Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 14

=December 14=

Japanese Nukes
In the event of a U.S. pullout of troops in Japan, would Japan be forced to re-arm? Is the American presence in Japan justified due to North Korean nukes?


 * They were there even before N. Korea was considered an enemy, so why not stay? --The Dark Side 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would North Korean nukes justify a presence one way or another? --24.147.86.187 01:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If Japan gets hit by nukes and Americans soldiers die as a result, it can be seen as an act of war. This more or less forces the USA to fight. I'm guessing they deter North Korea? --The Dark Side 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. Without that assurance, the Japanese would need weapons capable of deterring an NK attack, which would mean having nuclear weapons.  StuRat 06:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * However, if I'm not mistaken, Japan agreed after WWII that they would not have a standing army and therefore they only have a defensive force of some sort. By re-arming themselves, to the extent that you seem to be referring, they'd have to break that treaty/resolution.  See Military of Japan for the specifics of my foggy recollections.  Dismas|(talk) 06:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is talk of changing their policy of self-defence only. They sent troops to Iraq, for example. --Auximines 09:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the US wouldn't object, they would welcome a powerful ally in the region, where one is sorely needed to balance NK and China. StuRat 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The troops in Iraq are assisting with the reconstruction only; the Japanese self-defence forces can't do front-line fighting even for UN peacekeeping missions. See Japan Self-Defense Forces. -- SCZenz 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The self-defense only clause is written into their constitution (Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution), which they can change. -- SCZenz 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the odds of the USA (or at least the UN) getting involved anyway if North Korea started nuking people is pretty high regardless of a US presence in Japan. In any case I don't think pure deterrence theory applies here; even with a nuke it is highly asymmetrical. --24.147.86.187 13:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would conjecture that the age of warfare is nearing an end. Moreover, Koreans and Japanese are on good terms, generally speaking, I believe. So, no -- I can't see that the Japanese would beef up it's military if the US troops stationed there packed up and left. But, I am no expert. Vranak 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, North Korea and Japan don't get along at all. StuRat 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because they are so similar to one another -- like Americans and Canadians. Vranak 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably more likely because North Korea threatens to nuke Japan and destabilize the region... =S 惑乱 分からん 04:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes -- my mistake. Whenever I hear 'Korea', I automatically think 'South Korea', with North Korea being more a wild and crazy hinterland up beyond the reach of South Korea's government. In that case -- how are relations between South Korea and Japan?


 * Those are fine, as are relations between both and Taiwan. Basically, the Asian democracies get along fairly well.  StuRat 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a Japanese professor, who once told the class that Japanese and Koreans couldn't readily tell each other apart. Vranak 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And then there was the issue of how NK obtained Japanese translators. Rather than put ads in newspapers, they thought a better approach would be to kidnap many Japanese citizens, then "persuade" them to work as translators.  Many of those who weren't "persuaded" died "of natural causes" while in NK custody.  The Japanese don't particularly appreciate this method for obtaining Japanese translators.  See North Korean abductions of Japanese. StuRat 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to read Japan-Korea relations and many articles linked from it. Shinhan 13:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation
Was the federal government of the U.S. strong under the Articles of Confederation?


 * The Articles of Confederation in themselves would not have allowed the development of a strong central and executive authority, hence the adoption of the United States Constitution, establishing federal government on a more secure basis. Clio the Muse 01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer your teacher is looking for is no. Sashafklein 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel a bit bad for that one. So: the key to this is the right to taxation, which the Articles of Confederation did not afford, because Americans were still too jumpy about taxation. The Bill of Rights was essential too. Sashafklein 04:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Each state saw themselves as sovereign - comparable to the EU today.martianlostinspace 17:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

step parents
Where did we get the terminology 'step' parents?


 * See Stepfamilies. It comes from the middle English word stoep, meaning unrelated by blood.  Clio the Muse 00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Step (father or mother, etc.) A prefix indicating that the person referred to is not a blood relation, but a relative only by marriage. Step, in this meaning, comes from the AngloSaxon steop, which is connected with astieped meaning bereaved." Also see the entry for step- at the Online Etymology Dictionary.EricR 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From the www.etymonline.com: O.E. steop-, with connotations of "loss," in combinations like steopcild "orphan," related to astiepan, bestiepan "to bereave, to deprive of parents or children," from P.Gmc. *steupa- "bereft" (cf. O.Fris. stiap-, O.N. stjup-, Swed. styv-, M.L.G. stef-, Du. stief-, O.H.G. stiof-, Ger. stief-), lit. "pushed out," from PIE *steup-, from base *(s)teu- (see steep (adj.)). Etymologically, a stepfather or stepmother is one who becomes father or mother to an orphan, but the notion of orphanage faded in 20c. For sense evolution, cf. L. privignus "stepson," related to privus "deprived."


 * Therefore, will the "humblest" of respect for those who may have thought otherwise, the fact is that the prefix step is not in any way derived from any Middle English word stOEp, meaning unrelated by blood, but rather from the Old English prefix stEOp-, a prefix meant to indicate a sense of loss. As a case in point, an adopted child is never referred to as a stepchild, despite having no blood relation. Loomis 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If multiple sources say different things then there is probably a dispute over the true origins of this word. Interesting stuff. Is anyone going to add this to the wikipedia? David D. (Talk) 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see. Middle English from Old English, meaning related by remarriage rather than by blood. The intelligent approach is not to be dogmatic in matters of definition. Clio the Muse 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since many of us often don't have the time to click on links or references to verify that they indeed say what they're purported to say, I've reproduced the above link for everyone's convenience:


 * First there's the definition:


 * step-
 * a prefix denoting connection between members of a family by the remarriage of a parent and not by blood: stepbrother.


 * Then there's the etymology, or, in the words of the original questioner, "where we GOT the terminology":


 * [Origin: ME; OE stéop-; c. G stief-, ON stjūp- step-; akin to OE āstépan to bereave, bestépan to deprive (of children)]


 * Therefore, I would respectfully submit, with all due respect and with the uttermost of humility, that the statement that the term "step-" originated: "Middle English from Old English, meaning related by remarriage rather than by blood" is patently false. No such Middle English or Old English word ever existed. Loomis 02:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As pointed out above, the authorities disagree about this issue. The first suggested etymology is not 'patently false', but it is not certainly true, either. The same applies to Loomis's suggestion. Unless there are any experts on Old English lurking here, we should leave it at that. Sam Clark 14:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For next time, this type of question might get better results on the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 06:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Eucharist
Why is that in Roman Catholic churches, during communion, only the priest drinks the wine, while the worshippers only receives the bread? And why does Protestant churches gives the wine and bread to everyone, unlike the Catholic church? Thanks
 * Habit, really. You describe one type of communion in Roman Catholic churches, but it's not the only type. When the worshippers receive bread only, it's "communion under one species", and when they receive both bread and wine, it's "communion under both species". Communion under one species was adopted because it's quicker and easier; communion under both species is usually reserved for special occasions. The priest celebrating the Mass, however, always receives under both kinds, as this was held to be essential to the nature of the Mass. This was all decided at the Council of Trent as a reaction against those who denied the Real Presence or who held that attendees (as opposed to the celebrant) at a Mass were required to receive under both species. And since the dissenting groups were the spiritual fathers of the Protestant churches, and since the doctrine provided a way to distinguish Protestant from Catholic, Protestants adopted it in various forms. The specific dogma in its latter form is utraquism. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Many Catholic churches offer the wine to the congregation. A good number do not, true, probably out of habit as described above (good answer by the way.)  But all of the Catholic churches I have ever attended with regularity (about 6) have offered the wine every Sunday.--Dmz5 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I'm not Christian, but I'm pretty sure that drinking the wine (ie blood) in communion is a major part of Catholicism. That was the central cause of one of the first protestant (not called such, but) movements ever. Check out the Hussites and Jan Hus if you're interested. The distinction between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is a major one between Catholicism and Lutheranism as well, so it seems strange that the current Catholic church which is usually pretty doctrinal, would not give the wine. Whatever. Just find that interesting. Sashafklein 05:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Hussites were utraquists, so the first part of your statement is backwards. The Hussites wanted congregants to receive under both species and adopted the chalice as their emblem, while non-heretical Catholics received the bread alone. Nunh-huh 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I suppose protestants drinking the wine are just flaunting the reformation. :) Also, i think it's called communion in Catholic tradition and eucharist in anglican, though I may be wrong. Sashafklein 05:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I grew up Catholic and don't remember ever not being offered wine (blood) during communion. Dismas|(talk) 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All a function of when and where you grew up, I think. - Nunh-huh 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where I live, they only give us the Blood on Sundays, and then only in a very few churches. I remember reading that the Body and the Blood (bread and wine) are actually the same; it doesn't matter which you recieve, because the Blood is in the Body, and vice-versa. | A ndonic O Talk 11:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In many protestant churches, they give grape juice instead of wine. My church held communion once a month with grape juice, and on special occasions with wine (Ash Wednesday, usually). -sthomson 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That just made me think. If Catholic's believe that the wine they are ingesting literally becomes the blood of Christ when it's drunk (transubstantiation), then they can't believe that what they are drinking is alcoholic, because that would counter their belief. So isn't the replacement of wine with grape juice (presumably so members, especially kids, don't consume alcohol) an unintentional sign of disbelief in the theory of transubstantiation? That's sort of funny. Sashafklein 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, we Catholics believe the wine is Christ's Blood before we drink it too, beggining with the time when it's blessed. | A ndonic O Talk 10:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And actually, Catholics believe it is wine as well as the blood of Christ, and are fully aware that it contains alcohol. - Nunh-huh 23:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And, I am not aware of any Roman Catholic congregation that replaces wine with grape juice for the sacrament. That happens in some protestant denominations, but I have neither seen it nor heard of it in RC churches. - Eron Talk 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be sacreligious for Catholics to replace wine with juice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.232.121 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

A few points: Hope this has been helpful. JChap2006 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Catholics believe that Christ's blood and flesh are both present in each of the hosts (wine and bread). Catholics only received bread before Vatican II and offering the laity wine also generated a minor controversy because traditionalists thought it implied that both were not present in the bread (or wafer).
 * 2) Transubstantion does not mean that the molecular structure of the bread and wine changes, only that their essential nature does. I don't think anyone really understands in what way this is true...
 * 3) Not only would the Catholic Church not substitute grape juice for wine, it does not permit the use of gluten-free wafers for those who are allergic to gluten.  There has been a minor controversy about this as well.

Efforts of congress to secure fundamental rights
evaluate the efforts of the congress and the supreme court in their efforts to secure the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citize


 * No please? That sounds more like an order anyways. Just think net neutrality! --The Dark Side 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Did some US History teacher just unleash all his/her students on the wikipedia reference desk? You have a book, you know. You'll want to look at the Bill of Rights, although that isn't Congress, yet. Sashafklein 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure - how many words and when's it due in? The price typically depends on those --Mnem e son 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, with respect to Congress and the Supreme Court's efforts to secure fundamental rights of citizens, on a scale from 7 to 63, I'd give them a 42. Loomis 02:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a lawyer who volunteers at the National Constitution Center. I have just completed a legal writing sample on the Establishment Clause and faith-based organizations. Oh, to be young again and have home work. Actually, I did mine! Loomis's scale has me in hysterics.75Janice 03:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)75Janice 10:30, 14 December 2006

I'm going against my better judgment. Homework isn't really about the actual knowledge of facts as the discipline, complying with rules, etc. Current events topics-The Patriot Act, habeus corpus rights for prisoners at Guatanamo Bay. Also, I don't know if this is still active-I saw in the New York Times that Arlen Specter had secret negotiations with the Bush Administration to establish intelligence courts for terrorists but the U.S. Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to decide whether the legislation was valid. A secret court would decide and keep its decision secret. You can simplify these or you can write tomes on each. All are recent attempts by the Executive Branch to increase its powers. Congress asserting that only it can increase those powers. The Court stating it will decide ultimately. This is the most exciting time for this topic since the Civil War. 75Janice 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)75Janice 6:16 UTC, 17 December 2006

history american
to what extent did the political activities of the grangers, populist, progressives, and mckrackers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries influence american political? strict thanks
 * The History of the United States (1865-1918) would be a good place to look for some of the answers. Clio the Muse 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You might also check out the article on Richard Hofstadter's book The Age of Reform. --24.147.86.187 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to start out with Grange movement, Populists, Progressives, and Muckraking, (pretty obvious) as well as Teddy Roosevelt. The muckrakers don't really fit in there as well, because the others were all political parties (/social movements). For muckraking, take a look also at Yellow Journalism, The Jungle, The Boston Herald, Joseph Pulitzer, RMS Lusitania etc.

If you copied the rest of your homework question it might be easier to answer. JChap2006 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

history 202
explain the meaning of Prior to the 1930's the popular social policy was "rugged individualism and self reliance." As a result of the "great depression" that policy has been changed substantially


 * See the articles on individualism (if you do a "find" you can get to the "rugged" variety), and the Great Depression. Come back if you have specific questions that would help you on your homework. --24.147.86.187 02:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do your own homework.


 * And I'm just guessing that your textbook has sections entitled "The Great Depression" and something like "The Roaring Twenties" as well as references to Social Darwinism and the such. Search out that chapter, and it should all be there. Regardless of the fact that you should really be doing your own work, you will almost undoubtedly find a more direct answer in your book. Sashafklein 04:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, learn to cut and paste. JChap2006 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Films featuring the British Royal House of Stuart
Some Tudor films are well known, as are several Mediaeval ones. Would you please inform me of what films feature any of the Stuarts, from their Scottish days to their Pretender days? Any or all are appreciated. Thank you. Rhode Islander 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That might seem to be a lot, considering that the period in question is from 1371 to 1746, but I do not think there are that many dealing with the subject directly. Mary Queen of Scots, is probably the best covered, with two or more movies that feature her life directly or indirectly, like the one I have linked here.  Cromwell touches in part on the life of Charles I, as does To Kill a King, starring Tim Roth.  There have also been some film depictions of Bonnie Prince Charlie, including a really dreadful one starring David Niven.  Restoration features his great-uncle, Charles II.  That's about it, I think; or at least its all I can drag up from memory. Clio the Muse 06:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dont' know if it helps much, but try these:    . AndyJones 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also Charles II: The Power & the Passion, a British TV drama series about his life, and Stage Beauty, which also prominently features Charles II. The First Churchills, another British TV drama series, deals with the era from Charles II to Anne. -- Necrothesp 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sleigh ride
HI! I would like to know how the orchestra produces the horse's neigh at the end of the song "Sleigh Ride." The clop of the horse's hooves and the crack of the whip may also be produced with instruments. Thank you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleigh_Ride


 * By orchestra, do you mean Mozart's? Or do the others have an orchestra as well? It's probably a recording; I doubt a coplex sound like that could be played by an instrument. | <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:Black; font-size:small;">O</b> <i style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:Tan;">Talk</i> 12:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Trumpets are sometimes used to simulate the neighing. BBC's Guide to the Orchestra even has a sound clip. The whip is a member of the percussion section, and wood blocks, temple blocks, plastic cups, or coconut shells are sometimes used for the clip-clop of hooves. ---Sluzzelin 12:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In Leroy Anderson's Christmas classic "Sleigh Ride", written for the Boston Pops orchestra and in a 1948 band arrangement by Anderson (Mills Music, New York) the trumpet (or cornet) player simulates the horse whinney by pressing the valves partway down, making the tone of a muted and indeterminate pitch, glissandoing to a high note, then glissandoing down while shaking the instrument for about 3 bars. This half-valve technique was used by jazz trumpeters such as Louis Armstrong datng back to very early jazz recordings. The whip crack in the second-to-last measure is made by the drummer using a slapstick, which is an instrument with two hinged wood pieces which slap together when a whip-crack motion is made, or by the drummer doing a rimshot if he does not have a slapstick. Edison 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

archetypes in world religions
I am compiling a research project on how the use of archetypes in many Indo-European religions suggests that these religions share a common heritage as offshoots of an earlier proto-Indo-European faith. Could anyone pleases suggest any sources, either electronic or printed, that could help me find a discussion of such archetypes as trees, the sun, serpents, etc.?
 * Not an answer, just to check you've already looked at Proto-Indo-European religion and the links therein. especially [[Proto-Indo-European religion83.100.174.70 13:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Golden Bough -- DLL .. T 17:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * you should check out Mircea Eliade's "The Myth of Eternal Return." He talks about the mountain as the point where heaven and earth meet as an archetype in all religions. Also helpful would be Peter Berger's "The Sacred Canopy" and you should look at Clifford Geertz as well. Hope that helps some. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.0.3 (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Reliable source for used book prices?
I am interested in including the price of an out-of-print book in a Wikipedia article I am considering drafting (Octavia Butler's Survivor). IMHO, the story of why the book has never been reprinted is interesting and notable, and the recent price of the used book would be an interesting nugget, if I can source it. Is there a reliable source for the price of used science fiction books that I can dig up in the library? Thanks, TheronJ 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This abebooks.com search suggests - to my surprise - that you can't find a copy for under $200. Wouldn't Abebooks be a reliable source for this purpose? Cheers, Sam Clark 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That price is part of the interesting thing. I'd prefer a print source if I can get one.  Is there a used science fiction book version of the Overstreet Guide?  Thanks, TheronJ 15:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rebuilding of cities
I have the feeling that after a major war / disaster / destruction event, cities tend to be rebuilt in very similar fashion to the way they were before (at least in terms of street layout) - for instance, London after the Great Fire of London. I was wondering - are there any examples of cities where the city plan was greatly altered during the rebuilding, perhaps in a centrally planned fashion (after all, the rebuilding of a city may offer the chance to try and lay out the city in a 'sensible' fashion, rather than through centuries of piecemeal growth)? I was thinking perhaps of German cities destroyed during World War II, but honestly have no idea if it was done at that point. Thanks in advance for any input! &mdash; QuantumEleven 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose that this violates the rule against original research, but my (unpublished) masters thesis addressed this question in post-war Berlin. This was one of the most important differences between the post-war redevelopment of West Berlin and that of East Berlin.  In West Berlin, the existing pattern of real-estate titles and parcels prevented the wholesale reconfiguration of the city, with the exception of a few small areas, where the previous owners were bought out.  In East Berlin, such constraints were not allowed to deter central planners from reconfiguring the urban fabric.  In fact, many of the smaller streets in the core of East Berlin were wiped from the map, and new grand boulevards (such as Karl-Marx-Allee) were laid out across the bombed-out cityscape and lined with massive edifices in Stalin's favored "wedding cake" style, which replaced the smaller-scale prewar buildings.  Marco polo 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For another example take a look at Haussmann's renovation of Paris. Gandalf61 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An obvious one: The Great Fire of Rome. | <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:Black; font-size:small;">O</b> <i style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:Tan;">Talk</i> 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is one other Classical example I can think of-Aelia Capitolina, built by the Emperor Hadrian on the ruins of Jerusalem. There are very few cities where rebuilding has not attempted to capture something of the old spirit, even the bombed out cities of World War II. Warsaw is a case in point.   I suspect the 'sensible' replanning of East Berlin had as much to do with questions of social and political control, much like Haussmann's Paris, rather than the pursuit of enlightenment and order in urban space as an end in itself.  But Hausmann had a sense of beauty and of style, unlike the planners of Walter Ulbricht's Berlin.  The remodelling of Paris, incidentally, did not follow from war or disaster.  Clio the Muse 02:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Specifically, the wide avenues in East Berlin allowed easy access to tanks, in case they were needed to control the population. StuRat 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, good for parades. JChap2006 03:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Edo (now Tokyo) was burned to the ground several times. I dont know how different was it after each fire. Maybe you could research "Meireki no Taika" which article says was the most dramatic fire. Shinhan 13:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that after the Second World War the Americans were quite annoyed that the Japanese immediately rebuilt Tokyo with the same scramble of small streets and lanes.- SimonP 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Chicago is frequently given as an example. JChap2006 03:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rubble was pushed into the lake after the Chicago Fire, creating parks where there had been only been muck between the shore and the railroad tracks. Edison 06:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Who killed Laura Palmer? (Twin Peaks spoilers)
Was it her father?

YXYX 15:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For those that don't know, YXYX is referring to the TV series Twin Peaks. Pesapluvo 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Skarioffszky 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sort of. You can find the Twin Peaks episode summaries on numerous websites to explain it more clearly. Leland (her father) kills her while "possessed" by Bob, a spirit from the 'Black Lodge'. It's first explained in the episode Arbitrary Law, and is fully shown in the film Fire Walk With Me. Pesapluvo 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. O,by the way,someone changed the question(topic) headline by adding "(Twin Peaks spoilers)". Original question was without that.

YXYX 11:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

no shows
Moving this to miscelaneous... Adaptron 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

numbers in orchestration
Hi. What does a series of numbers like this: 2 1 2 2 - 2 2 2 0 mean in the context of musical orchestration? Lesgles ( talk ) 17:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll have to define context even more accurately. It could mean fingering, for example. What instrument? Above or below the line of music?martianlostinspace 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It probably refers to the numbers of wind players in sections: e.g. two flutes, one oboe, two clarinets, two bassoons, two trumpets, two horns, two trombones.  It also depends on the type of music:  I'm assuming a standard orchestra for the European classical music tradition.  Antandrus  (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Antandrus is right, see here. ---Sluzzelin 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation and the link. It's a work by Copland, so it would fit the standard European model.. Lesgles ( talk ) 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point - I hadn't thought of that, and it seems more likely than my suggestion: especially i n the example Sluz gave. But that doesn't refute the possibility of fingering completely. In some instruments - eg. piano, strings - this is very important. Perhaps Les could give the context (as was requested above) which would finish this.martianlostinspace 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's winds. Offhand I'd guess it was the scoring of Appalachian Spring -- the second, i.e. the larger orchestral version, except that I'm pretty sure it uses two oboes.  Could also be Billy the Kid.  Copland liked smaller orchestras, e.g. winds in pairs, because it's easier to fit them in the pit, and he scored a lot of ballets.  This nomenclature is common.  Antandrus  (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And it does appear on the front page, or title of the work in question (as opposed to above the line of music, that would indicate strings)?martianlostinspace 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(s)he says 'in orchestration' so it's clearly not fingering. it's definitely the number of instruments in each section. this is a standard format that took me a while to remember, but you'll get used to it. --81.111.18.84 21:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq / Vietnam US deaths
Iraq ~3000 US soldiers dead, Vietnam ~ 60,000 dead. But has anyone done a month by month comparison? Vietnam went on longer than Iraq so far - how many US dead in Vietnam at a comparable point in time? Got it!


 * One caution, though, the Vietnam War started slowly (at least for the US), with minimal casualties as a result, while the Iraq war started rapidly, with an invasion. If you compared the Iraq War to the worst months in Vietnam, I'd think Vietnam would be far worse. StuRat 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first three years of Vietnam (65-67) saw 19,607 U.S. deaths while the first three years in Iraq saw around 2,500. Rmhermen 03:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Every month from 1966-1971 had a higher number of deaths than the worst month in Iraq. Not sure about other years of the war.. Rmhermen 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks: you posted just before me:  good links.  Antandrus  (talk)


 * Stu is right: they were profoundly different in that the U.S. got involved progressively in Vietnam, and suddenly and forcefully in Iraq.  The peak and bloodiest year of the war for the U.S. was 1968.  Even at the start, it was bad:  in just three days at Ia Drang in 1965, 234 Americans were killed.  Don't know how many wounded (I'm skeptical of that 242 figure in the article), but it was a bloody affair.  And that was early in the war.  Here's an interesting site:   526 KIA per month for the U.S. for the 90 months of the war.  It doesn't break out 1968, but that's the longest stretch of the Wall, and I'm old enough to remember the evening news daily body counts.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * However, note that the source the question asker posted puts the start of the Vietnam War in 1961, not 1965. At that stage the US really did just have "military advisors" helping the South Vietnamese, so casualties were light.  However, that term continued to be used, euphemistically, even after it turned into a full scale war with direct American combat troops on the front lines.  I fear that the source he found, and in particular the first chart, is using tortured logic to claim that "the Iraq War is killing even more soldiers than the Vietnam War", when that is patently false. StuRat 12:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anorexia nervorsa patience's relation to her mother
Reading about anorexia nervosa I couldn't find any special mention about hate of the daughter towards the mother. Considering that anorexia is 10% lethal and that the mother often plays a vital (of deadly) role in the development of this disorded, why do anorexia nervosa patiences don't hate their mothers?


 * The patients in such cases often have a love/hate relationship with both parents. Specifically, they tend to be perfectionists which strive to please demanding parents.  However, the stress this causes and feeling of "loss of control" of their own lives sometimes leads to this disorder.  However, the feelings of resentment towards their parents are often deeply repressed, one of the characteristics of this particular psychological condition. StuRat 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The above is rather misleading. While anorexia nervosa certainly has psychological causes, and there is evidence for the claimed pathological perfectionism being common in sufferers, there are three other kinds of cause at work here: first, twin studies suggest a large genetic component; second, the neurotransmitter seratonin is probably involved (as it is in many cases of clinical depression); third, socio-cultural factors are involved. The pseudo-freudian stuff about deeply repressed resentment towards parents seems to me to be very poorly supported. Finally, the claimed role of mothers in the development of anorexia strikes me as a parallel to the refrigerator mother theory. Yours, Sam Clark 10:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One source says: "According to a Freudian-based theory, although resentful of her mother, the anorexic simultaneously feels guilty about surpassing her" [www.suite101.com/article.cfm/anorexia/22297/3]. StuRat 18:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of the Freudian theory. And as I said above, I think it's very poorly supported: see further the Criticisms section of Sigmund Freud. The evidence, as I also said above, supports a combination of genetic, neurological and socio-cultural factors (see anorexia nervosa). For a good account of the disastrous effects of treating genetic and neurological conditions as purely psychological, see Cooper, The Victim is Always the Same. Given your general stance that only scientifically verified claims are facts, Stu, I'm slightly surprised that you give any credence to Freud. Sam Clark 10:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do, indeed, believe that only scientifically verified claims may be called facts. However, on a question such as this, opinion is clearly called for, as there is no one universally accepted theory of the causes of anorexia, and the question asker specifically wanted to know about how the patient's relationship with her mother might be involved.  To answer such a question without the Freudian perspective, would, in my opinion, be negligent. StuRat 12:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whose son was shot?
A BODYGUARD of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh was killed and his son and political adviser hurt in a shoot-out as the Palestinian leader left the Gaza border terminal where he had been blocked for several hours.

Whose son was shot? The son of the bodyguard or the son of the prime minister? 202.168.50.40 23:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the injured was Haniyeh's 27-year-old son, Abed but if this is a question about sentence structure, then yes it is badly worded. meltBanana  02:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)