Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 20

Village of Stebbe, Marienwerder, West Prussia.
I am currently writing a family history and have evidence that my great-grandmother was born in Stebbe, Marienwerder in 1864. I realise that Marienwerder is now known as Kwidzyn and is a part of Poland. My problem is that I can find no information about this village. I don't know if the spelling is correct but I am taking it from her marriage certificate, issued in Australia in 1890. It would be helpful if I could learn something about the layout of the villages within Marienwerder in the late 1800's, but have had little success on the internet so far.

If anyone can help me in some way I would be most grateful.

Many thanks. Claire Wilkinson.


 * Kwidzyn is at 53°44' 18°55'. You can use the ShtetlSeeker to find all the towns that "sound like" Stebbe near that location: ( Use this page and fill in Stebbe and the latitude and longitude, and narrow the search to Poland). The most likely seems to be Stuba (or Stobna) at 54°13' 19°17', 36.5 miles NNE of Kwidzyn. (Looks quite rural on Google Earth!) Anyway, playing around with the Shtetl Seeker is often a good way of finding such small villages. - Nunh-huh 06:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh, YOU ROCK! That is one of the coolest and most useful sites I've seen in a while! How did you find it?--Anchoress 06:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Years mispent in genealogical pursuits. It is a good site, though! - Nunh-huh 07:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember that the SunSite at UNC-Chapel Hill had created a virtual stetl, and they linked to the same site, so it has been around for a while. It's great stuff.  I'm not sure if the virtual stetl is still around anywhere, but it was fantastically well researched and cited down to the last detail, so, if you're looking for daily life and other cultural phenomena, it's worth searching out.  Geogre 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

'Classic' Albums
There is currently, on UK TV, an advert for an album by Ray Montaigne or Ray La Fontaine or Ray Somethingorother. Anyway, its pretty irrelevant what his surname is, as this is being billed as a 'classic' album. I'm assuming this album is newish and thus, to me, can not be classed as a 'classic' as it may well be forgotten in six months time.

My question is, what makes a good album classic album? --DPM 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what makes a 'good' classic album, but I know what can turn a modern album into a 'classic' album; if it covers Stairway to Heaven, Another Brick in the Wall, Johnny B Goode, Bohemian Rhapsody, Blue Suede Shoes, White Room, Saturday Night Fever, Lay Lady Lay, Cocaine, Brown Sugar and Pinball Wizard.--Anchoress 11:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's Classic Albums (an article I started), not 'classic songs'. If you find out the exact name of the artist and the album, please add it to the list. As to the question, what is 'classic' is very subjective, but you've got a very strong point. I suppose the makers want to attract a new, younger, audience. Also, the setup of the series is somewhat unique, with the way the albums are analysed, so if that album is well suited for that approach, it would be a bit silly to start nitpicking over the name of the series. DirkvdM 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Classic" is a word that does not have a legal meaning in terms of advertising or packaging. (For an example of "legal meaning" consider that a fatty yellow spread can't describe itself as "butter" unless it meets certain requirements). This means anyone is free to use it for anything, and crucially, advertising people will use it. It is one of a number of useful words for advertisers, which make some people think it has a special status. "Acclaimed" is another useful word. So is "exceptional". I have to say, I don't think that article is going to lead to very productive discussions, and might be better off deleted... might as well call it "List of albums that someone likes". Notinasnaid 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Legal? He didn't ask about the law, just some comments. And the article is about a tv series. Am I the only one getting the question? It's not that complicated, is it? :) DirkvdM 14:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Been away for a bit. Just to clarify, it's not a TV series, it's an advert/commercial for an album which is claiming to be a classic yet it's still only a few weeks old. DPM.

legends and rituals
can u tell me of rituals ,legends ,festivals ,poetry regarding the atmoshere,lithosphere and the hydrosphere.--Mightright 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)§--Mightright 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)§--Mightright 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)≈§--Mightright 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There once was this thing in the sky
 * It helped the clouds gaily float by
 * Its name was quite queer
 * Some called it the 'shere
 * At least when the Mightright was near
 * --Anchoress 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Do your own homework. However, I can't resist pointing out that almost every non-modern religion's gods start off as gods of the weather (atmosphere), earthquakes (lithosphere) or the sea (hydrosphere). May I point out all mythology dealing with Zeus or Poseidon? &mdash; D a  niel  (‽) 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, interestingly for a seafaring people, the Norse mythology put its emphasis on the storm gods and very little on the various sea gods. This suggests either another weirdness about their mythology or that their sea journeys came after their mythology was set.  Geogre 03:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hinduism had very few nature "gods" (it's not the correct term, but will suffice), if I remember my religions course correctly (Shiva certainly wasn't. Vishnu wasn't either, neither was Lakshmi.)  I'll ignore monotheistic religions for now, even though some of them count as "non-modern".  --ColourBurst 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But Hinduism, as far as I know, developed out of 'de-nature-fying' the previous Aryan Gods. These were based on fire, thunder etc.

Words Make You Feel
Why is it that when you use different words that supposed to be synonyms, it gives the other person hearing that word feel different unless you used another word. For example, I recently told my dad in an e-mail he sent me that his grammar was atrocious (he put commas outside quotation marks, no capitalization of I, etc.) and I was soon after grounded. Why would it have affected him differently if I would have used terrible or, even better, just bad in place of atrocious? Thanks. schyler 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any time you use a word to label a person or their actions, you're making a judgment. Doesn't matter if it's "atrocious" or "excellent", it's still you judging them or judging what they do.  People are entitled to feel whatever they feel about that.  There are more subtle ways of suggesting change, that don't involve passing any judgment on them.  Btw, contrary to popular belief, you can never "make" a person feel anything.  People always make their own choices about their own feelings.  JackofOz 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Connotation? AnonMoos 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Although "atrocious spelling" is quite a common phrase it is also hyperbole as bad speeling is not realy comparable with most atrocities. Also being prescriptivist is a good way to wind anyone up. The placement of commas and quotes is not a fixed issue Quotation_mark. MeltBanana  15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider being forced to put punctuation inside quotation marks (where the punctuation was not in the original quote) to be one of the most stupid grammar rules around, and intentionally ignore it. Also, to avoid offending people, try saying something like "your writing would be even more effective if you used proper capitalization". StuRat 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do think getting grounded for criticizing your dad's grammar is a bit much. But, if you learn to be more diplomatic as a result, maybe it's all for the best. StuRat 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The rules don't actually "force" you to do anything, Stu. You always have the choice to rebel be an individual, as is your wont.  JackofOz 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, pish posh. Punctuation is a convention that allows for greater readability and comprehension, and therefore it pays to be prescriptionist on the matter.  Since we all speak different dialects, transcribing our speech to our writing results in Babel.  That's why we have to have a set of rules for the artificial language that is written English.  Americans put commas and periods inside of quotes because of the old printing presses.  Those two bits of type, according to Algeo and Pyles's history of English, were half-size, while a quotation mark was a full size block.  At the end of a line of text, a comma or period might fly out of the case when it was flipped over, so putting the comma and period inside a quotation mark would hold them in place.  In Britain, these two were set outside of the quotation marks (and went flying sometimes).  Colons and semicolons were full sized type blocks, so they could go outside in America.  However, whatever the historical reason, these are the American conventions, and so one should follow them in America and those nations that have adopted its conventions.  The question mark goes inside a quotation because the whole sentence is being used as an interrogative, not because the question is being quoted.  Since a question mark is terminal punctuation, it ends the sentence, no matter where it occurs.  Therefore, you can't keep going after "quoting" one.  It's all pretty logical, and you disobey these things only to imperil your readability.  Geogre 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli citizenship
does one really have to be Jewish to have Israeli citizenship?
 * No. See Arab citizens of Israel. --Mathew5000 13:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume that would go against international law. Well, it should anyway. :) And it would be downright silly. DirkvdM 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jews are prohibited from being citizens of Jordan or Saudi Arabia...

AnonMoos 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Is there no international law against that? And what are the reasons anyway? DirkvdM 07:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Only about 80% of the population of Israel is Jewish, the rest being almost exclusively Arab, with some Armenians and others. In fact, non-Jewish Israelis enjoy every civil right as their fellow Jewish citizens, including of course the right to vote, the right to form political parties, (of which there are several,) the right to be members of the Israeli cabinet, (I don't think there are any at the present time, but I know for a fact that there have been in the recent past,) and even, in theory at least, the right to be elected prime minister (though it's realistically impossible due to Israeli demographics.) In fact, Salim Joubran is an Israeli Arab who currently sits on the 13 member Supreme Court of Israel.


 * Israel is an entirely secular state, with only one exception, which only applies to Jews anyway: The Orthodox branch of Judaism is given jurisdiction in matters of family law such as the solemnization of marriage and the granting of divorces among Jews, as well as matters regarding conversion to Judaism.


 * The only other possible source of controversy would be the Law of Return, which allows for "fast-track" citizenship for all persons who are either coverted in an Orthodox manner (see above paragraph) or people of any religious conviction who have at least one Jewish grandparent. For example, when the Soviet Union collapsed, quite a few practicing Russian Orthodox Christians who happened to have had one Jewish grandparent were granted immediate citizenship.


 * The law may be controversial, but it should be remembered that similar laws exist in countries with large expatriate populations such as Ireland, Greece, Russia, Germany etc...


 * So yes, Israel is often refered to as "the Jewish State", with Orthodox Judaism having some sort of "official status", but saying that should be no different than calling Greece with its law of return and central status of the Greek Orthodox Church as the "the Greek State", or looked upon another way, refering to England as "the English State" with an actual "State Religion" for which the Queen of England is considered leader. It's very true that the "official religion" of England is by no means discriminating towards non-Anglicans, yet its "official" status would seem to actually make England, arguably, somewhat less secular than Israel. Loomis 15:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Law of Return is only for people of the Jewish religion, however, not for all people originating in the land which is now Israel. It is, therefore, an official policy favoring one religion over others, unlike in most secular countries. StuRat 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how else to say it, but, that's simply not true. What else can I say? It's simply...not...true. The definition of a "Jew" in the Law of Return does not follow the Jewish, "religious" definition of a Jew. Rather, it was fashioned to precisely mirror the Nuremburg Laws and their definition as to what a Jew is. Nazi anti-semitism was purely an "ethnic" or "racial" thing. They really couldn't care less about your religious beliefs. A Jew could convert to Christianity, join the Nazi Party, where a swastika armband, sieg heil and all the rest, but the Nazis couldn't care less. So long as you were a Jew "by race", which included not only full Jews, but half-Jews and even quarter-Jews, you were a Jew, and there's nothing you could do about it.


 * Of course, according to the Nazis, any "Aryan" who would dare convert to Judaism was a filthy race traitor. As well, any "Aryan" who would dare marry a Jew was similarly regarded as no better than another filthy Jew. Therefore, Israel's Law of Return takes these people into account as well. Should you marry a Jew, whatever your religion, you qualify. Should you convert according to the Orthodox tradition, you qualify as well. This of course seems to insert a "religious" aspect into the law, but that isn't its intention. Its intention is merely to provide safe haven for the Jewish nation, while allowing some leeway for non-Jewish relatives of Jews, and those few non-Jews who are so enamoured with Judaism that they actually want to become part of the Jewish nation. Loomis 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, many of those eligible under the Law of Return are of the Jewish religion, and almost none of them are Muslims with origins in Palestine/Israel. I don't believe this is just a coincidence. StuRat 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The law of England does discriminate against non-Anglicans in relation to the line of succession to the throne. It also favours males over females.  JackofOz 23:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * True, I hadn't thought of that. Loomis 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Didn't England only recently revise the law concerning right of citizenship to children of English mothers and non-English fathers? 2) What, then, does the matrilineal passing of the Jewish ethnicity (not sure how to word this; apologies in advance) fall under?  --ColourBurst 07:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet, my basic point was about "basic human rights" in Israel and England for non-Jews and non-Anglicans, respectively. For the average English citizen, being a non-Anglican is no more or no less of an impediment to enjoying full human rights in England as is being a non-Jew in Israel. Still, a good point. Loomis 02:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A related issue; it seems that in Canada (of all places) there were people suggesting the influx of Chinese into Vancouver (aka Hongcouver) be restricted. That didn't go through, though. DirkvdM 07:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A bit more info (such as perhaps a link?) on that would be extremely helpful, Dirk, for me to give you an informed response. From what little you've told me so far, though, "there were people" suggesting this or that is very little to go by. Nowhere in the world will you not find some fringe group with some outlandish suggestion. I'd say more, but again, it would be irresponsible of me to comment on a claim for which I have so little information about. Loomis 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, with only a slight bit of research, (simply entering the term HongCouver into the search box,) what you're refering to is just as I suspected, nothing more than a couple of sensationalist articles in a couple of tabloid newspapers in Vancouver, printed no doubt to sell as many copies as possible. Hardly a government proposal, or even an initiative by any serious citizens' group. In fact, had any single member of Parliament or any single member of the Provincial legislature of British Columbia so much as hinted that he or she endorsed any sort of anti-Chinese immigration policy, it would create quite the controversy, and the particular politician would inevitably be forced to apologize, and perhaps even resign for the remarks, as is the usual practice for any Canadian politician who makes such an outlandish gaffe. I suggest you read the article. For one, it points out that Canadian government policies actually encourage Chinese immigration to Canada, not the other way around. Second, it makes quite clear that the term "Hongcouver" was most likely coined by newly-immigrated young Chinese to brag about "the takeover"". At any rate, it's pretty clear that it was not meant as a racist put-down coined by the non-immigrant community, as you seem to be attempting to imply, rather, at the very most, no more than a silly play on words originating in the Chinese-Canadian community itself.


 * It's clear that this was some sort of desperate attempt to defend Dutch politics by trying in vain to display that "pretty much the same thing goes on in Canada". Well it doesn't. It's simply unnacceptable in Canada for a politician to dare express even the mildest form of racism or anti-immigrant sentiment. (I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist at all in Canada, only that it's at the very least an extreme taboo among elected officials). I realize that this may be difficult to comprehend by European standards, but it's the simple truth about Canadian culture. Sorry Dirk, try again. :) Loomis 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What on Earth are you on about? I didn't ask for a response. I didn't say anything about Dutch policies. I just made a loose remark. Try what again? DirkvdM 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not true, in 1995 the mayor of Markham expressed concern for the white flight in Markham, and pointed directly to Chinese immigration as a cause. As far as I know she was never sacked for it.  I also disagree with HongCouver being used by Chinese to brag.  The article itself says it has possible pejorative connotations - some of the University of California campuses have similar pejorative names, like UC Irvine, which is sometimes called "University of Civics and Integras" and "University of Chinese Immigrants".  The fact is there's probably more white Canadians uncomfortable with Chinese immigration in Vancouver than you think.  However, nowadays a restriction on Chinese immigration is never expected to pass - Chinese immigration is concentrated enough that they have certain political clout.  --ColourBurst 07:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I'll have to reserve judgment on that claim, as I don't have enough info about it. Yet what I do know is that since 1994 the mayor of Markham has been a MAN named Don Cousens. Who is this female mayor of Markham in 1995 that you're speaking of? I've always maintained that Canada isn't entirely free of racists. No country is. It's very possible that the mayor of some town in Canada put his or her foot in his or her mouth in 1995. The likely result though, would have been, at the very least, a public apology.


 * These gaffes have happened before. In 1995 Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau after loosing the 1995 referendum by the slimmest of margins, in his concession speach made the relatively mild comment (relatively mild by European standards that is) that the loss was likely the result of "money and the ethnic vote". He resigned as premier the following day. Some time later, he publicly apologized for this unfortunate statement.


 * All this is to say that Canada is a far cry from those western European countries where openly racist and xenophobic parties routinely garner at least 5%, and up to 18% of the public vote, and win a similar percentage of seats in their respective parliaments. Loomis 14:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant deputy mayor (Carole Bell). My searches don't find an apology, although there was a petition circulated by the 12 GTA mayors which condemned her comments (however, Don Cousens didn't.)  The specific charges she leveled was that the Chinese immigrants didn't contribute to their community, and that concentration of ethnic groups was a weakness (this of course ignores the fact that many other communities had ethnic concentration as well).


 * Unfortunately, being "the other" means that (because of group attribution error) such charges will remain in the minds of many (of course, group attribution error means that a lot of these comments will be made in the first place, but that's why people are so vigilant about it.). --ColourBurst 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you've answered your own question, ColourBurst. I'll take your word for it that a petition was circulated by 12 GTA mayors condemning her remarks. Seems like the natural course of events for that sort of thing in Canada. I'm also grateful for your intellectual honesty in providing that fact.


 * In any case, worst case scenario: Deputy Mayor of Markham, Ontario, Carole Bell is a racist bitch. Similarly, Don Cousens, in not condemning her comments, is a disgraceful cowardly ass, and as such is not fit to call himself mayor of any Canadian town.


 * Shame on both of them, assuming without verifying that it's all true. But I'll take your word for it for now.


 * Nonetheless, you don't seem to be getting my point. Yes! I've probably said it more than a half a dozen times by now! Yes! There do exist racists in Canada! Look at Zundel! Look at Keegstra! Best yet, look at aboriginal leader David Ahenakew who stated to a reporter from the Saskatoon StarPhoenix: "that Jews were a disease and that Hitler was trying to "clean up the world" when he "fried six million of those guys""! So much for the "noble-aboriginal-at-peace-with-earth-and-nature" myth!


 * Having said that, though, I feel compelled to mention the truly, truly admirable response by Matthew Coon Come, AFN national chief, one of the most decent and courageous of human beings I've ever had the pleasure to come across, for his outstandingly courageous response to this outrageous remark. He took it upon himself to visit synagogues across Canada to personally apologize on behalf of all aboriginal peoples of Canada for the outrageously racist statements of his predecessor. I tip my hat to Matthew Coon Come, a truly GREAT man if I've ever seen one.


 * Yet the essence of my point is this: Look at the seating arrangement in the House of Commons in Ottawa. Name for me ONE MP who actually got elected on a xenophobic, racist platform.


 * They simply don't exist. There's the Tories, the Liberals, the BQ and the NDP, plus a few accidental independants. Name me ONE MP who actually stands firmly for the notion that Canada should, in any way, change its racial makeup to be more "European" or more "White". Even the BQ, the champions of an independent "French State of Quebec" try their best to lure the votes of non-white Francophones such as the enormous Black Haitian community of Montreal. They don't care about their colour, all they care about is the fact that they speak French, and no matter how much I'm against their seperatist platform, they're no racists, and I respect them for that.


 * Name me ONE, just ONE MP in Ottawa who actually manages to hold on to his or her seat with any true openly racist platform, and I'll admit that I'm totally wrong.


 * Compare that, again, to the roughly 5%-20% of the electorate in many western European countries who actually vote for, and send to parliament, unabashed racists and xenophobes.


 * There's simply no comparison. Loomis 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we're talking past each other here, and we agree more than disagree. I didn't mean that Canada's mandate is openly racist ("racist" itself often being a word up for debate).  In fact, many of Canada's politicians take great pains to not give this impression - it is simply political suicide, at least most of the time, in a country that for better or worse claims a higher moral position on ethnic and cultural integration.  And I'll agree with you that another Chinese Exclusion Act-like policy probably isn't in the works (however, if there are extraordinary circumstances, such as a world war, I'm not so sure.)  --ColourBurst 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A loose remark? By that do you mean that your statement was nothing but a complete non-sequitur? With absolutely no relevance to this nor any other discussion we've ever had? If so I'm truly sorry for assuming that your post regarding my home country had at least some meaning to it. Loomis 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Loomis, you're weird. DirkvdM 07:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dirk, that remark was simply uncalled for, rude, and uncivil. I've tried, (and it's been indeed a difficult task) to do my best to treat you with as much respect as I can possibly muster. You clearly challenged and grossly misrepresented a certain incident that occurred in Canada, and then you say you have no interest in a response? Am I not allowed to respond to what I believe to have been be a gross misrepresentation of my country's culture?


 * In any case, I've given you the same intellectual challenge to the hypocrisy of your hyper-pacifist "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" position not once, not twice, but three times by refering to the allied liberation of the Netherlands in WWII, which unfortunately was a rather violent incident in history. Yet each time you simply choose to ignore the challenge, rather than either put up a counter-argument (as is your right, and as is what I truly would have hoped you would do) or to simply have the courage to admit, as I have had the courage to admit about my own positions on many occasions, that you may have been wrong, and that you would like to consider rethinking your position. Apparently you have neither the intellectual capacity to back up your positions, nor the courage to admit when you may be wrong. I'm wrong quite often, and when I am I admit it freely. I have the self-confidence and the security in my intellect to recognize that nobody (and certainly not myself) is right 100% of the time. I only wish you would rise above your own petty insecurities to once in a while admit that you can be wrong as well. In the meantime, consider this too as a "loose remark", without any request for a response. Loomis 11:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

eyelets
would eyelets have been used in the middle ages as fasteners for clothing


 * Apparently yes. There may be some controversy as to how early metal eyelets were used, though. You might want to take a look at this discussion about medieval fasteners. - Nunh-huh 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Need reliable source that USA changed stance on Halabja gas attack responsibility
Hello,

currently I am trying to give some other people an example of views in history that change over the years.

In 2003, a popular argument by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq was the use of gas against the people of Halabja in 1988: Halabja_poison_gas_attack. This article claims that diplomats were told initially to claim Iran was behind the attack, later the DIA claimed that there was no absolute certainty, in 2003 it seems to be 100% certain that it was Saddam Hussein, for instance read :



"in one of the worst atrocities of Saddam Hussein's rule.", that line is quite explicit.

So what I am looking for is a reliable source that in 1988 the USA government claimed it was Iran. A reliable source could be a quote in a newspaper like New York Times. A website is reliable enough(I know that newspapers or networks aren't completely reliable themselves, but it's something). I have used Google and the links in the article about the poison attack, but did not succeed.

Thanks

Evilbu 13:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For stuff in 1988, you are not going to find much on the Internet as far as contemporaneous articles. I would recommend checking out the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature for that year at your local library. It will should give you tons of articles written on the subject and many libraries keep back copies of more popular magazines like Time or Newsweek. Nowimnthing 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I live in Belgium, I do have access to the public library of Ghent and also the library of its university... Evilbu 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would recommend looking for UN Security Council measures. The Security Council was going to examine the attacks and investigate, but the US vetoed it.  I remember this from the time itself, and I was furious.  Those of us on the left in the US had been anti-Saddam for a long time, but also anti-war.  The US was allied with Iraq at the time, in what sure seemed to me to be a cynical ploy to keep the Iran/Iraq war going, which caused both countries to pump oil in excess of OPEC quotas to pay for materiel, which meant zero or negative external fuel price pressure on the US economy, which ended stagflation, which gave a particular party the ability to claim that it had lowered the interest rates.  However, I'd start with looking for the Security Council motions, as those are going to be well documented.  Geogre 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

This is a little off topic : but did the Iranian government ever officially cite USA being allied to Iraq as a reason to continue the war? I mean : is this what you claim? And are you claiming that both countries sold oil to the USA for weapons (I am sorry, I understand maths, but I don't understand economics) You would be surprised about those UN files : I can't find them on the official site. And as soon as I start plucking them from anti war sites, the neutrality could again be disputed. (Actually it seems the article on Halabja is claiming a shift in stance it cannot give sources for) Evilbu 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, of course. I am saying that Iran was about to "win," so the US aided Iraq.  It was in the US's interests to keep the two sides fighting, to not help broker a peace, and to supply whichever side seemed to be about to run out of materiel.  After the radical deflation of oil prices in the wake of the war, several banks in the US failed, and US economic interests with regard to oil prices changed.  Geogre 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm,

[] This is already quite explicit about the US stance. Evilbu 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of a song...
Sorry, but I can provide very little data as the lyrics were for me incredibly hard to understand... It's a song (probably a single) with great success in the 90s and even today can be heard in mainstream pop music radio (at least in Spain). In the chorus apparently says something like "Mercy, mercy mercy" with background voices, it's sung in what seems to me a "black music style" and sung by a black woman... It's hard but, maybe it rings a bell to somebody... thanks :D


 * By a google search with "lyrics Mercy, mercy mercy" it returns Queen Latifah has a song named Mercy, Mercy, Mercy. I think it fits the criteria you have given. here are the lyrics. Hope this is what you were looking for. schyler 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're looking for "Mercy, mercy me" by Marvin Gaye. Lyrics and info.  It was used a few years ago in a television commercial in the U.S., although I don't know if it was the original or a cover version.  Whichever, the lyrics are haunting.


 * I think the first answer is probably more correct. Mercy, mercy, mercy was originally recorded by Cannonball Adderly, one of the best sax players ever, and was written by his pianist, Joe Zawinul. It was a huge hit and was covered by several artists over the years. -LambaJan 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Leonardo Henrichsen (cameraman shot in 1973 in Chile) : where is the footage
Hello,

forgive me for coming to this board quite often. I love this place and I like to help whenever I can. If I am violating some sort of restriction you can tell me.

Some time ago, the kind people here helped me found out the name of this cameraman from Argentina who got shot in 1973 in Chile, by the very soldier he was filming.

It is often said these images shocked the world. In German class, we listened to the song "Der Kameraman" by Wolf Biermann. We asked our teacher whether or not we could actually see those images he sang about and he made a vague comment like : there probably isn't anyone who still has those images....

Thanks to the great internet, I thought I would succeed, but this is the best I could do is this :

which is in Spanish and only includes a vague picture. Now I am beginning to fear that I would get results if I would know Spanish... but my knowledge of Spanish is next to nothing (I do speak French but it is still not good enough).

So if anyone can tell me where I found more pictures/the movie, or perhaps some Spanish word combinations that could help me in Google, I would be really happy.

Evilbu 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to expand Native Americana
Hi I don't think this is where I ask this but, I would like to add quite a bit about Native American Art, including basketry, rugs, pottery etc. I would like to know where I could ask for help from some other contributers, as this is a topic with very little representation that I could find, yet it is quite an extensive and facinating field.

Thanks for your time James Possamai


 * Please see WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Rmhermen 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You could start your own sub-project on "Art of Indigenous peoples of North America" or just start writing articles. The creation of new articles is likely to grab the attention of others interested in this area, who then may contribute, as well. StuRat 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll also want to browse the categories Category:Native American art and Category:Native American culture. Be sure to add your new articles to one of those categories, since that's one of the best ways for others to find your work. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about inflation, incomes
I'm trying to make a comparision between 1906 and today. A school was built in my town in 1906, it cost $40,000. I wanted to see what the average (U.S.) income was in 1906, and I can't find it; does anyone know where I can look this up? Also, the average income for 2006? And a decent inflation calculator to see how much a $40,000 school in 1906 would cost now? Thanks for anything!


 * There are some calculators here: or you can check out the book, "The Value of a Dollar: prices and incomes in the United States 1860-2004, very handy. Nowimnthing 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)