Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 4

Oboe
What is the length of an oboe? Also, what fingering system does it use? --203.20.208.10 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * about 62 cm. There are several fingering systems for the oboe, the most common are the English and the conservatoire. Much of this is covered in the oboe article. - Nunh-huh 07:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Prices in Mexico
I just heard on National Public Radio that Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador tried to appeal to the 50% of Mexicans making less than $5/day.

This makes it seem that everybody is pass out left and right on the streets due to lack of food and housing. But my gumption tells me to take other facts into account since the cost of living is much lower in Mexico, too. Perhaps, one can buy a 1-lb cake for 20¢ or roasted chicken for 30¢. Moreover, Carlos Slim is Mexican so not everyone is dying.

Can someone who has lived in Mexico City or another major city there tell me in U.S. dollars the monthly rent for a small one bedroom apartment with one shower for a Mexican in 2006 – I say this because someone who doesn't speak Spanish is likely to get swindled?--Patchouli 01:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In Mexico city, the rents are not that much lower than a U.S. city, but we have to remember that a large portion of Mexico is rural. My inlaws have a small house in the rural area they grew up in and I imagine it did not cost more than $20,000. Maybe this or this  will help. Nowimnthing 03:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Patchouli 05:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mexico has a relatively high gdp with 7,298 USD per person per year. Just not in comparison with rich western countries. Myanmar has only 97 USD/person*year. For a complerte list see List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. For some explanations for these low values see Gdp. DirkvdM 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The CIA Factbook list the GDP per capita for Mexico as $10,000 and Myanmar as $1700, using the Purchasing Power Parity system (PPP), which attempts to compensate for differences in prices. StuRat 02:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked with my inlaws and they paid about $4000 in 1984 for a two bedroom house in rural Zacatecas (about 3 hours outside of Guadalajara). Nowimnthing 16:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle
Why are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle the most famous philosophers from their time period? Learning about them in Humanities makes it seem as if no others existed. -Reynolds


 * Well, mostly because they are the best known, and most regularly still followed. This doesn't neccisarily mean they are better than any other philosophers, but there's always going to be someone who is the most famous in any field. Another thing to consider is that when it comes to writings of ancient times, we really don't have a lot remaining. On the other hand, we have books upon books of writing by Plato (and about Socrates, don't have anything directly by him). There are many other ancient philosophers who were also quite influential, but we just don't have much by them, such as Xenophanes, some of the atomists, etc. It's kind of the same reason that nearly all our ancient philosophy comes from Greece and the surrounding areas - not that there weren't any philosophers in, say, Africa, but we have none of their writing, so have no idea what they did. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And the ideas those specific philosophers came up with have been enormously influential since. For instance, Aristotle's ideas on logic are still used today, pretty much as they were written.  And Plato's allegory of the cave (to take only one part of his contribution to philosophy) has been a topic of endless fascination since it was written - heck, The Matrix was essentially about that very topic.  --Robert Merkel 06:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, in the case of Plato some of his works have significant artistic value independent of their philosophical ideas. This is not true of Aristotle; it seems most of what we have of his was not meant to be formally published and so is a bit uncouth. --George 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Accidental Death
What is the punishment for accidentally murdering someone? Such as at a work place where heavy equipment is involved. There would be no ill-will towards the victim and it would be all accidental. Could you put someone in jail for that? --4.154.57.24 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that person would go to jail for manslaughter. Mo-Al 04:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the nature, was the person causing the accident considered criminally negligent or reckless.

Crime depends not only on actually doing it, but also the will to do it or knowing that there is the chance it could happen, which is negligent manslaughter I guess. If there was no way at all to know, he would not be guilty of a crime and should not be under any "free" system. --mboverload @ 07:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You guys missed the obvious question: In which country? DirkvdM 10:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * and you also missed the obvious flaw - there is no such thing as "accidental murder'. Accidental killing, yes, but that's not murder. Many (most? all?) countries have varieties of charges such as "manslaughter" and "reckless conduct resulting in death" which cover such circumstances. Grutness...wha?  12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be made clear at this point that in modern secular legal systems, there is no punishment for any act unless there is a mens rea. Some traditional views of sin, however, include unintentional acts.--Pharos 10:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Murder, Degree 1 - Predmeditated, you actually planned on killing someone
 * Murder, Degree 2 - Unplanned, but in the act of a crime, example being killing someobody in an armed robbery
 * Murder, Degree 3 - Entirely unintentional, such as your incident
 * Political Mind 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Homicide in an act of robbery is a first degree murder, because bringing lethal weapon to commit crime already demonstrates deadly intention. In some countries, carrying firearms during robbery is punishable by death, even if the weapon is not used. --Vsion 08:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Especially in a workplace or when operating equipment, the workers and the company are required to take reasonable safety measure to avoid harm to others. See Criminal negligence and negligent homicide. --Vsion 08:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunni versus Shitte
What are the fundamental differences between the Sunni and Shitte branches of Islam that serve as the basis of conflict that justifies (or is used to justify) the killing members of the opposite branch? ...IMHO (Talk) 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The top one is with respect to Imam Ali. This guy is the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad.  Shia Muslims say that he was the true caliph (ruler) that succeeded Muhammad while Sunnis claim Muhammad's successor was Abu Bakr.  Abu Bakr was a father-in-law of Muhammad.  See Shia view of Abu Bakr


 * As a small note, it's Shi'ite, not Shitte. --ColourBurst 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Sufi dervishes virtually deify Ali. The first name of the Iranian Supreme Leader is Ali, too. However, dervishes don't get along with mullahs and there are no dervishes in politics in the Islamic Republic of Iran.--Patchouli 05:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a chart, tree or table that shows the historical relationships of all these various groups from their points of beginning or their origins or points of diversion or separation? ...IMHO (Talk) 06:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Shia and Sunni split was after Muhammad's death. I don't know about Sufis and Wahabbis.  There could other sects as well.  I don't know about them or the existence of a flowchart in Wikipedia or elsewhere.Patchouli 06:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_sects.--Patchouli 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--Patchouli 06:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Knock yourself out with Islam .Patchouli 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you see the Maliki and Jafari sects? These are the last names of the current and preceding Iraqi prime ministers, but I doubt that their last names has any direct relationship to these sub-sects.Patchouli 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of monarchies. Monarchies based on religious heritage rather than secular heritage. Middle age stuff. Modern education sounds like the solution. ...IMHO (Talk) 18:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Afterlife in Islam
Do Muslims believe that everybody who dies goes to either Heaven or Hell?60.241.147.187 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't remember what their ideas on afterlife are, but I do remember that Hell in particular and Heaven to some extend are mainly Christian beliefs that do not apply to Muslims. Also, Islam has multiple denominations as the previous question shows. So it's quite possible not all Muslims think the same about the matter. - Mgm|(talk) 07:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also try Reference_desk/Humanities where a similar question was asked earlier. Aparently Muslims belief in Paradise instead of Heaven. - Mgm|(talk) 07:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

homosexual and Confucianism
I had searched for my report here in Wikipedia since I always searched here for information that is accurate for me, but when I came up with homosexual with the religion i was confuse why does my classmate, a Taiwanese, said that Confucianism is not favorable in homosexual but Wikipedia stated that it is allowed homosexual sex with the precondition of procreation? I'm so disapointed when my classmate said that i have wrong source which is the Wikipedia. And now, may you please inform me if this information about the homosexual regrading with Confucianism is rigth? I'm not a Confucianist that's why i dont know what to answer in my classmate's act.

Thank you for giving time to discuss about this issue...


 * I don't know whether the Analects of Confucius say anything regarding homosexuality. But the Christian Bible says the following on male homosexuality.


 * If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus, Chapter 20, Verse 13)

However, the Bible is totally silent on female homosexuality, that is, lesbianism. Does this means the Biblical patriarchs condoned it? They condemn every unthinkable sexual quirkiness yet not this.--08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, okay. Why even bring the Bible into this?  The questioner didn't even hint at Christianity.  Do you have an agenda that you're trying to push? Dismas|(talk) 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I suppose the relevant articles are Homosexuality in China and homosexuality and Confucianism. However, not everything on the Wikipedia is correct.  You might try some of the resources linked from those articles to see if they help to clarify things.  If that fails, consult some of the books mentioned, for instance on the Confucianism article.


 * Unfortunately (for your purposes in trying to get an answer to your question), Confucianism is not a centralised religious organization like the Catholic church, so you can't just go and get a definitive answer from a priest. --Robert Merkel 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Dismas here. Why is the Bible being brought up? To my knowledge, the Bible is completely alien to Confucianism and is of no help in answering the question. I suppose I should check out the Wiki article, as the concept that Confucianism allows homosexual sex, so long as there's the precondition of procreation doesn't seem to make any sense at all. I think I'll go over to the article and see what it's in fact saying (hopefully, it makes more sense than that!) Loomis 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's a lot clearer now. It would seem (according to the article) that homosexuality, (among males at least...the article says nothing of lesbianism,) for the most part, is acceptable according to Confucianism, so long as one fulfills his duty to "be fruitful and multiply" (to borrow a biblical phrase). In other words, so long as a Confucianist involves himself in a heterosexual, procreative relationship, homosexual realtions are "ok". (Unfortunately, though, the article is filled with caveats and ambiguities, meaning that the "ultimate" position is far from clear). Hope that helps! Loomis 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Polygamy
Why is polygamy illegal in so many places? Besides the religious angle, where's the harm? Dismas|(talk) 07:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The harm is that in the real life — not motion pictures — every man is not an aristocrat who can really provide subsistence for several women and their respective children. This means that many children end up with irresponsible fathers who want to kick their children out as soon as possible.  In addition, if anything happens to the run-of-the-mill father, then the mothers and dozen kids will have to show up at the local welfare office or quarrel with their respective relatives that can result from a prolonged stay at the relatives' homes.

It also creates a Cinderella dream in the minds of young children that is a recipe for destitution and a contorted lifestyle in the vast majority of cases. You got my take.--Patchouli 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you're making a lot of assumptions.


 * 1) It will be one man, several women, and dozens of kids.
 * 2) Many men who would enter into this are inherently no good dead beats.
 * 3) The family would rely solely on the man's income for their entire family.
 * If the families acknowledge that one or more of the money makers can loose their jobs etc. then there wouldn't be this rush on the welfare system as you've described. If the family takes the same or more care as a "normal" couple in trying to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads while keeping the family together, then where is the harm?  This Cinderella dream?  Could you explain that further since I don't understand why a child would have some Cinderella image by growing up in a polygamous household?
 * And as far as movies go, I can't recall any movie that I've seen, ever, that mentioned polygamy. The only thing I can think of is an episode of Three's Company where some woman was trying to take Mr. Furley's money.  Dismas|(talk) 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My meager understanding of the Mormon lifestyle in Utah is that men were providers. The same applies to the Muslim polygamy.  Muhammad was a wealthy merchant who provided subsistence for 12 wives and built alliances — I acknowledge that he had no other spouse while he was with Khadija and I don't know the greatest number of spouses he had at one moment.  It isn't that I endorse it.  That type of polygamy is not conducive to the modern social fabric and productivity of a society.

Perhaps you are proposing a reform to polygamy.--Patchouli 09:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't eluding to any sort of "reform". I wasn't even talking about Muhammad or the old ways of the Later Day Saint church.  I'm merely asking about the concept itself.  So far it seems that your answers have been based on the old LDS church and the few holdouts who still practice some form of a splinter religion that came from the LDS church.  I'm not at all familiar with the Muslim practice.  Dismas|[[User talk:Dismas| (talk)

]] 10:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked why polygamy is illegal in so many places. I first gave my own analysis followed by historical examples and you know that legislators rely a good deal on history to write the laws; likewise, lawyers use past cases (history again) and statutes enacted.--Patchouli 10:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One problem, is that genders are divided about 50;50, with the same amount of males and females, if more than one female marries per male, the a lot of males will have to go with decreased chances of finding a partner, and some will never.  Philc  TECI 12:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Polygamy has two forms - polygyny and polyandry. Grutness...wha?  12:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, statistically speaking I imagine men would want to take more wives rather than the other way around, based in part on the way that the sexual division of labor works and relative incomes. And the way men are. ;-) --Fastfission 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Grutness is more of a mathematician than an anthropologist unless he can name a single human society in which both polyandry and polygyny were practiced simultaneously. Such practices in the real world have incompatible social and theoretical underpinnings that are likely to be mutually exclusive. As much as it might appeal to the mathematicians and those who would like to abolish or disregard social gender roles, you can't have both. alteripse 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually my major was in psychology, with anthropology as a minor as part of it. I never claimed that both had historically existed in the same culture at the same time - those cases where polygyny is common tend to be ones with high male death rates, and polygyny compensates for that. Similarly, polyandry is found where there is an excess of males over females. But that wasn't what was implied in earlier comments, which dealwith the present day and - for the most part - with westernised societies. In these, it would be perfectly possible for the two to coexist and not to produce a surplus of one over the other. It would lead to massive social changes in other ways, however. Grutness...wha?  00:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think they could co-exist, because in all the societies I've heard of them in, it's a way for one gender to exert its social supremacy over the other, which can only work onw way. Philc  TECI 12:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If polygamy were required to be consensual then I can't see any real strong ethical reason to oppose it. Whether it is morally wrong depends on your own desire to make the law resemble one religious text or another. Obviously if you were going to allow a system like this you'd have to re-arrange the social services systems a bit to accomodate for it but that's not the hardest thing in the world. --Fastfission 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Next question: why is prostitution illegal in most places, but pornography is not (or vice versa)? You can't pay someone to have sex with you, but you can pay someone to have sex with someone else? --Fastfission 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A key reason why the state might not endorse polygamy is the issue of tax due on a person's estate. In the UK, tax is due on everything a person leaves in their will, including money and the house they lived in. The only exception is the person's spouse. If polygamy was legal, you would see people creating large polygamous "marriages" with no other purpose than avoiding death duties. This would be especially valuable to the "super rich". Notinasnaid 14:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone up above (anonymous) stated that Muhammad was a "wealthy merchant" who provided for his wives, most famously Khadija. They missed the mark there - Muhammad married into Khadija's wealth - Khadija was a very wealthy merchant, operator of large caravans, who supported Muhammad.  In fact, for a while before 'she' initiated a marriage proposal, she employed Muhammad in her merchant business!  Check the facts! :)  --Bmk 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read about the renegade polygamous Mormon sects that exist in the Rockies. In those communities, there is such a premium on women that girls are often married (not always completely willingly) at 14 or 15, and men are expelled from the community for even minor offenses. -- Mwalcoff 22:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hot Digital Songs
Anybody know if sales of digital music videos (on iTunes, for example) also count towards Billboard's Hot Digital Songs chart? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk)


 * Off the top of my head, I think they do. --Proficient 14:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles Stuart Parnell & Katherine O'Shea
I would like to find some information about the children of Parnell and O'Shea.

Corinne Wheelahan


 * Parnell had been the long term partner, and father of three of the children, of Katherine O'Shea


 * Charles Stuart Parnell
 * Katherine Parnell


 * Check out the sources in the appropriate sections for more information. --Killfest2 11:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mozambique
I notice that Mozambique was colonized by Portuguese, but it is a member of the Commomnwealth Games and I know that Commonwealth Games involve with countries that were colonized by British. I don't remember that Mozambique was conquered by British. How come it is a member of former British-colonized countries?


 * You probably don't remember becuase it happened before you were born. :) From the Mozambique article I gather that the british never politically colonised the island, but did have a strong presence because Portugal left the island to industrials, who were largely British. The article states "in early 1996 Mozambique joined its Anglophone neighbors in the Commonwealth. It is the only nation to join the Commonwealth that was never part of the British Empire." DirkvdM 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a Portuguese analog to the British Commonwealth or French Community? Do the Francophone nations have a sports equivalent to the Commonwealth Games?  User:Zoe|(talk) 17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Lusophones have the CPLP (Comunidade dos Paises de Lingua Portuguesa). La Francophonie organises the Jeux de la Francophonie. EdC 20:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the interesting links. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay - first things first. The Commonwealth is not a group of "former British-colonized countries", though it did start off that way. It is promarily a trade and cultural exchange organisation, and is open to countries which have significant cultural or commercial ties with Britain or other Commonwealth nations. Given that in 1996 every one of Mozambique's neighbours was a Commonwealth country, and that it did 90% of its commerce with these countries, a special case was made for its inclusion in the Commonwealth, which was accepted. A similar case was made for Cameroun, of which only a small part was ever British territory. BTW Dirk, you want to check your geography - unless there has been a fairly major earthquake in the Great Rift valley, Mozambique isn't an island. Grutness...wha?  00:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Big oops! I have this nasty tendency to mix up Mozambique and Madagascar. I could have used the excuse that I'm really from the future where the Great Rift had already rifted (so to say), but then Mozambique wouldn't have been an island all by itself, so that wouldn't have worked. DirkvdM 04:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Study on overzealous anti-drug education
I remember reading a couple years ago about a study showing that marijuana prevention programs that tell ridiculous falsehoods like "one joint will addict you" are less effective than those that are honest. Is anybody aware of whether or not this is accurate, and where I could find the study? N (t/c) 16:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's obviously accurate. Kids aren't stupid. If you tell them all sorts of lies they will assume that everything else you tell them will also not be true and kids being kids they will probably start smoking marijuana just to show they're not so stupid as to believe you.
 * About the study, there's bound to be more than one. But I haven't found any alas. Googling ' marijuana education "telling the truth" ' gave some related stuff, though. One interresting observation: "one cannot tell the truth about cannabis and maintain its prohibition." A veritable dilemma for right-wing policy makers. DirkvdM 05:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the way in which marijuana is discouraged to youth is rather condescending and couter-productive.


 * In any case, say what you will about the "harmlessness" of marijuana, but if you care to hear my experience, (perhaps you don't give a damn, which is your choice,) but I have two marijuana dependant brothers. One is on welfare and has suffered multiple hash psychoses, and the other is dead, having crashed his car while stoned. Oh well. Marijuana is harmless and its prohibition just another right-wing conspiracy, right? Loomis 23:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing is harmless. Even water can kill you. I've heard that some kids smoke something like a few grams per day. I smoke as much in about a month. This is what should be taught kids. That too much of anything is unhealthy. The point here is that if you start telling lies, kids won't believe anything else you say even if it's true. Also, cars kill about half a million people per year. By far the most are sober. It's the cars that kill. Drugs just give a helping hand. That should also be taught at schools. The highest proportion of deaths is among kids, so they're especially at risk. "Don't smoke and drive" should be second to that. Then again, I've heard that a study showed that under the influence of marijuana, people drive more carefully. That doesn't mecessarily mean 'safer', though.
 * What right-wing conspiracy? What's all this conspiracy nonsense I keep hearing about? That's a US thing, isn't it? DirkvdM 07:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalaztion
Would I capatalize the word king, according to the Chicago Style?

Asa is the King of Jordan.

What does the classical Greek word Baris mean?


 * In regards to capitilaztion, yes. You do capitilize the term "king," when it is refering to a person or of a place (i.e. King of Great Britian). Yank  sox  16:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The correct capitalization for your sentence per the Chicago Manual of Style is "Asa is the king of Jordan." Titles are capitalized (per CMS) only when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name, and are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name. (There are, of course, exceptions, but they don't apply to this sentence.) So it's the empress Elisabeth of Austria, or (an actual CMS example) "King Abdullah; the king of Jordan", or "Wilhelm II, emperor of Germany; Kaiser Wilhelm II; the kaiser". - Nunh-huh 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to LSJ - available online at www.perseus.tufts.edu - a baris was a flat-bottomed boat. The word later came to mean a large house or tower. --George 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Songs Associated with Catholic Worker
I'm looking for songs or hymns associated with the Catholic Worker Movement. Google searches (that I could think of) don't seem to turn up any solid leads so I'm looking for alternative sources. Any suggestions or ideas? mennonot 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I expect but do not know that they would have had their own hymnal.  However, that would be top-down.  Bottom-up is always a bit more interesting, but I have nothing.  (If you were asking about the IWW, I'd know, as I actually have a copy of The Little Red Songbook.)  Geogre 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By searching "Catholic Worker" + "songbook," I got to this site that might have what you need. Among all the contemporary lefty poetry collections, something historical might be mixed.

I used a paperback book in the '70's called "Worker's Quarterly, Hymns for Now." It's available used on Amazon.

Johann Sebastian Bach
What was done to try to improve Bach's eyesight? When did Bach die? What did Bach die of? What happened to hes second wife?
 * Did you try our article on Johann Sebastian Bach? I'm sure it answers at least two of your questions. - Mgm|(talk) 21:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems you didn't even try to find out for yourself. --Proficient 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

United States in World War I
Two questions here:

1. Was the Germans sinking of America's neutral ships genuinely the only reason the US entered the war? Were there no other factors involved? No, Their was the zimmer note, this was a secret message from the German foriegn ministry to mexico. 2. If Germany knew that their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare would result in the US entering the war, why did they persist with it? Did they think the benefits of sinking merchant vessels bound for Britain outweighed the negative of an extra country waging war against them? Any suggesestions much appreciated. Hammer Raccoon 17:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Leaving (1) to someone better informed, the short answer to (2) is yes, the German High Command, which didn't yet mean Hindenburg and Ludendorff, believed that a second unrestricted campaign would defeat Britain (and France, which was dependant on British coal imports) before the US could take any part in the war. There's not much on the web, but Herwig's paper Total Rhetoric: Limited War (JMSS) is a good summary. For more information, Erin Weir's(pdf) paper (JMSS again) on the impact in the Second World War might be helpful. In print, Herwig's The First World War and Halpern's The Great War at Sea are probably the most useful surveys. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, woohoo) I may be wrong, but I was told that the British Navy had a policy of hiding guns and weaponary on merchant ships, to exploit the intial U-boat policy of surfacing, informing civilian ships that their vessel would be sunk, in order to allow the passengers/crew to abandon ship. Special merchant vessels were built so that as soon as the U-boat surfaced to give the menrchant vessel there warning the "merchant" ship would torpedoe/shoot them. So they began sinking merchant ships. The Lusitania was sunk on the grounds that the germans believed there were hidden gun stations amongst equipment on the deck, and weaponary below deck. This has not been disproved. Travellers were repeatedly warned by the German Embassy in new york of the risk that anf ship carrying the british flag(s) may be sunk by U-boats, before tcket purchase and before embarking. So really the question is why did the US continue to run routes, for its people, that went through a known war zone, despite repeated warnings. One theory, is the british ran them to get the US to join the war. Philc  TECI 18:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * re:(1), it has sometimes been suggested that the United States entered WWI because if France and England had lost they would never have been able to pay off the huge debts to the US they had built up during the war. David Sneek 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to answer 1, see Zimmermann telegram. To give a short summary, British cryptographers Grey, Hall and Montgomery from Room 40 intercepted a German telegram to urge Mexico to ally against the U.S. in WW1, decoded it, and gave it to the U.S. (who did not believe on spying on others' communications back then)  This is probably what spurred them into joining World War I, so no, 1 is not strictly correct, though UBoat harassment would probably have eventually led them into WW1 anyway.  Curiously enough, the decoded telegram suggested Japan as a backup in case negotiations with Mexico failed.  --ColourBurst 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The armed but disguised merchant ships were Q-ships. For the US reasons for declaring war, see Wilson's speech, April 2, 1917, urging Congress to declare war. Unrestricted submarine warfare was the casus belli, with German spying and agitation in the US and the Zimmermann telegram mentioned as aggravating factors. Gdr 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all your help, it has cleared up the matter for me. Hammer Raccoon 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Were any of the original Nazis skinheads?
Did any prominent members of the original Nazi party have shaved heads? If not, where do the modern Nazis get the famous 'skinhead' look from? As far as I know, all the main members of the Nazi leadership had short (but not shaved) hair - I certainly can't think of any that were razored down to the scalp, like the typical neo-Nazi bootboy you'd see today. --84.67.251.126 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See our article Skinhead for a short overview. Shaved hair became associated with far-right politics in the late 60s/early 70s, there is no direct connection of the skinhead look with anything that was popular in the 1940s. I've always found it ironic that much of modern skinhead culture has its roots in ska and rocksteady culture which was initially decidedly black - which is not exactly something most current skinheads are especially proud of -- Ferkelparade π 23:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - though I do remember seeing reproductions of WWII era political cartoons in the history books at school in which Nazi/German soldiers were depicted as (usually knuckle-dragging, ugly) skinheads. I wonder what those were based on then? Heh, I wonder what old Adolf would think if he were to come back today and see the scruffy, grimy, tattoo-covered state of his motley band of followers? --84.67.251.126 00:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd assume they'd have had their heads shaved when they joined the army. And if they were American/British cartoons then they obviously would have wanted to show the Germans as ugly.


 * I reckon Adolf wouldn't think much of his followers fighting in the streets and beating up weak people. - ulayiti (talk)  23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the SA Sturmabteilung pretty much did just that. -- Mwalcoff 00:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fascists are aggressive, and skinheads are so in a street-wise sense. So if you fight a lot you don't want your opponent to get hold of your hair. So you shave it off or make it real short. That's one explanation I once heard. DirkvdM 05:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Head shaving also removes part of your identity. You are no longer the guy with brown/black/blond/red curly/straight/wavy long/short hair.  You just a bald guy like all the other bald guys. --Kainaw (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Woodwinds
How heavy/long is a bassoon? And how long is a clarinet? --Atlas Master 23:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A bassoon is around 134cm. They are reasonably heavy, about 15 lb I think. I used to have a trailer on my bike to transport mine to school, and you can't hold it up to play using just your hands - I had a strap that attached to the bottom (butt) of the instrument, on which I sat. A regular Bb clarinet is around 64cm. Natgoo 08:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Atlas Master 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)