 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the Middle Ages is a rather large time-span, roughly from 500 to 1500 - a millennium. But essential is that its end might be defined as the emerging desire to spread knowledge - actual knowledge, not handed-down stories which were never questioned. Which is pretty much the heart of the subject at hand. DirkvdM 09:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of Europeans in the Middle Ages (something like 80%) were uneducated peasants. It is very unlikely that they had a concept of "Europe" or anything beyond Europe. The word Europe (or Europa) did not enter European languages other than Latin until early modern times. Even the educated minority would have been more likely to think in terms of "Christendom" than of "Europe". As for the uneducated minority, they might have a vague, almost mythical sense of places mentioned in scripture or the distant sea, without knowing much about them. Some spotty knowledge of their own and neighboring countries might have come from villagers who had served as infantry in a feudal lord's army. However, as others have said, the known world of most Europeans did not extend more than about a day's walk (say, 12 miles or 20 km) from their homes. They might have heard about the nearest cities from traveling merchants and the like. Beyond that was the wide world of story and romance. Marco polo 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We should also note that "the other" is a concept in philosophy and literary theory that gets a lot of press these days. "The other" in the Middle Ages should be a popular topic but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for information or publications (which is kind of embarrassing since it's pretty important to everything I do, ha). Adam Bishop 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Coming up 'from below' I can say quite definitely that there was indeed a concept of 'otherness' in the Middle Ages, of the monstrous and the different, not just confined to fictions like the Sciopods. As always when one considers these matters analysis is inevitably confined to what educated people believed, because only they have left traces in time. You will find in Medieval sources black Africans-usually defined as 'Ethiopians'-ranged among the 'Monstrous Races', along with the one-legged Sciopods and the Blemmyai, whose faces were on their chests. You see, in the Christian Middle Ages, blackness, black skin, was considered to be demonic. St Jerome specifically says that the 'Ethiopians' will lose their blackness once admitted into the New Jerusalem. Marco Polo (sorry, Marco!) wrote of the people of Zanzibar that

...they are quite black and go entirely naked except that they cover their private parts. Their hair is so curly that it can scarcely be straightened out with the aid of water. They have big mouths and their noses are so falttened and their lips and eyes so big that they are horrible to look at. Anyone who saw them in another country would say they were devils.

Non-Christians could also be depicted as monstrous, as Jewish people frequently were. The twelfth century Winchester Psalter depicts them as ugly and depraved, standing among Christ's tormentors along with, yes, you guessed it, an 'Ethiopian.' And as for the otherness of the Saracens, Pope Innocent III declared, as I am sure Adam must be aware, that Muhammad was the Anti-Christ in person. In the popular literature of the day, the Chansons de geste, the Saracens are often described as 'black'. But the ultimate in 'otherness' must be that of the Tartars, an even more fearful enemy from the east. On them we have the description given by Matthew Paris in his Chronica Majora of their ugliness, and of their cannibal feasts. For Paris and others the Tartar hordes were Gog and Magog. Clio the Muse 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that Mohammed was indeed the antichrist, because he was the nearest competition. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of pov. Btw, that association between Jews and Ethiopians is almost prophetic considering the existence of Ethiopian Jews. Btw, I wonder why the article is called 'Beta Israel'. The beta sounds rather derogatory and Israel is an odd name for Ethiopians. Of course, the name originally designates Jews in general, not a nation, but few people will know that. DirkvdM 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the Known

Related to the above, what views did people in Medieval Europe have of the edges of the known world? Wild Winnie 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's hard to know exactly what you're hoping for, or what constitutes "the edges of the known world" and "Medieval" for you. Certainly by the late 1300s, accounts from people such as Marco Polo and John Mandeville would reach many of the educated (and some of the uneducated). It seems to me, though, that it is very hard to determine what average people in Medieval Europe thought about much of anything at the time. If you're hoping for ideas, I'd start by reading the accounts of the men I mention. Hopefully Clio or one of the other regulars will arrive soon to give you a much more comprehensive answer (since I am by no means an expert in the area). User:Jwrosenzweig (editing anonymously) 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.34.128 (talk)

This is pretty similar to the question above. The average peasant probably had no view of it; the edge of the known world was at the horizon, he would never travel much farther than that. For educated people, the "edge of the known world" was, in the east, the Asian steppes (where various barbarians appeared from every once in awhile), or the Muslim world. In the south it was the African desert, also inhabited by Muslims. In the west, Muslims and Christians had a lot of contact in Spain so they weren't so unknown there, and the edge of the world was the ocean. No one really bothered to find out what was over the ocean until the 15th century. Adam Bishop 06:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

See our articles on mappa mundi and the Hereford Mappa Mundi. Gandalf61 15:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at this question from a slightly different angle. Knowledge of the world beyond, of the antipodies, if you like, was limited or non-existent in the Middle Ages; but that did not stop the void being filled. I would suggest, Winnie, if you really want to know what some sections of educated opinion thought of the 'outer margins' in the period you have identified than you could do no better than work your way through the labyrinth of Medieval theology. During the Classical period some thinkers, including some of the Christian fathers, had come to accept that the Earth was spherical. This conviction produced some quaint notions of what life was like 'at the bottom', so to speak; that people there had their feet above their heads, and when it rained it fell upwards!

Such speculations were rejected by Lactantius and later by Augustine of Hippo. In The City of God Augustine pointed out that as the southern hemisphere was cut off from the rest of the world by a vast ocean, then it could not possibly be inhabited by any of the descendents of Adam; and there most certainly could not be people beyond the reach of the church. As time progressed speculation about the possible inhabitants of the antipodes began to verge on the heretical. In the eighth century Pope Zachary threatened an Irish priest by the name of Virgil, later Bishop of Salzburg, with excommunication for defending the view that there was 'another world' and men 'beneath the earth.' In the eleventh century Manegold of Lautenbach, a religious writer of orthodox views, identified the Commentary of the Classical writer, Macrobius, as the chief source of these 'devilish' errors.

Despite these criticisms, speculation, based on Greek and Latin sources, did not stop. Albert the Great, a Dominican and enthusiast for Aristotle, argued that as nature 'does nothing in vain' then the southern hemisphere must be inhabited. Some of the maps that began to appear in the high Middle Ages even allowed for the monstrous in the shape of the Sciopods, as the possible inhabitants of the distant regions. An eleventh century map based on the Commentary on the Apocalypse by Beatus of Liebana shows the Sciopods, creatures with a single leg and a huge foot. In summer they were said to lie on their backs, shading themselves underneath their foot! And if all of this sounds ever so slightly ridiculous consider some of of the notions people harbour today about space; about the margins that are truly beyond. Clio the Muse 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal interpretation (Canadian law)

a Laymans interpretation of the following is requested:
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 on the http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ site, defines "King's Highway" as:

“ includes the secondary highways and tertiary roads designated under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act; ("route principale") ”

Does this then mean ALL roads in Ontario? Are there any other interpretations of this term? Is there ever a 's (ie. highway's) appended to the term?

Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think it refers to 500- (secondary) and 800- (tertiary) series highways in Northern Ontario. -- Mwalcoff 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a layman's interpretation. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I am a layman with some experience in reading, interpreting, and occasionally drafting government regulations. The definition you quote does not mean that all roads in Ontario are considered the King's Highway. What it means is that secondary highways and tertiary roads can be designated the King's Highway so that any laws or regulations applying to the King's Highway will apply to them. Looking into the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, it states that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate a highway, secondary highway, or tertiary road as the King's Highway - so the King's Highway is whatever the government says it is. Not all roads are eligible for this, though. Section 41 of the PTHI Act notes that "the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate an existing road that is in whole or in part in territory without municipal organization as a tertiary road." Any road that is entirely within the bounds of a municipality - the street that I live on, for example - cannot be called the King's Highway. I would assume that somewhere in the Ministry of Transportation there is a list of all roads which have been designated the King's Highway. It should be possible to find that list, but I haven't been able to yet. - Eron ^Talk 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Films with plots based around other films.

In Woody Allen's film Play it Again, Sam, footage from Casablanca is shown, characters from Casablanca intrude into the story and various bits of dialogue are repeated verbatim. Are there any other films where existing real-life films play such an important part? Froglars the frog 10:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From our Vertigo (film) article:

Terry Gilliam's film Twelve Monkeys contains a scene in a movie theatre that is showing Vertigo . . . both films deal with memories, identity and the blurring of past and present. Likewise, La Jetée, Chris Marker's famous short which served as the basis for Gilliam's film quotes a couple of scenes from this film as acknowledged by Marker. The plot of the short film has loose thematic similarities with Vertigo and quotes some scenes directly (most notably the one with the Redwood tree rings). In his essays Marker has joked about his film being a remake of "Vertigo" set in Paris.

It's not as intrusive as what you're looking for, but it is a great scene in 12 Monkeys. It gives it a lot of depth. --Sean 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In The Freshman, which stars Marlon Brando and Matthew Broderick, Brando plays a mafia guy who, to Broderick's character, looks just like Marlon Brando from The Godfather.

I don't know if this counts, but in Back to the Future Part II, Michael J. Fox goes back in time into the first movie and has to make sure the plot of the first movie turns out the way it did the first time. -- Mwalcoff 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't count sequels, but then there aren't a lot of sequels involving time-travel! —Tamfang 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but I think the plot of Rumor Has It... is that Jennifer Aniston believes her character's family are the inspiration for Benjamin Braddock and Mrs. Robinson's affair in The Graduate. Hammer Raccoon 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are movies about the making of other movies, although I'm not sure if this fits what you are asking. BAADASSSSS! comes to mind. --Joelmills 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In Last Action Hero, magic brings various characters out of the movies, including Death from The Seventh Seal. —Tamfang 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adaptation and Being John Malkovich (the latter is contained in the former). Vranak 17:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid surely the granddaddy of them all...hotclaws 10:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Language, Accents, and Podcasts

Is there anyone out there who knows of a Spanish equivalent of the BBC? I mean that in both the way they have numerous podcasts and that it is an excellent example of perfectly spoken language? --Grey1618 13:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This question would make more sense on the language ref desk or somewhere at the Spanish Wikipedia. But what about TVE? I'm no native speaker, but it sounds like pretty standard and it's Spain's version of the BBC in that it is the state television, so it's probably also a bit 'educational' in various senses, such as speaking 'proper' Spanish. Of course, on the BBC you can often hear various dialects and TVE is probably not much different in that respect. DirkvdM 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of accents the news of TVE are the best. Perect Castilian. Although some of their reporters speak with accents (Mexican, Argentinian). But this mostly when they cover stories in South America. In the regular program you will run across many different accents catalan pronounced Spanish, Andalusian and so on.--Tresckow 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want a talk show, there's six hours every weekend with Pepa Fernandez, "No es un dia cualquiera", which can be quite entertaining. Then there was "Vanguardia de la Ciencia" and "El sueño de Arquímedes", two top quality science podcasts by Ángel Rodríguez Lozano, which regrettably were taken off the air June this year. But there's still a bunch of programs on RTVE's web pages, so hurry and download while they're there. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How can music be scary?

How can music possibly be scary, it's not like you're in danger or something sudden might happen, from hitchcock-like violin music. Why does it inspire fear (unless it is parody, "scary" music over something as innocuous as a baby). Is it a cultural thing, or would someone who had never been exposed to western civilation be scared because of scary music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.158.169 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Music speaks to emotions. Fear is an emotion. 'nuff said. Vranak 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a cultural thing. The SKREE SKREE SKREE of Psycho is not scary (just annoying) unless you know the context, at which point it serves to heighten the tension. Remember of course that there are a lot of audio clichés/conventions at work in making something "scary" — things which we have been programmed to associate with murder and tragedy and the like because we've seen them over and over again in movies. I would assume they are not totally limited to Western culture only because in terms of things like movies they have been exported all over the world for a very long time now. --24.147.86.187 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Films can also be scary, even though people know that the monster or whatever can not jump at them from the screen. On top of that, the scary effect mostly comes from the music or sounds you hear. Sound is more effective than images at scaring people. Why that is, I can't say, really. DirkvdM 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not so much that one is more effective than the other, than the fact that in combination they can be quite effective. That being said, sounds can vary in intensity in a way that visuals generally don't, so that probably has something to do with it. Going from a whisper to a SHOUT can startle just about anyone; having something go from small to BIG is less effective if you are watching it on a small screen. --24.147.86.187 18:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wolf's Glen scene (Act II, scene ii) in Carl Maria von Weber's Der Freischütz was the scariest music anybody had ever heard in 1821. Find a recording and see if "scary music" isn't culturally defined.--Wetman 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here in the USA, we haven't had to worry about an invasion in decades. Some towns still use their Air raid sirens for fire alerts or (in my hometown) to signal the beginning and end of Trick or treat on Halloween. It was a fairly mundane sound for me... until I played Silent Hill. Now, it's one of the creepiest things I've ever heard. -- Kesh 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One might also say that people are afraid of a lack of harmony. Thus, a minor chord or any other strange combination of sounds can be scarier than a melodic, major chord. Wrad 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the creation of goosebumps qualify as scary? As a child, a large pipe organ could scare me. I think this is why so many people shy away from them, especially when they have lots of reeds. Also, the sound of a concert grand in a living room could be scary. I found the modern atmospheric choral work in the soundtrack of "2001, A Space Odyssey" scary because I couldn't understand what was happening. The same thing occurs in children when they don't comprehend what is making adults upset. I was once told by a kid of limited education that classical music made him "nervous" because he couldn't feel the beat.LShecut2nd 23:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon 24, you're right and I partly take back what I said. By coincidence, I watched one of the few scary episodes of Buffy last night, Hush, and I noticed the music was only scary in combination with the images. Another piece of music that scared me was the in the intro of The World at War (an excellent series, btw, if you want to delve into WWII history). I watched that when I was about 10 and 30 years later I could still remember the music and it still sent shivers down my spine. But again, it was the combination with the images (the faces being burnt away) that made it really scary (for a 10 year old). By itself, the music is rather sad than scary. Btw, nails over blackboard is a very annoying sound, but I'm not sure if that can be called scary.

So it's only in combination with each other that sound and vision are scary. How about other senses? Can smells and tastes be scary? Rotten meat should be scary, but instead it's filthy. Or touch? What about slime? That's more eerie than scary. Or are that variation of filthy and eeriness variations on 'scary'? Hmmm. DirkvdM 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the all-time biggest MASSACRE, ever, of ALL MASSACRES

of all time massacres, what is the massacre where the most people were massacred in a MASSACRE (note: not a non-massacre, genocide, etc). The wikipedia article for massacre doesn't list the biggest massacre.

Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.158.169 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

List of wars and disasters by death toll. Vranak 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says:

Massacre most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing where the victims have no reasonable means of defense and pose no immediate physical threat to the assailants.

It's still possible to quibble about the meaning of parts of that, like "individual", but if you restrict the killing to a single short military operation, a good candidate might be the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed as many as 100,000 people in one night. There were plenty of horrors in WWII that would be in the same ballpark. --Sean 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

You should have looked a little closer - there's a link to the list of massacres at the bottom of the massacre article. Massacre is a rather difficult term to define, but wars don't count because they're not single events. The biggest massacres listed had around 1 million deaths. One of those listed is the partition of India, but I doubt if that really counts as a massacre - it was too spread out and impromptu to be called a massacre, I'd say. One massacre that really drew my attention is the 1258 Battle of Baghdad (there were several), which had up to one million deaths. Given that that took place in 1258, it might count as the biggest massacre ever in terms of deaths per capita. Note that it probably counts as a massacre because of what happened after the battle, not because of the battle itself. If you count battles (and why not?), then the battle of Stalingrad might be the biggest massacre, with 1.5 million deaths.

If you'll allow a bit of pov and a slight deviation from the subject, I don't get why battles don't count as massacres. People have this strange tendency to think that if mass murders take place by regular armies for war purposes then it is sort of ok. For example, the holocaust is often seen as the greatest horror of WWI, but many more people died in agony because of the war in general. Hitler's decision to start a war, and specifically to attack the USSR and the way people (soldiers and civilians) were treated in Eastern Europe dwarfs the holocaust. I;m not talking just about the deaths on the Allied side (soldiers and civilians alike), but also the German soldiers (who didn't have much of a choice) who were sent to their deaths and the equally severe loot/rape/pillage reaction of the Soviet army. Hitler caused that reaction and was therefore also responsible for that result. Note that I usually blame the Nazis in general in stead of just Hitler, but in the case of the eastern front, he was almost solely responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. DirkvdM 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this question can't really be answered, as massacre is one of those words of uncertain origins which doesn't have a precise enough meaning.

In fact, DirkvdM, battles have sometimes been called massacres, depending on the circumstances and the balance of numbers and weapons on each side. If people "think that if mass murders take place by regular armies for war purposes then it is sort of ok", then clearly it isn't. Murder is unlawful killing, while deaths which result from military action between countries at war are not murder. The deliberate killing of prisoners of war is unlawful and can be punished by a war crimes tribunal. The Holocaust, the murder of civilians (and also some prisoners of war) in captivity, many of them not even enemy aliens, was equally unlawful and could no doubt be called a massacre or series of massacres.

If we look at the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was nothing in international law to prevent the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of enemy civilians as an act of war, but those events could be called massacres, too. It's a flexible word. Xn4 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"There was nothing in international law..." — this isn't exactly true. There is a nice compedium of relevant international law to the mass killing of civilians via indiscriminate aerial warface (atomic or not). I don't think you can avoid the word "massacre" when talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor Dresden, nor Tokyo. Whether or not you agree that any of those hastened the end of the war (Dresden and Tokyo, certainly not; Hiroshima and Nagasaki, potentially, but it is a problematic assertion), that doesn't change the case that they were intentional and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, aka, a massacre. You can have war without massacres, much less massacres of tens of thousands of people over the course of a few hours. --24.147.86.187 00:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, 84.0, of the Wikipedia 'massacre' list. Some of the detail is wildly inaccurate, including the absurd contention that 30,000 people were killed when Berwick-upon-Tweed fell to the English in 1296. There is no mention, moreover, of the fall of Magdeburg in 1631 during the Thirty Years War, when some 20,000 people were killed in the course of a day. But I agree that your question is probably incapable of a direct answer. It may also come down to simple semantics. I for one do not accept that people killed in World War Two bombing raids, or soldiers killed in the course of a military campaign, can be considered to have been 'massacred.' Such a definition would render the word truly meaningless. For me it is action against the defenceless, carried out in a face-to-face manner, usually, but not always, in the heat of circumstances. But you might wish to examine the actions of Timur for some truly hair-rasing, (and skull mouinting) cold-blooded brutality. Clio the Muse 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I distinguish between war and massacre in terms of whether it is a single event or a series of massacres. So I consider a battle to be a massacre, because I don't see an essential difference. Both sides being equally strong can hardly be an excuse for mass murder.

Xn4, why is killing done by an army not murder? I don't see the difference. If you're personally under attack and there is no other way to defend your life than killing the other, then it's excusable and might even not be called murder. But training people to kill and then sending them somewhere to practise what they have learned, that is mass murder. One might even call it that when it is done for defense of the own country, but that's an entirely different and exceedingly difficult discussion. For example, I don't get the Geneva Convention. When you're busy ripping each other's limbs off and such, you have to do it in a 'civilised' way? War is filth of the worst kind, far from heroic. Not fighting when under attack is really heroic. If only we could all be heroes. :) DirkvdM 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Clio touches on one of the weirder aspects of massacre definition: it's worse if you do it face-to-face. There's some confused angle of human psychology that makes it more abhorrent to shoot hundreds of civilians retail than in their tens of thousands wholesale. Cue Stalin quote about tragedy and statistics. --Sean 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I need DETAILED info on Édouard Lalo

I need in-depth information on the French composer Édouard Lalo. There is a Wikipedia article about him, but it and all other sources I have found on the internet and elsewhere give the same basic facts about him.

A source in French (or Spanish, or whatever) would be welcome as it would be worth the expense to get it translated. Of course English would be bettter. I don't necessarily need the actual information; just pointing me in the right direction would be fine. Extensive searches in university libraries and many hours online have not yielded results.Ormewood 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Huebner, Steven (1999), French Opera at the Fin de Siecle, Oxford:Oxford University Press, OCLC 40043694 has a short chapter on Lalo, and cites:
  • Lalo, Pierre (1947), De Rameau a Ravel, Paris: Albin Michel, OCLC 3160860 contains an essay on the author's father.
  • Lalo, Edouardo; Joël-Marie Fauquet ed. (1989), Correspondance, Paris:Aux amateurs de livres, OCLC 21268611.
• Ewen, David (1937), Composers of Yesterday: A Biographical and Critical Guide to the Most Important Composers of the Past, New York:The H.W. Wilson Co., OCLC 851554 has a short biographical sketch and points to:
  • Seré, Octave (1911), Musiciens français d'aujourd'hui, Paris:Mercure de France, OCLC 69102235.
  • (March 1923), La Revue Musicale, 4:97 was dedicated to Lalo, has a full list of works and bibliography.
• Norman, Gertrude ed.; Miriam Shrifte Lubell (1946), Letters of Composers: An Anthology, 1603-1945, New York:A.A. Knopf, OCLC 911392 contains two translated letters to Pablo de Sarasate October 28, 1878 and November 21, 1878.

Also this worldcat search turns up few others.—eric 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Paupers graves in New York, 1950s

I was watching the film Pickup on South Street (1953) and one scene shows the (anti)hero stopping a boat at sea with several coffins on deck, and he retrieves one of them for a better burial. Did this mean that paupers i.e. the poor were buried at sea in 1950s New York? 80.0.135.165 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Coffins stashed on deck simply for faster narrative pace, right? Not for accurate portrayal of coffin transport. The New York City Cemetery, located on Hart Island, the Bronx, in Long Island Sound, serves for paupers' burials. Paupers have never been buried at sea. --Wetman 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless they died at sea, of course, and I guess that isn't suggested in Pickup on South Street. Xn4 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary Presidential Elections

Are the Party Representatives for the Presidential Elections choosen by the voters or by their specified policital party only?24.216.120.113 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Presidential candidates are selected at the National Conventions of each party before the elections. At the conventions, delegates of each state party vote for a potential candidate. The way the delegates for each state will vote is decided either by the state Caucus or by a primary election. FiggyBee 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Original questioner, are you asking about electors of the Electoral College? If so, then, yes, the party whose candidate won the general presidential election in a particular state chooses the electors. Corvus cornix 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the secret behind the success of American agriculture?

What is the secret behind the success of American agriculture? How is 1% of the population able to feed the entire nation and export? What technologies and economic organizations make American farms so efficient? Why is the technology and org so complex that it has been unable to be adapted to conditions in Latin America and East Asia? To what extent to other parts of the 1st world also use these advanced techniques?--Gary123 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Green Revolution; Factory farming. FiggyBee 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry you need to do your own homework. What's the course? --Fredrick day 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My "homework assignment" is to fix my nation's economy. Ive got to industrialize La Republica and El General will have mi cabeza if I dont fix our nation's farming problems by manana.--Gary123 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

American agricultural success started long before the green revolution or factory farming. American farmers got to start from scratch, and therefore had a lot of land an not enough farm hands to work it. They therefore had a very strong incentive to use machinery. This is still true today: even a small American farm has a lot of capital equipment. -Arch dude 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. labor has been more expensive than labor in most other countries for much of its history. Therefore, capital investment in agriculture to boost productivity brought strong increases in the profit margin. U.S. agriculture is extremely capital-intensive. Because labor is cheaper in Latin America and East Asia, particularly farm labor, expensive capital equipment often cannot pay for itself. (That is, it is cheaper to continue to hire labor than to purchase the capital equipment.) Consequently, productivity is lower in those places.

Countries that have an agricultural capital intensivity similar to that of the United States include Canada and Australia. Although agricultural labor is as expensive, or more so, than in the United States in much of western Europe, agriculture in western Europe is somewhat less capital-intensive and therefore less productive per unit labor because median farm sizes are so much smaller. A piece of capital equipment that is economical on a 500-acre (200 ha) U.S. farm may not be economical on a 50-acre (20 ha) French farm. Marco polo 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the efficiency is due to enormous (and expensive) public infrastructure spending over time (including private infrastructure, like railroads, which have often received massive amounts of public money). The result is a relatively high-density of transportation options including highways, river-barge shipping channels, railroads, and so on. This helps make it possible for what would otherwise be isolated farms to market goods at competitive rates in distant markets. On the other side of the equation, infrastructure that supplies water, for example, makes it possible to intensively farm lands that would otherwise produce lower yields at greater risk. The Central Valley of California, much of Eastern Washington and Southern Idaho come to mind as argiculturally rich areas that depend on huge amounts of water-supply infrastructure built, at great expense, by federal and state governments.

In other words, I think a good part of the "secret" behind the success of American agriculture is "spending massive amounts of money". Pfly 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, money makes money. (Although to Europeans the public investment in infrastructure in the US is rather pathetic. I suppose we spent out money somewhat differently.) And poverty perpetuates itself. If a poor country had the machinery to replace humans (and those humans would find employment elsewhere - a social complication) then productivity would go up, the country would become richer, labour cost would go up and there would finally be the incentive to actually buy the machinery. But the money and high labour cost aren't there, so the process isn't 'jump-started' (if that is the right word). It isn't specifically agriculture. It's about who had the first headstart. Europe started inventing the machinery (I'm talking about several hundred years ago), but, as Arch Dude pointed out, that was the result of being rich and that was caused partly by colonialism. But that in turn was caused by having the ships, which was the first richness generating machinery. And that, I suppose, had to do with Europe having a relatively long shoreline. Great civilisations usually arise where you get that (think of the Mediterranean, although China doesn't seem to fit the bill).

So, in short, US agriculture is so efficient thanks to the European background. Note that various European countries and the US moved in rather different economic directions, yet the differences in wealth are negligible compared to poor countries. It's not the method, it's having the money to start with. It takes a very stupid government to not make more and more money out of that. Such as the Tsars in Russia. Only after they had been disposed of and their wealth put to good use could the economy take off. Contrary to what many think, the early USSR was an economic miracle (a tiger, we would say these days). Only after they started somewhat approaching western Europe's wealth did the still not so good government structure (five year plans, rigid structures and such) start to get in the way. But I deviate. DirkvdM 07:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hero or villain?

Thomas Becket has figured in polls for the best and the worst Britons. Which is it? Judithspencer 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

These polls are a measure of the opinions of the people who can be bothered to vote. They also depend on enough people having heard of the person and having an opinion. Presumably the people who voted him into the "best" category were not the same ones who voted him into the "worst" category. So, how do we measure whether somebody is "good" or "bad", and then, whether they are "good Briton" or a "bad Briton". If the criterion is that it depends on people's opinions, then clearly he fits in both categories. If you think that there is any possible objective measure, then maybe you could suggest what it may be? SaundersW 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has a paragraph near the end which explains why one historian selected him as a "worst". FiggyBee 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the question Hero or villain? I'll say it's possible to be both. Although Becket was born in England, he probably saw himself as a Norman rather than a Briton. Apart from that, there's clearly an arguable case for Becket's nomination as 'worst Briton of the 12th century', though it seems to me he'd have a strong field to beat. I suppose most nominations in the 'best Briton' category would be based on his development in the public consciousness since his death, especially in the unlikely role of saint. :Xn4 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your point of view. As chancellor, he wasn't terribly good (if I remember correctly), as a Christian, he was good, and as a Briton, I don't know. (Read a biography and decide for yourself). · AndonicO ^Talk 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It really depends where you are coming from, I suppose. As Xn4 suggests, he might very well be both: a hero for the church and a villain for the state. Henry VIII took the latter view, as one might expect, ordering the destruction of Becket's shrine at Canterbury in 1538. But there were also fellow churchmen who were equally critical of Becket's conduct, including his brother arch-bishop of York. Gilbert Foliot, the Bishop of London, another of Becket's enemies, was even to write after his death, when the cult of the martyr was gathering momentum, "It is difficult for things begun with bad beginnings to be carried through to a good conclusion."

Anyway, I know of the two polls you mention, Judith; the first in the Daily Mail, where he was reckoned to be among history's one hundred greatest Britons, and the second in the BBC History Magazine, where he was runner-up to Jack the Ripper among the ten worst! I find it difficult to determie just exactly who responds to this kind of thing, and if the selections made reflect any real knowledge of the subject. Becket is one of those iconic figures that, I suspect, people feel ought to appear on a list of greats, which I imagine was the basis for his inclusion among the Daily Mail worthies.

In fact Becket, his terrible end notwithstanding, was far from the saintly figure that many people may imagine. His dispute with Henry II was not over any great matter of theology or Christian principle, but about law, about politics and, above all about privilege. Henry wanted priests and clerics to be subject to the general law of England; Becket insisted that they should continue to appear only before church courts, in every way far more lenient than their secular equivalent. Even clerics accused of the very worst crimes, including rape and murder, were merely defrocked. It was an anomaly that Henry wanted to end with the Constitutions of Clarendon. Becket agreed to the changes, but then refused to sign, subsquently taking a path beyond compromise; a political path, and a treasonable path, that even frustrated Pope Alexander III. His cause was certainly damaging for the state; but it was also, according to Folet and others, damaging for the church. Arrogant, proud, high-handed, and vindictive, he seems to have none of the qualities of simplicity and benevolence that make for true saintliness, the hair-shirt and the lice notwithstanding. Best or worst? Well, on that particular question you will just have to make up your own mind! Clio the Muse 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New driving laws

I am interested in finding legislature that will enact laws prohibitting any drivers 16 or under from transporting more than one passenger. Any onfo greatly appreciated. --Jjohn10e 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you told us what part of the world you're interested in. FiggyBee 22:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for laws in the U.S.--Jjohn10e 01:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Any particular states? A lot seem to be introducing such limits on drivers under 18. FiggyBee 04:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As the legal driving age in the U.S. is 16, I don't think you'll find many drivers that are under 16 unless they have a hardship license or some such thing. Or they are driving under their learner's permit in which case they are required to have a parent or guardian riding with them at all times. Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said under 18. ;) FiggyBee 05:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was adressing the OP. Dismas|^(talk) 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The question makes sense. Even though a driver under 16 would presumably have only a learner's permit, which requires him to have a licensed driver in the vehicle, this in itself says nothing about how many other passengers could be transported. Unfortunately, I don't know if any laws have been passed on this issue. I think my home state had a limit on the number, but it wasn't one. GreatManTheory 11:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many laws & proposals in various countries that are designed to reduce the number of accidents younger drivers are involved in and their severity. Generally they apply to age ranges of drivers or are based on how many years they have been driving. Some of them are off the top of my head (by no means exhaustive):-

• Driving Curfews - Studies have shown that driving later at night is associated with higher accident rates
• Limitations on Passengers - Studies have shown that younger drivers drive more recklessly with passengers (especially from their peer group) than when alone. (This and the previous condition are sometimes combined - no passengers after 9pm for instance)
• Power Limitations - Younger drivers may be limited to a certain size of engine or power output or power to weight ratio for their vehicle.
• Size Limitations - They may not be permitted to drive larger heavier vehicles due to the more serious consequences these can cause to other road users in accidents.
• Visible Warnings - They may be required to have plates warning other road users they are recently qualified.
• More Stringent Legal Consequences - They may have less leeway in terms of the number of violations they may accumulate before license suspension/revocation than older/more experienced drivers.
• Stricter Alchohol Limits - They may have a much lower Blood Alcohol limit to discourage drink-driving, or even have an effective "zero limit".

The exact mechanisms will vary depending on the location, age and experience of the driver in quesiton. Exxolon 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Floating a note (singing, not monetary)

Most of my experience with the operatic soprano is through recordings. During the 1970's and 80's I was very interested in technique and beauty. I was told that when I heard a disembodied note sung by Caballé, that she was "floating" the note. Of course, we were listening to two-channel (stereo) recordings. The dimensions were limited to a field spread between the channels with some front to back depth. In the right set-up and cartridge, one might get a feel of space above the head. I was fortunate to hear Dame Joan Sutherland sing "Lucia di Lammermoor" during her final MET engagement. I sat in the orchestra, possibly row M center, and heard a most unusual phenomenon of the vocal art in the "mad scene" when a high note seemed to eminate not from the stage but high up and behind me. This must have been the true "floated" note which is not captured on recordings. How is this note produced? In the Sutherland recording of Turandot with Caballé singing Liu, does Caballé float a note or is it just pianissimo? How many discrete channels would be required to capture this phenomenon in a recording?LShecut2nd 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

September 17

Longest Serving Democratically Elected Leader?

I asked this same question on this page a few years back without success but as everyone here seems to be far more intelligent (and no doubt better looking) than the people who were around then that I thought I would try again...

Sir Thomas Playford GCMG is referred to as having "the longest term of any democratically elected leader in the history of the Commonwealth of Nations" (26 years, 125 days). Can anyone tell me who outside the Commonwealth has served as a democratically elected leader (federal/state/territory etc.) for longer? Roisterer 06:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Byrd is the longest-serving US Senator in history (49 years next January). I doubt that's the longest in history, though. Just by odds, there are so many more elected leaders at the local level, so it's more likely to be someone there. --Sean 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Byrd would qualify as a leader though, since he's not a governor or president. A close contender is Urho Kekkonen, who was president of Finland from March 1st, 1956 to January 27, 1982, or 25 years, 10 months and 26 days. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. I misunderstood the question. --Sean 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To a degree, popes are elected democratically as well. This would make Pope Pius IX, who reigned from 1846 to 1878 (31 years, 7 months and 23 days) a candidate for this title. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

reductio ad absurdum: the answer that makes nonsense of the question. --Wetman 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal case results citation

I came across the article for Colleen Shannon which says that she was involved in a legal battle over her high school yearbook photo when it got published in Playboy. I've been able to find a lot of links to articles about the case written before the decision of the court was made but not one link explaining how the case was settled. Does anyone know how I might find such info? Dismas|^(talk) 08:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is she involved? The article says that the yearbook photo company is suing Playboy... AnonMoos 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In one of the articles that I read it was said she was named as one of the defendants since she gave the photo to Playboy. Dismas|^(talk) 10:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the specific article. They credit the Sacremento Bee as their source. Dismas|^(talk) 10:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Beard-stroking to express disbelief?

This may just be an British/English thing (or even a Northern English thing) - but does anyone know where the gesture of stroking one's beard (or chin, in absence of a beard) from back to front to express disbelief at, and mock another person's tall tale/apparent blatant lie originates? It's often accompanied by saying "beard, beard, beard", "chin, chin, chin" or "goat, goat, goat" in a bleating, sheeplike voice (yes, male goats do have beards - but I don't know how it ties in with this). It can actually be taken as a very serious insult, especially amongst the drunk. Any ideas? --Kurt Shaped Box 14:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly OR, but I thought it dates back to a 70s playground taunt, referring to TV football pundit Jimmy Hill, who has a very peculiar chin (and, from time to time, goatee beard). I think the implication was that Hill talked rubbish. There were many variations, often preceeded by "ooh", such as "ooh Jimmy". I think the specific reference to Hill dropped off way before he disappeared from TV screens, which makes me wonder if the Hill reference was the application of his name to a fad that predates my memory! --Dweller 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

religious recognition at the UN

Which religions are recognised in the United Nations & on what parameters are they given this recognition?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.51.226 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)