Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Sprache
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 5

Latin text

Some years ago, I took GCSE Latin and I remember studying a text called (I think) Tres Feminas. It contained descriptions of three women, two of whom I barely remember. One of them was an old lady (perhaps the writer's grandmother or aunt?) who was a patron of the arts and very much the 'wild rich old lady' stereotype, in a positive way. I think the text was in the form of a letter. Can anyone help find this text, or more information on it? I've searched the title as I remember it, but I'm not having any luck. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the title is "Tres Feminae", is it this letter by Pliny? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you! Clearly my poor grammar was holding me back :) Exactly the text. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Do animals and insects ponder existence?

My guess is no. Perhaps this shows the futility and meaningless pursuit of trying to figure it out at all. Because if we think we've discovered the whole ball of wax (math, how the universe began, studying consciousness, etc.), it may turn out that we're no more incisive than a gnat!--Sam Science (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that if too many of them insects I mean, do food sharing and trading[1], honey bees [2], termites[3] they may develop groups that find themselves with free time to ponder. What then? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering Samscience, how we would know if an animal pondered existence. We may be the only species that analyses and records stuff and put it outside of our own brains, but we can't say for sure that we are the only ones pondering – but then we are an arrogant species... Julia Rossi (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can make educated assumptions based on how complicated their brains are and how the insects themselves behave, for example. Insect brains are pretty small and simple, and they never show any signs of sapience, consciousness or metacognition, for example -- all of which, I think it's safe to say, are pretty much prerequisites for pondering one's existence. The fact that we have no reason to believe that any insect could grasp, even on the simplest conceptual level, this very conversation indicates that they wouldn't have the capability to ponder existence. Or, to put it differently, if they are more intelligent than we think, they're not only hiding it really well, but managing it in some way we have seen no indications of, because it's certainly not happening in their brains.

But that's insects. Some animals, notably chimpanzees, are a hell of a lot smarter than, oh, crickets. Do they really ponder their existence in any advanced sense? Well, probably not. It's a pretty complicated concept, really. But chimps and other great apes have displayed good cognitive skills, including the ability to learn to communicate abstract concepts with humans -- which may sound simple, but it's really leaps and bounds beyond what the cats and dogs -- or insects -- can do. Oh, and dolphins are also intriguingly intelligent, but that's apparently a topic we're still not very knowledgeable about. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Insects ARE animals. So are humans. Therefore, animals have indeed pondered existence, because humans have and they are animals. ScienceApe (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, semantics! What a wonderful way to answer a question without actually providing any of the information requested. Well done! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. ScienceApe (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitler condemned as war criminal?

Could Hitler been condemned as war criminal? If he was not condemned, is it right to suppose he could be inocent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.92.109 (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Hitler was condemned as a war criminal, repeatedly. He was certainly not innocent.--NeoNerd 11:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because Hitler was not brought to trial at the Nuremberg Trials it is not right to suppose he was innocent. However it is difficult to disprove that he was not an 'unwitting dupe' in the whole affair/thing; though I imagine that most people would not take such an idea seriously given his track record ie anti-semitic speaches etc..87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Hitler could be innocent. However, if we take the presumption of innocente to its extreme (not condemned by a tribunal = innocent), is it right to suppose he could be innocent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.92.109 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Presumption of innocence is a pretty basic legal concept, and one that the Nüremberg Trials followed, to the best of my knowledge. However, you should bear in mind that just because someone is not proved to be guilty, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are innocent, or even considered to be innocent by the rest of the world. A pretty famous example of this is O.J. Simpson, who was found not guilty of murdering his wife and her friend in criminal court -- and he was still found guilty of the act in a civil case, and many people think he did it and shouldn't have been released.

Interrupting to make a correction: the judgement in the civil case was that Simpson was liable for the crime. Only in a criminal case could he be found guilty. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, July 6, 2008.

Thanks for the interruption, I guess. I realize that there's a legal distinction, but the point is that the judgment indicated that OJ was not just some guy who had nothing to do with the crime. The judge couldn't find OJ guilty of the murder, since that wasn't what the trial was about, and in any case he had already been found not guilty of the murder earlier, so what with double jeopardy and all, he was off the hook -- and yet the judgment was that he was liable. In essence, the court was saying that it believed that OJ killed them. This was pretty much the exact opposite of what the murder trial decided. Anyway, my original response continues below... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what the murder trial decided was that he had not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "We believe he did it" is not the opposite of that. --Anon, 22:21 UTC, July 7.

Yeah, okay. Do you perhaps disagree with the basic point I'm making here, that OJ is an example of someone being found not guilty of a crime and yet made to pay for that crime elsewhere, or do you just want to argue the semantics? If it's the latter, hey, you win. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a correction, not an argument. I have no argument with what you intended to say, but what you did say was wrong. (And could be construed as libelous.) --Anon, 06:20 UTC, July 9.

That's fair enough. (As for libel, hey, he's welcome to sue my ass.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I have no doubt that Hitler would have been found guilty, not only because of overwhelming evidence but because there's no way he could have been found not guilty. I think it's pretty much inconceivable that the Allies could have had the man in charge of Germany at the time on trial and not convict him. The man was pretty much the whole Nazi Reich personified; he would have to be guilty, no matter what, for reasons of politics, image, credibility and satisfaction, and at least some sense of justice -- even (and perhaps especially) if it was completely illusionary. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the massive and overwhelming presumption of his guilt, Hitler and his lawyers would probably have argued that there was no way he would be getting a fair trial, either in Nuremberg or anywhere else in the world, ever, so they may as well release him and let him get on with his memoirs. The judges would probably have said "You know what, you're dead right, it isn't a fair trial. But we're still going to try you, find you guilty, and sentence you to death." -- JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I think the "can't get a fair trial here" concept only relates to jury trials. Judges are supposed to be capable of the kind of reasoning where they can set aside the prejudicial factors and deliver a fair decision based only on the evidence presented. There would surely have been massive amounts of evidence available against Hitler if he had lived to face the courts. --Anonymous, 05:15 UTC, July 6, 2008.

This is, of course, why jury trials are not popular in many parts of the world. Our article on them puts it rather well: "it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen." (I'm not arguing for or against jury trials, I should probably stress.) In any case, arguments like this were raised at the time as well, as our article on the Nuremberg Trials details -- that since the judges were chosen by the victors, no one could get an impartial trial. A fairly solid counter-argument appeared in Juridicial Review, 1946:

"Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because 'a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens.'"

There were numerous other problems with the trials, many felt, chief among them that, essentially, the entire situation was blatantly biased, what with the creation of ex post facto laws and the dismissal of tu quoque defenses and the judges generally making shit up as they went along. In retrospect, I think a lot of those arguments were pretty solid: I think the Allies definitely set up the trials in the jolly spirit of getting some goddamn payback, no matter how they dressed them up; the political pressure to convict these people was tremendous, and I think it would be unreasonable to assume that the judges were immune to that, even if they did their very best to be as fair as anyone could be. It's not a good basis for a fair trial. On the other hand, if anyone had it coming, those guys did. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

According to yesterday´s news report, he has been decapitated shortly after 10 AM CET in Berlin. The heinous act of vandalism (maybe an oxymoron in this context) has been lauded even by the Berlin police. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone else is as confused by that last comment as I was, it apparently refers to a wax dummy of Hitler being decapitated yesterday. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Misotheism etc.

OK, I've read the misotheism article and it doesn't answer my question, so here it is: is there a name for a theory/doctrine that God is good in His intent, but incompetent in His actions? Or to put it another way, that He's bitten off more than He can chew? And are there any notable proponents of such a view? - Hence Piano (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gnosticism would be one possibility, being a philosophy which argues, at least, that creation / reality has a few bugs which are inherent in the gap between the perfect idea and the imperfect physical framework of the implementation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gnosticism is classically associated with the idea of the Demiourgos, or a creator of the world who is actually quite different from the true high God. The Demiourgos can be misguided or malevolent, but I'm not sure about incompetent... AnonMoos (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Process Theology teaches that God is constantly developing, and thus does not have sovereignty over the universe. You might also view different theories of the Atonement... the notion that Christ died out of love (taught by men such as Peter Abelard) sometimes plays out in doubting the deity of Christ or the goodness of God in letting it happen. Liberal theology has much to offer in this area. Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir John Milner Bailey, 2nd Baronet

What was the cause of death of Sir John Milner Bailey, 2nd Baronet? He was a former son-in-law of Sir Winston Churchill and his father was Sir Abe Bailey. I see on Wikipedia that Sir John was 46 when he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.220.200.130 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more information on him at Bailey Baronets, but I can't trace a cause of death. He died in Cape Town. If you really need the cause of death, your most reliable source would be to get hold of a copy of his death certificate from the Registrar of Births and Deaths in the South African Department of Home Affairs, see here. Xn4 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

two question involve, about aesthetics and thinking

1.while we are touched by a beatiful scene(for example, the sky's blue after long term cloudy days) or touched by a rymthm of blue music, what make us "touched" inside our brain? what's the phisical or chemical reaction inside our body, what make us delighted by these?

2.what's the physiological meaning for these kind of feeling? If we lost it(any possibillity on it?),what's the result.

remark, why i raise this question? it's to explore what influence the human activity, then the society activity.

aaadump 2008.07.06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaadump (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Some relevant articles may be neurochemistry, dopamine, neurotransmitter and associated links / references. Specific aspects of this question may be better answered on the science desk, WP:RD/S. There is also user:Dr Dima, who is a researcher in cerebral functions and may be able to give you special references. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

handshakes

Is there ever a time when a handshake is inapprpriate. Why is the gesture used so widely and in a wide variation of scenarios. Clover345 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When my girlfriend greets me at the airport a handshake is totally inappropriate, but I suppose you mean greetings that are too formal for handshakes, not too casual... Plasticup ^T/C 21:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of times when a handshake is inappropriate. For example, if you're on the toilet in a public bathroom and someone enters the next stall, sticking your hand under the partition for a handshake probably isn't going to go over very well -- though I suspect that's not what you're looking for here. It's a pretty convenient way to convey a basic degree of respect and friendliness to someone, and it conveys a willingness to communicate with someone and to let them into your personal space, if only for a moment... so there's a lot of pretty useful symbolism there.

It's by no means the only form of greeting out there, though. In the olden days, people used to tip their hats, military people still like their salutes, and bowing is popular in Japan and other Asian countries. Many Southern Europeans and Latin Americas kiss cheeks, and Maoris press their noses together. Eskimos do a similar thing. Verbal greetings are also very popular, as are dap greetings, which are really just another way to shake hands. All of these things can take the place of a handshake, either because the situation calls for more or less formality than a handshake would convey, or simply because it's not the local habit. Still, handshaking is a pretty universal gesture. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, some religious Muslims and Jews avoid touching members of the opposite sex to whom they aren't related. And there are mysophobes who avoid human contact. --D. Monack | talk 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In some cultures shaking hands with the left hand is considered offensive. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In many countries with monarchs it's probably inappropriate for an ordinary person to try and shake hands with the monarch or often even members of the monarch's family. In some countries, it may even be inappropriate to shake hands with the non-monarch head of state and/or head of government. Even if it's not necessarily inappropriate, it may be inappropriate for you to offer your hand (obviously you should accept a handshake if offered) except in some circumstances like if the monarch's going down a line shaking everyone's hand Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nil Einne beat me to it. Generally one ought to wait for the (British) monarch to prooffer her hand. Anything else could be onsidered rude. --Cameron* 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As a part of the Tarahumara culture they avoid physical contact with others as much as possible, and do not shake hands in greeting. Most Tarahumara people, if offered a handshake by someone unfamiliar with their customs, will be polite enough to extend their hand in a curled fashion (imagine fingers curled and the thumb touching the curled index finger) and let you wrap your hand around yours to shake their hand. They will not grasp your hand at all. When greeting a Tarahumara, it would be polite to refrain from offering your hand. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Some years ago, a friend of mine had a girlfriend of Serbian heritage. When they got engaged, I was invited to her parents' house for dinner, and when I was introduced to them I naturally extended my hand. The father hesitated, then half-heartedly shook my hand. The mother didn't seem to have a problem (she was German-born). I asked my friend later what that was about, and he told me that in Serbian culture it's considered rude to initiate a handshake with a much older person (they were about 40 years older than me). You wait for them to initiate it, and then reciprocate. I said to him "thanks very much for letting me know in advance". -- JackofOz (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I walked into a cocktail reception and upon greeting a circle of 4-5 people, and shaking each person's hand, I then gave a short wave to my boss, since I had already seen him several times during the day. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Until not long ago - I would estimate about 25 years - it was customary in Britain to shake hands with people only on first being introduced to them. The idea of shaking hands with people you already knew was (to me) one of those strange things that foreigners did. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If we ever found the answers to all the big questions...

What then? Imagine,- a world where we know ALL physical laws, what the afterlife is like, the purpose of existence, and know everyone and everything's past, present, and future. Would there be another level, or would we just freeze and/or cease to exist?THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt that anyone could give a meaningful and/or even remotely factual answer to this question. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean, I stumped the great Wiki!? And you guys aspire to gather all the world's knowledge... ;D THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pfft. There are plenty of things Wikipedia has no information on and never will. Like what your great great grandmother thought when she was was giving birth to your great grandmother, or where the hell did one of my socks go, because I could swear I put it in the washing machine earlier today, but it wasn't there when I took the laundry out of the damn thing. Where is it? I don't see the Reference Desk providing me with a solid answer on that one. The Reference Desk sucks, 'cause I want my goddamn sock! As for aspiring to gather all the world's knowledge, I think that's a kind of an unfortunate statement -- and then again, I think it's a worthy goal. You just shouldn't think it's a task that could ever be completed.

But to be a little more serious here, it's a kind of a silly question. You might as well ask what's the last day of the last human being in existence going to be like, or what's the last living thing to expire before the universe is completely devoid of life, or who's going to be elected the president of the United States fifty years from now. You can get a lot of speculation, sure, but you're not going to get any actual answers to your question. And it's not really what the Reference Desk is here for. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but I notice a lot of intellectual discussion on these boards that doesn't have any solid answers, just theory. If I wanted solid facts, that's what the regular entries are for, so I try to ask questions that are unlikely to have a page about them. They key phrase for me here is "intellectual discussion", so I sincerely hope it's okay to ask outside the box questions around here. BTW, I like some of the mock questions you asked in your response. There's a reason I call myself- THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can ask, sure. Just don't count on getting sensible answers. =) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is, how would we ever know that we've discovered the last thing it's possible to know? Where is the list of things that we'd tick off and know for certain we'd got to the end? Every discovery made by science seems to create a zillion new questions and areas of research that previously hadn't even been dreamt of. In a way, we're getting further and further behind the 8-ball, not getting closer at all, as our knowledge of what there is to know expands at an increasing rate. That may not be particularly meaningful, but I hope it's sensible. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You've made it clear you are looking for discussion, not answers. This is a "reference desk." Just in case you don't know what a reference desk is... This is a place to ask for references and answers to factual questions - not requests for opinions or discussions. If you want opinions and discussions, use one of the millions (if not billions) of message boards and discussion forums on the Internet. Do not attempt to ruin this reference desk by turning it into a discussion forum simply because you lack the ability to use a proper website. -- kainaw™ 00:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Im not trying to "ruin" your website. I'm clearly not the only one that asks these kinds of questions, so I find that insulting (maybe I'm just in a bad mood). There probabably is an answer to this question, just not a solid one. There are all kinds of theoretical physicists, and professional guessers out there for the big questions and some of them discusss the unanswerable right here. Jack of Oz, for example, gave an insiteful response for which I am grateful. THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll be interested in reductionism.--Wetman (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also read Epistemology and Philosophy of science. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote: It's 'illogical' for the universe to exist, and continuing is utterly futile, yet you have absolutely no choice but to do so..

Was that the sort of 'big answer' you were looking for..?87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we will not get to a point where we freeze and cease to exist, not by that route anyway. People are good at learning; it's what we do. We will carry on being curious and learning more stuff. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Were we to know everything, we would be the gods themselves. Well, it sounds poetic... Steewi (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is all beside the point. Everyone in the world wants to live a good life without worrying about where the next meal is coming from, how they're ever going to get out of debt or how they're going to escape the violence that's killing people in their region. This world needs a whole lot that has nothing to do with finding stuff out. We already have enough answers to turn things around. Not knowing stuff isn't the problem. -LambaJan (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Farming College

Is there a college that specializes in traditional farming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Traditional"? Organic, unmechanised, etc. ? Fribbler (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I just mean traditional techniques like using oxen or horses instead of tractors and using manure instead of fertilizer. I don't really want to say "organic" because that brings up so many new modern techniques also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a college but Tillers International [4] has classes on such skills. Rmhermen ( talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many local organisations which provide small courses of that nature, but it's hard to direct you to specific ones without even knowing which country you live in, Tyler. Try investigating local heavy horse clubs, organic co-operatives; check out the magazines on offer for smallholders/small farmers/lifestyle farmers/hobby farmers (terms even vary from place to place!) as they are often interested in alternative methods. Also worth investigating is WWOOF (Willing Workers on Organic Farms) which have a number of farms where you can work for a period in exchange for bed, board and tuition/experience; this would give you hands-on experience with heavy horses, manuring fields and so forth. Gwinva (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Picture in History

What is the oldest still image ever produced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.153.148 (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cave paintings in Chauvet Cave have been dated to around 30,000 BP. There may be some artifacts going back to Neanderthalians which are somewhat older. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the oldest photograph, check the captioned image at the top of that article. --Sean 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Or this from Sluzzelin's user page (and elsewhere I'm sure). -hydnjo talk 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July 6

Specific style of living poet

I’m looking for some living or recently living poets who write in a specific style. Because I’m not very familiar with the modern poetry scene I thought I’d ask here. I don’t care what nationality or language the poets come from.

I’m looking for poets who:

1. Write very intellectual avant-guard poetry.
2. Poets who are non-realist (or not completely realist).
3. Poets who are concerned with ordinary modern objects and experiences (smoke alarms, cars, Iraq war, etc.)
4. Poets who view the world in a very eccentric, creative, perhaps surrealist way.

Wikipedia seems to have very little on current poetry movements. The closest things I’ve found to what I’m looking for are parts of the libretto Alice Goodman wrote for The Death of Klinghoffer. Some poems by H.D. and Elizabeth Bishop come close. Michel Gondry pictures seem like the film version of what I’m looking for in poetry. Brian Turner comes close too sometimes. I guess what I’m looking for could be called Kitchen Sink Non-Realism. :)

Hope someone has some clue what I’m talking about! Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Long ago Wallace Stevens offered many ways of looking at an ordinary blackbird, and a plain jar on a hill in Tennessee.--Wetman (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"To know" in the Biblical sense

Did this particular euphemism originate in the King James Bible(or for that matter, a different Biblical translation), or is it a literal translation of a word/phrase from ancient Hebrew? 69.106.4.120 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The euphemism originates in the Hebrew, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The verb in question is one with triliteral root ידע y-d-` and/or ודע w-d-` (where ` is the voiced pharyngeal consonant). AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider that there is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between the words in any one language and any other. As the biblical Hebrew word predated the English, the use of "to know" is not so much a euphemism as the inadequate nature of the nearest likely equivalent, based on the conventional usage of "to know" and ידע (the word given by AnonMoos, above). Both primarily mean having knowledge (in the cogntive sense), and in regard to persons, "to be acquainted with". According to Even-Shoshan's New Dictionary (1999 edition, 5 vol.), the fourth of four meanings of that Hebrew word is glossed as the verbs בעל = a man's having possession (= ownership) of a woman (e.g. Adam => Eve) and הזדווג = to copulate (reciprocal). Besides, Modern Hebrew has an entirely other word, הכיר, meaning "to be acquainted with [somebody]". Hope this helps! (and sorry I don't know how to write the Hebrew words with full vocalization) -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy quote

This is killing me. I could've sworn this quote was from Steve Martin, but now that I research it, I can't find the quote online AT ALL! I think I got it from a documentary on Steve Martin or philosophy, but maybe I stole this from a professor? Either way, if this looks familiar to anyone, I'd love to know where it came from:

" College philosophy teaches you just enough to really fuck you up. ”

Thanks --Shaggorama (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant Steve Martin's quote from Wild and Crazy Guy: "If you're studying geology, which is all facts, as soon as you get out of school you forget it all… but philosophy, you remember just enough to screw you up for the rest of your life." -- kainaw™ 02:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's conflating Steve Martin with Philip Larkin. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Kainaw had it right, but thanks for the poem. --Shaggorama (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

new rational

The threat of domestic and international terrorism for development of nuclear weapons of mass destruction seems to have dampened enthusiasm for building nuclear power plants which might directly drive aluminum smelters to recycle aluminum from spent aluminum-air batteries, which have an energy density equal to gasoline.

It seems quite logical then that prevention of the replacement of crude-oil based fuel with a metal (aluminum) based fuel would be a motive for maintaining a threat of domestic and international terrorism by oil rich states.

By making everyone afraid to build nuclear power plants that might free us from a crude-oil based economy we seem to be slaves of terrorism and herein seems to be the delimia with which the world is faced.

Is it irrational to think that this might be the practical motive for terrorism as sponsored by oil rich states or is this just unfounded speculation? -- adaptron (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You answered your own question. If you are trying to start a discussion about terrorism and the world oil-based economies, please use one of the many discussion forums on the Internet. If you have a request for factual information, please ask. This is a reference desk, not a discussion forum. -- kainaw™ 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rudeness is a characteristic which you think is a virtue but it is not. -- adaptron (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Adaption, please do not take the directness of Kainaw's answer as rudeness. You are asking us to discuss the rationale of your theory, which is out of the scope of this reference desk. As Kainaw suggested, there are many other forums online where your question will be warmly received and responded to, but it is not our practice at the reference desk to speculate. Reading Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines may help you better understand why we can't help you here. Good luck. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I provided a rational for the question I did not ask for a discussion but rather a yes or no answer, since I can not find a yes or no answer to this question in any of the articles about energy economics. I am not asking you to discuss anything. At most I would be asking you to suggest Wikipedia articles. The discussion has already occurred elsewhere. In my effort to participate in that discussion in an informed and knowledgably way I began looking for answers in Wikipedia articles on energy economics and found nothing. If you can't answer yes or no and you can not address the content of the question then my expectation is for you ignore the question in hopes that it might be answered by someone else. Despite the challenge for your egos the reference desk is open to all members of the Wikipedia to answer questions and not just to a few volunteers manning the reference desk. Otherwise responses could only be provided by the reference desk staff. As John McCain once said to Cindy about the University of Southern California, the Wikipedia reference is otherwise known as the reference desk of spoiled children but this is not what I came here to ask. -- adaptron (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you say you just want a yes or no answer, here it is: No, this just unfounded speculation. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"the Wikipedia reference is otherwise known as the reference desk of spoiled children but this is not what I came here to ask" why did you come here to ask then? I personally don't tend to ask important questions of spoiled children... Anyway the answer is yes it is irrational. P.S. Has it occured to you that there might be a reason why you can't find a simple yes or no answer to a complicated question in articles intended to be about rational discussion and not simplistic nonsense Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is it irrational to think that this might be the practical motive for terrorism as sponsored by oil rich states or is this just unfounded speculation?" - Both. It is both irrational and an unfounded speculation. Plasticup ^T/C 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

population

What is population?what is india's population?what is the male and female population in india? what is the concentration of population in india? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.190.253 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Population of India will help you focus your question. --Wetman (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Guinness

Why does Guinness use, in the titles of their books, the following year instead of the current year? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The books are intended for a Christmas release - since Christmas occurs right at the end of year, it would seem out-of-date to give someone the 2008 Guinness Book of World Records at the very end of the year, especially if they didn't get to open the present until after New Year - giving them the 2009 Guinness Book of World Records would be more timely. Laïka 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could also think of it like this. The 2008 Guinness Book of World Records has the records as of 2008 (more or less). We can't be sure what records would be broken in 2009. Perhaps Microsoft will release Windows 7 for free and it will get 20 million downloads in one day beating the shit out of FF3. Perhaps we'd find someone in some lost African tribe 3 metres tall. Clearly these records if they are achieved in 2009 should be in the 2009 Guinness Book but we wouldn't expect them in the 2008 book Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it cannot be fixed. In order to change it, they would have to release another 2008 book, or skip 2008's release, or release 2008v2. No matter what they do, it effectively means losing a year's release. This is similar to the video games based on professional sports. They are all a year ahead. In August 2008, "Madden NFL 2009" will be released, based on the 2007-2008 rosters with as many updates to the rosters as they could cram in before the game went into production (probably around May 2008). It should be "Madden NFL 2008ish" - but who would buy that? -- kainaw™ 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet it can seem confusing, if you compare it with, say, the Oscars. Achievements relating to films released in 2007 were recognised at the 2007 Oscars, which were presented in 2008. World records that occurred prior to some cut-off date (presumably in early-mid 2007) were recognised in the 2008 Guinness, which was published in 2007. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some people refer to the Oscars presented in 2008 (for films released in 2007) as the 2008 Oscars. The IMDB does this, for example. Personally I think it's very confusing.

As for Guinness, it's not just them; many annual reference books are published late in the year and dated the following year. They may justify it on the grounds that for most of that year it will be the newest available edition, but really it's just marketing, a way to make the thing look newer than it really is. Similarly note that, at least in North America, the dates on magazines are normally the date when the following issue will appear. For that matter, morning newspapers are commonly printed the day before. --Anonymous, 07:12 UTC, July 8, 2008.

Image

I thought they were mortal enemies! Why are they being nice to each other? 124.180.187.161 (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, they weren't. But even if they had been, they had some basic manners and understanding of diplomacy, which would have enabled them to meet and discuss the things they had to discuss -- such as, you know, not destroying the world in a nuclear inferno. Certain recent loud protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it's preferable to have a line of communication with your enemy. You should understand that even though during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union were opposing each other, that doesn't mean the people in charge of those nations necessarily considered each other "mortal enemies". It wasn't personal. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, see also Geneva_Summit#1985:_Reagan_and_Gorbachev. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they met thrice (85/Geneva, 86/Reykjavik, 87/Washington). Reagan realised fairly early the "revolutionary" aspects of Gorbachev's goals and the latter appreciated the support of Reagan to implement perestroika and glasnost in the then USSR. Indeed, at the end of his 2nd term Reagan gave most of the credit for the "Reagan revolution" to the (last) Soviet leader. Maybe it is of less importance in Australia, but we in Europe would still live in the middle of a cold war, had it not been for the courage of these two to sidestep the antagonism of decades. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gorbachev was not a mortal enemy of the US. Indeed, it was his lack of hardline aspects that eventually led to the Soviet state collapsing, hoisted up as it was on the back of hardline policies. Even Margaret Thatcher once espoused: "I like Mr. Gorbachev, we can do business together." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Working on Sundays

Would a hobby like gardening, woodworking, or fishing be considered working? I hate just sitting around on Sundays since the Bible says you aren't supposed to work on Sundays. Can someone please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You should speak to a priest, or other religious adviser since if you believe in such things, it depends on whatever you believe. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason why you are not supposed to work on holy days is not to sit around, but to pray and to study holy writ. Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's the "day of rest", and you find those activities restful, then go ahead, I say. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Bible says you shouldn't work on the sabbath, which was originally Friday night and Saturday daytime. The early Church moved it to Sunday in part to differentiate Christian practice from Judaism, although some Christians, notably Seventh-Day Adventists, still observe Saturday as the sabbath. Jewish practice clearly forbids gardening, woodworking and likely fishing on the sabbath; see Activities prohibited on Shabbat. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish practice is much more codified and rigorously interpreted (if not necessarily rigorously followed) than most other faiths. Most other faiths are relatively liberal and some are perfectly ok with people going to work, going shopping, doing the gardening, fixing the fence or the roof, mowing the lawn, having a party, or what have you. You'd have to ask the particular religious adviser exactly where they draw the line. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the things I don't understand about Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity -- how, without an equivalent to halakhah or sharia, questions like this get answered. As Jack says, in Judaism, it's pretty cut and dried; there's a bunch of stuff you can't do on the sabbath, although modern innovations like electricity lead to unresolved questions. Who makes the call in Christianity, and based on what? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're a Christian you should look up the story where Jesus heals a fellow on the sabbath and he goes home carrying his bedding with him and the rabbis throw a fit and he calls them out for it. If you're a Jew you should look up the relevant verses in the Torah and really consider, given the rationale, where the sensible boundaries are. When it comes down to it this is all between you and God, and anyone who gets inbetween what is written and tells you what to do is just telling you their or someone else's interpretation and there's nothing I've ever seen in there that says they're more right than you or their interpretation is more authoritative in the sight of God than anyone else's. Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds in writing this but as far as I'm concerned, if you're doing all of this for God then look up what God says and if you're doing it for your place in the community then listen to what the people-who-like-telling-others-what-to-do tell you to do. -LambaJan (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Although many people call themselves "Christians", they can't look to any single human authority to tell them what the rules are, because there is no such authority. You have to be content with the Presbyterian version, or the Catholic version, or the Mormon version, or what have you. Even then, in my experience, one priest/minister may say one thing, but a different priest/minister (of the same denomination) may say something quite contradictory. Ultimately, it's a matter of conscience. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Using google with "bible" and "concordance" gives a site where you can look things up in the bible. Selective copy and paste with "sabbath" gives

Exodus 35:2 'Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of solemn rest to Yahweh: whoever does any work in it shall be put to death.

Matthew 12:11 He said to them, "What man is there among you, who has one sheep, and if this one falls into a pit on the Sabbath day, won't he grab on to it, and lift it out?

Matthew 12:12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

July 7

Somalis in Africa

Which African nations doesn't have Somali refugees since Somali Civil War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.130.164 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine every nation in Africa probably has at least one Somali living there, although whether they are granted official refuge status is another matter. If this is a quiz question, it might be a trick, with the answer being Somalia, on the basis of them not being refuges if they remained in Somalia. There is the classification of "internally displaced refuges", however, so that might not be it. StuRat (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Living conditions in 14th century in southern Germany

Is it appropriate to ask for history information here? Or where can I ask?

My ancestors were in Heilbronn in the 1300s, surname of MARKART and MAERKLIN. I want to find out about living conditions in that area. What were the houses like? What kind of boats were on the Neckar? What public buildings were there?

thank you Hortense501 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right place to ask. I've reformatted your question a bit, though. Note that Germany didn't exist as a nation until the 19th century, but the Germanic states go back much further. Hopefully others can address the conditions. StuRat (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See [5] for the history of Heilbronn. StuRat (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Late Middle Ages will provide a bit of context also. Gwinva (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You may care to have a look at the German version of the article (link in box languages: Deutsch) which contains a number of photos of historical buildings, partly of medieval Gothic origin.

As to your question on shipping: The German article says that the Neckar was blocked by mills and weirs since the High Middle Ages. Only in the Industrial Revolution Helbronn regained importance as one of the important inland ports.

Märklin, BTW, is until today a famous manufacturer of technical toys (model trains and the like) and does stem from Württemberg.

Some of the fame of Heilbronn is connected to Götz von Berlichingen, a historical figure often quoted in a suitable context by people of sophisticated literary erudition :-) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for Islam as the One True Religion

I’ve heard Christians claim that there are proofs and evidences for Christianity to be the “one true religion”. Those evidences include evidences that what the Bible says is true and evidences that Jesus Christ is God and the son of God.

But what about Muslims? Do they also claim to have any proofs or evidences for their religion, Islam, to be the one true religion? If so, then what are they? Are there any websites or sections of websites that talk about them?

I'm not asking if Muslims actually have any evidences for Islam. I'm just asking if they claim to have such evidences. Don’t tell me if those evidences of Islam are true or false, right or wrong, really evidences of them or not. Just tell me if they claim to have so.

Brickfield 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw a youtube video recording of an Arab TV show with English subtitles about how Mecca has the oldest rocks on earth, people who live there live longer than anywhere else, it has energy emanating from it, and it is equidistant from the magnetic poles. [6] Wrad (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course they have evidence. Amongst many prophecies and encounters with angels, Mohammad was supposedly taken up to heaven for a little one-on-one with the big man himself. His lore wasn't actually written down for a couple centuries, but you can find the Islamic version of these events in the Qur'an. The Kaaba was supposedly laid down by Abraham (they called him Ibrahim) and it reflects a house in heaven called al-Baytu l-Maˤmur. And please, please, please, do not think you are gaining a reasonable insight into ancient and nuanced cultures via youtube. Plasticup ^T/C 13:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha! If he shouldn't trust youtube why in the world should he trust us?! Wrad (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The best I could come up with is Q:4:163: "Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted unto David the Psalms;" I think this make their view pretty clear. -LambaJan (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As clear as mud. Plasticup ^T/C 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, they believe that they teach the same things Jesus, Job, Noah, and Abraham taught. Wrad (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, something about Christianity and Judaism having lost their way with too much sophistry. Same God, purer text, if I recall. Plasticup ^T/C 23:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. They dig up evidence that the Old Testament and New Testament have been changed through the centuries to back this up. Wrad (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Islamic view of miracles may be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

In a map book I have, Utah is smaller than it should be. Its left border crosses over the Great Salt Lake. The book in question is quite old, so was it really like that at one point? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Utah was ever that small, but just to be sure, exactly how old is your book? Wrad (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My book was made in the mid-'80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.245.162 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Utah has not changed in size since the 1980s. Curious, what book is this? Dismas|^(talk) 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's called "Jacaranda Atlas Programme: Atlas 2". 208.76.245.162 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally, producers of maps insert fictitious entries or errors to catch copyright infringers. See also trap street. But moving the border and shrinking a state seems to be unusually misleading and erroneous for this practice. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramayana

We all know that the Ramayana is a mythological epic of Lord Rama's war with Ravana.But it was a fact that Rama really fought with Ravana to regain his wife Seeta.In the epic we come across the vanaras who are said to be monkey like people inhabiting the jungles of present day Andhra pradesh.Mythological stories generally exxagerate the details so let us decide that the vanaras were not monkeys but a brachycephalic tribe living in the forests whom Rama helped and gained their support.With their support Rama fought with the army of Ravana which was obviously superior in arms.Okay we will decide that Rama taught them modern warfare tactics.But how did they reach Lanka especially Lord Hanuman when he went in search of Seeta?In reality they could not fly.Did they build ships or did they use the already existing natural landform of Adam's bridge?They are said to have built a bridge with floating stones to Lanka but it looks rediculous to think so.I want to know what actually happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.158.162 (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Ram sethu -- Q Chris (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From the sound of your initial statements, it doesn't sound like you want to know what really happened at all. Ninebucks (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

hostage taking

Is hostage taking punishable as a war crime the same as kidnapping is punishable as a domestic capital offense? Mimus polyglottos (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and thus a war crime against civilians in the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction (which hasn't been ratified by all countries, see the linked articles). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Geneva Convention

How is the killing of civilians, such as by IED or even flying an airplane into a building, considered or treated by this convention? Mimus polyglottos (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fourth Geneva Convention relates to the protection of civilians during times of war at the hands of a foreign power. Unless the killing is perpetrated by a foreign power you are describing a criminal act, not an act of war, so the Geneva Convention does not apply. You should look to the jurisdiction's criminal code. Plasticup ^T/C 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

common names that were once uncommon like (?) Adam and Eve

I was talking to a gentleman of about 70 who told me that people used to find it amusing when they met people called Adam or Eve, because the names were uncommon, and because the Biblical connection was seen as quirky or cute. Is this true, and are there any other good examples of names common now that were seen as truly surprising in, say, the last 50 or 60 years? 203.221.127.206 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Given name#Popularity distribution of given names has some information. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's certainly true that at any given time, some names are far more popular than others. My own first name is the most popular name given on the year of my birth, for example, so many guys who're about the same age as I am have the same name. It's also entirely possible that in 40 years, it'll considered to be an old-fasioned name that a lot of old guys have. I mean, how many young people do you know, or have even heard of, that are called "Archibald", for example? In any case, you'll probably want to check our article on given names, and particular the sections on "popularity distribution of given names" and "influence of pop culture", as they discuss this. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly, "Captain" will never go out of style. -LambaJan (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that'll be a big relief to my mom. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a fun toy : http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager APL (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun indeed. I could spend hours surfing it. What am I talking about - I just did!  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I picked the name "Archibald" pretty much at random, but turns out that it was apparently a pretty illustrative example; any even remotely widespread use of the name in the United States pretty much petered out circa mid-1920s. Man, this is a pretty nifty toy, all right. For the record, you've just made the deadline I'm supposed to meet sad, APL. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for those replies. I checked the links, although the fun one wasn't working on my browser (poss security settings problem). I'm still curious as to whether Adam and Eve were sufficiently uncommon and quirky to cause amusement once upon a time. Can anyone help? 203.221.126.236 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I can think of a time when they were very very common indeed. For a while there it felt like everyone was called Adam or Eve. Plasticup ^T/C 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked up Adam and Eve for you on that link (which was VERY slow on my computer, which might explain your difficulties). Adam has always been in the top 300ish names (since 1880), with a sudden increase in popularity in the 50s, when it came up to 100ish. Eve fairly constant at about 600, although disappeared during the 80s, for some reason. So no, not uncommon or quirky (unless the 80s Eve blip counts.) Of course, the site only looks at popularity in America. It might be different elsewhere, or in specific areas of the US. Gwinva (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As for other names that are common now but would have been surprising 50 or 60 years ago, that link provided by APL (thanks, APL - great link) makes it easy to find many examples. For instance, Aiden is now the 27th most popular male name but was practically unknown only thirty years ago. The graphs also present visual confirmation of what has long been known - certain names become much more popular after well-liked public figures with those names become famous. Jacqueline[7] and Sean[8] spring to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.59.190 (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've got one of those names. "Joshua" was quite uncommon when I was a tad; I hated the name because nobody else had it. Then by the '80s if I was walking in the park and someone called "Josh!", a zillion little kids would respond. Take a look what happened; from #496 in the '50s to #3 in 2005. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

the eagle of empire

In David Potter's recent book, called, I think, Emperors of Rome, he says that someone was despatched "to show the eagle of the new regime to the western provinces." (p.173). I've tried looking this up, but can't find anything, so can someone tell me if "the eagle" was an openly used symbol, suggesting the aforementioned person was showing a standard bearing an image of an eagle (like a kind of military flag), or whether it is simply a metonym of the author's invention? thanks, 203.221.127.206 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See Aquila GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As the link explains, the eagle was the symbol of the Roman empire, and displayed on coins, standards, statues, seals, and so forth. It was instituted at the beginning of the 2nd century, lasted throughout the empire. In heraldry, the eagle remains popular, and continues to have imperial connotations. See Eagle (heraldry). Gwinva (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

barefeet

is there such town or village in the world where people walk barefooted both outside and inside their homes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.29 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that quite a few tribes living in jungles and such would go without shoes of any kind; theirfeet just get used to it. Now, if you're talking paved roads, etc., where it's just custom, it's hard to imagine.209.244.30.221 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are few towns where most people walk barefoot outdoors, though you will find some people walking barefoot even on paved streets in towns in Africa, India, and probably elsewhere. In towns, it is only the very poor who wear no shoes. Bare feet are common outdoors in villages in some parts of Africa and probably in other places such as New Guinea. Marco polo (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In summer in NZ it is quite common to see adults and children go barefoot outside, even on the paved streets of cities. (Winter too, for some people.) Nothing to do with poverty, just more comfortable. eg. [9]. Gwinva (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of bare feet in most parts of Polynesia. Xn4 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone out barefoot summer and winter (even in snow at zero degrees Fahrenheit) to pick up the morning paper in the U.S. Does that count? Edison (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Edison. I hardly ever wear shoes, do I count? --Andrew from NC (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In NZ we also have the expression "wear bare feet" [[10]] which I'm sure like many others will prove to come from central London or north Scotland. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, im pretty sure in south america, people walk barefoot everywhere because i heard about the parasitic worms problem affecting barefooted people. the worms go through their bare feet while they are working in the forests, then they travel home with them and infect not only the host, but people in the host's close vincinity. so i guess these people would walk barefoot outside of their house as well as inside.RedHoTriCE (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

casual workers

What right do casual workers have in employment lawWastingtime2q (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In which country? Fribbler (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What Happens if you sign the wrong MPN?

Hello there. I signed a Master Promissory Note(MPN) that i wasn't suppose to sign.. I never really did a Stafford Loan application for this lender. It was an accident. I finally did sign the correct MPN for my correct lender. Now i want to know what will happen to the other MPN? Does signing the wrong MPN accidently mean anything?

This sounds like a request for specific legal advice, which wikipedia cannot give. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Landmark

Hi, was wondering what this thing actually is? I`m annoyed because I can`t decide whether its a huge whirlpool or some kind of huge dip in sea level. Thanks.

http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=61837353bs8.jpg

Looks to me like a meteorite impact crater. Xn4 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Or a crater from a nuclear test. Though it looks older than that—I don't think you'd get that kind of coral buildup around it that soon? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like its could be in the Carribean or Australia to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.202.122 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A little hard to estimate its size, but from the ripples in the water at the bottom of the photo, I'd say it's way too small to be either a meteor crater or a nuclear test crater. Maybe it's where all the ships and planes vanished in the Bermuda Triangle (not). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the Great Blue Hole in Belize, to the best of my knowledge. It's an underwater sinkhole, formed when a prehistoric limestone cave collapsed - great snorkelling!!! СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 23:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That is just too cool. Plasticup ^T/C 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would a collapsed cave have such a circular perimeter, as opposed to an irregularly shaped edge ? StuRat (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because it was formed by limestone erosion before it ended up underwater. see Gaping Gill for another circular one.

That's a Cenote or sinkhole87.102.86.73 (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July 8

Was the name 'Damian' ever mentioned in the Bible as being connected with/another name for the Devil?

Question as topic. Thanks. --84.68.35.254 (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Damian (or the more popular spelling, Damien) is not mentioned in the Bible in any way. The relationship to "the Devil" comes from the The Omen. That is a movie, not a Bible documentary. -- kainaw™ 02:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is, however, a Saint Damian. The name has its origin in Greek. Gwinva (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Damian (given name) has something on Damian's Greek etymology. The word demon might be of Greek etymology too, but apparently unrelated. Damien lists some interesting Damiens: e.g. Damien Karras, a clerical character in The Exorcist which came out before The Omen, the protagonist of which has his own article mentioning some speculation on the choice of name for Damien Thorn. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(OR) I always assumed that "Damien" was a play on the word "Daemon". 152.16.59.190 (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Capital Territories

What country capitals other than the U.S. are located in a distinct district and not in a province or state99.144.230.97 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia's Canberra is in Australian Capital Territory, which does not have the same legislative independence as the various Australian states. Also check out Capital districts and territories. Gwinva (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just asked this Q recently, but don't know how to find it now. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008_June_14#Alternating_DC_questions. Stu, I clicked on the link Australian Capital Territory, then clicked on What links here, set the namespace filter to "Wikipedia" and there it was (bottom of list). ---Sluzzelin talk 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, fancy work there. Still, it relies on you recalling that such a link was included. I'm afraid my memory isn't that good. I can eventually do a Google search, but Google seems to be several weeks out of date at times, meaning that recently archived questions are lost to me, unless I do an exhaustive search of the archives for every day and every possible Ref Desk where it could have been located. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Brazil? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Capital districts and territories article lists 19 of them. But it's a Wikipedia list; I would not expect it to be reliably exhaustive. --Anonymous, 07:20 UTC, July 8, 2008.

Wishbones and flight in classical times

I have a very vague memory of the ancients (whoever they were) noting that one of the anatomical features characterising birds was the wishbone, and concluding it's this that gives them the power of flight - which it does, because the wing muscles are anchored to it or something - but they thought it was a magical thing. My vague memory, perhaps totally constructed, also tells me that this is where the idea of the furcula being a wishbone comes from - when two friends snap it, the one who gets the larger portion is the one with the more magic.

But I can't find any reference to this in google or WP. Does the idea ring a bell at all?

Thanks

Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Speech of the Grail" examines old Michaelmas feast, where the goose bone was examined for omens (being close to the goose's heart). This column also talks about the early use in omen reading. The breaking seems to have come later. Answers.com claims the custom was first described by John Aubrey in 1686. It seems to be a British tradition (where bone was called "merrythought"), later translated to America for thanksgiving dinners, and also popularised in good luck charms. The name "wishbone" invented America, 1850. Can't find any link to flight. (I found all these by googling "merrythought", but only followed a few links from the first pages). Gwinva (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Gwinva, it's helpful - weird how something I've accepted as true all my life turns out to be completely unknown. Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

History- Inventions that took place after the French Revolution.

What difficulties did James Brindley experience when inventing the Bridgewater Canal?or any other Canal that was invented by him?Saadiqah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.94 (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the use of the word "inventing" for James Brindley's involvement in the design and construction of the Bridgewater Canal. His main contribution, according to the article, was the introduction of clay puddling to ensure the bottoms of the canals would be watertight. What difficulties he may have faced are not specified. Perhaps they are simply the ones resulting from the topography of the lands around the canals' routes. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The "invention" probably dates back to the early Chinese dynasties, or perhaps Egyptian. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Example in history where politics blocked progress

I'm wondering if there are any specific examples in history where politics or religion has blocked scientific progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.29.144 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Ages, The Crusades, stem-cell research, cloning. Plasticup ^T/C 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Now come on Plasticup. Exactly what kind of scientific progress did the Crusades block? You may not have liked them (and who does) but there's no discovery we know of that would have been made if they hadn't happened. Also the lack of progress in the Dark Ages had many causes, hardly any of the religious. In fact religious institutions (monastries) were chief centres of learning, and by preserving books actually helped progress. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

They repeatedly ravaged one of the most scientifically advanced societies of the time. "There's no discovery we know of that would have been made if they hadn't happened"? What does this mean? There were brilliant discoveries already made by the Arab Empire. The ideas were later assimilated by Europeans (with some success), but the destruction of those great Arab institutions was a tragic tragic loss. Plasticup ^T/C 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"there's no discovery we know of that would have been made if they hadn't happened." ?!?! During the 'dark ages,' while the Europeans were very much lagging in scientific achievement the Arab Empire was engaged in translating ancient greek and roman texts and carrying out their own scientific and philosophical studies and coming up with innovations, if instead of crusading, the Europeans engaged more in trade and such, they would've benefited from the Arab learning centuries before when they sacked Toledo and finally translated all of those works and 'miraculously' had a renaissance. So I don't think it's too far a stretch at all to say the Crusades blocked progress. -LambaJan (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather sweeping generalisation, LambaJan. It's not as if Europe spent the entire Middle Ages fighting crusades while the Arabs sat translating ancient texts. The wars happened sporadically over a couple of centuries; you can just as easily claim the English spent the Middle Ages fighting France, rather than inventing. Secondly, it ignores the fact that wars increase technological development: the various wars of the period, and the need for attack and defence capabilities, brought about advanced weapon technology, steel forging, complicated engineering and construction, medical and surgical techniques, transport development, road building, throwing machines, mining techniques, incendiary devices, and so forth. It also ignores the vast development in general technology and science over the period. Basically, the Dark Ages is a myth, and no knowledge was "miraculously" discovered during the renaissance: it had been building up for a long time. Gwinva (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

One sweeping generalization deserves another ;-) There really isn't space here for too much elaboration. If you notice, I quoted the terms dark ages and miraculous out of sarcasm. War doesn't directly increase technological development. Technological investment does. Those wartime technologies don't become anything useful to society without further investment, which is supported by trade and industry. Wars bankrupt countries and cause them to stop investing in innovation. Trade finances innovation in wartime and peacetime. Nevertheless, your argument doesn't invalidate the one I made about the European's receiving the benefits of the substantial advances in the Arab world much later than they would've had they cultivated good relations instead of crusading. -LambaJan (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some very obvious weak points in your argument LambaJan. If we consider World War II for example it was a time of enormous innovation, despite the fact that trade was very much lower than the periods before or after. Maybe you are right that not much of that innovation was immediately useful to peacetime society, but that wasn't what the question was about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WWII was a time of enormous technological investment. The essence of my argument (which refuted Gwinva's claim that it's a "fact that wars increase technological development", which really gets at the essence of the question.) was that investment drives innovation regardless of wartime or peacetime. The trade before and after (not to mention all of the arms trade during) paid for it. The reality of the situation is that technological advancements have actually been happening at a greater pace since those wars have ended and more countries have been able to financially get involved. What are the other weak points in my argument? -LambaJan (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Avro Arrow. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and some nutters tried to prevent an "obscene" anatomically correct drawing of a human male and a female from being included on the Pioneer plaque, and even succeeded with the Voyager Golden Record. I don't know for a fact that they were religious, but where else would someone find the absurd notion that anatomy is obscene? Plasticup ^T/C 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't know for a fact that they were religious, but where else would someone find the absurd notion..." is also a very good example of how deeply held irrational beliefs can cloud logical thinking. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A majority of Americans are morally opposed to nanotechnology (wtf?) because religion has taught them to fear science. Plasticup ^T/C 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can deduce people's motives that accurately. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but the article I link to says that this was the conclusion of the Arizona State University researchers. [T]he differences can be attributed to Americans' religious beliefs and a perception "that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities." Plasticup ^T/C 14:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"attributed to Americans' religious beliefs" does not mean they were "taught to fear science". It may mean that their religious values teach them to hold life sacred. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nanotechnology has nothing to do with life. It means "building things that are really small". Plasticup ^T/C 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more examples given at Criticism of religion#Impedes science and human progress. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also like to look at heliocentrism and the history thereof. Whatever the myths about Galileo the church was certainly a strong proponent of geocentrism until it became essentially untenable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess that most of the historical examples arise from religion, or politics influenced by religion (such as anti-evolution efforts in the United States today), but Lysenkoism is an example of purely political interference. JamesMLane t c 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also a rather sweeping generalisation to suggest that religion holds back science, or is inherently opposed to it. Much of the development of science, thought, technology has come from the learned religious scholars. Think Greek philosophers, the Arab scholars, the Spanish monks who developed horse-breeding strategies, mathematical developments, the institution of the three field system and milling technologies improved and developed in monasteries, Buridan, Mendel, the immense libraries collected by the church, cathedral engineering, the universities (established by the Church) and so on (anyone interested can easily extend the list). So why do we focus on a few high profile spats? (And don't forget, Galileo was a devout Catholic, so that's not really church vs science but some Christians vs some Christians.) Gwinva (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We are focussed on a few "spats" because the question asks about specific instances of political or religious interference in progress. To reduce the end result of some of the involvement of religion in delaying progress to a "spat" is to mislead. As a single example, the WP article Galileo says: "Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition." I suspect the gentleman so cloistered might think you are down-playing the seriousness of the matter and the seriousness of the Roman Catholic opposition. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right; Galileo is a good example of political inhibition of progress, and thus a good answer to the original question. (And, while a religious dispute, it was also political, given the intertwining of church & state at the time.) Forgive my off-topic musing on whether a ledger of technology/science enhanced by religion would balance or outweigh a ledger of technology/science held back by religion. I was distracted by the implication that religion is in some way incompatible with science. I don't think that's true. Gwinva (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that the Church only had power in some parts of Europe. The things that Galileo was getting arrested for were widely discussed and debated in England, for example. I'm not sure the incarceration of Galileo was necessarily against "scientific progress" in a broad sense. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty in answering this question is that it relies on hypotheticals—what would have happened? Even amongst professional historians, such hypotheticals are highly debatable, much less amongst amateurs relying largely on a class they once took or a book they once read or a special on PBS they saw or some articles they read on the Wiki. In any case, you're going to have a hard time arguing against some sort of "universal" scientific progress at any given time because things were relatively spread out. Lysenkoism devastated biology in the Soviet Union for many decades, but elsewhere tremendous progress was being made (Watson and Crick were not impeded by it, for example). Deutsche Physik screwed up the practice of German physics for many years but had the unintended consequence of making many top-flight German physicists emigrate and spend all their efforts developing weapons for the Allies (the atomic bomb, radar, etc.). Opposition to the federal funding of stem cell research might have slowed down "scientific progress"... or it might not have—it's not clear whether we'd be much further along today with or without it. Lastly, you seem to hold "scientific progress" as being implicitly better than "politics" but let's remember that's a value statement. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has no doubt slowed down scientific progress in the area of nuclear weapons development, for purely political reasons, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider was certainly a form of "politics" but one based on allocation of resources—is particle physics better than, say, space exploration, in a world of finite budgets? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll chip in with the end of China's long-distance sea exploration, ca. 1425AD. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed through this entire section to see whether anyone brought this up, as, (to my opinion), its probably the best example of this. Alas, you beat me to it! Ninebucks (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Flying the flag upside down

From national flag:

When a national flag, with some exceptions, is flown upside down it indicates distress. This however is merely tradition. It is not a recognised distress signal according the International regulations for preventing collisions at sea. Further an nation's flag is commonly flown inverted as a sign of protest or contempt against the country concerned.

How does a Italian, British, or Japanese protester do if he/she wants to fly the flag upside down? -- Toytoy (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the British flag, except that it is often flown upside down through ignorance (including on a battleship shown on Britsh TV a few months ago - though it is possible that the TV company had accidentally flipped the image. Dbfirs 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely no-one's stupid enough to vertically flip a pic of a battleship? Algebraist 19:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the show was made for Australian viewers? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Union Flag is not a vertical or horizontal mirror image. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but flipping the image will also move the pole. The correct orientation is defined relative to the pole. Algebraist 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. You can't horizontally flip the Union Jack when flown from a pole or mast. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can. It just doesn't become wrong if you do.  ;-) AndyJones (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Stupid of me to suggest a (horizontally) flipped image - now I'm wide awake it's obvious this couldn't be the explanation! I can't imagine the Royal Navy making such a basic error (though it is common elsewhere!) so perhaps I just mis-saw the flapping of the fly and assumed that the pole was at the other side - it was only a brief clip.
Incidentally, many "toy" British flags are printed "back-to-back" instead of "through" the paper, so they are correct on one side and "upside down" (equivalent to horizontally flipped) on the other side, once the pole (or stick) is attached. Dbfirs 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And if anyone is still wondering, this is all because the widths of the white stripes of a Union Jack are not symetrical. Some are wide, others are narrow. AndyJones (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

... detailed information about which can be found here. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So all this time I was protesting the crown and I didn't know it! ;-) As far as the Italians and Japanese, they just find other ways of protesting. The Italians often fly the rainbow flag. -LambaJan (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Help

I`m having trouble with a few quiz Q.s my mates roped me into helping him with and you guys are excellent at assisting with the answers. I`m sure the pictures are coming from here haha. Essentially I want to know who this is. Many thanks.

http://img157.imageshack.us/my.php?image=38335550zv8.jpg

Jeff Bezos, holding up a Kindle, which sort of gave it away. - Nunh-huh 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

of, by and for the people

Since the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land I was wondering if I might understand it more precisely were it found published in the form of a polychotomous key, yet I can find no such form of publication. Is it therefore only for lawyers and fancy words of deception for the rest? -- adaptron (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you are 71.100.5.4, who has on a number of occasions asked for a rendering of the law in a polychotomous key over the past months on various of these reference desk pages? You "wonder if you might understand it more fully" if it were published in such a key; than finding no such publication exists, decide that the law must be reserved to lawyers, which would seem contrary to the "of, by and for the people". I wonder if it has occurred to you that you might not understand it any better if it was in such a key? That the nature of the accretion of statue and case law does not easily lend itself to description in such a key system; and that, this being the case, there is little demand for such key systems in this domain. Bottom line: you appear frustrated that the world will not shape itself to your preferences, and better than that, see the lack of catering for those preferences as some sort of consipiracy against non-lawyers. That attitude considerably lacks good faith, besides being immature posturing based on an ill-thought-out premise. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

One must know the law first before one can attempt to understanding the law. Enter any insane asylum and you will find that what is said there likewise "...does not easily lend itself to description in such a key system; and that, this being the case, there is little demand for such key systems in this domain." Bottom line my concern is that with a polychotomous key I might at least help my neighbors to know the law if not to understand it. Aside from that many lawyers are allowed to pass the bar who think the law is nothing more than a polychotomous key and it is equal footing with these types of lawyers which demands publication of an actual polychotomous key. For those lawyers capable of knowing the difference between right an wrong, however, a polychotomous key might be helpful but certainly not a requirement for justice since those kinds of attorneys usually have sufficient staff to serve in the capacity of a polychotomous key. It is the poor laymen, the average citizen who must suffer in absence of a polychotomous key. Arguing that the law is too esoteric to permit publication in the form of a polychotomous classification is like saying that taxonomy of insect species or chemical compounds or Language is a hopeless endeavor, although not quite as esoteric as the law. -- adaptron (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If so, take comfort: I've always thought not being a lawyer is its own reward. Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My confusion has gone on long enough. I tried WP, but got a useless redirect. I tried Google, but could not find a definition that would help in this specific use. Would someone please explain what a "polychotomous key" is (or might be), and how it might (or might not) relate to legal writing? Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See single-access key. It's basically a sequence of multiple choices, each choice leading to the next choice, and, finally and ideally, resulting in an unequivocal identification (of a species in biology, or a legal category in adaptron's model). Etymologically, "polychotomous" is a false analogy of "dichotomous" (dicha = "in two", temnein = "cutting"). "Polytomous" is the better term. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sluzzelin, I had the same problem as Bielle. I will now fit my front door with a polychotomous lock, meaning that after trying all the other keys I will logically derive that the last one is the correct polychotomous key leading to the time saving logical solution of entering my abode without the aid of sundry screwdrivers, sledgehammers, brigades of locksmiths and the usual gaggle of SWAT agents dangling from the roof and crashing through the windows.

If I understand it correctly, dichotomous would mean you are sneaking through a binary tree of choices whilst polytomous (polychotomous) refers to a tree with > 2 nodes per parent node. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, and Sluzzelin means little atomous skeleton key, so your protection is futile.

And what about the dichotomouse, the lair of which has 2 branches at every bifurcation and the hexachotomoose, whose antlers fork into six smaller twigs at each annual separation?

Donner and Blitzen, we got no articles on those... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My experience with polychotomous keys has never been very good. You would be much better joining a Plain English movement. There has been a raging movement in England for some time, but apparently there is also one in the United States. The British movement acknowledges that the special language of lawyers serves a purpose in that is it incredibly precise, but also asks that a simple "Plain English" translation of the law also be published that the common man might understand. Plasticup ^T/C 13:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with publishing the law in "simple, easy-to-read forms" is that it doesn't allow the common man to understand it - it allows the common man to think they understand it, which might be more dangerous than not understanding it. It's the same reason nobody produces easy, non-technical, instructions on how to do surgery. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, especially Sluzzelin. I spent years in business trying to come up with a "simple summary" of a commercial standard form of lease, only to fail just as often becuase some significant nuance of a deal just would not fit into the format. As DJ Clayworth says above, law, like medicine, both of which are, or should be, freely available to the "people" remain disciplines where expertise is required to get it right. We don't do our own surgery; we don't do our own legal opinions. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely you do not expect me to swallow the idea that legal opinion is an adequate replacement for the law? In conjunction with publishing the law in the form of a polychotomous key for the purpose of identification is the idea of publishing legal procedure in the form of a flowchart. Flowcharts work well for surgical procedures as well as legal procedures. I know the difficulty of accepting and using polychotomous keys and flowcharts by professional persons. In many cases a professional person may disagree with a particular polychotomous key or flowchart and on that basis relegate all polychotomous keys and flowcharts to the trash heap. However, dynamic online polychotomous keys and flowcharts directly updateable with consensus or committee approval make them very potent indeed. -- adaptron (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking that you swallow anything, Adaptron, especially an idea. Ideas need light. And I was not suggesting that a legal opinion is a replacement for knowledge of the law, any more than surgery is a replacement for knowledge of medicine. Perhaps you could undertake to become a legal scholar and to devise a polychotomous key for the law yourself. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was a bit more brutal than I intended. In actuality neither flowcharting legal procedure or reducing the law to a polychotomous key are tasks to be taken lightly or left to a single individual. Both, however, can be developed over time based not perhaps on the wording of a statute and the intent of the law, but on what actually comes down. I suggest this approach only because I am familiar with the capability of unsupervised neural networks and in many cases where a jury is involved a polychotomous key (or rather a checklist of criteria, which must be met to reach an innocent or guilty verdict) is provided for them. Take heart, though. So long as the law is not published in the rudimentary form of a polychotomous key ignorance of the law on the part of those who are expected to obey it will not only remain a valid excuse to not obey it but an absolute guarantee. -- adaptron (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How to determine the right direction of an insert in a plasmid?

Hey guys. I need an immediate help. I have this biology lab about plasmids that we are required to inset a cDNA into a plasmid. one of the fundemental question of the lab is how can we determine that we put the insert in the right orientation? they talk about the use of restriction enzymes and to see the results of agaron gel electrophorisis. can somebody explain this to me? or at least guide me to a website that i can find in it useful information. Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.50.42 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Note: This question was copied or crossposted to the Science desk, here, where it has received replies. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Credit Card questions

Hi all,

I'm planning on getting a credit card, and am a little confused on a few issues even after reading quite a few articles.

1. How do grace periods and billing cycles interact? Let's say I get a bill on the 1st of every month, and have a grace period of 20 days on purchases. If I buy something on the 20th of the month, when will it start accruing interest? 20 days later, or 40?
2. If I spend $50 on the 1st, $50 on the 25th, and pay off $50 on the 30th, will I start accruing any interest on either purchase?
3. Finally, will it affect my credit history negatively in any way if I make 3-4 payments every month, in a hodge-podge fashion (always being sure to pay at least the minimum each month)?

Thanks! — Sam 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, financial institutions (including credit-card companies) like things to be consistent. Whatever payment schedule you devise, you are best advised to do the same thing every month. Most people make payments around their pay cycles, which tend to be regular, even if their hours are not. So, paying weekly, every two weeks or monthly is a better choice (calls less attention to your account) than random small payments. There is nothing wrong with random small payments; there is just nothing right with them. As for grace periods and interest start dates, different credit-card companies handle things differently. You would need to look at the contract you sign when you get your credit card, and address your questions, if any still remain, to the institution that issues your card. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Credit card? The section on interest charges and grace period are quite helpful. In most cases, the grace period only counts if you pay off your balance IN FULL each month. If you do not pay off the balance, then you will be charged interest FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT over the whole period (including "grace period") not just the amount outstanding. (ie they backdate the interest, and apply it to the WHOLE amount.) Sometimes, if you have an outstanding balance one month, you will not have a grace period the next, but be charged interest from the day of transaction. But as long as you pay off the balance by the due date, you should not be liable for interest. (But check the small print for your card; some have fees etc.) Your statement will show the transaction dates and the payment due dates. (That's a long answer to your first question).

2. Generally, transactions are lumped into a month period, (say, 1-30th, or 20th-20th). You'll then receive a statement, and get a couple of weeks or so to make the payment. You will (typically) only start accruing interest once the "grace period" expires , but if not paid, then interest will be backdated. But do check your provider's contract.

3. Check with your card provider; some allow split payments, automatic payments and so forth.

WARNING: My above comments are generalisations, and describe typical situations; different companies may have differing terms: read the small print, and talk to the provider to be sure you understand what you are signing. Gwinva (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Credit cards are one of the best investment instruments ever invented. If you pay off the entire amount due, every single month without fail, you will earn an amount equal to the interest you did not have to pay. This is typically 15-30% a year, which is easily the very highest no-risk rate of return available anywhere. However, each and every time you miss paying off the entire debt, you lose that same amount of interest. (If this doesn't make sense, don't get a credit card. Seriously.) DOR (HK) (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a Jack Chick tract

I've been trying to find a Jack Chick religious tract which involves teenagers wanting to go to Hell-- and consequently taking up witchcraft, Satanism, etc-- because some popcultural source told them that it'd be an eternal wild party. If anyone could give me the title or find a link, I'd quite appreciate it. However, it's possible that I'm misremembering who was responsible for that statement; it might have been an evangelical other than Jack Chick. Any information or source would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.88.52 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything like that on his site, but you might want to check yourself. Algebraist 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it "The Nervous Witch"? [11] bibliomaniac15 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No Fear? It's about suicide, but features commentary on the lack of a wild party. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This one is also about witchcraft. I can't decide which of the witch ones is more ridiculous, the one about evil Satanic witches sacrificing babies, or the one above about the need to throw Harry Potter books into bonfires. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a religious Christian myself, and I find Chick's claims pretty ludicrous, particularly his assertion that the Communists were bankrolled by the Catholic Church. bibliomaniac15 22:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As there are those among us, readers and editors, who believe similar things about any religious claim, it ill behooves any of us to comment on others' beliefs. "Ludicrous" is in the eye of the beholder, even if some are more ludicrous than others. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Chick's ludicrousness is not so much his theology, which, as you say, is no more ludicrous than most theology (you know, he thinks people who haven't made a little pledge to Jesus all go to hell, no matter how young they are or how good they are, etc., which is extreme but certainly on the spectrum, and he's hardly the only one to hold those views), it's his claims about how the world outside of theology works. He sees the world as being made up primarily by literal agents of Satan—people literally in cahoots with the Devil himself, if not actually versions of the Devil themselves—and doing things like giving birth to babies just so they can sacrifice them to the Devil. Everybody who disagrees with him is not just theologically wrong, but usually actively and consciously working for evil, and doing horrendous (and illegal) acts in order to perpetuate the Devil's work. His religious views are on the more extreme end of fundamentalist American protestantism, but they're on the spectrum. It's his view of how the secular world works that is verifiably wacky and puts him in the total wackjob, conspiracy-theorist crank category. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As you describe his beliefs, everything is within the realm of his theology. There is no secular world, as those who believe in, for example, the separation of Church and State understand secular. There is just "us" and the rest, but all are under his religious view. I still recommend that your judgements not be aired here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

By "secular" I simply mean, the world of things and people, of politics and history. Obviously he sees all of that being shot through with theology, but I think one can meaningfully distinguish his views on what the Bible says from his views on how the UN works, for example. I would not hazard a judgment about his theological views—again, they strike me much like most theological views do, albeit extreme—but his political views, I don't have a problem saying they're wacky. People don't have babies just to sacrifice them, whether they read Harry Potter or not. That's just a fact. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall try one last time: not having any problem saying "they're wacky" is not the point. There are many beliefs held within religions of one kind or another that any one of us could call "wacky" and some might even start with a belief even in the existence of a god or gods. (No, I am not intending to go there.) However, the Ref Desk is not, in my view, the place to do it. The Pope also has problems with Harry Potter, as I recall. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And if the Pope said children who read Harry Potter became actual witches capable of casting real spells, using the spells from the books, people could legitimately call these views 'wacky'. They would not be theology but an actual testable claim about what a common book contains. Not criticising a view, particularly one stated as fact, purely because the person saying it defines it as being theology is the sort of thing that leads people to be intolerant of religious views because they feel they stifle debate! Politeness is one thing; Jack Chick's views on what people do when he's not looking are another. But all of this is my belief, so you can't judge or criticise it. 79.66.67.219 (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How much is the Mona Lisa worth?

If France were to auction it off, how much would it get for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.43.163 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This website says $500 million, but I don't know how they got that. --Allen (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Our article has some information: it was assessed as worth 100 million USD in 1962 (about 700 million USD today, adjusted for inflation). Algebraist 22:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

One might as well try to evaluate how many board feet of lumber would that amount to? "Prices" in such a case cannot be related to replacement value, so valuations are based on a "willing buyer-willing seller" basis. So, who would be the "willing seller"? --Wetman (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC).

I see your point... there's no market value for something that isn't on sale and hasn't been sold recently. Still, in principle, why not try to estimate the answers to questions like, "How much would the French government be willing to sell it for?" and "How much would the highest bidder be willing to pay for it?" We might be able to approach the first number by surveying French political experts, and the second by surveying rich art collectors. Presumably the first number is higher than the second, and estimating both would give us a reasonable range for the value of the painting, right? --Allen (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The first number (seller's price) must be higher than the second number (buyer's price) or the painting would already have been sold. i.e. it is worth more to its current owner than to anyone else in the world. Plasticup ^T/C 13:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless, of course, no one has figured it out yet. :-) --Allen (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If France was facing bankruptcy and the government had to find a quick couple of billion francs, maybe they'd be prepared to sell it to Bill Gates or someone up there with him. They'd be more than able, and probably more than willing, to pay the price. Mind you, this could precipitate a revolution that would make the events of 1789 seem like a Sunday school picnic, so maybe they'd have quite a long think about it before taking such a step. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A French franc would be pretty useless to them, seeing that they use Euros now. bibliomaniac15 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about U.S. francs, obviously.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are most songs about love

Why are so many songs, disproprotionally (at least in pop culture) that are released into the media about love, specifically romantic love (I mean you rarely hear songs about love between family or friends). I mean, I know its a natural human emotion and universal experience, but there are tons of other things that are too (ie. eating lunch, fear,). Out of the myriad of topics why does LOVE dominate?

142.150.72.120 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's universal and deeply felt, which means a well written love song is something the most general audience will become emotionally responsive to and, ideally, buy. Eating lunch is a bit less universal and much less emotional. Fear is as universal and deeply felt but the most common fears that most people can relate to are related to love. The music business shoots to the middle and only releases songs they're gambling will sell. They're trying to be safe with their money so if a song isn't a love song it still has to have a good argument for mass appeal, or else it stays on the album and doesn't get released. Songwriters know this so they write lots of love songs in hopes that some of them will make it big. Some songwriters want to write about other things and are very clever by weaving them into the context of a love song. -LambaJan (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is true, though, of course, there are less cynical reasons too: Songwriters also write about love because it is one of the most powerful motors of inspiration in their own emotional creativity-complex. If you compare to, say, literature or visual art, love does seem to be more prevalent in music than other media. Music has the key to our brain's emotional control center, otherwise we wouldn't spend so much money on it. I strongly recommend reading This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel Levitin. When I was ten years old, I also thought "Why is every song about love? How boring!" Several years later, it made a lot of sense to me, especially the "you took my heart, and threw it away" variety ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

mascan civilization

I am having trouble find any information in ref to masca or mascan ancient people of peru.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Nazca civilization? They're the ones apparently responsible for the big geoglyphs on the Nazca Plain in Peru. Steewi (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken links - try Nazca culture and Nazca lines Steewi (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a Masca tribe (Ayllu) somewhere in or around the Huatanay Valley, conquered by Apu Mayta, a son of Inca Roca. Huanoquite District, Paruro Province was formerly called Chilques and Mascas.—eric 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Garcilaso de la Vega tells us the Mascas, the Chillquis and the Pap'ris were established in thirteen villages west of Cuzco along the royal road to Cuntisuyu (the quarter west of Cuzco, south of Lima and north of Peru-Chile border) in the time of Manco Capac.—eric 05:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mascas (from Mascani, to search) are one of ten tribes mentioned in the Paccari-tampu myth.—eric 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a division of Inca society into Hanan and Hurin (which i cannot find any clear definition of), initially the division seems to be based on geography and simply for administrative purposes. Peoples would be Hanan (upper half) or Hurin (lower half) based on which of the four suyus (quarters of the empire) they were from. It seems that after Inca Roca the Hanan became the ruling class. The Mascas were Hurin.—eric 15:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Intentionally Blank Page

Hello. Intentionally blank pages in documents, which missing pages can pose serious consequences, have "This page is intentionally left blank" labelled. This is a paradox. Why can there not be "The next X page(s) is/are intentionally left blank" on the page preceding the blank one? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As communication, it works fine. As a logical proof, it does not. Guess what the people who leave such pages care about more. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there was nothing on the page it would still confuse people, and I think "This page is intentionally devoid of content" sounds too weird.

The thing is, if you put it on the page before, a lot of people are not going to notice it and are going to get concerned when they see a blank page. However most people will notice it when the rest of the page is blank. Remember these are usually in circumstances where it matters and often when you don't want to spend a whole lot of time looking at previous pages to see if it mentions it somewhere (e.g. for both, exams) Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they could be labelled: "Aside from this notice, this page is left intentionally blank." Ninebucks (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

July 9

Biblical - equality of sexes

Where in the Bible does it say that women are of equal value to men? 91.106.24.106 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I kind of doubt it does. If it does manage to do that, it's a kind of a mixed message, since the Bible spends a lot of time talking about how inferior, bad and generally filthy women are, as this article handily illustrates. That's the Good Book for ya. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Beatitudes Jesus reaches out to everyone. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How does Jesus reaching out to everyone imply that women are of equal value to men? The following is from the article you linked (under ""The Fourth Beatitude"):

"He feeds, during the first event, "about five thousand men, beside women and children" with ...".

I think the original poster was looking for something more explicit. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at Women in the Bible? There are several articles along these lines, connected with a link template and everything. -LambaJan (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You can start with the statements in Genesis that man and woman are both "made in the image of God". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The questioner probably had in mind such passages as Galatians 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (RSV)

-- AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to read Christian views about women, which looks at the topic more broadly. Gwinva (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus defended a woman's right to divorce in the New Testament. I don't remember the exact verse, but there is a part where Jesus rebukes Jewish leaders for exploiting divorce laws to women's harm, basically leaving them alone and destitute when they were "done" with them. There is also a scene in which a woman is accused of adultery by a group of men (curiously, the guilty man is absent!), but Jesus refuses to have her put to death, instead asking the men present to think about their own guilty deeds. After he died and was resurrected, Jesus also chose to appear to Mary Magdalene, a woman, before appearing to his 12 apostles or even to his own Father in Heaven. Wrad (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: if the Bible does not say women are equal to men, does that necessarily imply men are superior, or might it mean that women are? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I kinda doubt that. The Bible pretty explicitly says that men are superior to women (or that women are inferior to me) a whole bunch of times. (Of course, these days, when rampant misogynism just isn't as popular as it was in the days of yore, those passages tend to be ignored; it's not particularly enlightened stuff.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Giving birth

How long is the maximum length of labour? 91.106.24.106 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For humans?--droptone (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the sort of thing that goes into the Guinness Book of World Records. And because increased length of labor impacts negatively on the health of the child and mother, it's not the sort of thing that the mother's attendants would, morally, let go on to the "maximum'. The average length of labor for the first child is 12-14 hours, less for subsequent children. Epidural anaesthesia increases the length. Certainly labors of 30 hours or more are reported, they but these are probably not "maximum".- Nunh-huh 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not always clear exactly when labour begins. There may be widely spaced contractions or contractions that stop and start again. The woman may believe that she is in labour but the midwife does not agree, or vice-versa. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As Judith says, the way labour begins varies greatly from woman to woman, and can be hard to define. It's quite possible (and not terribly unusual) to be in "slow labour" for days. However, a prolonged second active stage (ie the actual delivery) is usually indicative of a complication, and most attendants/health professionals will attempt some kind of intervention. Gwinva (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In some cases both mother and baby have died in labor and have been buried with the baby in the birth canal. In such a case one could argue that labor lasts for all of eternity. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Former Egyptian Ambassador to Israel

Mohammed Bassiouny - ? What I need is the preferred (by the English-language media) romanized spelling of his name for further searching. I'm posting here rather than on the Language Ref Desk because I need to know what's most official prevalent among reputable sources, not (necessarily) a recommended academic transliteration or transcription. This spelling of the surname gets more Google hits than others I've tried, and that's without the first name that comes in numerous variants. The Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't have a page; unfortunately, I don't read Arabic Thanks! -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington Post: Mohamed Bassiouni, NY Times: Mohammed Bassiouni, BBC: Mohammed Bassiouny and Mohammed Bassiouni. Seems like you've found the right spelling as much as anyone. The thing about transliterations is that there's little or no variation in scholarly narrow IPA versions but once you get away from that there's considerable variation for various reasons. -LambaJan (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

These are reassuring findings, LambaJan, thanks! I didn't get too far by searching in the Egyptian Foreign Ministry's English-language website, nor was there anything definitive in the online catalog of the U.S.Library of Congress, so I'll go with "Mohammed" as reasonably prevalent (the double "m" looks convincing as I hear the name pronounced) and "Bassiouni and see if I can get the final "i/y" distinction explained to me at some point. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"i/y" distinction? In the IPA the /i/ sounds like the 'ee' in "freeze sucker!" so that's where that spelling comes from and that spelling is therefore more correct than the 'y' spelling which is an ad hoc transliteration for English speakers who don't have any phonetics training.-LambaJan (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

psychology and social work

what is the role of psychology in social work? is it necessary for a social worker to know about psychology for practicing social work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool-icon (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the type of social work you want to do. If you want to deal with financial planning, debt reduction then knowledge of psychology isn't as important as if you want to be a family counselor. If you take a look at this article, most of the job types in "clinical or direct practice" generally require some knowledge of psychology whereas most of the job types in "community practice" generally do not. Each job type varies in what sort of psychology you'd need to be familiar with (death and aging when dealing with the elderly, relationships/violence when dealing with domestic violence, etc). If you have an area where you'd like to know more then please post a followup question.--droptone (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Top

1. What happens if a prime minister/president/etc dies during their reign? 2. I remember reading a book saying that the oldest person ever to have had this job was from Laos. But I can't remember this person's name. What is it? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the laws of the country. In the U.S. succession is clearly written in the law and I assume it's the same in most other countries. -LambaJan (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the British prime minister dies then a new one is chosen by parliament. Probably this will involve appointment of a temporary PM while the governing party chooses a new leader who would then become PM. I believe it's the same in Canada and probably other countries with a British-derived system. As far as I know this has never happened in a country with a British-style parliamentary system. Anyone know differently? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the Laos part of your question, you may mean Nouhak Phoumsavanh who was certainly among the oldest heads of state, but I don't think the oldest ever. Fribbler (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nouhak was 88 when he retired, which about matches Sandro Pertini (Italy) who left office at 88.75 and was the oldest elected by a legislature. Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa still reigned when he died at 94 and was the oldest living head of state (till then, of course). I couldn't find a historical list, so that's the best I could do. I don't know if anyone else breaks those records or not. -LambaJan (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Formerly speaking, it's the monarch (or, in places like Canada, her representative) who appoints the new PM. Of course she will choose whoever the party controlling parliament chooses as their new leader. As for if this has happened, see Spencer Percival. Algebraist 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Formally speaking...DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Australia's : Frank Forde: "In 1945 John Curtin died, and as Deputy Leader Forde was commissioned by the Governor-General as Prime Minister on July 6. Again he contested the leadership with Ben Chifley and Norman Makin. Chifley won, and Forde left office on July 13." and Earle Page: "When Lyons died suddenly in 1939, it was Sir Earle whom the Governor-General Lord Gowrie called on to become caretaker Prime Minister. He held the office for three weeks until the UAP elected a new leader.". Rmhermen (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And Harold Holt who drowned while Prime Minister of Australia. Rmhermen (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand seems to have had several, in 1893, 1906, 1925, 1940, and 1974. See List of heads of state and government who died in office. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

@ DJ Clayworth: In Britain and most other Commonwealth realms, the choice is made by the governing party/coalition, and the person is directly appointed by the monarch or governor-general. The parliament is the last to be told (officially) what's happened. I think Papua New Guinea may be an exception to this arrangement.

@ 208.76.245.162: Why did you call this question "Top"? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The new PM has to have the approval of parliament, not just the governing party. If the governing party/coalition has a majority then it amounts to the same thing, but if the government is minority then they can't just choose a PM against parliament's wishes. Of course a PM can be voted out at any time without majority support... DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see deputy prime minister. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In Canada it happened twice in a few years. John A. Macdonald's Conservative Party was reelected in March 1891, but Macdonald died in office that June. The Conservatives settled on John Abbott to succeed him. But in November 1892 Abbott resigned due to illness (he died in October 1893) and now the Conservatives, apparently thinking that the Prime Minister must be a man in his 70s named John :-), now chose John Thompson. But in December 1894, he died in office. The Conservatives now fell back on a second favorite choice :-) -- men whose name started with "Mac-" -- and Mackenzie Bowell became Prime Minister. But he lost the party's support and in turn was forced to resign in May 1896 and Charles Tupper succeeded to the position. But by now it was time for a new election and Tupper and the Conservatives were promptly defeated. Five prime ministers from one election to the next. --Anonymous, 05:32 UTC, July 10, 2008.

For the US, see United States presidential line of succession. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In France, the President of the Senate takes over when a President dies in office, and then immediately organises elections. This happened in 1974, when Pompidou died and Alain Poher took his place. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

However, he was "Interim President", which doesn't seem to have the same status as "President", hence he appears as a footnote to the main table. Perhaps his powers while in office were somewhat circumscribed. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

I am trying to get an idea of the dates when Noah and his family were alive and the Ark was created? Also, what happened to his sons? Where did they and their decendets live? Rjpartridge (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) rjpartridge

When: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_Noah_live87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As to where they lived try Noah and follow the links from there for each of his sons/other relatives. You might also want to read Mountains of Ararat.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The most recent Great Flood in the area may have been around 7600 years ago at the Black Sea, which may have served as a basis for the Biblical story (although the location was moved considerably south from there). StuRat (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Source data for economics map

Would anyone know where the source data for this map: http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11693372 would be? Presumably it can be found somewhere on here: http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm Thanks --Rajah (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the map seems to come from here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you mind sharing how you found that? i.e. what were your search terms etc. ? Thanks again. --Rajah (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a site search for "fuel", and it was the second link in the first hit. (That was after about ten minutes of just poking around the site.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever died in the Houses of Parliament

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.191.114 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Spencer Perceval. There have been others. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I expect this question is something to do with the illegality of dying in parliament! --Cameron* 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the anon mean, MPs dying in office? Or anybody dying in the House (physically present)? GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This question was asked a few months ago. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that was about the US Congress? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned by Cameron, it is in fact illegal to die within the Houses of Parliament. Quite what the punishment would be, I'm not sure.--NeoNerd 15:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume that's a joke. If not, can someone come up with a source? I'd be most interested to add it to my list of the world's silliest laws. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is commonly listed in such lists, Jack, but appears to have little basis in fact. It is something to do with the HoC's alleged status as a royal palace, and an assertion that dying is in some way illegal in such places. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine how even the most gullible person on Earth could believe that for a second. (On the other hand, some of the silly laws I've seen are utterly counter-intuitive, so ....). Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In the House of Lords I wonder how long it would take them to notice. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers guys, dont bicker, of course theres a Wikipedia article! Prohibition of death See section In the UK then the footnotes. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's on the list now. Thanks for the ref, Mhicaoidh. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Corporate designs by famous artists

I got to thinking about Salvador Dali and his design of the logo for Chupa Chups. It then made me wonder... Are there any other examples of famous artists doing design work for corporations such as logos or packaging. I'm not thinking of situations wherein the company hires the artist based on the fact that they are famous to put together some sort of avant-garde advertising campaign. Dismas|^(talk) 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Andy Warhol maybe --omnipotence407 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Warhol didn't do any works for the companies. He had a sculpture of Brillo boxes and there was his famous paintings of Campbell's Soup cans but those designs were already being used and he didn't create the labels. Dismas|^(talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall Warhol, and many other artists, doing magazine ads for Absolut vodka at some point in the 1980s. The Absolut art campaign is probably the largest single campaign to use professional artists in this way—well over 300, I believe, in the course of their ad campaigns.[12] --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Château Mouton Rothschild has a famous artist design their wine's label every year. We even have a list of artists who have created a Château Mouton Rothschild label. Plasticup ^T/C 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss "worked as an illustrator for advertising campaigns, most notably for Flit and Standard Oil". I'm sure there are loads more.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Billy Apple worked with Warhol and also designed logos for companies such as the Farmers Department Store that are World famous in New Zealand. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway who says this guy wasn't an artist! Raymond Loewy. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

God: Yay or Nay?

I'm not asking wheather God, or a God, or any God exists, but what are the strongest arguments from both the yes and no sides to a divine presence on Earth, or through out the universe. I hope this doesn't turn ugly.--68.231.202.21 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It needn't turn ugly. We have an article for your delectation: Existence of God. Fribbler (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You would have thought I would have came across that.--Xtothe3rd (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's start by defining terms, like, say, "God." DOR (HK) (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

July 10

Doesnt USA have also Nuclear Program?

These days news number 1 in the world in Irans nuclear program and USA opposing it. My question is: does not USA have even more deadly weapons then Iran,and how come they can have them,but they wont allow Iran to have it? Thanks! -- 87.116.154.181 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, the USA still has I think over 10,000 nuclear bombs, but they do not want Iran to have them because perhaps they fear it could use them for harmful purposes. Iran insists it is using its nuclear program for peaceful purposes only, but the US are often suspicious as Iran often carries out nuclear tests and stuff that become big news (see the Main Page in the news section). Also, see Iranian nuclear program. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Iran has never carried out a nuclear test. It does not have nuclear weapons. What is has conducted recently is a missile test. In the past it has made claims about enrichment technology. Neither of these constitute nuclear weapons. Iran claims that it is not developing a nuclear weapons program, but that it is developing a civilian power program. The US disputes these claims; the IAEA says that Iran hasn't been totally up front about things, but hasn't accused Iran of actually trying to manufacture weapons. At this stage in the Iranian program, they are probably not trying to manufacture nuclear weapons, but if they gain complete mastery over enrichment technology, then in the future it would be less difficult for them to develop weapons. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty basically allows the Security Council "Big 5" to have open possession of nukes, while all other nations which sign the treaty are supposed to renounce posession of nukes -- and Iran signed the treaty. AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See Nuclear weapons and the United States for information about the US nuclear program, stockpile sizes, history, etc.

The reason why the US, UK, Russia, France, and China are technically allowed to have nuclear weapons is based on old Cold War agreements to limit proliferation, which none of the nuclear nations would sign if they infringed upon their existing stockpiles in any way. It was a compromise to limit the total number of nuclear nations in the world, based on the idea that the more nations in the world that had them, the more dangerous the world would be. Recognizing that doesn't mean you have to think that it's a good thing that the US (or Russia, or China, or, god forbid, France) has nuclear weapons, or that they have any real "right" to them. The problem is that serious non-proliferation efforts didn't take place until those five nations had them, and to securely stop nuclear technology flowing from those nations who had already developed it, you needed to have them sign on to a plan, and they wouldn't (in the high Cold War of the 1960s) without being able to keep their own weapons. (See the Baruch Plan as an example of another non-proliferation attempt that was a non-starter because it involved one party—the USSR—putting too much faith in the other—the US—actually getting rid of its own stockpile at some point).

Now not every nation has to sign the NPT—India, Pakistan, and Israel did not, for example, and all three countries eventually developed their own nuclear arms. Iran signed it way back when under the US-supported Shah. Signing the NPT gets you certain benefits but it also entails certain limitations on what you can do, and how much information you have to give the UN about what you are doing. Iran could withdraw from the NPT—like North Korea did in 2003—but that would carry with it threats of sanctions, though, historically, the punishments for not joining or withdrawing from the NPT have been pretty mild (though it's a small sample size).

So, anyway, the long and short of it is: yes, the US has nuclear weapons, but that doesn't make it a good thing, and it doesn't mean that the world would be any better off or safer if more other countries had nuclear weapons as well, especially countries in very unstable parts of the world like the Middle East. (But I should add that it doesn't mean that Iran having a nuclear weapon will be the end of the world. Historically nuclear weapons have actually brought about a lot of stability within states, and have limited their military options dramatically. Ever since 1945 there has been a lot of "the world will end if X happens" regarding proliferation, but after it eventually happens, if it does, it ends up being more business-as-usual than had been predicted. Personally, as an American, I don't think the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon is worth a war with Iran.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One side of the nonproliferation movement was that the nuclear superpowers would refrain from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against the countries which agreed not to develop them. To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. has not made a pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries which have not attacked the U.S. or its allies. Iran signed the nonproliferation treaty, but I understand that they have the right to abrogate the treaty on so many months notice and develop their own nuclear weapons. The puzzle is why they have not done so. What do they gain by remaining a nonproliferation treaty signatory? The treaty also called for the nuclear powers to get rid of nuclear weapons (which has not happened) and to refrain from providing assistance to nonnuclear powers who wished to develop the weapons, yet a couple of nuclear powers are said to have assisted Israel, India, and Pakistan in their nuclear programs. Edison (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I think Iran doesn't want to leave the NPT because threatening to leave the NPT is probably worth more on the international political scene than actually leaving it. It's still a card for them to play. At the moment they get more out of doing some compliance, some non-compliance, and seeing what they get out of it that way. It gives them more room for claiming it is a civilian program, gives them some legitimacy (some of which is, I think legitimate—they've been much more open about their nuclear program than, say, most countries developing bombs ever were. You can get wonderful high-res pictures of Iranian centrifuges, a level of purposeful transparency rarely seen among prospective nuclear powers). But who knows what they are thinking at the top levels. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it: they'd be fools not pursue nuclear weapons when the US is so openly bellicose towards them. --Sean 19:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, fools they might be. I don't think they're actively pursuing nuclear weapons—they seem to have stopped that phase of their work in 2003. They're seeking enrichment capabilities under a civilian program, no doubt with full knowledge that if they later choose to they can convert that into a weapons program. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Iran would actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons, since the Israelis would return the favor. However, having nuclear weapons would mean Iran was completely safe from attack and could not only continue their support for terrorism in Palestine/Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq, but could dramatically up their support for such terrorists. This would be quite destablizing for the region. Also, a large Shia nation like Iran having nukes might scare Sunni nations, like Saudi Arabia, into thinking they need them, too. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the idea that nukes makes one totally safe from attack is false. It just means that the types of attack change considerably—less outright war, more subterfuge, proxy battles, etc. And it does not give a country unlimited latitude in terrorism, regional actions, etc. In most cases getting nukes has historically actually constrained actions considerably. I'm not predicting how things would happen or saying nukes don't change things, but the idea that they give countries blank checks for power is historically untrue (note that Israel does not have such latitude—it still gets attacked, it still gets into regional wars). They appear to reduce total war between nuclear armed countries. But there's a lot more to war (and peace) than just that. It's way more complicated than, "if they get nukes, they will be able to do whatever they want," especially since, for many years, any hypothetical Iranian arsenal will be small and limited in range. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Subsidiarity principle

How has the subsidiarity principle, present within the European Union, influenced economical and business aspects between member states ?

I have found a page on Wikipedia which provides information on the principle, but only from a legal point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulbazarel (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a difficult essay question, designed to test your detailed knowledge of EU history. You can use History of the European Union and the sub-articles on different periods to identify conflicts about economic and business matters. At the foot of those pages is a list of EU topics that you might find useful. Unfortunately our articles do not contain many references to the kind of academic books and articles you probably need. Of those books we do mention, Hoskyns and Newman (2000) Democratizing the European Union... looks from its title to be a useful source. If you find good sourced information, please add it to the relevant articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "economical and business aspects between member states" strikes me as muddled: aspects of what? Broadly speaking, I don't think subsidiarity is very relevant to business, it's about democratic decision-taking. Perhaps if decisions are taken and contracts awarded locally, or regionally, and not nationally, then businesses have to be able to reach out and sell themselves and their services in different ways (viz., more locally), but "aspects between member states" is looking the other way, at supranational relations. Clearly, subsidiarity means a small number of decisions moving the other way from national governments - up to the European level, at which level only really major multinational undertakings can compete.

It would be a mistake, by the way, to see subsidiarity as a purely European Union principle, its roots are more in the Council of Europe. Xn4 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(Fake) DVD sellers

Advertising has started appearing in London (possibly government funded), urging the public not to buy cheap (ie. counterfeit) DVDs from street sellers. The official sounding reasons given are that the money goes to fund criminal activities like "drug trafficking", "people smuggling", "child porn" and "terrorism". Is there any evidence to support this reasoning, or is it simply scare tactics on behalf of the big studios? Astronaut (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, other than terrorism, all of the above mentioned illegal activities are pretty much self-funding, even lucrative. Though it is true to say that criminals can be involved in "digital piracy". Counterfeit DVDS (and CDs before that, and cassette tapes before that) have long funded paramilitary groups here in Ireland. Though by the scare-ad's argument we would all be better off downloading pirated torrents. At least that way nobody benefits financially, because any financial transaction could aid the baddies. Fribbler (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The campaign is called "Knock off or not". It's industry funded - the "Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness" set up in 2004 to tackle film and TV copyright theft in the U.K. and is backed by 22 members spanning film and television distributors, theatres, DVD retailers and home entertainment rental companies, and spending £1.6m according to Reuters. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's that naff "knock-off Nigel" campaign - that seems more concerned with telling viewers it's simply "uncool" to buy such DVDs. I was referring to a much stronger bus shelter advert I saw the other day, basically telling people they're funding terrorists if they buy a fake DVD. Seems to be a totally different campaign - more MI5 than ITIPA. Astronaut (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Organized criminal groups do engage in piracy to help fund theirselves, although this varies by location (in China and Russia this is true to a much greater degree than in the UK and US). So, the answer would be that it can be used to find drug trafficking, smuggling, and child porn if the organized syndicate that engages in piracy also engages in the aforementioned crimes. It is a tenuous link though.--droptone (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

---

There was an actual court case in the U.S. where income from cigarette smuggling activities between different states in the U.S. (which have different levels of tobacco taxes) was used to fund Hamas... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The only argument that makes any sense at all is that the money from those sales could go to terrorism. However, money from otherwise legit businesses could also be sent to terrorists, so the question is if a larger percentage of illegal sales go to terrorism than legal sales. I don't see any reason why it would. To the contrary, terrorist funders would likely prefer to use legal activities for funding as those are less likely to draw police attention and expose the terrorist organization. There could also be an argument that not-so-bad, but highly profitable, illegal activities will convince criminals to give up much worse activities. A drug dealer who gets shot at on a regular basis might well decide that selling cheap DVDs is a better alternative. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientist

Is there a scientist who had an instrument named after him that had something to do with light diffraction? He invented a few things? I`m not sure if his work was with cameras or telescopes or some kind of optics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.108.210 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Michelson interferometer? Astronaut (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

http://i34.tinypic.com/35c2bf6.png I found this. Its something along those lines, your very close methinks tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.108.210 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresnel lens? I mean, there are tons of things in optics and etc. named after scientists. Need a bit more than that. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, diffraction is an issue here, indeed its a problem with this design, but this is a vague question so worth a stab: Newtonian telescope. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Persian-speaking Iranians

Which provinces are considered as Persian due to the population of Persian-speaking Iranians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.33 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Question could be put more precisely. Anyhow, almost half of 30 provinces of Iran have the most Persian-speaking population, including Tehran, Markazi (meaning Central), Esfahan, Fars (associated with Farsi proper), Semnan, Khorasan (birthplace of Farsi-ye Dari; now itself three provinces), Kerman, Khuzestan, etc. (all with their own regional dialects). All of these provinces would be considered Persian. --Omidinist (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

White population

When did Toronto start receiving immigrants to end the growing of white population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.33 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at Immigration to Canada and History of immigration to Canada as starting points. - Eron^Talk 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the first of those articles says

Immigration since the 1970s has overwhelmingly been of visible minorities from the developing world. Restrictions on non-white immigration were altogether removed, starting when Lester B. Pearson was prime minister with the revised Immigration Act, 1967, and this continued to be official government policy under his successor, Pierre Trudeau.

which would seem to be the answer that the original poster wants. Curiously, I don't see a similar statement in the second article, even though you would think such a major policy change would be a major feature of the "history of immigration to Canada". --Anonymous, 18:47 UTC, July 11, 2008.

Toronto started receiving immigrants as soon as it was founded. They later became known as the "white population". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But the white immigrants did not "end the growing of white population", so this is irrelevant to the question. --Anonymous, 18:47 UTC, July 11, 2008.

But it never ended. According to Immigration to Canada there are about 5k immigrants from the UK each year. I would guess a fair number of these are white immigrants. The percentage of Canada's population that is white may be decreasing but their population is still increasing (and if it's not, it because of a low birth rate not because of no immigeants) Nil Einne (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

July 11

Harry Potter

If JK Rowling spent six years writing Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, how did she manage to complete the other, much larger books in just one or two years? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

She had no publication deadline for the first one, and so could afford to dally. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As a writer doing the rounds with publishers, I can give my experience that may or may not have anything to do with Rowling's... I started writing a novel in 1984. I finished writing my novel in 1997 (Note that I only wrote in 1984, 1988, and 1996-1997). I spent the next two years working out how to get publishers to read it. During that time, I was instructed to rewrite the beginning and end as two very short chapters so they could read how it starts and ends and make a decision to take time on the rest of the book. I did that. I got interest from two different publishers and sent them the entire novel in 2000. Excited, I started my own sort of "advertising" on the Internet by posing as one of the characters and posting messages on a few BBSs. Then, the interest turned into rewrites. I did that. One publisher lost interest. The other switched me from one editor to another for the next four years and then lost interest in 2004. So, all together, I worked on the novel, actively writing, for about 4 years. I spent at least 5 years writing and rewriting for publishers who, in the end, told me that my novel had no market. -- kainaw™ 00:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, I don't think it's any wonder that Rowling has been quicker with the rest of the books -- after all, at that point she already knew how to write a book and undoubtedly had some kind of a writing routine down. (Also, looking at her biography, I see she not only had a baby but also suffered from depression as she was writing her first novel. These things probably contributed to the pace she was writing at.) And, as Tagishsimon notes -- a lack of deadline often translates to a lack of progress. I'd get very few things done without deadlines myself. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Longer does not always mean better, and a good short book does not necessarily take less time to write. As Blaise Pascal once wrote: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time". Writing, rewriting, editing, improving takes time. Gwinva (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only did she have a writing routine down by the time the first book was finished but she likely had a better idea of where the characters were going and wasn't as concerned with the actual plot and story line. Dismas|^(talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from interviews with JKR is that she worked out the basic plot of all seven books before the first was published, so that would save time. Plus she was probably having to do other things to earn money while writing the first - once it was a success that problem would have disappeared. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

From reading interviews with her (and possibly a little reading-between-the-lines) she wrote books 2, 3 and 4 as quickly as she did because she was told she had to. That she had the plot mostly worked out, the characters mostly determined and more time available to devote no doubt helped, but it can be seen that the books expanded (see Gwinva's point) in a way that is not necessarily justified by the contents. In writing book 4 in a year, she encountered severe problems. She has written that she didn't plot it out properly beforehand, and when she had got a sizeable chunk written it just didn't work. She had to rip the thing apart and rewrite it, removing characters and scenarios and altering plots. A Weasley cousin vanished. After that experience she insisted on being given more time with the other books, and by then she was 'big' enough to be given it. 79.66.67.219 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Someone I know was talking about religious beliefs they had, and I was wonder if any already existing religious practices his beliefs could be connected to. He does not believe in a god of any sort, belives that the idea of god can easily be tracked back in history to its beginnings, possibly to a political monotheistic Judaism and a inquisitive polytheistic pagan beginnings, despite this, he is extremely tolerant of all religions saying that their moral beliefs are accurate, but the basis and reason that they have these theological mores are wrong. That the writings and stories of their religions are perfect if interpreted as metaphor and not fact (also that many of the great problems in the worlds history have been caused by the persistent belief in one's own ideas, and the need to try and convince others that they are right). I myself do not believe this, but we have an ongoing discussion and would like to more about his position. Thanks--Xtothe3rd (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not believing in God would be atheism, but believing certain morals that religions happen to promote is more of an ethical belief than a religious one. Perhaps rationalism would also fit. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your friend is not really religious in any sense. He thinks that religious books are good parables but are not divine. He does not believe that religion transcends the history that created it—that it is specifically human made (and not divine). As to what his specific religious beliefs are—e.g., whether he is an atheist, agnostic, or pantheist, all of which could fit that description as given—we'd need more information. Why not just ask him what he self-identifies with? It'll be better than us just guessing. All you've given us so far is his opinion vis-a-vis other religions and the veracity of scripture, which opens up a number of possible interpretations. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I kind of doubt he really thinks that all religions' moral beliefs are accurate. While there's plenty of overlap there, there are many religions that have some moral beliefs that he's likely to find objectionable. (Well, then again, I guess he could believe that all moral beliefs are accurate even if he doesn't follow them, but anyway.) I mean, is he a strict vegetarian, for starters? Or does he believe that all homosexual acts are inherently wrong? Of course, it can often be hard to separate the underlying moral belief from the dogmatic belief, but still. I'd be willing to bet that he does a lot of picking and choosing based on what sounds good and makes sense to him. (And I'm not putting that down, mind you! That's smart.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Could it be close to the views of Sea of Faith?Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on, let's get serious here. Does he agree with the morals of the Kālī-worshipping thuggee and with the Jains? Algebraist 10:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to available data, yes. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reconstructionist Judaism is a stream of organized religion in which historical continuity of peoplehood and ethical behavior are paramount, while theology is rather absent. This would perhaps be in keeping with the OP's friend's position.-- Deborahjay (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly Secular humanism is his speed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Type B personalities

I have been tested as a Type B personality and had a few questions about them. What are some good job or career ideas for a Type B? And what are some suggestions on where I would meet or find other Type Bs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.8.2 (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Knowing what a Type B personality is, would go a long way to helping people answer your question? Astronaut

Looks like it might be this. Fribbler (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Which article suggests that the Type A/B dichotomy is at best dubious and at worst outmoded nonsense. In any case, taking it at face value, it appears that Type Bs constitute the majority of the population, so the OP shouldn't have much trouble. Algebraist 11:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

existence of soul

is there a soul which escapes from your body when you die?remi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.252.28 (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the article on soul, then the answer is "scientifically, it doesn't appear so, but many religions believe so". There are those, like Duncan MacDougall (doctor), who tried to measure the soul, but his experiments are generally not considered particularly reliable or repeatable (see also on Snopes: [13]). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Economic data on housing prices, inflation rates, and GDP growth rates

I am looking for economic data on housing prices, inflation rates, and GDP growth rates for June (2008) in the US, UK, and Euro Area. So far I haven't been too lucky. Plasticup ^T/C 11:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that such information is rarely available for at least a month after the dates for which you search. I wouldn't be expecting to find much before the beginning of August, and perhaps even later. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found preliminary estimates from several governments. Most release their official figures around July 16th, but a few have gotten them out already. There doesn't appear to be any sort of central repository for this information though, so I have been going through each individual government site... Plasticup ^T/C 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian government: 1894

Two separate questions, swift responses appreciated: Who was in power in Italy in 1894? What is the most appropriate wikilink for this faction/junta? Grazi, Skomorokh 13:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The government was lead by Francesco Crispi. I'm not sure if he was leading any formal political party. Algebraist 13:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. Do you know the formal or historical name for the body of which he was the head (e.g. Third Republic); anything from Category:Former countries on the Italian Peninsula? I want to write something like "In 1894, the Government of Italy..." but more precise/decriptive/contextual; Government of Italy is a redirect to the bland and sweeping Politics of Italy. Thanks, Skomorokh 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946). Algebraist 14:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much. Skomorokh 14:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

History university Arab World

Which university in the Arab world in each nations teach History, because I want to teach History in those universities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.34 (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Taken in context with some of the other recent Arab-themed questions on the Ref Desk, at least one of which was posted by you, I'm having a little trouble buying this, but I guess I'll play: I would be very surprised to learn of any decent-sized and generally respected university in the Arab world that doesn't teach history, seeing as it's such a basic academic subject. The list of Arab universities may be of interest to you. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Although finding one which includes the actual history of Israel, as opposed to pure Palestinian propaganda, might be a challenge. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the actual history is somewhere in the middle. -LambaJan (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The latter part of your query looks like the focus of required follow-through: how does one obtain a teaching position in a university in the Arab world? What are the minimal necessary academic qualifications? What residence requirements (including proscriptions) are you likely to encounter? I suggest you approach the History department in institutions where you yourself have studied and get some placement advice. In parallel, contact the embassies or consulates of your target countries and see whether they're recruiting academics. This channel may present unanticipated opportunities mutually agreeable to all parties. And if the university-post aspect is negotiable, you might discreetly inquire at your own country's foreign intelligence agencies, appropriate branches of the United Nations, and NGOs working in that part of the world, who might be seeking an academically qualified individual willing to live and work overseas.-- Deborahjay (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Brothers Karamazov

I have to read the Brothers Karamazov. I get to choose between the Constance Garnett translation, Andrew MacAndrew translation, and the Volokonsky-Pevear one. Which one is generally assumed to be the best? And on a side note, is the title Brothers Karamazov grammatical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.186.7 (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Brothers Karamazov is old-fashioned, like Brothers Grimm, but we are used to both phrases now. Doobie Brothers is the natural order in modern English. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be great if they were called the "Brothers Doobie"? Fribbler (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually today people swear by Volokonsky-Pevear, but I'm sure you can find adherents to all of them. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy and Barack Obama

How long has Caroline Kennedy known Barack Obama and what people such as Tony Rezko do they know in common? Also, how long has she been traveling with Obama on his campaign plane?-- adaptron (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

She knew of him at least by 1995 when the national news began covering him. As for who they know in common, pretty much the Democratic Party as well as most of the Republican Party. If you want more specific answers, you need to further define what you mean by "know". It can be anything from "heard the name" to "had frequent sexual encounters with". -- kainaw™ 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Creative Thinking on GREEN

I was wondering, with the world slowly being poisoned, is it possible that we as humans, could turn this global warming thing around, if we focus solely on the "Going Green situation?" I thought of some ways that can be tackled to dramatically slow global warming, ways like:

Land conservation-Save massive amounts of land and plant many plants needed. esp. trees, due to deforestation

Using waste as Energy- this country, U.S. produces so much waste, its ridiculous..we have enough waste created to convert it into energy usage.

Something that i'm working on, but i also thought about using radioactive waste as energy. Its waste and i know i sound crazy, but i'm in the process in finding ways to do this. We come up with all these other crazy ways, 'm pretty sure, if this comes to reality, it'll be worth it.

These are just a few ways i thought of... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.83.11 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with turning generic waste i.e. including plastic etc, into energy is that it's incredibly polluting releasing all sorts of nasty stuff like dioxins, PCBs into the atmosphere in far greater quantites then even something like coal. It also doesn't actually help address global warming much. Perhaps it will have a minor effect on land usage but the biggest problem there is probably competition with agriculture and buildings+roads. It's still going to release just as much carbon dioxide as fossil fuels, probably more since I doubt it will be very efficient and since landfills decompose very slowly it's not as if that CO2 is going to be released anyway. The best way to solve the problem of waste is not to burn it for energy but to reduce, reuse and recycle. Reduce the amount of waste your produce in the first place. Reuse whatever you can and recycle what you can't (if it can be done in an energy efficient manner, i.e. using less energy then it will cost to make the plastic/whatever from scratch). Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no simple technical fix to our problem. The problem is about how we run and organize our societies—what sorts of lives we decide to live. For that same reason I don't see any real chance to try and fix it until it is far, far too late. Humans are lousy at thinking in the long term. Nobody wants to sacrifice. Everybody loves cheap plastic shit and cheap meat. And so everybody wants a quick, easy fix. But there isn't one. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As for waste, see radioisotope thermoelectric generator. The problem is that wastes are difficult to handle, create security and safety problems, and in the end, probably won't generate enough energy to make any process either economically, socially, or politically worthwhile. (Assuming you are not talking about plutonium reprocessing, which is entirely different. It has its own security issues but the energy payout is very high.) But in any case, before you worry too much about it, know that others have no doubt considered this, and there's even an active patent on one approach (this one). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Free speech zone

I just read about free speech zones in the US particularly about how they are apparently sometimes used to move protestors (while allowing supporters) away from political rallies by the Secret Service particularly for Bush. I guess you could argue that a protest could get out of control and degenirate into violence but I read that this is sometimes also justified by the notion that in the age of suicide bombers, anything suspicious needs to be treated with caution. Since I find it so bizzare a suggestion, I'm just wondering, other then in the court case, has there even been any support (preferable with references) for this reason either by the Secret Service, the media (e.g. Fox News) etc? To avoid soap-boxing, I don't want any discussion as to the merits of the claims or practice. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Secret Service just says they do not discuss operational details and methods of protection. They have just said generalities like "security concerns justify the use of segregated zones for protesters" per St Petersburg Times, 2002[14] , or "Decisions made in the formulation of a security plan are based on security considerations, not political considerations" per CBS News 2003 [15]. See SFGate[16] and the New York Times [17] from 2004, which says the Secret Service told police to keep people making statements in oppisition to the President in the Free Speech Zone where they could not be seen or heard by reporters or the President. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said in 2002 [18] "Those who pose a genuine threat to the president are expected to carry signs identifying themselves as such, as a courtesy." Clearly an assassin would carry a sign saying he does not like the object of his attack, and would never try to blend in by carrying a sign that says he like the person, so it is not censorship to move protestors to a cage out of sight and earshot. The Roanoke Times (2007) [19] noted that policies like "free speech zones" keep the President in a "bubble," completely insulated from reality. Edison (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The mere existence of free speech zones implies that free speech no longer exists outside the zones, much as drug free school zones implies a total failure in making the entire country a drug-free zone. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"School Zone Ends: Resume Drug Sales Now". StuRat (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

July 12

Zimbabwean interest rates

It's just be announced that the Zimbabwean central bank are increasing interest rates from 6,500% to 8,500%, however inflation is at over 9,000,000%. Am I missing something, or are the central bank effectively handing out free money? By the time banks borrowing at that rate have to pay the loan back it's shrunk considerably in real terms. However, people are complaining that these interest rates are too high and are hurting banks. I really don't understand... --Tango (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're handing out free money: judging by the article on the Z.$, they're handing out free coloured paper. We think of the German inflation as bad, with people burning money for fuel because it burnt longer than the amount of wood that it could buy, but according to the Z.$, the only reason that the increasing money supply in the Z.$ has been (at one point) that the Z. government couldn't buy ink and paper to print more. I think the big question is: how can their economy continue to function at a rate far worse than Germany ever had? Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwe isn't as bad as Germany yet - Germany peaked at millions of percent per month, Zimbabwe is at millions of percent per year (at the official rate, the real rate is higher, but I'm not sure how much higher). --Tango (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

True; I misread the Z$ article. Although who knows how long it will go on; Germany's stamps only reached fifty billion marks, while if the rate keeps going (the Z$ going from 12¼ billion to 19½ billion per US$ from the beginning of July until now) Zimbabwe may have to make corresponding prices even higher. At least it's not as much as with Hungary, with stamps of ½ quintillion pengos. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The amount of time it's been going on for is significant - the hyperinflation in Germany lasted about 2.5 years, it's been going on in Zimbabwe for about 7 or 8, with pretty high inflation before that. That's why the highest denomination notes in Zimbabwe are already 50 billion dollars despite the rate of inflation being much less than in Germany. --Tango (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess there's been a 1000:1 devaluation of the currency and that you're comparing NewMugabeBux with OldMugabeBux. StuRat (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The 1000:1 devaluation was a couple of years ago, the figures I'm stating have been published this week. --Tango (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There might be people still using the old system, however. After all, aren't there lots of Brits still using traditional units, like hands and stones, long after metric units have become official ? StuRat (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are (people are more likely to drop zeros rather than add more when prices are already measured in billions), but either way, these are official figures, so we can be pretty certain they are using the current currency. One possibility I've thought of is that the interest rates are quoted as monthly rates, rather than the more common annual rates (which the inflation figure definitely is), but I can't find anything to support that theory (or to disprove it). --Tango (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yi San opening theme music?

I like this Yi San opening theme music: [20]. Does anyone know if it has a name? --71.141.156.137 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well known tune

You know that tune everyone can play on the piano, the one that goes C C C CBABCD E E E EDCDEF G C AGFED(repeat)?

Does that have a name?

Also, does it have lyrics? I've a vague recollection of Niles and Daphne singing along to it in a Frasier episode. AndyJones (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's called Heart and Soul - music by Hoagy Carmichael, lyrics by Frank Loesser. Hundreds of singers have recorded it, but I can honestly report the only times I've ever heard it are when 1 or 2 pianists belt it out. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is Heart and Soul (song), thank you. AndyJones (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I've always known it was Fings Ain't Wot They Used T'be - and it clearly is: listen to this. I'd never heard of the Carmichael song before today, and supposed that the slight differences in tune were just flourishes people added when they played it.

The Carmichael song is older, so I guess it has priority. I wonder if Lionel Bart knew it? --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to upset your applecart, Colin. They're similar, but different.

• Fings: C C C ABCD E E E CDEF G G AFDBC
• Heart and Soul: C C C CBABCD E E E EDCDEF G C AGF E D C.

It's very common to find 2 tunes that have striking similarities, but are just different enough to be distinguished (for those that have ears to hear). Heart and Soul is one of these pieces that, for unknown reasons, is in a small group of tunes that millions of people play when they sit down to a piano at a party (the other 2 that come to mind are Für Elise and a little jaunty thing played on the black keys with the knuckles, the name of which, if it has one, I don't know, but it goes something like B-flat A-flat G-flat E-flat E-flat etc). Most people who play Heart and Soul don't know what its name is (it's just "that tune we play"), so I'm not at all surprised you've never heard its name. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That piece you can't name... I don't know either, but I looked at Category:Musical memes, and Der Flohwalzer shares some properties with it. I wonder if it could be a variant. If you Google "knuckle song" you'll find several people wondering about its origins and not getting any answers. --Allen (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Jack, I said the tune was slightly different. But as for my applecart - I didn't say I thought it was Fings - I said I knew it was Fings - and I did. Max Bygraves' recording was familiar in Britain at the time, and that's what we played. Furthermore, I haven't found a version of Heart and Soul from which I can determine the B music, but I guess it's quite different from Fings - and we sometimes used to put in the B music of Fings. I remember hearing what I now know to be Heart and Soul as a funky variant of the tune. And if we're being picky - I don't think I've ever heard it with the straight rhythm of Heart and Soul as written - it's always dotted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as picky, Colin. That would never be my intention. It seems to me that the tune you played was "Fings Ain't Wot They Used T'be"; you would certainly know better than I what tune you played. But whether it's the same tune as the one AndyJones asked about is a different matter. The notes he specified correspond exactly to Heart and Soul, but only roughly to Fings after the third C. As for the rhythm, we didn't get into that, we were just focussing on the notes in order to identify the tune. But you're dead right, many of them are dotted. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

San Galgano Abbey - Tuscany

Can someone write an article on this abbey.... quite fascinating (few articles on web but commercial)220.235.225.219 (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Pete

You should post about this to Wikipedia's requested articles page. You'll find instructions for how to go about it at that page. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You could also try requesting a translation of Abbazia di San Galgano.—eric 16:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How many civilians died through Luftwaffe bombings in Soviet Union

How many civilians died through Luftwaffe bombings in Soviet Union ? Information about civilian vicitims of Luftwaffe in Soviet Union is missing from all articles about bombing in WW2. I know there was bombing of cities but I would like to know exact data. --Molobo (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Those records may not exist. I doubt that Stalin would have felt the need to keep records of such deaths. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find this on Wikipedia.

"At the close of the 8th century, Pope Hadrian I (772-795) confirmed the decrees of the 6th Synod of Constantinople held almost a century earlier and commanded that thereafter "the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross." [21] Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it doesn't quite strike me as a reliable source -- as far as I can tell, this is just some guy on the internet. Considering that his site also includes things like "Gangster hires Pimp to write Bible!", I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this isn't likely to pass muster. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The original source for that particular quote (it is not a direct quote of what Hadrian apparently said) is Marshall Gauvin, Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (online). The online version isn't dated but it seems our Mr. Gauvin published most of his anti-religious stuff in the 1910s-1920s. If you Google Books search "hadrian cross lamb" you get some interesting results; the two categories of works that report the above switcheroo regarding Christ and the lamb are either very recent, non-scholarly books (again, mostly anti-religious stuff), and very old, scholarly books (late 19th, early 20th century). Odd stuff. It seems pretty hard to find something with a decent footnote, though. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember that there was one kind of wall graffiti of a crucified lamb in an ancient Roman catacomb or something -- but no evidence that it was ever a widespread symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of the Alexamenos graffito which shows a man with the head of an ass, crucified, carved on a wall in Rome, dating to the late 1st thru late 3rd century, inscribed ""Alexamenos, worship God" or "Alexamenos worships his God". It is thought to mock the belief of a Christian. Edison (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that our article is listed under his alternate name Pope Adrian I, although we do have a redirect there from Pope Hadrian I. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan/Chicago map

Does anyone know where I could find a map of Manhattan superimposed over a map of Chicago (same scale, of course). Failing that, what would be the best way to create one?—Chowbok ☠ 20:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To create one:

• go to google maps, find chicago, take a screenshot and paste into a decent image editor like GIMP
• do the same for NY, making sure your at the same scale. Paste into a second layer on the same image
• make the NY layer translucent, and move it around as you desire

(for GIMP substitute Photoshop or Illustrator or Inkscape or whatever tool you have to hand)

(aside: You don't say if you're intend to upload this image to Wikipedia - if so, please use a PD map source such as wikitravel:Wikitravel:How to create a map instead of Google)

-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want said map? I don't ask to be difficult, but knowing the purpose of something like that will make it more clear what the "best way" to create one would be—whether you'll want to have a few transparent layers of maps or whether you'll want something else. It'll just look like a mash of lines unless you create it for a specific purpose. If you're trying to get an idea of relative size or whatever, that's not a good way to do it except in order to get raw square mileage; it won't tell you about relative densities, which are more important for most things. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be for the purpose of a psychogeographical investigation. One of the ideas behind psychogeography is that you should be able to find your way around a city by referring to a map of a completely different city. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Span & the Green Party

The convention has not aired yet, according to this:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=206375-1

But it will be shown at some time today, according to this:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/

I can't find the exact time it will air. When, and on which of the three C-Span channels, will the Green Party Candidate Nominating Convention air? 71.174.26.247 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)ChiouChan

Is there a single USA president that did not start nor participated in a war during his time in office?

Thanks you 87.116.154.181 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison. Algebraist 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lots. Jackson, Van Buren (unless you count the Aroostook War), Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan... OK, I'm bored of listing them. Compare this timeline of wars to this timeline of US presidents and you can find them easily enough. The most recent one was Jimmy Carter, unless you count the Cold War as your war (I am assuming though you mean armed military conflicts). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it also has something to do with how you define "war". Carter certainly didn't start a war but he ordered Operation Eagle Claw against Iran. And some of the names listed above had problems (sometimes resolved through force) with the Indians. I'm also listing the relativly bloodless Utah War under Buchanan (arguably a revolt). The link provided above seems to present some problems Flamarande (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Adoption in the United States on the basis of religion

I have read two contradictory statements regarding the religion of adoptive parents in the United States. The first is that it is forbidden by United States law to take the religion of the natural mother into account when placing a child for adoption. The second is that whenever possible the child should (or even must) be placed with adoptive parents of the same religion as the natural mother. Can any user please tell me which of these two statements is correct. Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that in the case of a child of a Jewish natural mother the guidelines for adoption may take into consideration the special role of matrilinearity in this system. There is a Jewish adoption service (Denver, CO) which states on the webpage "There are, however, many Jewish children in the United States who aren't as lucky." when referring to adoption. Based on this statement, it must be assumed that adoption does not always take into account this specific aspect. Clearly (or so I assume), the procedure would be a different one within Israel. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Grace

I'm editing a piece (the author has long since passed away otherwise I would ask him) that alludes to a relgious group or sect that not only says grace before meals, but recites an appropriate prayer before other daily activities as well, for example going to the toilet/bathroom. Does anyone know what group this might be a reference to?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All abrahamic religions have this sort of short prayers for every daily act including what you have mentioned, but only the most fanatic believers observe them. --Omidinist (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them have these. -LambaJan (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a number of situations listed on this page about Orthodox Jewish prayers in daily life. While perhaps only the most strictly observant would perform all of these, Orthodox and many Conservative or even unaffiliated Jews would include some or many in their personal level of observance. Other abrahamic sects, including those small or far enough out of the mainstream to be labeled "cults," might incorporate some or all of these elements in their ritual observance and prayer.-- Deborahjay (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would tell us which country the group is in, and even the name of the author, we might be able to be more specific. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed: if the author were American, we'd think of Shakers.--Wetman (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Eyesore

I came across this article and couldn't make up my mind if it's been written on a serious note, or someone was trying to joke (sic). It'd been nominated for deletion citing it as a dictionary entry, and a consensus couldn't be reached. I personally feel, it's more than a dictionary entry as other aspects like etymology, famous instances of use, etc. could be discussed. It'd be nice if some one with some kind of expertise could look into the article. As of now, it seemingly discusses the term in a very narrow sense of architecture and town-planning, which I'm not sure is accurate or inclusive enough.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 09:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok.. maybe some extra work would help ?

It certainly fits nicely into a series of articles on 'town planning', 'aesthetics' or 'architecture'

It would be a poorer place without it.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the page will improve, slowly over time, if left to its own devices.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's-up, Ketan. I took a look at the page, which I do consider a good start on a topic of significance, and did a bit of cleanup on its talk page. Then I applied to the Talk page of the Urban planning WikiProject asking that it be evaluated for inclusion in the project, for the sake of attracting the attention of knowledgeable editors who might do some work on it. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article only deals with one aspect of the term, perhaps it should be renamed eyesore (town planning). StuRat (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not as I understand page naming. A parenthetical qualifier is only added to a second or subsequent page with the identical name, and not on the page considered primary for the topic (which may not necessarily be the first one created). It's probably covered somewhere among the naming conventions, though a brief look just now didn't yield anything I could cite. For now, I recommend leaving the Eyesore page name as is. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A strictly pejorative term that inherently falls afoul of neutral POV because one generation's "eyesore" is another's treasure. The subject is capable of being fully covered as a question of Taste (aesthetics). Only amateurism keeps the article at Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

But here it has a certain legal usage, such that if a structure is deemed to be an eyesore, by a planning commision, city council, or other body, it may be demolished if this isn't remedied in a timely manner. As such, it's not simply a matter of taste, but also has legal consequences for the owner. This is similar to how an insult differs from legal libel. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The page even now is developing along the lines StuRat describes. Wetman, this isn't a "List of Eyesores" (which would likely "run afoul" of NPOV as you suggest) but an exposition of the concept of "eyesore" in two aspects indicated by its present categories: Aesthetics and Urban studies and planning. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

About His Person by Simon Armitage

Yes, this is homework. I have thoroughly analysed the poem and understand most of it, but some things still elude me:

1. What is the significance, if any, of the amount of change - "five pounds fifty"?

2. Similarly, what is the significance, if any, of the date the diary is slashed - "March twenty-fourth to the first of April"?

3. What do the words "mortise" and "kepsake" mean?

Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.8 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

3 - see mortise lock, and kepsake is surely a typo for keepsake. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

2 - I don't know either the poem or the poet's dates, but that week would have been approximately the first week of the year in the 'Old Style' calendar in the UK - see Lady Day and the Julian calendar links from there. WikiJedits (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Question 1: First, [22]here is a link to the poem, should anyone else have further ideas. Second, the five pounds fifty, being an amount of the modern era - Simon Armitage -still lives, is physically somewhat weighty, but monetarily meagre. The subject of the poem had very little of the world's goods with him when he died. (The poem does not say he is dead, but that is usually when such inventories are made. Other possible times are at a hospital or at a police station.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

FDIC bank and financial institution ranking systems

What does CAMEL stand for in the FDIC bank rating system? Does the FDIC CAEL system replace CAMEL? What are the ways to find current bank ratings on the net other than Bankrate.com? Which ones are free and which ones cost money? Thanks, Ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherwoodard (talk • contribs) 12:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hedonic treadmill and things other than money

Does the hedonic treadmill occur for happiness factors other than money and material goods (e.g. sex, fame, power, importance of accomplishments)? Might it be a contributing factor in cannabis's reputation as a "gateway drug"? NeonMerlin 19:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

From experience yes,don't know,yes,yes and yes..

I think it's well documented that some drug users move on to harder drugs for greater highs..

Did you want references?87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnamed Mongolian Building

What's the name of the building pictured in question two of this quiz? Thanks, --MagneticFlux (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)