Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 15

= November 15 =

Preview Voice
Does anybody know the name of the guy who does practicly all the movie preview voices? I would imagine Miguel Ferrer would be one of them.


 * Don LaFontaine --Kainaw (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1920's adn 1930's canada
can you please help me to find a website or article depicting the development of new technology during 1920/1930's canada

---in massive trouble67.71.18.44 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean all technology used in Canada at that time or just the technology developed in Canada, or by Canadians ? StuRat 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't bother. The question asked was obviuosly that of a desparate Canadian procrastinator looking for a quick homework answer. A very poor and embarrassing example of the great country s/he (and I) are/is from. Canadians are far better than that. Loomis 03:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Insulin. Edison 15:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That was uncalled for, Loomis. The OP wasn't asking for spoon-fed answers, just some guidance. Clarityfiend 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Military hats
Which is used more by the many militaries of the world, the forge cap (which we have no article for) or the beret? This includes officers. --The Dark Side 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick google reveals nothing about the forge cap so I'll explain. It is the hat worn by (and not limited to) officers in many armies (notably western ones), the USMC in dress uniform, and the Chinese and North Korean armies also in dress uniform. If this is the wrong name then please let me know. --The Dark Side 01:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * forage cap MeltBanana  02:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's no it. I'm thinking of the ones that the men of the USMC wear in dress uniform. --The Dark Side 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Campaign hat or  Combination cap. Sorry no idea on stats.  MeltBanana  02:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The combination cap would be the one that U.S. Marines wear in dress uniform. Dismas|(talk) 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SeeGarrison cap, where you get redirected from "FORAGE cap" (not forge cap). Edison 15:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is called a Garrison "COVER" and a Barracks "COVER" a.k.a. piss-cutter. In the USMC you can wair either one in the service uniform and only a white Garrison cover in the dress blues. Drill Instructors and Primary Marksmanship Instructors wear the campaign cover a.k.a. smokey bear.

Russia Child Soldiers
Could you please tell me Russia's view/policy on child soldiers? Do they use child soldiers? If so, do you know any details. If not, please tell me any other information you know about what they think about child soldiers.

-Name Witheld


 * Good starting point http://www.child-soldiers.org/regions/country.html?id=177 MeltBanana  02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

anyone else?

Child soldiers Maybe something there or in links at bottom outside User:Sifaka 152.3.72.50 03:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks. now does anyone know anymore about russian child soldiers or solutions for child soldiers?


 * Why would Russia want to recruit child soldiers? They're not cost-effective, don't have the education to handle high tech equipment and would be really lousy in hand-to-hand combat. (Plus they grow out of their uniforms too fast.) Russia isn't involved in any sizable wars at the moment and has enough adult soldiers for its current needs. The opposite is true in Africa and other parts of the Third World. Clarityfiend 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The only time I've heard about Russian child soldiers being used was during the Russian Revolution. StuRat 00:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, they were used much later than this. There were many 'child soldiers' in the Russian army during the Great Patriotic War.  Clio the Muse 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that WW2 ? I don't refer to wars by their propaganda names. StuRat 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, a perfectly apt description, which is still in use, taking as a point of departure the earlier reference to the War of 1812 as the Patriotic War.  To dismiss this usage as 'propaganda' is, quite frankly, arrogant and superficial.  Clio the Muse 06:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, if you accept Soviet propaganda names for wars instead of neutral names, from now on I will insist that you call WW2 the War Which Demonstrates What a Truly Magnificent and Wonderful Nation the United States Really Is. :-) StuRat 22:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not Soviet propaganda, but a term in contemporary use, a point I thought I had already made. People I have met in Russia, none of whom are Communists, all use the expression, and I am happy to accede to their opinion on a matter so central to the history of their nation.  As you can see, it is also linked here in Wikipedia, so the label has objective usage outside Russia.  Beyond that I have nothing further to add.  Clio the Muse 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That article says that term "is used in Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union". So, unless you live in one of those countries, you should use the proper term for the rest of the world, which is WW2.  Come to think of it, since this is English Wikipedia, I think you should translate the name of the war into a name used by the English speaking population, in any case.  I wonder what the North Koreans call the Korean War ?  Will you be calling it the "War Against the Hooligan Cowboy Imperialists" ? :-) StuRat 04:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's an extra consideration to keep in mind. The Great Patriotic War started on June 22, 1941. WWII started two years earlier. Russians (& friends) use both terms to refer to different things. The former term is used specifically for the "Eastern Front" only. --Ornil 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The US didn't enter the war until even later, yet didn't insist on giving the war a special propaganda name. StuRat 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Four major wars between 1900 and 1961
In Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation in 1961, he says: "We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country." The three involving the US are easy — WWI, WWII, Korea. But what's the fourth? I assume by "among great nations" he is disallowing counting major civil wars (Russia, Spain, China, etc.). This feels like something I should know but I'm totally perplexed. --24.147.86.187 02:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually.. maybe the Russo-Japanese War? --24.147.86.187 02:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the Suez War? It would have been fairly fresh in Eisenhower's memory. That's the best I could find in the List of wars. Clarityfiend 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... maybe, but I don't think Eisenhower would have counted Egypt as a "great nation", personally (nothing against the country, but it was never a first- or even second-world power), and the low casualties don't register as a "holocaust" to me (the next line in the address begins "Despite these holocausts...") In contrast Russo-Japanese was definitely seen by many people in the West as being a "major" war, and a military man like Eisenhower probably would have seen it as portent in its foreshadowing of the problems Russia would face in WWI as well as the rising strength of Japan. --24.147.86.187 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or the Second Boer War. Anchoress 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, not between "great nations". I think he is implicitly talking about major industrialized powers. --24.147.86.187 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So he considered Korea to be a great nation? I doubt it. The Boer War was very important to the British Empire. Anchoress 03:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He considered China to be a great nation, I suspect. See Korean War. -- SCZenz 03:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Korea was not the problem in the Korean war. --24.147.86.187 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Balkan Wars were also very important, leading as they did to World War I. Otherwise, the Spanish Civil War was much more than a war involving just Spain.  --Roisterer 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Spanish Civil War would be my #2 pick if I hadn't ruled out civil wars. It was seen as many to be a run-up to WWII. Balkans don't seem big enough to be worth mentioning — Ottoman was a major empire at the time, but Bulgaria and the Balakan League were not. In both cases though while the wars were strategically important I don't think they count as "major wars among great nations". --24.147.86.187 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would guess it was something recent (at the time), keeping in mind that recent events always seem more important. With this in mind, I vote for the Suez Crisis. StuRat 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't strike me as something on par with WWI, WWII, and Korea. There's a reason they call it a "crisis" and not a "war" (in the US, anyway). There were barely over 200 deaths among non-Egyptian forces, a clear sign of it being either a small or asymmetrical war. In any case I think all of our current knowledge is that Eisenhower thought the Suez crisis was annoying but not a "major war". --24.147.86.187 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think 24. is right and it's the Russo-Japanese War. Eisenhower as a student of military history certainly understood its massive significance for 20th century history. Antandrus  (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Vietnam War involved the US between 1950 and 1973, but neither North nor South Vietnam could be described as a "great nation" (unless all nations are considered great, particularly in a valedictory address). I tend to agree with the Russo-Japanese war, both countries being major powers. JackofOz 05:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Could be that, but another candidate is the Second Sino-Japanese War. This went on in parallel with WW2 until December 1941, then merged into it, so it could be counted separately. As for Vietnam, before 1954 this was Vietnam vs. France, but I don't think it could be what he meant. --Anonymous, 07:28 UTC, November 15.


 * Wikipedia's modern organization notwithstanding, I doubt Eisenhower would count that as a separate war. The Russo-Japanese War was a big deal; Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Prize for ending it, so it's significant from a U.S. perspective even if the U.S. wasn't involved directly. -- SCZenz 07:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Suez Crisis was politically quite important, marking both the end of European colonialism and the start of Arab nationalism. And, having just happened, it would have seemed even more important then. StuRat 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Egypt would not have been a great power in Eisenhower's conception. I believe he would have been thinking of the major participants in WWII (or, if you prefer, the U.N. security council permanent members plus the Axis) as great powers: UK, Germany, France, the U.S., Russia, China, and Japan. -- SCZenz 16:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but England and France were combatants, so it "involved great powers" (at the time). The US was also involved, bringing the war to an end by putting pressure on England. StuRat 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I draw your attention to what Eisenhower said: "among great powers" [emphasis mine]. -- SCZenz 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't take that to mean the same thing as "between great powers". StuRat 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Losing indent). I would agree that the war between Russia and Japan, both major powers at the time, is really the only one that would fit the frame, so to speak, and one in which the US was involved as the 'honest broker'. It may also be significant that Eisenhower entered West Point in 1911, at a time when the events of 1904-5 were still fresh, and no doubt an object of study, for very good military reasons.  That war began, incidentally, with a surprise Japanese attack on a major naval base, that held by Russia at Port Arthur, which would also make it, from the long perspective of history, even more significant for Americans of Eisenhower's generation.  Clio the Muse 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just my little piece of thought, but Ike says "ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed...", so I think the four conflict he mentions took place before 1950 ; it is not crystal clear all right, but else there would be no point in talking about the "ten years past the midpoint". It would rule out the Suez Crisis, with the Korean War being right on the limit... Tovarich1917 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just "fancy talk", like Lincoln's "four score and seven years ago". It would have been simpler to say 1960 or 87 years, but it wouldn't sound as good. StuRat 00:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to toss in my two cents: Yes, it was most likely the Russo-Japanese war. But as a second guess, I'd actually say he was speaking of the Russian Revolution. First, ascribing "greatness" to a nation is not necessarily a value statement. It can just as well be a neutral statement of the importance of the power. I'm certainly no fan of the Soviet Union, but in at least the "neutral" sense, yes, of course, Russia/USSR is/was a "great" nation. For that matter, even Nazi Germany can be characterized as a "great nation". A "greatly evil nation" no doubt, but a "great nation" nonetheless. Second, Eisenhower was speaking of "four major wars "among" great nations". To me that doesn't exclude civil wars and internal revolutions. The four wars, in sum involved great nations. To me that wouldn't necessarily exclude the Russian Revolution. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we're talking about January 1961 here. The height (or close to it) of the Red Scare. The height (or close to it) of McCarthyism. During this time, American schoolchildren routinely practiced drills hiding under schooldesks to be as prepared as possible for a nuclear attack, while many of their parents were busy building bomb and fallout shelters in contemplation of such an attack. In short, this was the height (or close to it) of the Cold War. Consequently, I don't see it as being beyond the realm of possibility that the fourth war Ike was referring to was the Russian Revolution. Still though, it was more likely the Russo-Japanese war. Loomis 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd discount the Russian Revolution (assuming you mean the October 1917 one, the last of 3 revolutions they had). That wasn't a war in any sense of the term.  Even the Russian Civil War that ensued was essentially an internal struggle, despite the intervention by various western powers.  JackofOz 00:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro Picture
I'm looking for a gorgeous shot of Rio de Janeiro at night that I believe has the statue of Cristo Redentor illuminated at the right. The picture was once uploaded onto Wikipedia with a name like Rio_at_Night.png or something similar. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, anon.


 * It was easy to find on an advanced Google image search but appears to have been deleted. -THB 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this pic: ? StuRat 07:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a little creepy, if you ask me. Good find. -THB 11:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What's that big lighted area to the left of Jesus? A stadium of some sort?  Dismas|(talk) 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this, it's a horse racing facility. -THB 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There Is An Argument By An Ancient Greek. Hmmm, Maybe Not Ancient Greek, Roman, Perhaps?
It goes somthing like:

If I had put a coin in a urn, why not put 2, or 3, or 4, or more. What is the philospher's name? Or whatever? What is the name of the article? Thanks.100110100 10:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not familiar to me. Is there some conclusion? It sounds vaguely like what might be the start of some paradox by Zeno of Elea, but does not resemble any of those given in the article Zeno's paradoxes. --Lambiam Talk  16:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that we're guessing, it sounds like something I once thought when I saw a street full of beggars. I though I should give some money to one beggar, but if I do that why not to the others? And why do I give money in the first place? Because I am so much richer? That doesn't change unless I give a substantial amount. And then I'd have to do the same for the next beggar. I'd have to sit down and hold my hand up before I reached the end of the street. So I gave nothing.... Sounds like something an old Greek could have come up with too. DirkvdM 08:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 'I'd have to sit down and hold my hand up before I reached the end of the street. So I gave nothing....'???????? Yes, it goes somthing like that.  My physc proff told us, but i coudln't remeber, he called it Someone's Argument.  But I can't remeber the name, but the idea is the same, like DirkvdM's example.  Like, if I learned, English, why not learn, German, & French, and etc.. but I couldn't, cause I would be impossible to learn all the languages in the world in my lifetime, let alone know they well enough, & even, not counting that languages change and speciate.  Maybe this would help: he said somthing '...(Someone)'s Argument...' [I'm pretty sure] to demonstrate somthing in the lecture.100110100 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hhhmm, maybe not ancient greek, just someone, but yea, i always thought it was an ancient greek, they all come up with those, maybe Roman?100110100 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that ancient Greeks are out the window, what about 'Dirk's Argument'? DirkvdM 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no article for that. Unfortunatly.  No; what I meant to say is that this argument could have been by a Greek.100110100 05:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most likely, we're looking for someone who lived in a place full of beggars or full of urns, or both. Moonwalkerwiz 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Shot in the dark but probably wrong because it is not that philosophical nor it it ancient. Ode on a Grecian Urn. One other thing I found was something on Bayesian decision that involved taking balls from an urn and had to do with ethics... Have to google that last one. Sifaka   talk  05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that it might not have anything to do with an urn. It was like 3 years ago; ages.  I couldn't remeber much of what my professor said, but as far as I could remeber maybe that was it.  Maybe it just put words together.100110100 05:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most likely, we're looking for someone who lived in a place full of beggars or full of urns, or both. Moonwalkerwiz 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If it was an urn. What we currently have to go on is this: "'s Argument goes like this: If I had put a coin in a , why not put 2, or 3, or 4, or more?" As it was the physics prof who brought this up, presumably  was a natural philosopher. Dirk's Corollary is: "Since I can't love all people, I'd better love no-one." --Lambiam Talk  11:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean, he doesn't love us? :-( | A ndonic O  Talk 12:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In Greece, there were more Philosophers; in Rome, there were more beggars. It's a tough choice. | A ndonic O  Talk 12:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I love you all. :) It has nothing to do with love and everything with indecisiveness. If I would give something I would feel like a hypocrite. Giving to beggars doesn't solve the problem unless you give a substantial amount that will really get them on their feet again. I later thought that I might have given the first beggar, say, 1000 euro so he could start up a business or something, making him promise he would do the same to the next beggar as soon as he had made enough money. But then I would be meddling in something I knew next to nothing about (violating the prime directive!). Ultimately, a political change would be needed to make it unnecessary for people to beg. But then maybe that is too easy to say for someone from a rich country. But I do give my political vote back home to the party that is most willing to give aid to poor countries, which could solve that problem. Realising that this is a more structural solution makes it easier for me to live with myself. DirkvdM 08:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

public speaking abilities
could you give me ideas over any 2 worst symptoms that affect our public speaking abilities. and how can we solve it?


 * Stuttering and not thinking before you speak. StuRat 07:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For many people glossophobia affects their public speaking abilities. For ways to deal with this, see the extern link at Public speaking. Generally, I'd say the worst afflictions depend on the nature and purpose of the speech: the dreadfulness of speeches at a formal dinner is often of a different nature than at scientific meetings. In any case, more wit, being to the point (assuming there is a point), and foregoing pontification, all are welcome. --Lambiam Talk  11:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * An old trick for overcoming nervousness is to imagine the audience nude or in their underwear as your modesty dictates. If you do that for a bit, then start off with an interesting joke to get the audience on your side, it's a lot easier.  Or you can take beta blockers. -THB 11:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In acting, doing seminars, and teaching, I've been complimented repeatedly for my ability to perform public speaking - especially since I stutter and have a terrible "normal" talking voice. The trick is very simple - I only talk to one person at the very back of the room and completely ignore everyone else.  I'm sure it would be harder if speaking made me nervous, but I dislike humans to the point that I don't get nervous any more than I would talking to a bunch of ants. --Kainaw (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of Israeli documentary
Some years ago, I watched a fantastic documentary at a film festival where I live. I don't remember the name of it, and I have been desperately trying to find the title, but to no avail. maybe you people can help me? The movie was showed at Gothenburg Film Festival in Sweden and was about conflict between the azkhenazi and sephardi(?) groups of jews in Israeli society, and the rise of the Shas party. The most striking thing about it was that it was about 6 hours long, but kept me spellbound all along. I have searched the internet and e-mailed the film festival, but with no title it's hard to get any help. Does anyone recognize it? /Marxmax 13:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd try asking the film festival. Contact info is here: http://www.britfilms.com/festivals/browse/?id=D5FD9B440ed8327520vNp2651EBB. zafiroblue05 | Talk 14:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The questioner has already said that he/she has emailed the film festival. --Richardrj talkemail 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Could it be Tekumah (or part of it)? -THB 14:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict) Could it have been called Tekumah or Tkuma? There are a few web pages here, here and here that suggest this could be the one, although you would probably have seen several of the episodes together - the one called "The Ingathering" sounds like it could have been one of those you saw.  --Richardrj talkemail 14:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey THB, you just beat me to it :-) --Richardrj talkemail 14:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But your answer is much more thorough. -THB 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! yes, it must have been Tekumah, with some of the episodes shown in sequence. If you ever get a chance, watch it. Once again, wikipedia shows its amazing abilities:) Marxmax 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's more about google, really. All I did (THB probably did the same) was enter a few likely search terms like film, documentary, sephardic, ashkenazi, shas, and see what came up.  You could almost certainly have done it yourself as well.  Still, you're welcome :-)  --Richardrj talkemail 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that google is better than Wikipedia? That's outragious! You should be banned from this website. My motto is: Wikipedia, or nothing. :-) | A ndonic O  Talk 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't even use the term "documentary", just the others. Google is your friend.  -THB 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia is better; you'll never convince me to turn to googlism. | A ndonic O  Talk 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Although Google manages "fuzzy search", something which I truly think Wikipedia should implement... 惑乱 分からん 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Advanced Googlism eliminates the need for Wikipedia to have fuzzy capabilities! -THB 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is really straying away from the original topic, but I think Wikipedia will always be only secondary to Google, until it comes up with a better search system and more articles. Moonwalkerwiz 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are POV. ;-) | A ndonic O  Talk 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No one in the world likes me.
What can I do?

(may be, the fault may be on my side too)


 * I like you. Skarioffszky 17:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It could either be a misperception (particularly if you're a teenager, as this problem is common in that age group), or, perhaps there is a reason why people are uncomfortable around you. Can you think of a reason ? StuRat 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are a teenager, read Solipsism. I'm sure SOMEONE likes you.  Please go through everyone you know and list the ones who like you or definitely don't dislike you.  -THB 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you probably are a teenager, as they usually have trouble with depression. The reason is, instead of using their frontal lobe, they use another part of the brain, the name of which I cannot remember (H-something; in the center of the brain; I think it's the part that makes up dreams too). I would suggest that you voluteer for a public service, such as helping the elderly. Here are also a couple of links from the article Adolescence, which you may find usefull . Of course, the Wikipedia community mostly likes anyone who isn't a troll or vandal. Why not help out here? |  A ndonic O  Talk 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The hippocampus (where all the most educated hippos hang out) ? StuRat 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's it. Do you have a "Degree in Wit" Stu? ;-) | A ndonic O  Talk 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, actually it is possible that no one in the world likes you. There's a beggar in the bridge I cross everyday going to work and I'm quite sure no one in the world likes him, or know him enough to like him. When thinking about this kind of problem (as I have many times thought about it, too) I find Social exchange theory useful in explaining it. According to the theory - and I realize this may be a bit disenchanting for you - relationships are possible because of exchanges of resources between people. To be able to get something from someone (money, favors, love, care, friendship), you have to have something to give to him in exchange. If you lack enough resources, material or non-material, then it will be very hard for you to build a relationship or maintain one. That beggar in the street who obviously lacks Economic capital and symbolic capital, surely lacks friends, too. So, my advice to you is - based on the theory - that you try to find something in you that people would think is valuable, and then flaunt that out to people. Yes, flaunt it. And then hopefully, someone will be interested in it and build a relationship with you. Moonwalkerwiz 23:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you care if no one likes you? They're all just people like you, just trying to get by, if they don't like you, stuff them! That is much easier said then done, but a very strange thing is that somehow, people, most of the time, are not attracted by 'want' but are attracted by independence. So, find out what you like doing and DO IT, whether it is a hobby, a career, anything, as long as it is even slightly creative or productive (I don't mean sit on your couch watching DVDs). If you can do 'your thing' and not care what other people think, I guarantee you will have people flocking to you to be your friend, you will need a stick to beat them away. Vespine 00:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * God loves you.Ed Dehm 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * God's love is empty love. Moonwalkerwiz 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

One of my favourite quotes is: "Someone that you don't even know exists, loves you". It has often comforted me. JackofOz 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What? I don't get it? Is that some sort of loopy statistic? It wouldn't comfort me because I don't believe it. Even if it was true, if you don't know they exist, they could be some creepy stalker who just got out of jail!! That doesn't comfort me at all! ;) Vespine 04:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Creepy stalkers are not what I was talking about. Love is all around us.  If you're open to it, fine.  If not .... tough titties, I guess.  :)  JackofOz 07:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Everybody hates me, no one loves me, I think I'll go off and eat worms. Works like a charm. Edison 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you met them all yet? Anyhow,I'm prepared to like you, for posting on Wikipedia alone.(hotclaws**== 14:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Finding friends
I graduated from a university in Belorus in 1989.I had a lot of friends there.But after the graduation i have contact with none of them.How can i put this matter somewhere on the net so that some of them could find me.I am working in a country other than Belorus. amrahs 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You might also try this question over at the computing desk. Can you contact them through an alumni organization at your university? -THB 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In english it's spelled Belarus. Not that it really matters. I agree with the above, contact your university. There are web sites like www.schoolfriends.com.au which is specific to Australia, it isn't impossible that there is one in Belarus, but probably not in english I'm guessing. Vespine 23:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In English, "english" is spelled "English". ;-) -THB 00:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Written maybe? I spelled it correctly. ;) ;) ;) Vespine


 * Spelling is more than just having the correct letters in the correct order. Upper and lower case matter too.  You wouldn't be considered to have correctly spelled "English" if you wrote "EnGLisH", for example.  :)  JackofOz 07:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination
Having studied the assassination of JFK for over 40 years, it amazes me that I have never seen a discussion of the following: If Lee Oswald brought his rifle to work that morning, where did he hide it until 12:30, when the President arrived? Not in the car, because his co-worker, who drove him to work, saw Oswald carry a long package into the building. Not on the sixth floor, because workers were laying a new floor that morning and were pushing boxes around. Did Oswald have a locker? Not likely, because he was just a lowly order-filler. Where is more information, including web discussions, on this topic? 66.213.33.2 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've carried rifles, handguns, and shotguns into work. I just kept them at my desk. Why assume they must be hidden? --Kainaw (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of external links to assassination-related websites at our article on the subject. --Cam 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there would be many places to store the weapon in what was, essentially, a warehouse. Why does it matter where he stored it ? StuRat 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree with your thinking, Kainaw. This wasn't a rural community where someone might be prone to going hunting in a near-by forest after work.  This was downtown in a large city.  I'd tend to agree with StuRat on this that there would be many many places to hide a rifle.  It wouldn't be hard to hide a rifle.  Finding a space that's ~6 inches wide by ~2 inches long and ~30 inches tall wouldn't be hard.  Dismas|(talk) 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a book warehouse. Oswald hid the rifle behind a stack of boxes full of books. --Aaron 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Pictures show a linoleum floor, but I have not read that workers removed ALL the boxes from the 6th floor that very day to install new flooring. All he needed was a little area near the window for his sniper nest. Edison 05:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

philosophical queries regarding epistemolgy
i need to know the epistemological perspectives of plato, locke, and maimonades, along with others, about whether mentally challenged individuals can "know" anything and how they can know something.Ariela89 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Ariela


 * Have you tried reading Epistemology? I don't know if there are specific references to 'mentally challenged' individuals, but that's a rather broad statement, isn't it? I don't really see that the magnitude of your mental challenge has anything to do with "knowledge", does it?


 * I've listened to some lectures about these books, but I've not really read them yet. Try to read Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilization for a history of insanity and Westerm society's perception towards it. Flip through Freud, as there's always something there. Also, try to read Anti-Œdipus and A Thousand Plateaus by Félix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze. Moonwalkerwiz 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

About Beverly Cleary
My students are interested in contacting Beaverly Cleary. Is there any way you can help my students get in contact with her and if not is there any way you can tell us if she is alive? Miss. La Rocca


 * She is still alive. See Beverly Cleary. As far as contacting her, you can try:


 * Beverly Cleary (author)
 * c/o HarperCollins Children's Books
 * 1350 Sixth Avenue
 * New York, NY 10019


 * There may be more information on her site. ~ lav-chan @ 19:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-Love
I am doing a research paper on the topic of self-love and I need to know the origin of it. Where it came from, the name of the person that made up the term and why. And if it is possible the year. I looked up self-love on here and get redirected to self-esteem. Self-love topics are very hard to find, so if someone could help me that would be great. thank you! Marie


 * Random House dictionary gives the origin to at least 1555-1565, although it might have had another meaning at that time... 惑乱 分からん 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Judging from the illustrations on Greek vases, it went back further than that. :-) StuRat 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Narcissus (mythology) and Narcissism are the Greek antecedents. The earliest cite in the OED]] is from 1563 by the poet John Dolman in the Mirror for Magistrates. But this is simply the earliest written source and it may have been used in conversation for some time before that. Oh and original sin was challenged long before the reformation see Pelagianism. MeltBanana  00:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Challenged unsuccessfully, yes. It took the Reformation to successfully challenge it. StuRat 06:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But seriously...in Western society, it goes counter to the Christian teachings that everyone is an evil sinner (due to "original sin", if they don't have any sins of their own). Thus, I would expect this concept to only flourish after the Reformation, although many, but not all, Protestant sects share this negative view of humanity. StuRat 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It is not Christian teaching that people are "evil", but that sinners should be forgiven, not just seven times but "seventy times seven" (Matthew 18:21-35).  It is also Christian teaching to "Love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matthew 19:16-19), words spoken by Jesus in around 30 AD.  It's not possible to love another if you don't love yourself.  JackofOz 01:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the Catholic Church rejected most of the teachings of the New Testament and went back to an Old Testament interpretation. They also kept the Bible in Latin, a mostly dead language by then, to prevent commoners from being able to read it themselves and draw their own conclusions.  StuRat 06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You would appear to have a very weak understanding of Catholicism. The church rejected most of the New Testament?  Well, that's news to me and, I rather suspect, to the Catholic Church, whose teachings are almost exclusively based on the Gospels. And, I have to stress, the church is not a 'conspiracy', despite the wilder reaches of contemporary fiction.  The Bible was considered a sacred text, capable of literal and serious misinterpretation in the wrong hands.  And if we consider the history of Christianity since the Reformation, is this view so very wrong?  Clio the Muse 07:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to take an example, do you find the "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" teaching to be held by the medieval Catholic Church ? That is, would they forgive people, that say, disagreed publicly with the church, or would they more likely torture and/or execute them ?  I don't find that consistent with the teachings of Jesus. StuRat 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Next example, Jesus taught that riches were evil, did the Popes take vows of poverty or did they wear fancy clothes and build fantastically expensive cathedrals ? StuRat 09:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Next example, where in the New Testament does it instruct people to go out and conquer their enemies militarily, as in the Catholic Church directed Crusades ? StuRat 09:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is, in point of fact, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. None of the above statements have any bearing on your original contention, which, as I have said, shows a very weak grasp of Catholicism.  Indeed, your amplification only confirms your misunderstanding of medieval politics, theology and the relationship between the church and the state.  This is not really the place to correct this, and I do not wish to take on the role of educator in the matter; but might I suggest that you look more deeply into the whole question?  I assume, of course, that you have a genuine interest, and this is not simply a sterile anti-Catholic polemic?  Clio the Muse 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So, other than my typo, you won't even answer any of my arguments that the medieval Catholic Church almost completely ignored the teachings of Jesus ? You apparently find the Spanish Inquisition, executions of those who defied the church, and the Crusades, to be entirely compatible with those teachings.  What can I say, there's no point in debating with such a person. StuRat 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! As I suspected, it is a sterile polemic, not one in which I wish to engage. Yes, of course, you are quite right: I support the Holy Office, Auto de fe, De heretico comburendum and all the rest, as you have, with all the subtlety of your intellect, been able to deduce from what I have already written-Deus vult.  I even have a portrait of Thomas de Torquemada on my wall.  Debate?  What need for debate when faced with such superior powers or reasoning?  Might 'such a person' suggest that, having dealt with this issue in such magisterial fashion, you may care to return to more elevated matters on which you previously dispensed your wisdom, like, for example, 'skid marks.'?Clio the Muse 09:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will feel free to answer any legitimate question which is asked here; if this disgusts you, then you don't belong here. StuRat 11:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All those examples were not examples of Christian teaching, but of certain "Christians" (including popes) behaving badly, albeit humanly. It's not their example that Christians are asked to follow, but Jesus's.  JackofOz 07:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When you include the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, then the medieval Catholic Church most definitely was holding the Pope up as an example of perfection for everyone to follow. Then we get to indulgences, which permitted sins in exchange for money for the Church. StuRat 08:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My previous comment still applies. JackofOz 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well, correcting errors and misinformation is a little like the Labour of Sisyphus: no sooner is the stone up the hill than it rolls right back down. Papal Infallibility dates to the First Vatican Council, and was formally proclaimed in 1870.  It thus has nothing to do with the medieval church.  Indulgences did not, and do not, 'permit sin', and you have therefore provided a link to a page which you obviously have not read. Now, where is that stone?  Clio the Muse 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(Indent removed.) The indulgences sold by the Church certainly convinced Luther that they were permitting sin, by immediately forgiving such sins in exchange for cash. And, as he pointed out, what authority does the Pope have to forgive sins ? StuRat 11:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you define "self love" in the first place? It seems to me that loving oneself or liking oneself enough is necessary, even a precondition of living. If you don't love yourself anymore because you think you are doing others harm, you'll have to commit altruistic suicide or go mad (both solutions ending your reason). Maybe self love is nothing more than the instinct of self preservation. In that case, self love was there from the beginning, even when we were just apes. Moonwalkerwiz 02:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do all modest people go mad or commit suicide? Not "loving" oneself is not the same thing as thinking "I'm absolutely worthless, and do nothing but harm humanity".


 * I'll define self love on behalf of the original poster: self love is having an extremely high (and unwarranted) self-esteem, and the people who love themselves think of themselves as perfect beings who are superior to others.  --Bowlhover 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that one bazillion percent. What you have described is extreme pathological self-centredness, a negative trait.  True self-love is an undoubtedly positive and healthy and necessary thing.  It is indeed having a very high self-esteem, but not unwarrantably high because there's no limit to unconditional love.  If you want to love your children unconditionally, or your partner, or your dog - as we're all called to do - you won't get past first base unless you love yourself unconditionally first.  Good examples of people who loved themselves unconditionally are Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Abraham Lincoln.  They didn't just sit around saying "How wonderful I am and how inferior everyone else is".  They wanted to help others and show them they were worth more than they perhaps believed.  They couldn't possibly have done that if they hadn't had a high opinion of themselves to begin with.  But it was innate in everything they did, it wasn't something they needed to draw attention to because it was ingrained in their psyche.  That was why they were totally free to devote their lives to others.  That was what Jesus was on about in "Love thy neighbour as thyself", ie. if I can paraphrase him,  First, love thyself very much, then show that kind of love to your neighbour.  JackofOz 07:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft
What is a good website to learn about aircraft and how it changed from WW1 and WW2? Signed CeeCee


 * Would this serve your needs? |  A ndonic O  Talk 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Props to User:AndonicO, for that excellent source. StuRat 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WW2: Aircraft fly higher (oxygen masks or pressurized), fly faster, have retractable landing gear, have radios, take off and land on carriers, have more fire power and bigger bombs, some are jet propelled at the end. Edison 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and some are jet propelled in the middle (wings). :-) StuRat 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Stu, I got the link from the article Aircraft. By the way, I think your previous comment was supposed to be humourous, but I didn't understand. | A ndonic O  Talk 14:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Explaining a joke never works, but, since you asked, I was responding to the prior comment "some are jet propelled at the end", which meant the end of WW2, but could also mean the end of the plane (a rear jet engine). StuRat 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also a transition from biplanes to single-winged aircraft (though some still stuck around until the end of the war), enclosed cockpits, increase in overall size (especially bombers, which could have a crew of up to (IIRC) seven, up from two in WWI), many structural changes (I think WWII fighters were more monocoque than WWI, and had internalized weaponry). Increase in size also meant their role in transportation increased enormously. Battlefield utility also expanded dramatically due to new developments in aerodynamics (coupled with engineering that increased structural stability), particularly in ground attack vs. aerial interception distinction (divebombers are an especially dramatic example). 00:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I got it now. :-) By the way, I believe the B-29 was the first airplane with a pressurised cabin. | A ndonic O  Talk 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Suing the Government
How many times has the government been successfully sued?


 * Which government? The government of Mauritius?  I think they've been successfully sued twice. --Kainaw (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How's this for a little bit of madness. The British government has just made an out-of-court settlement with former prisoners, who also happened to be drug addicts, for forcing them to go 'cold turkey' while in jail.  It was, so the legal argument went, a form of assault, and hence an abuse of their human rights.  Clio the Muse 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the OP means the United Federation of Planets then the answer is none, yet. Vespine 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Netherlands, a few years ago it was made almost impossible to sue the government (don't know if this was a law or court ruling). Alas I forgot the details. I believe it had something to do with someone drowning because rescue workers arrived to late. DirkvdM 08:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition of "suing" the government is somewhat ambiguous, since it doesn't always have to be monetary - it could be in application of a law. One example in the US is the FOIA and some relevant suits in that article.


 * I work for a government housing body in Northern Ireland. We get sued at least twice a day, often successfully. Personal injury claims, stuff like that. --Nicknack009 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Volleyball Rule Changes Through History
Where can I find a timeline of volleyball rules and regulation changes from 1970 - present?
 * A few rule changes are shown within Volleyball. Jpeob 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How much is the American taxpayer spending?
How much is the american taxpayer unnecessilary spending?How much are we spending on the government printing ballots, drivers tests, food stamp and medical assistance applications written in any other language but english?

-Staci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irmonkie (talk • contribs)


 * Assuming you mean 'unnecessarily', why do you think printing things in other languages than English is unnecessary? Yours, Sam Clark 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't help me at all. This is America. The constitution is written in english, why shouldn't everything else. I am just looking for places to find information on this subject. Any help would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irmonkie (talk • contribs).


 * Presumably this also includes Spanish, spoken in parts of the south and south-west far longer than English? I make no mention, of course, of Puerto Rico.  Clio the Muse 23:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You just did, of course. :) JackofOz 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What are your objections on this? Any objection will help me with my paper as well. The subject is making English the official language of the United States.--Irmonkie 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Language of the Constitution isn't a very good standard to use here. It's written in 220 year old American English... which has drifted over time.  It's a thick document you need a decent vocabulary to make sense of, though it was written to be accessible at the time.  Language drifts, and English does so quickly.  Shakespeare's plays are still readable in the original 500 years later (though it requires a decent education to make sense of them, and high schools are increasingly assigning either updated or 'no-fear' versions with the original text and modern text side by side.)  Another 200 years back- and anything written in English is gibberish.
 * So if the United States lives to be about twice its current age, it runs the risk the US Constitution will be unreadable- indeed, it will no longer be considered to be in English, but instead in (maybe) 'middle english.' English, of course, is what they call the English spoken in 2250.
 * Mandating that things be written in the language of the constitution does not freeze language in its tracks, any more than the Church's use of it kept Latin from dying out. In the end they just had all their stuff written in a dead tongue and unreadable by the population.

Constitutional language is a demonstrably bad justification because ofn language drift, so you may wish to avoid using it in your final paper. While I understand the temptation to kitchen-sink ones's arguments, throwing in anything that appears to support you... but when half of your supporting points get knocked out from under you, it makes the entire argument look decidedly shaky. You need to find a killer ap argument, one argument that, by itself offers so much benefit to having a national language that it more than offsets any possible negative consequences. While no one here has yet provided direct answers to how much the US spends on translation- circumstantial evidence (percentage of budget in the EU, which has a much larger translation problem than the US does) seems to indicate that US spending numbers probably will not be so alarmingly high as to provide that singer overwhelming justification to you either. -207.224.83.190 06:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Objections? I have none whatsoever: I was merely seeking some clarification.  Spanish is one of the oldest languages spoken in North America.  Are Spanish speaking people to have no rights to documentation in their own language?  But as you say, why shouldn't everything be written in English?  Clio the Muse 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your question is very close to POV ("using the Ref Desk as a soapbox"). But, assuming you genuinely want to hear the argument for the other side, here it is:


 * A large number of people in the US don't understand English, especially written English. Many of these people are US citizens and/or taxpayers and have a right to understand all written material printed by the government.


 * Incidentally, your "printing costs" argument is quite weak (the right to vote should be denied to Spanish-speakers because it's expensive ?). A much stronger argument against this practice is that it will lead to two language groups, which will grow away from each other, ultimately splitting the nation in two.  Something similar almost happened in Canada, between the Anglophones and Francophones.  Thus, having everything printed in one language will help to integrate everyone into the same culture.  StuRat 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to nitpick, but forcing a Spanish speaker to use an English ballot would not constitute denying him or her the right to vote. I could make my way through a Spanish ballot if I had to, and I don't speak any Spanish at all besides what I learned from Sesame Street. The argument would be a little better if you used a hypothetical Chinese speaker, since that language uses a completely different alphabet, but even then it wouldn't change the reality that you'd still be allowed in there to tick off whatever boxes you wanted, even if you couldn't tell what any of them said. And of course, anyone in the U.S. who needs assistance in casting a vote is allowed to request it. --Aaron 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But, under any government that banned Spanish ballots, there would likely also be a ban on Spanish-speaking assistants. StuRat 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (mumbles about edit conflicts) Why unnecessary? Since when does America have an official language? And from the other people's point of view, their taxes pay for printing in other languages, and English is technically the unnecessary spending. Did someone forget that several countries colonized here? --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) OK, so this is homework. Fair enough, but you should have said - without context, the question, with its large built-in political assumptions, reads suspiciously like trolling. A few points: 1. the American constitution is written in English because it was written by an English-speaking (male, white, landowning) elite. 2. What has the language of the constitution (written 1787) to do with the language of current bureaucracy? I just don't see the connection. 3. Given that 18% of the population of the US (according to this article) have another native language, why shouldn't they be able to take driving tests etc. in their own language? 4. 'This' isn't America. You're in America. I'm not. Neither are many of the other people who might read and answer your question. Cheers, Sam Clark 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

English speaking countries... The majority of citizens either speak/read/understand english, or have learned to speak/read/understand english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irmonkie (talk • contribs).


 * (edit conflict) - I assume it would cost more if the government didn't print some material in other languages. For example, if the government didn't have Spanish-language census forms, fewer immigrants would answer the census, and the Census Bureau would have to send out more census-takers to count them in person. -- Mwalcoff 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are in a different country and you don't know anything about what this pertains to, then don't bother with wasting your time. I'm trying to get something done, not start a big world-wide conflict. You don't know, don't answer. Simple as that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irmonkie (talk • contribs).


 * All civilized nations do-or should-make some attempt to communicate with their citizens, including those who may not have English as their first language. I have no wish to be unkind, but have you had a look at your own written English?  Please do not take it amiss if I tell you that the word 'English' should always begin in the upper case. Clio the Muse 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it should always be capitalized. I just don't care right now! I am trying to get this done, writing this between my other research, and much more preoccupied with more important things than where to put caps and periods and other pointless things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irmonkie (talk • contribs).


 * Does anyone know what that spending would be catagorized under in the federal budget? Or is it funded state to state? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irmonkie (talk • contribs).


 * Please sign your posts using four tildes. -THB 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the humble questioner actually dictating to all of us who volunteer our time for no compensation whatsoever except for the sheer joy of helping others and immersing ourselves in intellectual discussion, just whom among us is permitted the privelege to answer, how we should frame our answer, and how quickly our answer is expected? That's a first! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!


 * With regards to the argument that using languages other than English in official public documents is nothing but an irresponsible waste of taxpayers' money, I can't think of a better way to put it than in the original Latin: "E Pluribus Unum!!!". (Should you understand Latin, please don't take what I've just said literally as a direct insult to your mother, and forgive me for my harsh words, but I'm known to occasionally lose my temper).


 * Notwithstanding your insulting attitude, I'll be the bigger person and give you what is by far the most compelling argument for the establishment of unilinguality as one of the most effective means in solidifying and enhancing the national identity of the state. In the direct words of Robespierre, the great French revolutionary, and perhaps the greatest statesman, philosopher and above all, humanitarian of all time:


 * "Si vous aurez capable de comprendre le français, vous aurez capable de savoir que ce que j'ecrit içi n'est rien que de la sottise. Tant pis!"


 * I couldn't possibly have put it better than that. Unfortunately my French isn't nearly good enough to do justice to the sheer brilliance of that axiom by making at best a poor attempt to translate it into English. Yet should you understand French, or know someone who does, I'd strongly advise you to get a proper translation, as this particular quote is seen by the academic world as nothing less than the very cornerstone of the argument for the establishment of English as the official language of the United States.


 * Hope that helps! But please try to be more polite in the future. We're trying our best here. Loomis 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For a counter-view, you may be interested in reading Alex Stubb MEP's blog. The EU - currently with around 22.. I think.. official languages (25 member states, but Austria uses German, Ireland and Malta use English, Cyprus uses Greek), and going up on January 1st 2006 (Romania and Bulgaria join the Union, and Irish becomes an official language).  Despite that, interpretation - and we need simulataneous translation from every language to every language - is less than 0.1% of the EU budget.


 * Printing a few voting slips in Spanish won't bankrupt the US. Your argument for a common language should be based on cultural cohesion and freedom of labour (e.g. right now a Vermonter can move to Oregon and speak the same language therefore allowing him to get a job easily - a Swede moving to Portugal would find life rather harder, which makes for lower freedom of economic mobility in places like the EU with multiple languages) --Mnem e son 01:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's really a non-issue. By the third generation, most immigrants only speak English, they're not even bilingual.  .  It's just polite and welcoming to make an effort to meet immigrants halfway by providing translation for important documents.  Much like everyone pays school taxes event though they don't use the schools, we all benefit from immigration and making it easier for immigrants to fully participate in our society.  Translating driver license applications into different languages doesn't hurt anyone.  In NYC it's more than just Spanish.  Commonly, Chinese, Russian, French are available as well. -THB 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason why people learn English is because they need to. If you make it possible to do everything without learning English, then they won't. StuRat 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some good points, Mnemeson. I have an observation and a question for you.  First of all, there is a very high degree of economic mobility in the EU, language difficulties nothwithstanding.  Since Poland joined close on a million migrants from that country have arrived in the UK, many of whom have quite a poor command of English.  Now the question.  You say that 'Irish' is to become an official language from January 2006?  I take it by this that you mean Gaelic, though this is news to me?  I should point out for those who may be confused by this that English is the principal language of Ireland, both north and south.  Clio the Muse


 * I agree that there is a high level of economic mobility, I'm not an economist in any way shape or form, but I personally feel it's lower than it would be if we all spoke the same language (I know I'd be more willing to move somewhere that spoke English than somewhere that didn't). The RTE article about it simply refers to "The Irish language", by which yes I presume they mean Gaelic.  (Incidentally, the Irish constitution, IIRC, also simply refers to "The Irish language" ) --Mnem e son 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link! Clio the Muse 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

English may not be the official language of the USA, but it is the de facto national language. For example, debates in Congress are conducted in English exclusively, afaik. Despite that, if English were to become the official language, it would have little or no effect on the significant numbers of people who speak Spanish, Hawaiian, and other languages as ther first or sole language. It would be a pointless exercise, imo. JackofOz 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has helped. I apologize if any of my statements came off harsh or in any way other than inquisitive. This paper is part of a final, and I have less than a week to finish it. I am pressed for time, and stressed to the max! I appreciate everyone's time. If you have more that you can add, or some helpful sites to visit, please let me know. My email address is if you would like to personally respond. Thank you again.--Irmonkie 03:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you will have able to include/understand French you will have able to know that what I ecrit içi is not only of the Tant stupidity worse.

This is what I translated that verse to. Can you help a little more?Irmonkie
 * Being stressed to the max is the definition of a final paper. Just remember that in 5 years it will be irrelevant. Just start writing and get the damn thing done. Edison 05:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (ec) This is my best shot at a translation, though it musses up the tense a bit, I think it makes the most sense in english:
 * If you would've understood French, you would've known that what I've writen here is nothing but hooey. Too bad!!
 * And, for what it is worth, the founding fathers seriously considered putting the constitution in german to snub the Brits!--Cody.Pope 05:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Just imagine-Wir, das Volk...Clio the Muse 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonderful? The American Constitution in German actually sounds spookier than it would have been had the Soviets won the cold war: Mы, Ameриканcкий народ, ... 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's another point that nobody has thought to bring up. Every time people talk about second languages in the US, they talk about immigrant languages (as is English, of course). There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who don't speak English well enough to communicate with their government because:
 * They live on Indian reservations or in Alaska; and
 * The federal government hasn't bothered to spend the money to provide proper education on the reserves.
 * Indian reservations are among the poorest areas in America. Many American Indians, especially in Alaska and in the West, don't speak English as a first language and don't understand English well enough to communicate with their government. Now they were in the US first. They didn't immigrate. Why are they being discriminated against?
 * One could also say a similar thing about the Spanish who were in New Mexico and Texas before those states became part of the US.
 * The most important point, though, is that the cost of alienating hundreds of thousands or even millions of US citizens is a lot greater in the long run than the minuscule costs of printing a few flyers and ballots. -- Charlene 11:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Si vous aurez capable de comprendre le français, vous aurez capable de savoir que ce que j'ecrit içi n'est rien que de la sottise. Tant pis!" Translates to
 * If you would be capable of understanding French, you would be capable of knowing that what I wrote here is nothing but stupidity. Too bad!
 * By the way, why didn't the founding fathers write the constitution in Latin? They were all very fond of it. | A ndonic O  Talk 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's better as "''If you were capable of understanding French, you would be capable of knowing .... ". JackofOz 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in english it would be better like that. Thanks for the correction Jack. | A ndonic O  Talk 11:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)