Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 16

= November 16 =

Percentage of people speaking French in France in 1871: 30%
Hello,

Someone told me that when the Third French Republic started, only 30% of the population spoke French. I would like to know if this is really true? I should say that it was a Flemish nationalist who told me that, so he might be a bit biased, but on the other hand it's a fact that there are many small languages in France that have been or are being crushed. Evilbu 00:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no precise information to hand, but I think this extremely unlikely. You were told this by a Flemish nationalist?  The point would be much more plausible with reference to Belgium.  Clio the Muse 00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's very possible: see Category:Languages of France and check all of the subcategories for additional languages. There was a whole spectrum of Romance languages that most people don't know about. -THB 00:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also see List of Romance languages with special attention to the langues d'oc and langues d'oïl. -THB 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * History of French has this statement: "in 1789 50% of the French people didn't speak it at all, and only 12 to 13% spoke it 'fairly' " So for 30% to speak it as their FIRST language in 1871 might not be unreasonable. -THB 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is quite plausible. French was a lingua franca in France for some time before the government standardized education country-wide, but many in the North spoke German and Flemish dialects as their mother tongues, and in the south most spoke Provencal and other Occitan languages, and some spoke Italian. Of course, France lost a lot of territory and citizens in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War, almost none of whom spoke French as a first language. Whether your friend was counting those people or not might make a difference. -- Charlene 06:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you all on about? Only 30% of the population of France in 1871 were able to speak French? (Whatever the dialect?) That's so utterly ridiculous I don't even know how to begin to respond. What on earth did the other 70% speak? Perhaps the quote you were referring to was about literacy in French, but even that' a stretch. Loomis 08:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, they spoke other languages. Of course, a decisive thing here is waht constitutes a language. In the Netherlands, Frisian is considered a separate language. So the Limburgians in the south started making claims, and now Limburgian is also called a language. I grew up there, and the guy who brought us our firewood panicked when my father opened the door because he spoke this unintelligible language, Dutch. This was just a few decades ago. A few centuries ago it would have been even worse. Today, Limburgians and Frisians can talk to each other in their own tongue and understand each other most of the time (I tried this myself). But over the last century or so, these dialects languages have grown ever closer to Dutch, and consequently to each other, first through 'local globalisation', for lack of a better word, and then through radio and television. A few centuries ago, they may have been mutually largely unintelligible. Also, France is considerably larger, so the languages will have been more dissimilar, requiring a lingua franca. DirkvdM 08:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well now it makes a lot more sense. As a "language", French linguists have traditionally been quite radically purist, as compared with English linguists. As a comparison, according to their standards, only speakers of "The Queen's English" would be considered "True English Speakers". By that standard, none of the rest of the world's "Anglophones", be us Americans (with all the dozens of American English dialects alone), Canadians, Australians, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Manx, New Zealanders, South Africans, Jamaicans, Bermudans, even the Cornish, the Liverpudlians, the Cockneys, the Brummies etc...I can go on and on...would be considered "true" English Speakers. To be realistic though, in 1871, I feel it would be safe to say that though they may not have spoken as "pure" a French as French purists would desire, the vast, VAST majority of the population of France spoke at least some "dialect" of French. Loomis 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think it's more likely that only 30% spoke French *as their mother tongue*. Many of the other 70% may have spoken French as a second language, perhaps imperfectly. Most of the dialects of southern France, though, aren't dialects of French but dialects of Provencal, which is a separate language. -- Charlene 10:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not one language is a "separate" one from another isn't an exact science. It's often laden with politics and other such nonsense. For a while, many Americans insisted that they weren't speaking "English" all, but rather, were speaking "American"; a distinct language. In any case, taking a look at the article on Quebec French, seeing as it was apparently derived mostly if not entirely from some of those "other languages" and not at all from "real French", by implication, then, contrary to popular belief, hardly anyone in Canada (aside from recent French immigrants) actually speaks French. And to think, all this time, I thought I could speak French!


 * English speakers, on the other hand, tend to take an entirely different approach. Take Australian English. Often, much of it sounds like pure gibberish to me: "I've got a mate whose wife's a pom musy with heaps of willywanga on the billybong!" Huh? What on earth are you talking about? (Ok I just made that one up, but that's what it honestly often sounds like to the those not entirely familiar, like myself). Yet I'd never suggest that Australian is a separate language from English, it's definitely English, just a rather interesting and at times unintelligible (to the rest of us) variety. Loomis 14:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about all the varieties of English necessarily being intelligible to all other English speakers. I believed that until Trainspotting (film) was released in the U.S. with subtitles, and needed them. -THB 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Netherlands and Flanders, officially the same language is spoken. But the choice of words of the Flemish is often so different (some would say archaic) that it takes too long for a Dutchman to figure out what they mean, so Flemish is often subtitled on Dutch tv (more so than vise versa, I believe). But we even sometimes subtitle people from out own countries. Same in English. Ever heard someone from Newcastle speak? Totally and utterly unintelligible. DirkvdM 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To others, maybe. This is a common feature of many languages that cross national borders.   There are as many varieties of Spanish as there are countries that speak Spanish, and they are sometimes mutually unintelligible due to differences in vocab, inflexion, accent etc - yet they all speak "Spanish".  People in the Balkans have been arguing forever about whether such a thing as "Serbo-Croatian" even exists - many insist Serbian and Croatian are separate languages.  I often have to subtitle The Bill, as much of what they're saying is lost on me.  As Loomis points out, Aussie lingo in its wonderfully expressive uniqueness is, unfortunately, bewildering to many other speakers of "English".  JackofOz 08:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Loomis, we'd be more likely to call her "a pommie muso"; you did indeed make up "willywanga"; and it's "billabong" - a "billy" (bong) is a device for getting stoned. (Hmm, that reminds me ...) :) JackofOz 08:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or a cooking pot (speaking of 'pot'). DirkvdM 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard Newcastle speak? (Not to be confused with Newspeak.) I wonder if they themselves can understand it. DirkvdM 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A linguistic community in which the people are unintelligible to each other is a new concept to me. Unless you're talking about parents and teenagers, of course.  :)  JackofOz 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Theories in Development
I would like to know any information you may have on teh various theories of development in relation to education. I specifically would like informaiton on Neo-institutionalist, Functionalists, Modernists, Post-Modernists.... Thanks cCfc2105 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)arolyncasaleAxxxxx.com

cf Learning theory (education), New institutionalism, Modernism and Postmodernism. Jpeob 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This one's for a thesis. Moonwalkerwiz 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * censored e-mail -THB 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English
My friend just turned on this new Al Jazeera owned, English speaking news station. Is this the same Al Jazeera news that a Arab man gets in Egypt but in English? Am I watching a true Arab view of on the news or is this a western news station owned by Al Jazeera that focuses on the Middle East?Ed Dehm 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article you linked says this: "Al Jazeera International will have 20 supporting bureaux which will gather and produce news. It will share the resources of the Arabic language channel's 42 bureaux and is planning to add further bureaux to be announced as they open."


 * Looks like they hired some top-notch journalists, most of them "western". -THB 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They are both owned by the same company, out of Qatar. It is probably the same news being reported, though necessarily there are differences with how it is presented because in English there are different reporters and anchors. There is no objectively universalist Arab view of the world, but it it certainly presents more views from the Arab world than "western networks". Jpeob 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * CBS tv said the anchor reporter is a former ABC(American Broadcasting Corporation) reporter. So the coverage should be "fair and balanced." Edison 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They aren't being carried in the US, as the broadcasters rightly assume they would be punished by viewers and advertisers the first time they carried an interview with a holocaust denier, showed an execution of a US citizen, or broadcasted a call to massacre Westerner civilians, things they love to do on Arab TV. In short the "Death to America Network" may need to look elsewhere for viewers. StuRat 05:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The original Al Jazeera was criticised in the Arab world for being too Western and in the US for being too anti-US. It was boycotted both in Saudia Arabia and the US. So it seems they found the right balance. :) The English one has only just started, so if they will follow the same formula remains to be seen. DirkvdM 08:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for them being banned ? StuRat 09:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look here, for example. Morwen - Talk 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in there about it being banned in the US. StuRat 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not "banned" in the U.S. (and in fact can be received here if you sign up for certain satellite TV systems), but from what's being reported, the major U.S. cable companies are highly skeptical about Al-Jazeera bringing them more trouble than profit (not to mention that they'd probably be somewhat skeptical about tying up one of their channels with yet another news network, even if Al-Jazeeera didn't come with negative political baggage). AnonMoos 21:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. Dirk's claim that it was "boycotted both in Saudi Arabia and the US" is false (at least the US part). StuRat 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends on your definition of 'boycot'. I didn't say 'banned', nor did I mean to. DirkvdM 08:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A boycott is a group getting together and agreeing together not do business with a company. Individual companies deciding not to do business with them, for financial reasons, is NOT a boycott. StuRat 11:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok so it's a boycot except that they didn't get together. Same dif, effectwise speaking. DirkvdM 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's completely different. A boycott is intentionally trying to put the company out of business because you are so angry at them, while the other is simply making a business decision that you won't make money by doing business with that company. StuRat 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I said 'effectwise speaking'. So therre should be a separate term for this, since I can imagine it happening more often. Any ideas? DirkvdM 05:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The term is "no business case", as in "there is no business case for Al Jazeera English in the US". StuRat 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That specifies the reason. I was talking about the effect (of being ignored somewhere), irrespective of the reason. DirkvdM 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm intrigued as to why you think that Al Jazeera would show an execution of a US citizen? And as to why showing an interview with a holocaust denier, or indeed broadcasting someone in the news calling for a massacre, would necessarily cause a channel to be punished? Interviewing someone doesn't mean you agree with what they say (and in fact, interviewers over here rarely agree with the politicians they interview), and broadcasting someone making outrageous claims is a way of assuring people that they really did say it. I'm confused by you, Stu. Skittle 14:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Demonstrably wrong factual statements, like that the Holocaust never happened, should not be given equal time, as if "that opinion is just as valid". Such absurd lies are actually given preference by Al Jazeera however, frequently running without the factual side being given any time at all.  By comparison, that would be like a US news channel broadcasting claims by the Ku Klux Klan that slavery never existed in the US, without a fact check at the end showing the incontrovertible proof that it did, in fact exist.  Or, having somebody claim that the nation of Israel always existed and there was never a Palestine. StuRat 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Arabic, but from what I've heard from people who do, al-Jazeera is known for airing simply every viewpoint that's out there without too much comment. This ranges from videotaped al-Qaeda messages, declarations by other radical muslims or Arab nationalists to the integral speeches of Bush, discussions in British parliament and press conferences by Israeli cabinet members - and everything in between. For Western viewers, accustomed to carefully selected and framed news that fits into their ideological preconceptions, this must be quite shocking. Skarioffszky 15:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Calls to murder civilians do not deserve "equal time". StuRat 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying Bush should be banned from tv? And don't tell me he didn't know there would be loads of civilian casualties. He can't be that stupid. DirkvdM 08:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If Bush said the same type of things that are broadcast on Al Jazeera, only in reverse (that we should start randomly killing Muslim civilians), then he would have more to worry about than TV coverage, he would be impeached. StuRat 11:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

On the Glen Beck show last night on CNN there was a special about all this Arab TV footage that is never shown in the US. The had speeches from radicals, news shows that described Americans and Arabs and very evil, and even children's cartoons that promoted suicide bombings. I watched Al Jazeera English later expecting to find some of the same things and quite frankly it looked just like CNN or Fox News. The reports of "violence in the streets seemed just like those seen in the US. A (white female) reporter followed a man around his neighborhood to get the views of the locals; it seemed like the same thing that American reporters do.  Why do this channel (and more importantly US channels) not show the extremest footage that is found on the real Al Jazeera?Ed Dehm 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Many reasons:


 * Al Jazeera knows they will be punished by viewers and advertisers for this.


 * The broadcasters who carry the news are similarly concerned.


 * Muslim nations like to pretend that wanting to kill Westerners is just the attitude of a few extremists, when it is a rather widespread view throughout the Muslim world (perhaps not the majority, though). If the Western world becomes aware of this level of hatred, many bad things could happen:


 * An unwillingness to remain dependent on such nations for oil. The resulting shift to alternative fuels could cost them money.


 * An unwillingness to support such nations in other ways, like selling them arms.

An example was, after 9-11, when Palestinians were dancing in the streets celebrating the deaths of Americans. The Palestinian Authority correctly judged that news coverage of this would not help their cause, and tried their best to suppress such coverage. StuRat 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a comment; Al Jazeera is known to publish and broadcast practically anything... they are the ones who broadcast Al Queda tapes... Cbrown1023 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing that surprised me when I heard about the boycot of Al Jazeera in the US is that one reason is that dead US soldiers were shown. But surely US broadcasters show that too, right? How can one cover a war without showing casualties? DirkvdM 08:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they don't. That would be considered disrespectful of the dead.  A picture of them alive is sometimes shown with biographical data, but no death pics. StuRat 11:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's weird. Are no dead at all shown or just no dead US soldiers? (If the latter, you can guess what the next question will be. :) ) DirkvdM 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most US news shows don't show pics of dead people at all, at least not where you can see them. A coffin or a body in a body bag or shroud may be shown.  There are some hard news programs (like Frontline (TV series)) that do sometimes show bodies, but they have a warning before each show (and when returning from a commercial break), so parents can get their kids out of the room. A typical warning is "The following program contains graphic footage which may not be suitable for all viewers.  Parental discretion is advised.". StuRat 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am now wondering if dead bodies are shown on Dutch tv (I prefer to read newspapers). I can't remember any specific instances, but the notion of seeing dead bodies is very familiar to me. Might that be from movies? I'll have to keep an eye out for that. DirkvdM 05:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Both CNN and Al Jazeera English are views which doesnt clearly reflect democracy in mediaworld. The extent of distortion in information cant be prima facie judged. 12:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)~


 * Democracy in the media word? Apart from public tv (and to a slight extent dollar voting for commercial stations), both of which are extremely indirect, I'm not aware of that existing. DirkvdM 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian stability by geography
What geographical features helped ancient Egypt remain as stable as it was? Other than the two deserts on each side of the Nile valley, what other features might have kept external forces out? 70.50.103.86 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * check out Geography of Egypt. Cbrown1023 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I already have, and that's why I've come here for help instead. I've been searching the internet a lot for something that would help answer that question.  It's one point of an essay, and I'm trying to get more than just the deserts as a reason. 70.50.103.86 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First sentence of the second paragraph.... --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The military and political power of the Egyptian state was as important a factor as any natural advantages. When a nation is strong and united it usually manages to keep its enemies at a distance, the facts of geography notwithstanding.  Besides, early Egyptian civilization had one great advantage in that all of its main enemies would be obliged to advance across a narrow-and waterless-front from the east.  Clio the Muse 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ooh... I just remembered... the waterfalls along the Nile River making it impossible for enemies to safely travel down it... Cbrown1023 01:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, their enemies couldn't see past the cataracts. StuRat 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like you're getting your just desserts after all. JackofOz 02:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Then again, how stable was ancient Egypt. We know of conquests by the Amu (Hyksos), Lybians, Ethiopians, Assyrians, and Persians, before the Greeks and then the Romans. Additionally, there were minor breakdowns in the central authority when the princes of the nomes (provinces) were in control. The founders of both the 18th and 19th Dynasties were such leaders before ascending to the throne. B00P 09:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Informal Qualifications of Presidents
What are some informal qualifications of the president? What do people (in general) think about when they are voting for a president?
 * If you're referring to U.S. Presidents, using history as a reference, the qualifications would include being male and white. Dismas|(talk) 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also Christian, of Western European background, at least average-looking, and not too seemingly bright or rich. The rich ones have to pretend to be men of the people. -- Charlene 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See Leadership. Intelligence, honesty, what they have accomplished in the past, dis-selfinterestedness (if that's a word), and ability to lead. I believe what Dismas is referring to was summarized by the caption of a cartoon:  "White men in ties discussing missile size." -THB 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Try disinterestedness. Though that, intelligence, and honesty don't appear to be requirements. In fact, the ability to fake honesty and to raise enormous campaign funds seem to be more important qualifications. Clarityfiend 02:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I couldn't get it from my brain to my fingers or tongue. I think he was wantin to know what people think about when they're voting for president.  I listed what I think about.  Obviously I was not in the majority in the last election and not in the electoral majority in the one before that.  Our best presidents have had those qualities, however.  We just don't always get a good one. -THB 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Machiavelli's The Prince is a good jump-off point for studying what people look for in leaders. Machiavelli makes the fantastically cynical statement that although a capable prince (general leader) should take every effort to appear to be absolutely compassionate, trustworthy, sympathetic, honest, and religious, he/she does not necessarily need to actually follow these virtues. In fact, Machiavelli suggests, because these virtues impede the prince's ability to rule effectively, he/she should, in most cases, only affect, not practice, virtuosity. It's a almost humorously warped and cynical view, and one that today's Republicans have clearly taken to heart. 71.252.11.5 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Experience is also a factor. Almost all US Presidents were one of the following before they became Prez:


 * Vice President (Bush Sr, Ford)


 * State Governor (Bush Jr, Clinton, Reagan, Carter)


 * US Senator


 * High ranking Army General

StuRat 05:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

One curious little requirement would seem to be that you must be clean-shaven. Sporting a beard, or even a moustache, appears quite rare among politicians in the U.S., much more so than in Europe. Or am I seeing things?--Rallette 10:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My grandpa used to say that having a full head of hair is a requirement. I can't remember a US President who is bald; in fact, some (Clinton and Kennedy spring to mind) have rather more voluminous hair than average. --Sumple (Talk) 11:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sporting a beard or a moustache (or whatever Lincoln had) simpy became old-fashioned, if the fashion returns politicians will wear them again. I remember seing a documentary which stated that US presidents are higher that average (On two candidates many vote for the taller one). Another thing that you notice is that almost all politicians (in the average elective system) are good-looking (how many politicians do you remember that had only one eye or were plain ugly?). Flamarande 12:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "US presidents are higher than average" ... with the exceptions of Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton and the current George "if I'm drunk, then I have an excuse for the things I say" Bush. StuRat 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So you disagree, heh? Well there is an article List of United States Presidents by height order which rather defends my statement. Flamarande 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently you missed the joke. I'm guessing you don't speak US English.  We don't normally say "he is higher", as that refers to level of intoxication with drugs or alcohol.  Instead, we say "he is taller". StuRat 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is also the exploratory committee.--Patchouli 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In America you should lead Halloween mask (of you) sales. That's successfully predicted the winner the past 6 times I think (read that in a paper some time ago so may well be slightly inaccurate!!). Also in the UK you should be a member of the Conservative party as they were in power for the vast majority of the 20th Century. You could try being state educated if you are a Tory...if memory serves their current lead David Cameron is the first public-school educated leader since the 1950s. ny156uk 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks so much for the info! It really helped a lot! Really, thanks so much to all of you! I have a Civics test tomorrow, and my teacher told us to know some of the informal qualifications of the president. Really, this helped! Thank you so much! Book Nerd 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)MJ0229


 * So it was a homework question. Well then, if you use all of the above information in your test, you will learn the meaning of poetic justice. Gandalf61 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall reading that Lincoln grew his beard only after he became President. JackofOz 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Informal qualifications to be masculent, usually proven through such things as military or athletic service.
 * Masculent? JackofOz 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

700 Club
Where does the name of the 700 Club come from? The article on the show did not mention this, though it should. 71.252.11.5 02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From their website:" The 700 Club television program is an outgrowth of a 1963 telethon in which founder Pat Robertson asked 700 viewers to join the “700 Club” by pledging $10 a month, money needed to meet CBN’s monthly budget. After a very successful “700 Club” telethon in 1966, Robertson decided to add to the end of his station’s broadcast day a program with a format of prayer and ministry coupled with telephone response. He named it The 700 Club, hoping to build a nationwide audience based on this earlier success. Seen in 95 percent of the television markets across the United States, The 700 Club now airs in nearly 90 million homes and averages about one million viewers on a daily basis." -THB 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the religion mentioned in White Teeth in which only a certain number of people (I think it's in the low thousands) are allowed into heaven? I know this is unrelated, but I'd mixed up the concept with 700 Club. Thanks 71.252.11.5 02:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Google gives 144,000 and Jehovah's Witnesses. -THB 02:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So that's 144,000 people in all human history? Does anybody else find that a bit ridiculous? What about all of human history before Christ (not to mention before the foundation of Jehova's Witnesses less than a century ago?) Do billions of people rot in eternal hellfire because a good deal of historical progression was needed before some Pennsylvanian in the twentieth century could come up with the true faith? For that matter, does Catholicism therefore imply that everyone born before confessions became central Catholic dogma will spend eternity in hell? How can there be any philosophical justification for anyone who believes that their faith is the only true one? 71.252.11.5 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. -THB 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I sure hope so, Boy, at least he f**king jams! Ha ha ha ha! Okay? Did you hear that correctly? If it's a choice between eternal hell and good tunes and eternal heaven and new kids on the f**king block … I'm gonna be surfing on the lake of fire, rocking out … high five at Satan every time I pass the motherf**king shore. RIP Bill Hicks. Vespine 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that major Christian religions allowed for the salvation (entry into paradise) of good people who lived before the ministry of Jesus, such as Old Testament good guys, like Moses, Elijah, etc. Some religionists would include good people who lived after the ministry of Jesus, but never heard the Gospel, so never had the opportunity to become Christians. Many major Christian denominations did not offer the hope of heaven to those who heard and rejected the Gospel. Edison 05:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For one traditional Christian response to the question, see the harrowing of Hell. –RHolton ≡ – 15:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Countries that were partitioned
Does Wikipedia have a list of countries that were partitioned in the past, i.e. India, Ottoman Empire, Ireland, etc.


 * I found this. Not a complete list by any means, but it's a start. Clarityfiend 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it helps, but "hundreds" of African nations were divided up as a result of the Conference of Berlin. --Cody.Pope 05:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The two more obvious partitions missing from the above list are that of Germany and Korea, both in 1945. I suppose you could add Czechoslovakia in 1938-9 and again in 1993; France in 1940, and Yugoslavia in 1941 (and later).  Clio the Muse 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be a huge list. Another example is the Netherlands fist splitting off from Spain and then Belgium. And how does one count a part of a country being usurped by another one? That has happened many times in wars, often just temporarily, but also more permanently, like the western United States, that were taken from Mexico. And does the US buying Alaska from Russia count? And what about small enclaves like Guantanamo Bay and Hong Kong? One could consider the latter as first a split from China and then from the UK. You'd have to get your definition sorted out first, but it could make for an interresting list. DirkvdM 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the geopolitical events most-commonly referred to as partitions are the Partitions of Poland, the Partition of Ireland, the Partition of India and the ill-fated 1947 UN Partition Plan for the mandate of Palestine. -- Mwalcoff 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In a way, Israel and Palestine are being repatitioned all the time. DirkvdM 08:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and Palestine was first partitioned in 1921, --Dweller 12:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on that, they lost something like 90% of their country. No wonder they're pissed off. :) DirkvdM 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That map, incidentally, is misleading, giving the mistaken impression that the mandate was coterminus with Palestine as a 'political entity'. It should read the British Mandate of Palestine and Transjordan.  Clio the Muse 23:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's necessarily misleading. "Palestine", as a "Political Entity", has in fact never existed. Even to-date its definition is yet to be defined by any reasonable consensus. History of Palestine offers a great summation of the continuous redefinition of what "Palestine" is/was throughout the ages. In ancient times, the Philistines were a people located in an area somewhat loosely coterminous with the area known today as "Gaza", distinct fom the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Upon conquest by the Greeks, that particular coastal area was renamed "Palaistina". In turn, upon the Romans conquest, the area was renamed the Roman Province of Palaestina, distinct from the Roman Province of Iudaea. Later, the Romans redrew the borders to merge Iudaea and Palaestina into "Syria Palaestina". In the 4th century, the Byzantines renamed the entire area Palaestina. Once again, upon conquest by the Muslims, they once agin redrew the map, and the area roughly coterminous with Judea, Philistia, and southern Jordan was renamed Filastin. Of course upon the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, the boundaries of "The British Mandate of Palestine" were drawn by the "League of Nations" as shown above.


 * Of course even today the definition of "Palestine" differs with who you ask. According to those who don't recognize the State of Israel, it is simply, (and rather conveniently), only to the area now consisting of the State of Israel proper, plus the "occupied" territories. In short, though the above map may present one debatable geographical conception of "Palestine", there simply is no other reasonable consensus as to what Palestine is. Loomis 19:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In Canada
In sports advertisments, maybe sports games advertisments, for example, and during sports games, they would play, for example, We Will Rock You by Queen. Is there another song, or 2, they also play? Like, could one of the other ones be Rock And Roll by Gary Glitter? Is this song one of them? Are there more? If so, what is the song's title and artist? Thanks.100110100 08:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Hockey Song by Stompin' Tom Connors is popular at hockey games. Gary Glitter's song is very popular too, as is We Will Rock You, Eye of the Tiger,  and (if the home team is winning) Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye. Sometimes you hear Fifty Mission Cap by The Tragically Hip too.


 * You'll often hear Les Canadiens Sont Là and Hava Nagila (don't ask me why) at Montreal Canadiens games, and Johnny Horton's The Battle of New Orleans at Calgary Flames games (again, I haven't a clue what the Battle of New Orleans has to do with hockey). Other teams probably have favourite songs too, but I don't know them. I don't know about any other sports. -- Charlene 10:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank y'all. How bout elsewhere?  I just ==In Canada= because this is where I've heard of if it.  Thanks!100110100 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

American pharmaceutical advertisements
Something i've always wondered: Why do commercials for prescription drugs in the United States have to give their whole life story every single time they air? I mean, how they say 'don't take this drug if you're pregnant or nursing, or if you're taking MAO inhibitors' or 'side-effects include vomiting and nausea'.

What is the point of including those things in a television commercial when (1) you can't even get the drug in the first place without consulting a doctor (who presumably — hopefully — is sufficiently educated to instruct you in the drug's use), and (2) pharmacies almost always include instructions anyway? It seems incredibly redundant.

Is this mandated by the FDA or the FCC or something? Is there a specific law on the books? Or is this a voluntary industry thing? ~ lav-chan @ 09:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the law. A few years back there were no prescription ads directed at the general public. The new laws are a compromise between the US federal government and the industry. Every ad is scrutinized by the FDA: if the manufacturer doesn't want to go into all the details about side effects, it can't say the name of the drug in the ad.


 * Basically, the FDA wants to prevent people from buying drugs on the black market and taking them without knowing the risks, and the industry wants to prevent people from buying drugs on the black market after seeing them advertised, taking them, then whining "I didn't know there were side effects! You didn't tell me!!" and suing the manufacturer for a zillion dollars because they thought they could take Viagra with a serious heart condition. Most people underestimate the chance of side effects with prescriptions (or non-prescriptions or even herbals - if it has no chance of side effects, it's a placebo). They think that because they've never been sick before, they'll never be sick, so they don't have to bother. The ads make them bother, or at least reduce the chance of their suing if they do buy on the black market and dose themselves. -- Charlene 10:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what i figured. There are all kinds of products that people can buy on the 'white' market that are dangerous, though, and they don't instruct you on their use. I've never seen a Clorox commercial warning people not to drink it, or a Lysol commercial warning people that you shouldn't puncture the can, or a Raid commercial warning people to open the windows before they use it, or a Nair commercial warning people that it could cause skin irritation. And then there are the non-prescription drugs, which don't have those warnings at all despite still being, you know, drugs. For example Bayer commercials don't warn people about Reye's syndrome (which is certainly a much more serious side-effect than dry mouth).


 * I'm not arguing with your explanation, just saying it seems kinda dumb. Maybe i'm just upset because Lunesta commercials play every 20 seconds on cable television and they're awful. ~ lav-chan @ 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctors and pharmacists are far more negligent in their duties than you assume. Most doctors don't bother checking what other meds you're taking or warning you about side effects, and neither do pharmacists. The side effects (but not the drug interactions) are included with the meds, but then you've already bought them, so your chances of throwing them out because of the side effects listed aren't good. To check drug interactions, be prepared to spend hours browsing the Internet. This is why I don't take meds. StuRat 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Several years ago laws were passed in the US allowing companies to promote quack remedies in commercials which imply they cure diseases, but end by stating that no medical claims are made and the commercial has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. They tend to say "Take Product X at the first sign of a cold, sore joints, headaches, prostate enlargement, or erectile dysfunction." Product X may be nothing but water or other inert ingredients, or vitamins. The rationale is that it "supports the function" of the body. Yes, water does that. To the average listener, the claims sound like medical claims like prescription meds and actual nonprescription meds make. Edison 16:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true that many phony "nutritional" products are sold in the US, but some may actually work. The problem is that nobody is willing to test them scientifically.  If the government would pay each university to test one product per year, we could eventually figure out which natural remedies work and which are total crap.  Of course, other countries should do their part, too.  Capitalism doesn't work, in this case, because natural products can't be patented, so any company that pays for testing will end up with dozens of competitors selling the product they paid to test. StuRat 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to work fine for natural products like aluminium, diamonds, gold, salt, carrots, bananas, sugar.... ~ lav-chan @ 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an example. There is a natural low-calorie sweetener, named stevia, which is likely quite safe, but has never actually been tested, since there is no economic benefit to whomever tests it (their competition will just sell it for less, since they didn't have to pay for the testing).  Thus, Americans end up buying horrid chemical sweeteners created in a lab, just because they can be sold in stores as sweeteners, since the companies that manufacture them paid to have them tested, and thus obtained FDA approval. StuRat 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can understand why products (pharmaceuticals, food, cars ...) have all manner of warnings and caveats and conditions, in these days of unbridled litigiousness and elevated consumer awareness. What I can't understand is the TV ads that flash the warnings up for a nano-second, just long enough to see there is something we need to be aware of, but what precisely it is, is anybody's guess.  That seems truly pointless to me.  Same for speeded up rolling film credits, or a full screen of credits that just stays for the blink of an eye.  Why bother at all?  This is the new definition of paying lip service to consumer awareness. (end of rant).  JackofOz 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the US, at least, they actually have the say all the side effects, not just list them in fine print, during TV ads. You really do get the idea, say for a toenail fungus treatment, that the risks outweigh the benefits. StuRat 10:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of countries with U.S. military bases?
The trailer for Why We Fight (2005 film) has a clip of Chalmers Johnson stating there are “725 American military bases in 130 foreign countries”. Is that accurate? I find it difficult to believe that ⅔ of the world's countries host U.S. military bases. Category:Overseas military bases refers to bases in just a handful of countries. How many countries actually do host U.S. military bases and is there a list of those countries on Wikipedia? Thanks. --Mathew5000 10:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Matthew - our article Military of the United States claims 702 bases in 132 countries, which is sourced to the Base Structure Report located here (link loads a pdf file). I haven't counted the bases and countries, but there are 13 pages of Army, and another 10 of Air Force so there's a fair few to be sure.  I also saw an 'Unknown' column, which is potentially somewhat unnerving... --Mnem e son 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There might be several bases being dismanteled but still on the lists and papers, and other bases who simply don't appear on the official papers, as in "secret bases". I remember that a base in Iceland had been dismanteled a couple of months ago (therefore after the movie). On the whole US military bases appear to be closing in some safe areas and new (perhaps fewer) bases appear in troubled zones. Flamarande 12:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mnemeson. The pdf file is a 1999 report, so it's odd that the Wikipedia article states such a precise number without adding "as of 1999". But aside from that, I don't see where that report says there are bases in 132 countries. For example, "Puerto Rico" is not a country; "Crete" is not a country, "Indian Ocean" is not a country. --Mathew5000 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Following up, I went through that list in the 1999 base report, and it names only 29 distinct foreign countries in which the U.S. has military bases. How could anyone have believed that the true figure is 132? The 29 foreign countries named in the 1999 report are:

Antigua - Air Force; Australia - Navy, Air Force; Bahamas - Navy; Bahrain - Navy; Belgium - Army, Air Force; Colombia - Air Force; Cuba - Navy; Denmark - Air Force, Air Force [Greenland]; Egypt - Navy; France - Air Force; Germany - Army, Air Force; Greece - Navy [Crete], Air Force; Iceland - Navy; Italy - Army, Navy, Air Force; Japan - Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines; Korea - Army, Navy, Air Force; Marshall Islands - Army [Kwajalein Atoll]; Luxembourg - Army; Netherlands - Army, Air Force; Norway - Air Force; Oman - Air Force; Panama - Army, Air Force; Peru - Navy; Portugal - Air Force; Singapore - Navy, Air Force; Spain - Navy, Air Force; Turkey - Air Force; UK - Army, Navy, Air Force [St Helena], Air Force; Venezuela - Air Force;

--Mathew5000 18:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you missed Indonesia, a navy base totalling 3200sq.ft. But apart from that I entirely agree. I'll change the article. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However this page add Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Ethopia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq. this page adds Jordan, Quatar, UAE. this page adds some things called 'port of call' in places like Uraguay and Hong Kong. The definition of 'base' may be variable. DJ Clayworth 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to Talk:Military of the United States. DJ Clayworth 19:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The question remains, why did Chalmers Johnson use that hugely, obviously inflated number in Why We Fight? Did he read those "facts" on Wikipedia? --Mathew5000 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the numbers are correct; "In 2003 Pentagon owned (rented) 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and had another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories"; here is the Department of the Defense report from 2003. It is already referenced in Why We Fight article… I'm off to update data in article Mnemeson pointed. Lovelight 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That pdf does not contain the phrase you put in quotes. What page are you looking at? I don't see anywhere that it states the Pentagon has bases "in about 130 countries". Keep in mind that there are less than 200 countries in the world. --Mathew5000 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How many governments would fall without US support ?
A related question to the above is how many governments are absolutely dependent on US support to remain in power. I'm not including those which would have been taken over in the past, like all of Europe by the Soviet Union, but rather those that are currently dependent on US military strength. Here are some examples that come to mind:


 * Taiwan (would be taken over by China).


 * South Korea (would be taken over by North Korea).


 * Saudi Arabia (would be taken over by Islamic fundamentalists).

StuRat 20:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Canada would fall on Mexico Keria 20:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm StuRat, Yugoslavia wasn't part of NATO and they didn't get run over. The Soviet Union conquered land under the pretext of liberation from the Axis powers.  Do you really think they had the guts to attack an additional nation or more after the world war? Evilbu 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, they did attack other nations (Afghanistan, much?), but yes, it is more complicated to say that the USSR could just run rampant in everything that wasn't NATO. It was not in their long-term interest to get involved in difficult wars; the places where they flexed their power were either very close or seemed like they could be easily consolidated. Afghanistan being the big exception, of course. Tito established his socialism independent of the USSR and that gave him a lot more leverage than, say, Hungary had. --24.147.86.187 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's too presumptuous to say that South Korea would be taken over by North Korea without US support. South Korea has its own military capabilities, and compared to North Korea, it has more capital to convert into military power. And since many other nations trade with South Korea and have their stakes in South Korea's political stability, you can be sure that they will never be alone if they go into a war. Moonwalkerwiz 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about South Korean forces to say but my limited understanding is that if the US pulled out of there TODAY and North Korea attacked TOMORROW they would probably find themselves in a heck of a spot as North Korea has many more troops ready at all times. If given lead-up time though I have little doubt that the South Koreans could muster up a very formidable force, one which could compensate for its numerical inferiority to the highly-militarized North with better technology and armaments. But I'm sure there are people out there who know more about this than I do. --24.147.86.187 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia: "The South Korean military is composed of the Republic of Korea Army (ROKA), Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN), Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF), and Republic of Korea Marine Corps (ROKMC), together with reserve forces. Many of these forces are concentrated near the border with North Korea. All South Korean males are constitutionally required to serve in the military, typically for a period of twenty-four months.


 * From time to time, South Korea has sent its troops overseas to assist American forces. South Korea dispatched 320,000 troops to fight alongside American soldiers in the Vietnam War. Most recently, South Korea sent 3,300 troops in the form of the Zaytun Division to assist with reconstruction efforts in northern Iraq, the largest contributor after the U.S. and Britain."


 * It seems that they have enough troops to guard the border and send some for international wars. Moonwalkerwiz 01:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then again, perhaps the North is just too strong. Moonwalkerwiz 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But it's all old junk. The North wouldn't be able to conquer the south.  The problem is that repelling it would involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans. --01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's really hard to know. The North has clear numerical superiority but much of its equipment is quite dated. But in a question of pure invasion of such a relatively small area, it is unclear to me how much more useful high tech would be versus numbers. If the two countries were a few thousand miles apart it would be one thing, but Seoul is within shelling distance of the DMZ, so you don't exactly need smart bombs to hit it. --24.147.86.187 02:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Israel? --ColinFine 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Israelis seem to kick ass whenever they engage in military action. I'm sure they get equipemnt from the U.S. but if they didn't, they could make their own. -THB 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Israel has a very modern army and is a nuclear power. I think they could probably do alright if it came down to it in a direct confrontation. (They did in 1967, anyway, without any direct US help) --24.147.86.187 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree there. The Israelis have even created new concepts in weapons systems, like unmanned aerial vehicles. StuRat 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to Taiwan, if US support disappeared they would develop nuclear weapons, at which point you'd have an East Asian MAD to go with the continental one. As would South Korea - heck, the Japanese would probably enrich some uranium for them to speed the process up.  --Robert Merkel 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They wouldn't have time to develop nuclear weapons, unless they have a covert program in place already. StuRat 03:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Would the world really do anything if China invaded Taiwan today? I doubt it. Who has an army big enough that's available and is willing to incur the wrath of the Chinese? No one. --The Dark Side 02:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Other than the US, I would expect nothing more from the rest of the world than sanctions for a few years, then nothing. StuRat 02:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The US would have to react to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or any invasion of any country for that matter. What's at stake is the international recognition of power relations between nations. Not to do anything about it is equal to admitting that the US cannot risk having a war with China and is therefore "afraid" of its military capability. Of course, it will first convince the UN to go to war with it (it always does), but I'm quite sure it will spearhead any effort to stop such an invasion. It is compelled by its international position to react, it has no choice. Moonwalkerwiz 03:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If China wanted, then why don't they? Is the US presence in Taiwan so big that it could withstand a Chinese attack? DirkvdM 08:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Invading Taiwan and killing US soldiers in the process would definitely commit the US to war. I can't see how that would be in China's interest. StuRat 08:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying a promise by the US that they will intervene will not have the same effect? Given the military history of the US in the last decades that is rather unlikely. DirkvdM 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, such a threat alone would not be credible. That's why US troops were positioned in numbers which are clearly insufficient to win, in Europe during the Cold War, and South Korea today.  This makes the US commitment credible, because US troops would be killed in an invasion, and no US President could then back down. StuRat 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, a variation of the tactic of creating an incident, a tactic the US seem to use a lot (and the Romans used it extensively too). Of course, if the Chinese would adopt the view that all ethnic Chinese are their siblings, then they've got an excuse to invide whichever country they wish - some Chinese is always being molested for some reason somewhere. DirkvdM 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, "molest" now has come to mean raping children. StuRat 10:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this another way of asking how many governments are US puppets? DirkvdM 08:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but I figured you would try to put that spin on it. All three countries do things which are counter to US interests.  For example, the US can't seem to stop South Korea from propping up North Korea economically, when the US really wants them to boycott the North.  If they were a puppet regime, they would do as the US wanted. StuRat 08:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was about to charge the government with sockpuppetry. :-) | A ndonic O  Talk 11:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

?
 * Afghanistan
 * Iraq
 * Guantanamo fall to Cuba


 * Nice examples. :) DirkvdM 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Except that Guantanamo is a base, not a country. Of course US bases would be returned to the nation they are rented from, if the US left.  That's hardly the same thing. StuRat 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You make that sound so nice and friendly, while from Cuba's pov it's occupied territory. Btw, Guantanamo is a Cuban province. The military base is at Guantanamo Bay. The reason that was such a nice exmple is that it's status is pretty vague. It does not have a government to be 'protected' (to avoid calling it 'string pulling'). Not even the US government, which is the reason torture is supposedly allowed there. No government, no country, no need to follow any rules. A nice piece of twisted reasoning. DirkvdM 06:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to be picky, Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) is a bay, and Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is a base. It's also outrageous to claim there aren't any laws at the base.  While it's not under the jurisdiction for any US civilian law, it does fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. StuRat 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Military justice? DirkvdM 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No need for the markup, everything you say is assumed to be rather snotty. You only need to tell us when you are NOT being rude, as we may not recognize it, otherwise. :-) StuRat 09:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I keep hearing of all this "torture" going on at Guantanamo Bay. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I have yet to encounter one iota of proof that it's actually going on. All I seem to encounter is mountains of hearsay. Yes, many high ranking US officials, including the VP, have actually gone so far as to condone it publicly (why, I don't know). Someone above mockingly referred to "military justice". Yet isn't "innocent until proven guilty" one of the cornerstones of justice? Show me proof the US practicing torture at Guantanamo Bay, and I'll consider it. Yet so far all I here are empty allegations. No doubt, those master logicians who'll disagree with me will reply: "If the US was practicing torture, don't you think they'd make sure to destroy any possible evidence?" I couldn't come up with a more perfect gem of specious reasoning. Guantanamo is a POW CAMP. Arguments are made: What about habeas corpus? What about the right to a speedy trial? What about the right against "arbitrary arrest and detention"? What about the right to council? To that I answer: Is it expected that during wartime each and every enemy combatant be treated like a common criminal and afforded these "rights"? Think about it: Towards the end of WWII, the Allies must have captured tens, if not hundreds of thousand German soldiers. Each was shipped off to a POW camp. Were each and every one of them, (or any, for that matter,) swiftly given a trial date, appointed a lawyer to defend them, tried, and released if not proven guilty of some crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course not! Just imagine the logistics necessary for such a thing! Thousands of judges and hundreds of thousands of civilian jury members would have to be shipped off to the battlefield to decide in each and every case whether the accused was guilty of some crime and if not, the accused "enemy combatant" would be required to be released with all due haste, (no doubt to return to the ranks of his former platoon to have yet another go at the Allies). Is this what the US "should have done"? After all, is it not what the Constitution commands? Loomis 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How many governments have fallen with US support ?
South Vietnam. -- Sturgeonman 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

order of preference in France
I've been trying to find the order of preference for France - it's some system listing the most powerful people in France, with the président at the top, and then (I think) the prime minister and so on. Where is that page? --Dangherous 12:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for the order of precedence? It's a rather symbolic and honorary thing, rather than a strict ranking by "power" - it evolved from the relative status of the royalty and nobility - but it sounds like what you want. In this case, French order of precedence. Shimgray | talk | 12:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much. I thought it was more likely to be me in the wrong, and not Wikipedia. --Dangherous 12:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong?? Wikipedia??  Surely not.  JackofOz 08:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Central front in War on Terrorism
Has Osama bin Laden ever said that Iraq is the "CENTRAL FRONT". I seem to have heard others attribute this to him, but I can't find a source.--Patchouli 12:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a source (one I personally do not have a lot of trust in) who claims that Bin Laden views the Iraq war as a "central front" - though without attributing those exact words to OBL:

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."
 * Skarioffszky 19:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I already knew about the White House link. I probably didn't phrase my question in the right fashion.  I am looking for the al-Qaeda source, not Mujaheedin Shura Council, media, etc.

I can't find the source directly linked to an al-Qaeda member like Osama bin Laden or al-Zawahri.--Patchouli 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't Bin Laden declare that the 11-9-2001 attacks on the US were a retaliation for US presence in Iraq? DirkvdM 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he must possess considerable powers of foresight; because he seems to have anticipated that presence by some two years. Clio the Muse 10:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One of us appears to be misinformed. I understood that there already was a US military presence in Iraq in 2001. DirkvdM 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is George W. Bush who deceived the American people into believing that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and used that as a pretext for invading. The only terrorism there prior to the US invasion was perpetuated by the leader of the country agains his own people. -THB 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't help but be amazed at how quickly historical revisionism has set in concerning the lead up to the Iraq War. It's only been four years and people are already twisting the facts to suit their own political POVs! I'll try not to belabour the issue, but to quote from the article on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441: "On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria."


 * To be sure, the Resolution was passed unanimously by: The US, The UK, France, Russia, China, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore and Syria.


 * Note the following extract from the preamble: "Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security..."


 * Apparently, all 15 UNSC members, including, quite notably, France and Syria, were unanimously convinced that Saddam had WMDs. To twist it around and say that Bush "deceived the American people into believing Iraq had WMD's" is quite the contortion of documented fact! Everyone, France included, believed Iraq had WMDs. The only disagreement was as to how to deal with it. The French and the Germans, for example, favoured giving Saddam more time, and that military action was premature. The US and the UK, on the other hand, had simply had enough of Saddam's lack of cooperation and decided that it was finally time for the military action as called for by UNSC 1441. Yet they all were, France and Syria included, apparently of the same mind that Saddam was indeed in possession of WMDs.


 * Of course, GWB could have "deceived the entire world" that Saddam had WMDs. Indeed, quite a feat of genius for a man who can barely tie his own shoes! Loomis 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

History Of Subcontinent (1850-1900)
Q:can you give description of viceroys of Subcontinent in the time period of 1850 to 1900 with their political reforms that they brought in subcontinent. 202.163.108.210 13:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Our articles on History of India and Colonial India should help to answer your question. &mdash; QuantumEleven 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To the above I would add Viceroy of India, which has a full list of the individuals in question, with links to individual articles. Clio the Muse 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical politics question
I was wondering if in the UK, what would happen if none of the electorate bothered to vote? i.e. turnout was nil. What would happen if that was the case?


 * That would require that there were no candidates, because if somebody had put themselves forward, they'd probably vote for themselves. If there were a completely empty House of Commons, then the constitutional conventions would break down, and there would probably be a power struggle between the House of Lords and the Monarch.  The result of that would probably hinge, at least in part, on the model you've created - why there wasn't a single person interested in Parliament any more.  --Mnem e son 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at why that wouldn't happen. The reason people don't vote is that they feel "my vote doesn't matter", based of the extremely low probability that their one vote will change the outcome of any election. However, if voter turnout was low enough, that would no longer be the case. StuRat 19:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if it DID happen, there would be a tie, and whatever procedures are in place for a runoff would apply. -THB 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if we look at the history of Parliament, it took shape as the high court of the realm, summoned to counsel and support the monarch. If the nation declined to make its own choice in the matter it would always be open to the sovereign to summon named individuals to perform such a service.  There are indeed precedents for such a Nominated Parliament.  The one thing that would assuredly not happen is a power struggle between the Crown and the Lords (God bless them!), unless anyone can envisage returning to the days of Simon de Montfort.  Clio the Muse 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My first thought was also that the standard rules would still apply, but I doubt if that course would be taken because the message the people were sending would be extremely strong. Even if turnout would fall below 10%. The reaction would depend on the reason for this, because there would probably be a very distinct one for people to act so unanimously. DirkvdM 08:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In the vanishingly small chance of this happening, each seat would be declared a "no result", and a series of by-elections would be held. In fact, they'd run the General Election all over again and hope to hell at least one person bothered to turn up to vote for each seat this time. The Parliament wouldn't be sitting so the incumbent government would extend its caretaker role until the result was known. However, it isn't a fantasy that a candidate might not vote for himself. In December 1860, one F.R. Lees, a Temperance Chartist, stood in a Yorkshire seat and received 0 votes - he made the ultimate sacrifice and didn't even vote for himself, so he shouldn't have been too surprised to learn nobody else thought much of him either. JackofOz 09:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed by the level of your procedural knowledge on British electoral practices, Jack; but can I just clarify one small point: a 'series of by-elections' held on the same day, and covering the whole country, is called, well, a General Election. Anyway, we can always fall back on the beloved House of Windsor-thank God.  Clio the Muse 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right; and I tried in my oafish way to say that. But imagine if one seat had enough votes for an outcome, but nobody in the rest of country turned up.  Then it really would be a series of by-elections.  They couldn't have a new General Election without invalidating the legitimate result in the seat that had a result, or somehow excluding it from the GE, which seems to be a contradiction in terms.  JackofOz 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have vague recall of some freakish electoral circumstances leading to a decision on the toss of a coin, but I am unsure. I also don't know what level of politics the questioner is asking about, although the reference to the "UK" suggests either Parliamentary or European elections, rather than more local. --Dweller 11:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Decision by toss of coin may have happened more than once, where the result is so close that recounts produce different outcomes each time they are made. It certainly happened in Peterborough during the General Election of 1964.  Clio the Muse 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The drawing of lots is the normal way to break a tie, which I presume is the situation which would exist if all candidates tied with 0 votes. I've been present myself at a council election count where two candidates had exactly 500 votes each - unfortunately the candidate I was backing chose the returning officer's wrong hand! -- Arwel (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Battleship Letters
What letters are used on battleships?

Thank you


 * Do you mean the font of the name of the ship painted along the side, or what do you mean? AnonMoos 21:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at List of battleships of the United States Navy. The hull classification letters seem to be "BB". Downunda 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to have some clarification on this question. This is likely to be something that varies from navy to navy.  Clio the Muse 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * HMS? HMCS? --The Dark Side 02:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the nationalistic character of armies, that would probably depend on the country. DirkvdM 08:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * USS? (United Socialist States) ;-) | A ndonic O  Talk 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Protestant Reformation Pope
Who was the pope during the protestant reformation? If that time period is too broad, who was pope when Martin Luther posted his 95 theses?


 * Leo X; see List of Popes. -THB 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in the politics of the whole Reformation period, and the struggles between faiths and within the church, I would suggest that you also have a look, in particular, at the careers of Clement VII, Paul III, and Pius V, as well as Leo X. Clio the Muse 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it considered taboo to chew after eating?
Hi all. Maybe a strange question, but I was wondering if it is considered taboo (in U.S. culture) to continue to chew your food after leaving the place of eating, ie while walking around. It seems like it should be, yet I was never reprimanded for it.

Thank you for all your help! Xhin 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would state it differently: "You shouldn't leave the table until you finish eating". StuRat 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Taboo" is too strong, but this is definitely against etiquette, more specifically table manners. --Lambiam Talk  22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are eating with other people, it is considered rude to leave until everyone finishes unless you have a special reason and ask permission.
 * What kind of food are you holding in your mouth for so long? -THB 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can keep the remains of a piece of celery going for a remarkably long time! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lambiam is correct. It is etiquette.  However, etiquette is quickly becoming taboo.  I commonly eat while I work - which involves walking from my office to the server room on a regular basis.  Since I'm not talking to anyone (or listening to them), I don't find it offensive.  There's nobody around to offend.  However, I am offended when I go to a restaurant and the workers are eating while I place my order.  Of course, it doesn't make them feel "special" if you tell them they aren't doing a good job. --Kainaw (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re "it is considered rude to leave ...", it depends very much who is doing the considering. An adult might have that view, but a teenager probably couldn't give a stuff.  JackofOz 09:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And that is exactly why, in general, teenagers are not and will never be the arbiters of etiquette! -THB 11:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly! Etiquette isn't there to make you uncomfortable - it's there to make other people more comfortable. Nobody wants to see somebody walking around chewing their cud - it's unpleasant. Sometimes we don't do what we want because we care more about other people's feelings than our own "right" to be whatever and do whatever we feel like every single second of the day. (Note: this type of comment is often replied to with something like, "why do they think it's unpleasant? It's their problem, not mine." Unfortunately, we can't change what we find disgusting; it's hard-wired in us. That's why it's incumbent on all of us not to do things that bother the majority of other people. The majority of other people are bothered by people chewing away from the table.) -- Charlene 13:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't like anyone leaving the table before finishing chewing, but it's not taboo. Taboo refers more to the food than to table etiquette. Besides, the only valid reason for leaving the table before finishing chewing would be... Wikipedia. ;-) | A ndonic O  Talk 15:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody's yet mentioned chewing with one's mouth open. THAT's disgusting.  Whether you're at the table or walking around.  Don't do it!  192.168.1.1 7:44am, 17 November 2006 (PST)


 * Clinking the fork or spoon on the teeth is really obnoxious. And I detest people who serve themselves from a common dish with their own utensils. -THB 05:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Phonetap evidence
Hello all! I was having a conversation with a friend and we couldn't decide why phonetap evidence isn't admissible in UK courts. We were talking about it because someone had avoided prosecution because the evidence was from tapped phones and hence, not viable. Does anyone have any idea why?

Thanks! Also, sorry if I posted into the wrong section, I eventually decided this came under the heading of 'law', feel free to paste it elsewhere :-)

Farosdaughter 21:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds similar to the "exclusionary rule" in the US. That is, if we accepted such evidence, then law enforcement agencies would just phone-tap everyone until they find some evidence of a crime, and we prefer not to live that way. StuRat 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Without having a great knowledge of law I would assume this is down to several factors. There will be privacy-laws on what the police can and cannot do when gathering evidence (similar to they cannot search your home without good cause). I would also expect there may be instances where the evidence was not 'submitted' through the correct legal procedure and is thus rendered unacceptable in the court (see this a lot in tv, not sure if it happens in real life!).

From what I could find with google these are the laws involved:

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ("RIPA"). · Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 ("LBP Regulations"). · Data Protection Act 1998. Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999. Human Rights Act 1998

Hope this helps. I'm sure someone else will provide a more indepth/useable answer!! ny156uk 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4223330.stm may be of some interest. Downunda 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In Australia and the US, if the tap has been authorised by a court based on evidence proving probably cause, similar to a search warrant, then a phone can be legally tapped and the evidence can be used in a court. I wouldn't have thought it would be very different in the UK. Maybe the case you are talking about they didn't obtain a proper warrant? My friend is a barrister and they had phone conversations which they used in their case against a drug trafficking ring. There is some good info hereVespine 22:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou all for the quick and helpful responses! Farosdaughter 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Caspar Mendel
Do you have any information on Caspar Mendel a prominent bell maker from the city of Gyor in Hungary in about 1790? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendelj (talk • contribs)


 * I only get 3 hits on Google and they appear to be a geneaology entry in German. "Kaspar Mendel" returns no hits.  There also appears to be a "Casper Mendel Somethingorother" in the Netherlands.
 * Could there be another spelling? If not, then there appears to be NO information about him on the internet.  Sorry.
 * In the future, please sign your posts using four tildes. -THB 23:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you speak Hungarian or German and have access to an excellent academic library, because otherwise this cut and paste Worldcat record isn't going to be much help to you. They say there are three library holdings worldwide, but given the recent publication date there's a good chance.

Title: 	Corpus campanorum antiquarum Hungariae = Magyarország régi harangjai és harangöntoi 1711 elott /

Author(s): 	Patay, Pál.

Corp Author(s): 	Magyar Nemzeti MuÌ±zeum.

Publication: 	[Budapest] : Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum,

Year: 	1989

Description: 	267 p. : ill. ; 29 cm.

Language: 	Hungarian

Standard No: 	ISBN: 963742136X LCCN: 90-193570

Subject (s): 	Bells -- Hungary -- History.

Bell founders -- Hungary -- History.

Note(s): 	Summary in German./ Includes bibliographical references.

Good luck! -- Lowerarchy 05:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)