Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 23

Beatles Record Sales
How many copies have each Beatle album sold?

Look it up in Guinness World records for the best of their albums. That's all i can tell you.Jk31213 22:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dowager Princess of Wales
Let us assume that HM the Queen and HRH the Prince of Wales die in 1986, thus causing William V to ascend to the throne. What title does Diana take if (a) Charles predeceases his mother and (b) vice versa? (i'm especially interested in case a). Would she retain the style "Princess of Wales" ? assuming she lives long enough for William V's son to be born and take a wife: what happens then? (does he become Prince of Wales?) Morwen - Talk 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In case A what matters is if William has already become prince of Wales before the Queen died. Assuming she died before her grandson inherited the title, William would be crowned asap, but aslong he was a minor his mother Diana would be regent of the kingdom and mantain her title of Princess of Wales (I think). He would not become prince of Wales because that title is reserved to the male heir-apparent and his wife, the oldest son of the ruling British monarch (notice that William would allready be king - thereby jumping over the "prince of Wales step"). As William became of age his mother Diana would most likely lose her title as Princess and become the "Queen mother" like the (now deceased) mother of Queen Elizabeth. The (future) son of William would eventually become the new prince of Wales, inheriting the title from his deceased grandfather Charles "longhears" :).


 * In case B) what really maters if Charles had enough time to be crowned King (Diana becoming Queen or consort), and to invest William with the title of prince of Wales. If yes then William would become King having been prince of Wales allready (a rather smoth succession) and his mother would become Queen mother. If Charles had enough time to become King but not enough time to invest his son with the "prince of Wales" title, William would jump over the prince step as above, while his mother Diana would become the Queen mother.


 * Either way Diana never would rule alone as Queen of the UK, for she is not in the succession line (she is not of royal blood but the wife and mother of kings). She would never be Queen and would always become Queen mother.


 * I am not very knowlegable about the current rules of the British monarchy and the rules of inherinting a noble title however, I might be wrong on this. A regent was someone who ruled while the new king was underage, but in modern times it doesn't make much sense for the parlament rules. But it is very likely they would keep the ilusion (aka the show must go on) because of tradition. Still it is a unclear situation, the brother of Charles, Prince Andrew could become regent instead of Diana. I also am not very sure if the widow of a prince of wales mantains her title or not. Flamarande 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're wrong about English Queen Mothers. Diana, never having been Queen Consort, would never become Queen Mother. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the article clearly states that the "mother of the current monarch" (in this case William) is one of the criteria to become Queen Mother. Flamarande 22:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No one inherits the title of Prince of Wales. The eldest son of the monarch becomes the Prince of Wales only if, and only when, he is so created. The title is created, not acquired by someone's birth or someone else's death. It is quite possible to become King without having been the Prince of Wales. If Charles died while married to Diana, she would most likely have been styled Dowager Princess of Wales (whether or not there was another Princess of Wales yet), whether or not the Queen was dead and William were king. - Nunh-huh 22:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the ruling monarch invests (gives, assigns, awards, whatever) that title upon his eldest son, the heir apparent. But you are right that title is not inherited. But would Diana still be "Dowager Princess of Wales" if her son became king? Flamarande 22:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Man, I am asking questions about the British soap opera. Talk about decadence. I need some medicine quickly.
 * yes, the ruling monarch creates the title. (The investiture is for show). I pretty much thought that was what I said; maybe I wasn't clear. Assuming William became King without Diana having become Queen, then yes, probably she would still be Dowager Princess of Wales. But the British tend to improvise, and Diana's style is at the will of the King; William could announce her style to be "Queen Mother" and it would be so (Elena of Greece, mother of King Michael of Romania was Queen Mother without ever having been a Queen Consort.) - Nunh-huh 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, she becomes "HM Queen Diana the Queen Mother" if Brenda dies first and "HRH The Dowager Princess of Wales" or somesuch if Chaz dies first? Morwen - Talk 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No "Queen Mother" unless it's specifically added. It probably wouldn't be, as there's no need to; think of "Queen Mother" as disambiguation when both Queens (the Dowager and the Regnant, most recently) have the same Christian name. - Nunh-huh 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * isn't Diana a bit dead so no title?Sorry if I misunderstood this-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC))
 * In reality she's dead, yes, therefore titleless, but the questioner begins by setting the model - "Let us assume that HM the Queen and HRH the Prince of Wales die in 1986". In 1986, Di was yet to die, and from there the hypothetical model continues :)  --Mnem e son 21:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatry outlook
Hello, I am just now entering into the universe of higher learning and am in confusion. My ultimate goal would to do something in psychiatry (are there any sites which list and describe the different opportunities/ positions, if there are any or even specific studies?). For now I would also like to learn a little about business. Could someone please help me with the diploma system of the US and would it affect me if I majored in business now then psychology in a later diploma? or am I thinking about it all wrong? I’m sure I will have many other questions later, so if you feel you must share something important I did not ask concerning the diploma system or psychiatry and its outlook, please do, I will great appreciate all the information given or provided links. Thanks in advance Wikipeeps! 66.74.109.24 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Jot


 * And just what is your motivation for wanting to become a psychiatrist ? Perhaps you are at conflict with your inner-child ?  Perhaps you had an assertive mother and passive father ? :-) StuRat 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now for a more serious answer: I don't see many jobs which would require both degrees, so suggest you only get a degree in your favorite subject, and make the other subject a minor. This should save you much time and money. StuRat 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have a business degree, and there's an entire area of business that's basically dependant on psychology (I'm not so sure about psychiatry though). If you went to business school and majored in marketing, you'd see that, for better or for worse, marketing is ALL about psychology. You're sure to get a good intro to Maslow, Pavlov (as well as his infamous dog) and many other psychologically relevant topics. Loomis 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, but I don't see anyone refusing to hire marketing people who lack a degree in psychiatry. Most of the psychology used in ads is pretty simple stuff: "men like to have sex with pretty women, so if you make them think your product will make that happen, they will buy it".  I can't see how a degree in anything is needed to know that. StuRat 22:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Huursubsidie Applies To?
To what rent range does huursubsidie from the Dutch government apply? Information not located at huursubsidie article of Dutch Wikipedia. --130.161.135.32 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If I understand this source correctly, it is no longer called "huursubsidie" but "huurtoeslag", and the maximum "rekenhuur" (computing rent?) is € 604,72. I'm not sure I understand what they mean by "rekenhuur", but perhaps you or a friendly Dutch-speaking native in your environment can figure that out. --Lambiam Talk 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideology
I have read the article on ideology but it does not answer my question.


 * Is religion an ideology?

The reason I asked is that, if it is an idelogy then


 * Religion is an ideology
 * Science is an ideology
 * Therefore Religion is in the very same category as Science

Just like


 * Cat is a mammal
 * Dog is a mammal
 * Therefore Cat is in the very same category as Dog

Ohanian 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Broad catagories for cat and dog being mammal are correct, but the subcatagories can still be different. As an exmaple for broader catagories, both mice and elephant will fall in category of animal kingdom--nids 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes you say science is an ideology? Also, generically labelling religion as ideology is hard to justify. Some religions are ideological, and some ideologies are religious, but is all religion ideological? Both religion and science are in very many categories, some the same, some not. --Lambiam Talk 02:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An ideology is an organized collection of ideas. Science is an organized collection of ideas subjected to certain methods and rules. Thus Science is an ideology. Ohanian 04:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By the same argument:


 * "Christianity" is a word.


 * "Bananas" is a word.


 * Therefore Christianity and Bananas are in the same category.


 * You're playing the kind of word games that would make a postmodernist proud. --Robert Merkel 04:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You could have chosen the words 'christian' and 'weirdo' for extra effect - a missed oppotunity. :)
 * I'd say an ideology also has a goal. Religion is a belief that assumes certain things to be absolutely true, whereas science constantly tries to find thuths, so the latter is more of an ideology than the former. DirkvdM 09:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Science and the courts have a lot in common. They both want the thuth, the whole thuth, and nothing but the thuth.  :--)  JackofOz 05:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Although if the court systems wanted just the truth, we wouldn't need lawyers—just the prosecuter and the defendant, and some forensic scientists. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)
 * I think you're generalizing a bit about religions, Dirk. While some religions soak themselves in dogma and declare what is and what is not absolutely true with absolute certainty and close off all debate right there, some others may take a more dialectical approach. I won't say which ones though. :--) Loomis 23:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the prosecutor is just as much a lawyer as the defence council. So we'd have to rid ourselves of the prosecutor as well. The judge is also a (former) lawyer (at least in most English speaking jurisdictions). So basically we're left with the defendant and some forensic scientists, and a jury to decide who's right. Knowing how wiley so many defendants can be, how inarticulate so many scientists can be, and how naive some juries can be, might as well call the whole thing off and let the defendant go free. ("If the glove don't fit...You must acquit!") (Apparently they also seem to be particularly fond of arguments that rhyme). :---) Loomis 23:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

resource on reknown historical persons with disabilities who were either Christian or Non
Is there an online or other kind of resource of men or women who had disabilities, etc. and yet were of great importance and contribution, either Christian, or not. Primarily Christian such as William Cowper who wrote hymns and poems and suffered from mental illness, or JB Phillips from England who did his own paraphrased translation of the New Testament, or Martin Luther from Germany centuries ago, etc. But also individuals such as Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, etc. who were basically secular. This is a private research project being done by someone who is also in this category and is also a Protestant Minister, myself. Thank You. Will.


 * I was following you until Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, and Albert Einstein. Those three to my knowledge did not have any definite "disabilities" (I know that Luther was constipated and often ill but I don't think that is what is usually meant by a "disability"). --Fastfission 01:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is speculation that Lincoln had Marfan's syndrome. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably what was meant, but [1] it's just speculation, and [2] as far as I know, Lincoln had no disability attributed to it. As for Luther and Einstein, I agree with a big ol' "wha?". Luther was antisemitic, but that's not a disability, and Einstein - he had a bout of depression, I think. But everyone has some kind of ailment, so I wonder about the utility of classifying people in this way. - Nunh-huh 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And wasn't Einstein dyslexic, and possibly an Asperger syndrome sufferer? Don't know if that qualifies. Anchoress 02:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All of that is just speculation. It's very hard to read these sort of subtle ailments into the historical record and even the analysis of Einstein's brain has not been at all conclusive on these points. In any case none of these people were considered "disabled" in their time, nor is there any evidence that they consided themselves "disabled". In contrast with people like FDR or {[Helen Keller]] I don't think labeling any of these people as suffering from a disability makes any sense unless you use a very all-encompassing definition of disability (I mean, if you are going to consider Einstein "disabled" then you migth as well consider any African-American notable disabled—most of them faced more difficulties in life than did Einstein, who had the luxury of fleeing discrimination at home for a kushy job at Princeton and never lived in any real state of poverty). --Fastfission 18:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics
What are the differences between a socialist system and social democratic state?
 * The essential difference between social democracy and socialism as political philosophies is that social democracy accepts capitalism but seeks to take away the inhumane aspects, whereas socialism rejects, on grounds of principle, capitalism as the way of organizing economic production. There is also democratic socialism. In theory it means: socialism in a democratically organized society. In practice there is often little political difference between movements labelling themselves as democratic socialists and those who call themselves social democrats. This is not to say that socialists who do not call themselves "democratic socialists" are thereby less democratic. States that label(led) themselves as "socialist", on the contrary, have been very easy to call themselves "democratic" but have actually been very autocratic. Very schematically: In a socialist state the means of production are in the hands of the people (publicly owned). In a social democratic state they are in the hands of the capitalists (privately owned), but the liberty of the capitalists to do as they please is to a certain extent curbed by laws: no child labour, safety measures for the workers, minimum wages, etcetera. --Lambiam Talk 01:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that description, I'd been curious too. But I think the curbs on free enterprise are more numerous than just those you listed. Of course you said 'et cetera', but I think most of your examples also exist in many notably 'free market' societies. Anchoress 03:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and that poses somewhat of a problem in defining social democracy, a problem that more principled socialists have not failed to point out: How does it differ – other than on historical grounds – from "enlightened capitalism"? Maybe we can tackle that question after we have figured out whether Pluto is still a planet or not, and why. --Lambiam Talk 05:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You forgot to give the link to Socialist State, which may be what the questioneer was asking about. Socialist states are usually called 'communist' because they are led by a communist party. But since that requires an as yet unachieved state of mind of the people (Che Guaevara's 'hombre nuevo'), a strict form of socialism is used in the meantime. Another reason for the term is that Communist State would be a misnomer because in true communism there are no states (the workers of the world have united across state boundaries). DirkvdM 09:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Joining a monotheistic world religion
I wish to join a monotheistic world religion but I do not understand what it means to have faith.

1. How can I learn to have faith in my new deity?

2. Can anyone link me to articles on this quandrary?

Thanks. -Wjlkgnsfb 02:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...wikipedia is being used for spiritual guidance. I'm not sure this is a good thing.   But as long as you asked, you might want to look at faith and divine and... oh heck.   I really wouldn't recommend this, but that's just me.  From your perspective, why would you choose one over another?  Doesn't it look a little ridiculous, all these different people all over the place, claiming indisputable knowledge of a different divine being and doing crazy things in its name?  I can't stomach it, but again, that's just me.   --Bmk 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have not already selected a religion, I recommend becoming a Pastafarian. --Lambiam Talk 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a divine experience, I had a girlfriend! A successful relationship, no one got harshly dumped. Understanding flows through me....and I seek the faith!
 * I have read Alan Watts' Myth and Ritual in Christianity (google print's got it) and everything makes sense now. -Wjlkgnsfb 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read Alan Watts' Myth and Ritual in Christianity (google print's got it) and everything makes sense now. -Wjlkgnsfb 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you trying using blind faith. Very easy, no brains required. Ohanian 04:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer Wjkgnsfb's questions:


 * 1. Get into a deep denial. Even if your deity does things that are cruel and evil, always try to twist to truth to make him look good.


 * 2. Sorry, the volunteers on this reference desk will only give you facts, not ridiculous lies that will harm you by bringing you into a denial.


 * My points is, religions are stupid. They require you to believe in a non-existant deity.  They will do nothing but waste you time and give you false hope.  --Bowlhover 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Hello and welcome to 'Spot the Prejudice'. This week we're going to start with an easy one..." DJ Clayworth 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a reference desk, not a Wikipedia article. What's wrong with expressing my opinion?  --Bowlhover 06:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't you hear the news DJ? It's now ok to ridicule those who believe in God. Discrimination based on skin colour, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, culture, ideology etc... is now "out", and the ridicule of those who believe in a Supreme Being is now "in". Just as Atheists were once considered a bunch of pathetic, misguided morons, now the believers in God are. Just imagine if I were to say today that the Keynsian economic theory was stupid, I can just imagine the flak I'd get for that! And so the pendulum swings... Loomis 20:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Discrimination is an act, while ridiculing "those who believe in God" is expressing an opinion. As long as there was free speech, it has always been O.K. to express your opinion about discrimination (as well as God), regardless of what your opinion might be.  But it's not O.K. to discriminate against those who are black/white, or those who believe/don't believe in God.  --Bowlhover 06:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think all three of you are overreacting. Flamarande 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite getting your point, Bowlhover. You seem to be making some sort of "broad line" distinction between the "expression of an opinion", (which you seem to be saying is always ok,) and "discrimination" (which you seem to admit is not ok). You talk about black/white "discrimination" vs. black/white "opinion". You seem to be saying that while it's always ok, regardless of what your opinion might be "as long as there was free speech" to ridicule a person to his face as being, for example, "another stupid black" (expressing opinion), so long as you don't "discriminate" against them, ("I may think of you as just another stupid black but I'll hire you anyway because it's wrong to discriminate against stupid blacks") all is fine. Get real! Both are equally disgusting!


 * And please, Flamarande, I'm a person of faith, and that faith is part of the definition of my being. Please don't tell me that being hurt and upset for being ridiculed for a part of the definition my being is "over-reacting", or is any different from you being ridiculed for a similar definitive aspect of your being (whatever that may be, as you've been here quite a while and you seem to have been very careful not to reveal any of your sore points).


 * I originally came here today to reply to Ben's polite argument with a polite argument of my own. We're both people of faith, and our faiths obviously differ to a large extent. Yet I have an insatiable curiousity, and as such, I'm curious about every possible point of view. Oh well, maybe next time Ben! Loomis 23:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really a serious question. You don't just "join a monotheistic religion" for the sake of it. That is a possible explanation of why you don't understand what it means to have faith. You get faith when you hear something that has a "ring of truth" to it, and believe it. Faith is believing something without necessarily having full information about it. If you are serious, read the New Testament. You may well discover what faith is. BenC7 07:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to get faith in a religion is to investigate its claims. Talk to people who espouse that religion; read its books; talk to people with opposite views. At some point you will decide either that there is enough evidence to convince you that its true, or enough to convince you that its false. Then you can join or not, depending on the answer. That's how most people do it who aren't brought up in a religion. However don't wait for 'proof' either way. Pretty much nothing in this life can be proved conclusively. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Conviction != faith. If you are absolutely convinced that your religion is true, you are probably not in a spiritually sound position.  To the original poster, for an introduction to Christianity, I'd read the Gospel of St Mark and C.S. Lewis's Surprised by Joy.  The latter is an easy read yet also conveys the meaning of faith better than most religious texts.  You might also find it useful to talk to your local priest/minister and, if you find some truth, perhaps to consider baptism and confirmation.  I can't say for other religions, but it would probably be useful to talk to ministers of those religions.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The questioner seems to be "putting the cart before the horse". Why would you want to join a "monotheistic world religion" if you still aren't sure which one appeals to you? It would seem (and I'm only guessing here) that you believe in one God, but aren't quite sure which interpretation of His existence you want to ascribe to. There's no need to choose, unless one just jumps out at you as matching very well with your particular spirituality. For now, all I'd suggest is to describe yourself as an undecided Monotheist. There's nothing wrong with that. And if I'm wrong, and you don't have any particular monotheistic leanings, just describe yourself as an Agnostic. All that means is that you're not quite sure what you believe, which is perfectly ok as well. Just please, try to avoid Atheism, as, like it or not, Atheists, no matter how much they protest, seem to display all the same qualities as "blind believers". Those being, the blind belief, nay...conviction that there is definitely NO God. Loomis 20:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A blind belief is a belief held without examining the facts. If a theist (like the poster of this question) is convinced that there is no God, after examining the evidence, then is his atheism still a "blind belief"?  Don't "avoid" atheism--if you are convinced by the facts that God doesn't exist, don't hesitate to become an atheist.  --Bowlhover 06:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Atheism is a religion like any other. It's a belief in something that cannot be proven. In this case, it's the unprovable belief that there is no God. The belief that God doesn't exist is no more of a fact than the belief that He does. They're both beliefs. Neither are facts. To consider the belief that God does not exist is actually a fact would constitute a logical fallacy. In this particular case, the particular logical fallacy is question is termed argumentum ad ignorantiam. Bowlhover, if you would simply convince me by the facts that God doesn't exist, I'll gladly, without hesitation, become an Atheist. Loomis 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you really want to find your own truth then you must question everything, even the existence of God (or reincarnation, etc aka the the supernatural answers for everything) and you will eventually find your own truth, and it will set you free. Believe in a God (or whatever) or don't, it doesn't matter anyway. Just never stop questioning everything (and thinking for yourself) and never ever let other persons think for you. Don't let arrogant ppl (like scientists, priests, and fools) scare you: "You must believe or you will go to HELL", or shame you into fearfull and blind obedience: "You should be ashamed of what you are and you must ask for God's (and most importantly our's) forgiveness for it". Just realize that you don't necessarily to believe in a God or in the supernatural to be a good person.


 * Are you kidding me? "Believe in a God (or whatever) or don't, it doesn't matter anyway". Clearly your conception of what it is to believe in God is a bit skewed. Why would you believe in God if it didn't matter? Why not just live for yourself, feed your own lusts, and be concerned only about yourself? That is far more enjoyable (at least in the short term) than what God asks us to do (i.e., make Him number one, not put self first). If it truly doesn't matter - if there is no life after death - well... "Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" I have absolutely no idea why you would live to please God if it truly didn't matter.


 * By the way, God expects us to be ashamed (although "ashamed" possibly isn't the best word) of what we've done, not who we are. If hell is real, people SHOULD be afraid! It is ridiculous to say to someone for whom the threat of danger is real, "Don't worry, don't be afraid, there's nothing to it." How exactly do you know that hell doesn't exist? You don't. You believe that hell doesn't exist, and then pass it off as though it were fact.


 * And absolutely you have to believe in God to be a good person in God's eyes. The most important commandment is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul and strength". You can't do that unless you believe in Him! BenC7 03:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to Ben, and I do respect your faith, I have to disagree with you here. Obviously our faiths differ to some degree. "Why would you believe in God if it didn't matter?" I believe in God because I love God, not because it'll get me a free pass into heaven or anything. I don't care if it "matters" or not. You seem to imply that by believing in God you're making some sort of sacrifice in this world, only for some big payoff in the next. I disagree with that too. I believe in God because, to me at least, it makes sense in this world, nevermind the next. I don't believe in hell. If I did, and if I believed in God only for the sake of avoiding damnation, don't you think that make me some sort of ... I can't think of the word ... "weasel"? I don't plan on "weaseling" myself into heaven, or whatever is in fact in store for me. I just try to concentrate on being a good person in this world, and believing in a just God, I leave the rest up to Him. Loomis 06:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bible says "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Almighty." I believe it; as much as God is love and mercy, he is also justice (Jer. 9:24-5). But not all things in the earth are just. People cheat others out of their posessions and their rights. Some are treated like dogs. Do you think that God is just? I do. There must be some sort of reckoning, some time where justice is served - because God is just, but there are many who have been denied justice. I can't possibly believe that people who are treated like animals in this life have nothing better to hope for, and people who live long, mistreat others, amass riches, live like kings at the expense of the poor, and are concerned about no-one but themselves have nothing to fear from God. Why? That wouldn't be justice. I don't believe that God will let sin go unpunished. BenC7 08:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, I may be an atheist, but that does not mean I do not go to church. I do go to church. The church I go to is the one that emancipated the slaves and gave women the right to vote. It gave us every freedom that we hold dear. My church is this very Chapel of Democracy that we sit in together, and I do not need God to tell me what are my moral absolutes. I need my heart, my brain, and this church. (from the The Contender (film)). Flamarande 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

well..um.....thanks for the responses. Wjlkgnsfb 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Trancedentalism in poetry
I've looked on the internet and, still do not understand what tracendentalitic poetry is. Question obvious. Thanks — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)
 * I'd never heard of it until today. Have you read the article on Transcendentalism? Several of the people listed as prominent transcendentalists were noted poets, one I notice is described as a 'transcendentalist poet', but regrettably we don't have an article on the term. Perhaps investigation of the individual poets listed might help? Anchoress 03:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Torture Scenario
Apologists for torture often seem to argue their case by invoking a situation like the following: "captured terrorist has planted a nuke in the city which will detonate in an hour, there is no time to evacuate, and the terrorist isn't talking" (quote from a discussion above about Iraq). These apologists then go on to say if torture is morally acceptable in this situation then it is no longer absolutely prohibited and therefore becomes acceptable. The issue then becomes in what situations is torture a justifiable approach.

Leaving aside the questionable logic of this approach, what I'd really like to know is if there has ever been a real situation along these lines. So, my question is - can anyone provide a real situation where the torture of a suspect provided information that clearly and unequivocally saved the lives of a number of people? Oh, and I'd like a cite of some kind to back it up to please. Lisiate 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Replace terrorist with serial killer, replace Nuke with girl buried underground with oxygen tank. What would you as a police officer do? ANSWER: get the girl's parents to beat the shit out of the Serial Killer and then charge the parents with assault. No juries will convict the parents. Ohanian 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to kill somebody, why bury her underground with an oxygen tank? If you're a sadist and want to see somebody suffer, why bury her where you can't see or hear her?  --Bowlhover 05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ohanian may or may not be aware of a German case that was the closest to the "ticking time bomb scenario" as anything the world's blogosphere has been able to come up with - a German case of a kidnapping here. As you might gather by the obscurity of this case, the ticking time bomb scenario is exceedingly rare in real life.  --Robert Merkel 04:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise we had an article on it - interesting to see the criticism that such scenarios have never happened. The blog report on the German case was also very interesting - the police officer was convicted for threatening torture, but the penalty reduced (and suspended) because of the mitigating factors. Lisiate 05:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As the original poster of this scenario, I feel it has been misinterpreted as meaning "...therefore all torture is justified". It does not, it only means torture is justified in certain circumstances, such as the hypothetical one listed. As such, this argument would definitely fall into the category of "moral relativism", versus "moral absolutism", which would say any torture is immoral and should be avoided regardless of how many people will die as a direct result. And whether this scenario has actually occurred is a moot point, the question remains, what would you do IF this scenario came up ? StuRat 05:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So what would you do if the hypothetical scenario posted by Lisiate came up? Torture the suspect?  If he didn't want to tell you the location, he'll simply tell you a false location.  By the time you figure out he was lying, the nuke would have gone off.  (Even if it hadn't, all you can do is torture the suspect again, after which he will tell you another false location.  But the only way to know whether he's lying or not is to dig up the location.)  --Bowlhover 05:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would depend on the type of torture. Sodium pentathol tends to make the subject incapable of telling any convincing lies.  Combined with torture, this might have a fair chance of getting the correct location. StuRat 07:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sodium pentathol is a truth serum, and according to our article about it, "information obtained by publicly-disclosed truth drugs has been shown to be highly unreliable, with subjects apparently freely mixing fact and fantasy". Also, why can't the suspect make up his lie prior to taking the truth serum?  Reciting a lie is easier than making it up on the spot.  --Bowlhover 07:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry StuRat, I didn't mean to imply you were using this scenario this way, but as you can see from the ticking time bomb article, it has been used this way by others. Bowlhover raises a good point about the efficacy of torture as a whole. Still, no one so far seems to know of a clearer example than the German kidnapping case. And while the hypothetical situation may make for an interesting discussion point the lack of any real examples surely diminishes the force of the argument. Lisiate 06:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the hypothetical case doesn't exist in the real world, you can use that as an excuse to not answer the question, I suppose, but it doesn't justify changing your answer to "what would you do IF....". StuRat 07:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to me, I wasn't really answering the poster's question. You said that torture would be justified under the hypothetical scenario, and I was arguing against that.  --Bowlhover 07:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The mythical ticking time bomb provides a rationale to legalize torture, which is then used to intimidate suspected oppenents of a regime in power. This is along the same lines as the Red Menace justified creation of a police Red Squad in such cities as Chicago in the 1960's to prevent the overthrow of our government by force and violence,, and to prevent bearded anarchist pinko commies hippies from throwing bombs at police. Then of course the unit was used almost exclusively to spy on political opponents of the mayor, labor leaders, and civil rights leaders with surveillance, illegal wiretaps, and illegal searches. Former FBI agents have reported diong the same thing. Edison 14:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't justify legalizing torture in all cases. Using your analogy, there were real communist spies in the US, such as Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.  This does not justify things like the House Unamerican Activities Committee, but neither does it justify completely ignoring the threat. StuRat 08:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What's really interesting about the German case is that no actual torture took place. It was just the threat of torture, which in Germany was treated as a real human rights issue. When compared with current U.S. practices like extraordinary rendition (sending uncharged detainees to a regime that you know will torture them) this seems unimaginably tame. In a number of current stories in the press there have been detainees who were threatened with not only being sent to a country to be tortured themselves, but that the CIA would have those countries torture their families as well. One wonders if any of the "intel" gained by these operations was worth sacrificing the moral highground in such an ugly way. Personally I doubt it. --Fastfission 18:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hotel scriptures
In a hotel in Brussels, I came upon an (English-language) copy of the Book of Mormon. It was the same floppy-bound, gossamer-paged version you find throughout the US. I was not aware they were so widely distributed. My first question is this: how much money does the LDS church spend to print and disseminate these things? Do they provoke any conversions?

Another question: why are Christian texts the only ones thus distributed? Islam is to some extent a missionary religion, as they eagerly accept converts and have a long tradition of aggressive conversion, but no one ever passes out little orange Qur'ans at high school graduations. Is there a particular reason that Christians distribute their literature so enthusiastically? Bhumiya (said/done) 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. I see from your user page that you're American, as am I.  Perhaps in Muslim countries, evangelical Muslims do pass out little orange Qur'ans, hoping to convert religious minorities?  In the U.S., I can imagine that evangelical Muslims might be afraid to proselytize too openly, since unlike Mormons (or followers of pretty much any religion besides Islam), they have to contend with terrorism-related stereotypes.  --Allen 05:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Muslims seem to place an extremely high value on copies of the Quran, and risking one being vandalized in a hotel would be unacceptable to them. Like a puppy, they are only willing to give them away "to a good home".  StuRat 05:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, translations of the Qur'an are not held in the same esteem that English translations of the Bible are; Muslims believe you have to learn the original Arabic. Translations are not their primary recruitment tool.  --Robert Merkel 05:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is their primary recruitment tool? Bhumiya (said/done) 00:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, but I believe it's oral preaching, in some places by people whom we would call missionaries if they were Christians. --Robert Merkel 12:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Christians distribute their literature so enthusiastically because they are enthusiastic about it! It's worth telling people. I received a New Testament when I was in high school, but didn't read it until several years later during my first year of university. As I read it, I thought, "Yes, this is true, this has always been true, and I'm just now discovering it." That's how I became a Christian. BenC7 07:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if you believe that the Bible is infinitely truer than the Qur'an, you can't seriously suggest that Muslims are aware of this fact, and therefore see no need to share their text. One would, on the contrary, expect Muslims to be just as fervent about their book as Christians are about theirs, if not far more so, since they are infamously fervent in other matters of religion, not to mention the uniquely crucial role played by the Qur'an in uniting the decentralized, non-hierarchical, non-ecclesiastical Muslim community. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record: Judaism does not proselytize. However, excellent electronic editions of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) such as this are readily available on the Web. -- Deborahjay 10:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We seem to be overlooking the HUGE difference between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. Were you by any chance staying at a Marriott? Loomis 11:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless we take a biased view, the only objective differences between the two texts are antiquity, readership, and historical significance. Silliness is not an option. For Mormons, there is no discontinuity (and certainly no disagreement) between the Bible and the BoM. In any case, I was staying at a Radisson, but your comment intrigues me. Does Marriott have some kind of deal with the LDS church? Bhumiya (said/done) 01:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The real answer to your question is that Christian scriptures are found in so many hotel rooms because one organisation Gideons International took upon itself the task of distributing them. There are probably some other organisations joining in now. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable. Naturally, the book most likely to be disseminated within a country is the one most of its citizens already own. It still surprises me that some wealthy, charitable Muslim hasn't had a "Qur'an Primer" printed up and distributed throughout the world. Maybe hotels would simply refuse to stock them, for fear of complaints. But the Book of Mormon is not without controversy. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But s/he was referring specifically to the Book of Mormon, not the New Testament. The Gideons distribute the New Testament, but not the Book of Mormon. I ask again, were you perhaps staying at a Marriott? Loomis 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Radisson. What is the Marriott connection? Bhumiya (said/done) 01:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Marriott hotel chain is essentially a family business, founded by J. Willard Marriott, and currently run by his son. The Marriotts were/are Mormons, and they place the Book of Mormon in all their hotel rooms. - Nunh-huh 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an English Qur'an printed and didtributed free for the information of non-believers-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

I have lived in Belgium all my life and I have never seen a copy of the Book of Mormon. What you saw was coincidence. I thought the Quran was only to be read by muslims in theory? Isn't that why they refrain from handing out the quran to people who are only potential muslimsEvilbu 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Mormons or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as they apparently prefer to be called, have a particular interest in America, as to them, it is the ultimate "holy land". It wouldn't surprise me that they'd be less interested in "spreading the word" in Europe than in North America. I believe it's their belief, that some time back in the 19th century, a certain Joseph Smith Jr. discovered, somewhere in upstate New York, a collection of metallic plates describing Jesus' travels to America. Yes, the owners of the Marriott chain of hotels are Mormons, and that would explain the Book of Mormon being found in all the rooms in their chain of hotels. The Gideons, on the other hand, are the ones who provide copies of the New Testament free of charge to all hotels (at least those where the New Testament is not prohibited by law). It's curious though that The Book of Mormon would be found in a Radisson. Interesting. Loomis 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

INXS Song
Can you identify this song? The main line of the song is something like "It Aint Pretty"
 * Google is your friend. It's Pretty Vegas. Anchoress 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can confirm. INXS is awesome ;)  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme! 

A few random questions...
I have a few random questions:
 * What make of car was the 'black taxi' in the book of that name by James Moloney?
 * What library is mentioned in the book "Box Office" Browing?
 * Who was originally booked into berth No 7 in the book?
 * What was the tenor humming in Captain Corelli's Mandolin?
 * At what venue did Tony Lockett debut for the Swans?

Answers would be greatly appreciated, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.56.135 (talk • contribs)


 * Will random answers do?--Shantavira 07:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer to Question 4 is "The Anvil Chorus". --Canley 11:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is he a Christian or is he not a Christian?
What do you call a person who accepts the teachings of Christ but utterly rejects the teachings of Saint Paul (on the grounds that Paul is a secret agent of the devil.) Ohanian 07:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By accepting the teachings of Christ do you mean accepting the divinity of Christ? Because if it's just about accepting the teachings of Christ, but not his divinity, many people who definitely do not qualify as "Christians" accept the teachings of Christ to one extent or another, one huge example being Muslims. Loomis 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on wherether Christ had taught that he is the son of God. Christ insisted that he is the son of man. It's mainly other humans and the gospel that proclaimed that he is the son of God. Though Christ did refer to his father (using the term "my father") in such a manner that "my father" could only be God and not a human.

But this is irrelevant to the main question. Can a person who follows Christ but not follow Saint Paul be a Christian? Ohanian 11:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer to this will vary widely depending on who you talk to. Our article on Christian describes many different definitions of the term with different requirements—some are very specific, others are very lax. So it depends on the point of view you want to analyze the question from, i.e. would a Catholic consider him a Christian, or would a Methodist, or would a Muslim, etc. Because you would probably get different answers depending on the theological tradition you are addressing it from (a Muslim would probably see no distinction there, for example, whereas another denomination of Christianity possibly could). --Fastfission 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone is free to create his own Christian sect, consisting of him and whomever he can win over, rejecting any part of traditional Christianity he does not like. There have been thousands of such: gnostics, Marcionists, etc etc etc. If in addition they claim to have a special revelation from God, or a prophet, mainstream religions would call them a cult, a label which has been applied to everything from LDS to Amana Colonies who claim to be Christians but with additional devine revelations. Edison 14:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is such a sect. It's probably not large enough to have a name, considering that a person would have no reason at all to accept the gospel writings but not Paul's. Especially considering that in 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter (as in the apostle) makes favourable mention of Paul's letters...

And remember, the Lord is waiting so that people have time to be saved. This is just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him, speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of Scripture-and the result is disaster for them.

BenC7 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Life is .....
Can anyone cite the source (or the creator/author)of the following beautiful text, created using the world-famous drama-titles : Life is neither a Tempest , Nor A Midsummer Night's Dream , Rather it's a Comedy Of Errors , Live As You LIke It ... Thanks...--Pupunwiki 08:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JACKIE CHAN
Hi, I would like to know is Jackie Chan still considered as "Austalian" since he did live in Australia for a while? THANKS Jon
 * Jackie Chan describes him as Chinese. The fact that he lived in Australia for a while is neither here nor there. I live in Austria, but I'm not Austrian. --Richardrj 10:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you mean by "considered". His parents emigrated to Canberra when he was 4 years old, I think he was sent to school in Hong Kong at the age of 10 and returned for 2 years in his twenties. I've heard several times over the years that he holds Australian citizenship, as do his parents. If you mean do other Australians consider him Australian, then no, I don't think they do as it's not very well known about his Australian history here. --Canley 16:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, multi-countried people are always tricky to categorize. What does it mean to be "considered"?  Is it in the context of Wikipedia, or the average person, or people who know all the facts about his life?  We tend to associate Jackie Chan with "Hong Kong", "China" and "United States" because those are the places he's been at his most notable.  However, the "average person" test isn't always so good - see United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind for an example.  ColourBurst 02:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. --Proficient 04:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most Canberrans are aware his parents live there, because he usually attracts local media attention on his visits there. (Whether this means he's considered an Australian himself is another question.  Most would probably say he's Chinese, or American).  However, most other Australians have an abysmally low level of knowledge or interest in anything to do with their national capital, and are not aware he has any Australian connection at all.  JackofOz 05:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Most people are considered to have the nationality of the place where they were born unless this is changed for some reason. So I think Chan is Chinese. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is such a thing as dual nationality. JackofOz 11:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When you speak of "dual nationality", I'm assuming you're speaking of a concept distinct from "dual citizenship", as the latter is a mere legality, whereas the former has a much deeper meaning. Loomis 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cemetery in Milano, Italy
I've written a query on the Talk page for Cimitero Monumentale di Milano. Also, I need an English translation (preferably authorized, if one exists) of its name. -- Grazie, Deborahjay 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Earl Rivers
Hello,

I was wondering if you could help.

I have a motto of a French knight (probably) written in medieval French. Do you think you can help me with the translation?

I am attaching the file here and I am also sending you below what we already know:

The text is located in a book written before 1483 (now it’s in the British library)

The text itself is situated at the centre of the page and it’s a highly literate person who wrote it.

I am also copying and pasting some information about the book:


 * Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers
 * Born 1442, the eldest son of Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers. Edward IV showed him preferment in allowing him to marry Elizabeth, the heiress of Lord Scales. A most accomplished soldier and learned man, he was a continuous patron of Caxton and translated for him the first dated book printed in England. He had fought on the Lancastrian side at Towton but after the battle transferred his allegiance to the victorious Yorkist king and was confirmed in his father-in-law's title of Lord Scales in 1462. Following the marriage of his sister, Elizabeth, to the king, his advance was very rapid. He was a member of the embassy which arranged the match between the Duke of Burgundy and Edward's sister, Margaret, in 1467, and in the net year he accompanied the bride to Bruges, where he took part in a brilliant tournament. He escaped the fate of his father and brother at Edgecote in 1469 and succeeded as the second Earl Rivers. He shared Edward's exile in Holland, returned with him in 1471, helped to secure the victory at Barnet and beat off the Bastard of Fauconberg's attack on London. In 1473 he became the guardian of the young Prince of Wales and Chief Butler of England. He went on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1475, where he was invested by Pope Sixtus IV with the title of Defender and Director of Papal Causes in England. During his absence his wife had died, so a marriage was sought with Margaret, daughter of James III of Scotland. When Edward IV died in 1483, Rivers, Grey and the Prince of Wales set out for London. After reaching Stony Stratford they met Gloucester and Buckingham, who had Rivers and Grey arrested and later executed at Pontefract.

We gave it to two translators already and here is what they told me. If you can bring more light on the subject it would be really appreciated.

First translator:


 * It looks to me as if your Frenchman had a devotion either to the blessed virgin Mary, that large twirly M, or to some woman of that or another name beginning with M, and the words, if I've read them right, NULLE LA VAULT, would mean No Woman / is as good / as her. 'Vault' comes from the same stem as the English 'value', to be worth.

You could say None Her Equal, perhaps.

Second translator:


 * The M could be for his first wife's first name as well. Mary FitzLewes.

Since this person was very much involved in the early developments of printing, it seems very likely that this could be an engraving (a wood print) Somebody who is not skilled at engraving could produce this kind of things. This would be more consistent with the strokes.


 * "'Bringing the knowledge back to his native land, he set up a press at Westminster in 1476, and the first book known to have been printed there was Dictes or Sayengis of the Philosophres (Sayings of the Philosophers, first printed on November 18, 1477), written by none other than Earl Rivers, the king's brother-in-law."


 * It might be from this book. I don't know how many copies were printed, but obviously he wasn't going to sign each book separately - carving a wood block for printing his signature/motto would be consistent with the rest.


 * If you compare the script to the other signatures on this page, the one displaying the text that you have sent me: http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/mysovereignking.html even a non-calligrapher should be able to notice that this one is not consistent with the others.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popmartian (talk • contribs) 10:56, August 23, 2006 (UTC).


 * Your two translators seem to have answered this already. Adam Bishop 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see information about the book, only about the person Earl Rivers. Is there some reason the proffered translations are not good enough? Other possible translations of Nulle la vault are: "No-one deserves her" and "No-one is worthy of her", but I think the sentiment expressed is more like "She has no equal" / "She is peerless". --Lambiam Talk 16:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Asia
Does anyone know if Shakespeare's plays are widely known (or produced) in southeast Asia and India? Thanks --Bmk 14:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. To quote from Shakespeare's plays, "His plays have been translated into every major living language, in addition to being continually performed all around the world."--Shantavira 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This search produces lots of interesting stuff. DJ Clayworth 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool - thanks! --Bmk 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

north korean won, wrong currency in your encyclopedia
dear sirs,

today, 23rd of August, in Bloomberg.com,one of the most accurate financial sites in the world, you can calculate that 1 euro (EUR) equals to 2,81 north korean won (KPW)and in your article about north korean won you write that 1 euro(EUR) is equal to ₩n220.046

I believe you are wrong and you have to correct it. thank you ea


 * No. You have to correct it.  Wikipedia is as much your encyclopedia as it is mine.  So, don't cop that kind of "you have to change it" attitude.  Oops - now I'm copping an attitude.  Sorry. --Kainaw (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the wŏn is not freely convertible, there are several rates: the black market rate, the "official" rate set by the government, and the rate actually used by North-Korean banks. It is impossible to determine what "the" rate is. On the black market you can do much better than the paltry ₩n220.046. --Lambiam Talk 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Though the North Korean Won is admittedly a soft currency, the following remains true: I just recently took a look at the North Korean Won article and it specifically states that the exchange rates that it's quoting are as of August 14th. As I'm sure you know (or should know, given the supposed knowledge you seem to claim to possess on the subject) that currency exchange rates vary not simply from day to day, or even from hour to hour, but more like from minute to minute or even from second to second. Wikipedia is not meant as a source for the latest currency exchange rates. That's why there exists Bloomberg.com. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a stock-ticker. If you would like a general idea of what the North Korean Won is, and APPROXIMATELY how much it's worth, updated from time to time, Wikipedia's your place. Otherwise, if you want a completely up to date quote on this minute's Won-Euro rate, Bloomberg.com would be a better source. Loomis 19:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But isn't a difference by a factor of 70 beyond what one would call "APPROXIMATELY"? --Lambiam Talk 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, Lambiam. What I thought was a decimal was actually a coma. Something's not right there. What I thought was a natural fluctuation in currency exchange rates seems to be much more than that. I'll try to look into it to figure out what exactly is going on. Loomis 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Be bold. --Proficient 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall the north korean winning. I think the aussie won and the north korean lost. Was is cricket, tennis ? -- DLL .. T 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Source and meaning of Latin phrase "in cauda venerum."
If possible are you able to provide me with the original source/author from which the Latin phrase "in cauda venerum" has been derived and also provide me with the best translation or meaning of it in its original context as well as in the uses to which it has been put over time and also at present? Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Duane Larrieu

Is it possible you mean "in caude venenum"? Venenum means "poison" or "venom". "In cauda" means "In the tail". So this means literally : "the venom in the tail". I think it refers to scorpions, whose venom really is in the tail. I think it is used when someone says some things that seem reasonable or nice, but in the end it's kinda treacherous or nasty. Maybe others will explain the exact use better. Minor remark : I think stuff like translation from Latin belongs in the "Language" reference desk rather than "Humanities".

Evilbu 18:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was mentioned on the Language desk that it was from a fable by Phaedrus called The Fox and the Crow or The Boy and the Scorpion or something. -- THE GREAT GAVINI  {T|C| # } 18:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That was at Reference desk/Language (once archived presumably Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 22). As it says on top of the page: "Do not double post. Please post your question in only one subpage." My conclusion at the Language desk was that this could not be ascribed to Phaedrus. --Lambiam Talk 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Racist society
The rate of out-of-wedlock births in black America is over 70%. Is this the result of whites' racism? Charles


 * What, you mean white ministers aren't marrying black couples? I'm not sure how racism could be linked to it. --  THE GREAT GAVINI  {T|C| # } 18:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, define "black America". If a person is only 1/4 black, are they part of "black America"?  Is there some magic cutoff?  Where is the "over 70%" statistic come from?  You know 10 blacks and 8 of them were born out of wedlock, so over 70% of every black person was born out of wedlock?  In my opinion, the quesion is the result of racism, not the assumption that led to the question. --Kainaw (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I don't completely understand the question, I think it might be a bit quick to judge the questioner as racist. After all, the wiki article on African American states that "56% of African American children are born into families where the mother is not married to the biological father". Apparently, assuming wiki is right on this, the questioner is off by some 14%. Yet 56% is still a rather high number, representing a majority. Still, like Gavini, I'm not quite sure how the out-of-wedlock birth statistic can be related to racism. I just felt like pointing out that the questioner's assumption, though possibly exaggerated, reflects a fact, not a prejudice. And IMHO, the first step in overcoming racism is taking a cold, hard, honest look at the facts, and throwing all prejudice and assumption out the window. Loomis 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I side with the first two commenters. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)


 * I know someone who was born 70% out of wedlock. There they were, saying their vows, when... let's just say, the wedding photo album was interesting. EdC 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My, our troll-spotting is getting a little rusty isn't it. DJ Clayworth 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, DJ. Who do you see as the troll, though? This one may have a bit difficult to decide as the response actually seemed a bit more "trollish" than the original question! Loomis 22:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In actually trying to answer the question, one would have to first put out the limits of what they would consider the causal effect of racism. If you consider demasculination, poor education, general poverty, and a perception of a lack of upward options to be a residual cultural result of decades of racism, some of which continues today in usually less overt forms, then sure, it could easily be the effect of long-standing racism, though that would be more of an ultimate effect rather than an immediate one. If you are unwilling to grant that level of proximity to the causality, and instead put more effort on community actions or individual choices, then one would conclude that racism itself is not likely a cause. In any case, though, there are big social, economic, and cultural conditions which are the cause, and whether or not you ultimately tie those back in some way to the history of racism towards African-Americans in the United States—and personally I find it hard not to, most of this stuff is not ancient history—depends on your own view of social-cultural-historical causality. --Fastfission 02:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The original question is clearly racist rolling. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard one "theory" advanced by blacks, that slavery created a culture where children were often taken away from the father, thus making fathers not want to form long-term bonds with their children. This doesn't explain the rate of out-of-wedlock births being much higher now than right after the repeal of slavery, however. Personally, I think this type of "victim mentality" is largely to blame for the problems of blacks in the US. By blaming others, they avoid having to look at their own behavior and making the changes which are necessary to become successful in life. I’m with Bill Cosby on this one. StuRat 08:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

John Fogerty of Credence Clearwater Revival
The John Fogerty article did not discuss any health issues. I thought I had read somewhere that John Fogerty was fighting some type of cancer. Please advise.

Car Companies and Public Transit
Is there any truth to something I heard long ago, that car companies in the United States systematically purchased and destroyed public transit railroads to ensure their own dominance? If so, where could I find articles on these events (both in and outside Wikipedia, if possible)?

lvlarx 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe there is some truth to it, particularly on the part of General Motors. However, it's somewhat open to interpretation, as GM would say "we bought an obsolete trolley car system, dismantled it, and replaced it with a modern bus line" (the buses being made by GM).  In many cases there is evidence which contradicts this logic, though, showing that the old public transit system was cheaper, more efficient, and polluted less. StuRat 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps General Motors streetcar conspiracy? EdC 02:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I was thinking about that conspiracy. --Proficient 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Euros
Is there a charge to transfer money between banks in two different european union member states and if so, why? I thought the whole deal with euros was that I could trade more freely? --Username132 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it should be free now. --Richardrj 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on what the charge is for. If it's for transferring funds then there may be a charge. If you mean is there a currency exchange fee, then that won't be charged because the currency type is the same at both ends of the transfer. --Canley 22:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I regularly transfer money between sterling and euro accounts and I have never been charged for making the transfer. If you provide the bank with the IBAN number and BIC code, they don't charge. --Richardrj 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt the charge has much to do with the international aspect, and all to do with the fact that banks are extremely imaginative when it comes to charging ridiculously high fees for little practical reason (except to make more money of course). As for the currency issue, that's pretty irrelevant. I frequently wire Canadian Dollars from one place in Canada to another, and I'm still charged. No currency exchange is taking place, no money is crossing any border, yet the banks charge me simply because they can. What can you do? Loomis 16:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Silver bands
What is the difference bbetween a brass band and a silver band? -- SGBailey 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A brass band is a musical group, like the Tijuana Brass, while a silver band is a type of ring. StuRat 23:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. In Northern Ireland, a silver band can be a musical group as well.  --  THE GREAT GAVINI  {T|C| # } 06:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the OED, a silver band is simply a brass band with silver-coloured instruments.--Shantavira 06:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Are brass instruments made of brass? Are silver instruments brass instruments plated and if so with what? -- SGBailey 06:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created a redirect for silver band (see the pic on that page). If anyone wants to expand further, that would be great.--Shantavira 06:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

the hundred yeras war
In the end the French won the 100 years war. But, the conflict had negative and positive effects for the winner and loser alike. What were some of these? –Genesis Limon189.128.62.1 20:42, 23 August 2006

One BIG down side is that for some reason the British STILL hate the French. (UTC)


 * One unfortunate effect is the fact that most of the details of the war, which had surely cost many, many lives, have been largely forgotten by students wishing to write an essay on it. Loomis 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably the biggest effect was the nuclear contamination of southern England that resulted from the French using the first ever recorded 'dirty bomb'. The next worst effect was getting other people to do your homework.  --Mnemeson 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The French used a dirty bomb way back then? Now I'm genuinely curious. What exactly are you referring to? (I have to admit, I'm feeling as though I'm being terribly gullible right now, but even so, I don't quite get the joke). Loomis 21:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Heavy sarcasm overtook me, and I had thought something so blatant would be obviously wrong... and hopefully quoted in the essay.  I have an evil sense of humour at times... Just tried to think of an effect which would be fundamentally and ridiculously impossible.  I'll try to be more serious in future :) --Mnemeson 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the function of the reference desk is to aid people, students included, in answering questions. We're not here to deliberately mislead people. You hurt our credibility by doing so. - Nunh-huh 21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes it is, but if a student genuinely believed that a nuclear dirty bomb was detonated in 1453, I would be... more than a little concerned. Other people have used humour on here in the past, and I was attempting the same spirit, an attempt to deliberately mislead would have been a plausable effect, which my joke clearly was not.  I'm sorry if I offended, but I really don't think it harms credibility to keep things light, and if you look at my previous entries I don't think you'll find any that are anything but efforts to help.  --Mnemeson 21:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to be so apologetic, Mnemeson. You did the right thing (despite the fact that you almost got me convinced that the French had some sort of "dirty bomb" way back then! I realized it couldn't possibly be anything nuclear, but I gullibly assumed you may have been referring to something else ... ). If the questioner sincerely wanted an honest answer to the question, surely the hundred years war article would be the first place to start. Further clarification would only be welcomed here. (For example, "I've read the Wiki article on the hundred years war, yet I'm still a bit unclear as to ..." ). That's what the RefDesk is for. Loomis 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also the function of the RefDesk to not do other people's homework. Inquiries into specific facts are fine, but a request for a wholesale answer to an essay question is not only an insult to RefDesk editors, but I would say, a case of attempted plagiarism. Loomis 22:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The best way to "not do other people's homework" would be to...not do it. That doesn't preclude giving, say, guidance to sources, but if you're inclined not to be helpful in response to any specific question, it might be better to just avoid it. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries, we all know that the dirty bomb is a 20/21st century concept. All I ever learned about 100 years war was that it was fought mainly with phaser power and photon torpedoes. Nuclear power was way beyond the technological capabilities of the time. Loomis 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, a dirty bomb would have been possible in the middle ages. All that would be necessary is to mine lots of uranium, then blow it up near the enemy, or maybe launch it at the enemy's castle with a catapult.  However, as nobody knew about the effects of radiation or how to identify uranium deposits, they wouldn't have known to do this.  If somebody from the present was sent back in time, though, they could use such a dirty bomb and then say they had put a magical curse on the enemy.  When the enemy started suffering from radiation sickness, they would believe in the "magic" and surrender. StuRat 23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No it wouldn't, at least not using uranium. Natural uranium (or even highly enriched uranium) is not particularly radioactive.  The risks uranium poses are pretty much equivalent to lead or other heavy metals - they're nasty stuff, but it doen't make an effective weapon unless you form it into bullets or shells and shoots them at things.   --Robert Merkel 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, dirty bombs aren't particularly effective in a military sense, meaning they don't kill many people very quickly. They are more of a psychological weapon, with large numbers of people feeling that they have been poisoned.  It's only necessary for a small number of people to become sick for this effect to occur.  If you could deliver dust from some naturally occurring radioactive element to the enemy castle, people who inhale that dust might very well get sick. StuRat 06:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there's degrees of radioactivity. Uranium's rate of natural radioactive decay is so incredibly slow that it poses essentially no radiological risk.  If you processed a huge quantity of uranium ore and extracted some of the radioactive decay products (such as radioactive barium and radium), you might get enough for a dirty bomb, but the huge effort required would be far better spent turning the resulting uranium metal into high-density cannonballs.  Not to mention that any "dirty bomb" lethal enough to kill the bad guys soon enough to be relevant would probably have killed your troops in the handling process.  Sorry, StuRat, but your diabolical plan to win medieval battles just isn't going to work.  --Robert Merkel 08:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you'd have to go for a cesium-137 or strontium-90 mine. — [   Mac Davis ] (talk)

First of all, don't be mean to this guy. He asks for a brief description of the effects. I will provide it. England and France used to be connected and one country, remember the supercontinent? However, due to continental drift they got separated. The French saw this as separatism, and declared war. The first casualties fell when William the Conqueror ordered his troops to start the Great Fire of London.



However, the English managed to sent Jack the Ripper to murder Jean-Paul Marat in his bathtub. Then they just engaged in biological warfare for about a century. Notable was the technique the British had already tested in the Australian desert : releasing killer rabbits all over the continent. The French scientist Paul Armand Delille thwarted that attempted however.



Now that we got that straight : the consequences. Well a positive consequence is that the British agreed to cooperate on the Eurotunnel the French tried to dig secretly during the war, instead of destroying it. In return the French agreed to render Fort Boyard useless by exposing it to silly games. They remain suspicious of each other though. The British accuse the French of sinking the Herald of Free Enterprise, and when the British attempted to connected England with the Falklands (between France and England) by cables on the bottom of sea, the French thought it was meant to pull them closer to England, even though they were supposedly telephone cables. Evilbu 12:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, Evilbu, I'm impressed. It seems your last comment was featured article material for Uncyclopedia. --71.98.24.105 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh, what exactly do you mean : featured article material? I don't get it?Evilbu 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As in, it could make featured article on the uncyclopedia? I assume that's what they meant. you'd have to find a place to put it though. Or allow others to take it and do as they wished with it.... Skittle 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki.
Wikipedia rocks man! I love u guys. XOXOXOXOXJk31213 22:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I, obviously, agree with you. But no matter how flattering you may be, you need a question. What is with this random slur of sudden spam on RD Humanities?  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme! 


 * Unless it's the reference desk you think rocks in particular, I think your comment is better placed at the village pump. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Choosing a religion...
To that guy in his monotheistic religion thread. Choose Rastafari. There are very few reasons why you shouldn't and so many why you should. dreadlocks, cannabis, reggae and living in Jamaica being just a few of the good things. Plus, there is evidence that the Rasta God actually exists/ed. Some people even have photos/video of him. --84.66.214.107 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like fun! Sign me up! Loomis 23:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Check that. Raëlism sounds like even more fun, with the free love and all! Call me weird, but between cannabis and sex, I'd most definitely choose sex. Loomis 23:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not join the religion of "no religion". The amount of things you cannot believe as a formal requirement to join this religion is nearly endless. It would take all week to fully write them all down. To start with, you cannot believe in god, then you cannot believe in human virgin birth, then this then that. etc etc etc. Pity the followers who had to carry this huge list of beliefs that they must make absolutely sure that they do not fall victim to. Ohanian 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot believe in God? Is that a requirement of the "no religion" dogma? What happens if I break the rules and believe in God? I suppose it would be quite difficult for me to join such a dogmatic religion. If I were to wish to join a belief where I'm allowed to believe in whatever the hell I want, I'd choose Agnosticism. Loomis 00:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, agnosticism most accurately describes "no religion". The best thing about agnosticism (and also atheism) is that you don't need to think about your "religion" at all, and you can change your opinions anytime you want!  --Bowlhover 06:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I come from the church of do whatever the f&#$ i want (and what seems right, as much as possible). We get cannabis and free love, and mostly people don't give a f&$% what you believe in, unless you're having an interesting discussion under the influence of cannabis.  It's cool dude.  And it has no official name so you can't put a link around it and define it in wikipedia.  So there.   --Bmk 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm kidding, mostly.  But I'm not beings sarcastic, mostly.  --Bmk 03:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have little interest in pot and free love. I want monogamy, and ok maybe a little pot. I'll stick with Christianity until someone shows me otherwise.. -Wjlkgnsfb 04:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always been fond of Kurt Vonnegut's idea, the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 12:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)