Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 19

= November 19 =

Member of the U.S. Congress
1. Who is the youngest member of the newly elected U.S. Congress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes~.Edison 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the youngest new member of Congress ("the class of 2006") or the new Congress (110th United States Congress)? I'm not sure about the former but I believe the latter is Patrick McHenry. Neutralitytalk 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal-Deacon
1. During the 20th century, but prior to 1962, how common was it for Cardinal-Deacons to not have undergone bishopric ordination? a. I ask this because prior 1962 a priest could receive a Cardinalship without being a Bishop. Ben-Gurione. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes~. Edison 06:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Cardinal Deacon and see if this provides enlightenment. Clio the Muse 00:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Civil war
1. Why is it that, prior to Spanish Civil war, the Spanish Republican government refused to prosecute violent crimes against Roman Catholic Clergy as well as property crimes against Church property? Ben-Gurion. 2. Why do so many people consider the Second Spanish Republic pluralistic? It seems undemocratic to allow the abuse of ones citizens simply because of their religious beliefs, or status as clergy. Ben-Gurion 3.Did these acts cause second Spanish Republic to loss support in the international community? Ben-Gurion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes~. Edison 06:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look at the Spanish Civil War and the Second Spanish Republic. The government, in fact, discouraged attacks on the church, but it was dependant for much of its support on the Communists, Socialists, and above all, the Anarchists, deeply hostile to the church in Spain and its close association with traditional landed elites.  I do not think there is any evidence to support the view that anti-clericalism caused significant loss of international support for the Republic, which was at a very low level anyway. Clio the Muse 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mean Old World
Why was the song "Mean Old World" left off of the original vinyl issuance of the Derek and the Dominoes' album Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.245.231 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes ~. Edison 06:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Chair Lifting In Bar Mitzvah's Etc
In bar mitzvah's, the celibrant is lifted about in a chair sometimes, but also perhaps at stag nights and maybe other events. What is this chair lifting thing called? --Username132 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The "ritual" originates in the traditions of the Jewish wedding ceremony, actually: a bride and groom are lifted in separate chairs and hold on to the opposite ends of a cloth as they are whirled through the air -- use in other ceremonies is likely a broadening of the activity's original meaning.


 * But a search of the web literature on Jewish Weddings reveals no formal name that I can find, even in those pages which use the actual talmudic names for other rituals and aspects of the Jewish wedding ceremony (here, for example).   Since so much in Judaism has a formal name, the conclusion I make of this is that the chair lifting is a tradition, but not a formal or ritual one.   Though surely there will be some Yiddish or Hebrew name out there that merely translates to "Chair Dance", this would be no more legitimate a name than the english descriptive term "chair dance".  Jfarber 02:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not every aspect of Jewish life is steeped in Talmudic law. I doubt any of the great Talmudic Rabbis quoted in the Talmud would be anything but mystified had they been presented with something as simple as a bagel. In fact, had you come to them speaking something so ultimately "Jewish" as the Yiddish language, they'd probably think you were from Mars. Why do they do the chair thing? I'd say it's probably something they picked up in Eastern Europe. And besides, it's fun! Aren't weddings meant to be fun? :) Loomis 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my point, in fact -- that 1. The origin wasn't in bar mitzvahs, but in weddings, and 2.  chair dancing isn't law (laws generally have formal names), but tradition (which may have names, but often doesn't.)  Jfarber 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the chair lifting that occurs at a wedding is a tradition, but at the same time, it is highly symbolic. The handkerchief or cloth held by the bride and groom are symbolic of Kinyan, which are the 3 symbolic exchanges made at a wedding to bring a couple together. It is symbolic because a handkerchief is also used in the Kinyan ceremony which occurs during the Kettubah signing. Second, the Biblical Hebrew word for lifting is the same word for sanctifying, as also for marrying. Etymologically, the idea is you uplift something when you sanctify it, and the bride is considered sanctified through marriage. Hence, lifting the couple together on chairs encapsulates everything they have just experienced. In Ashkenazi custom, the song, Hava Nagliah ("Come Let us Rejoice") is played during the chair lifting. I hope this helps explain. (Anonymous Rabbi)


 * It's just for fun, that's all. It's not a ritual, or anything formal. Ariel. 09:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Racial Philosophy
1. In Nazi racial philosophy, what other groups existed besides Aryans and Jews? 2. Did Nazi racial philosophy consider Southern Italians Aryan? 3. Did Nazi racial philosophy consider Irish people Aryan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes ~. Edison 06:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the (very brief) page on Nazism and race and that on the Aryan Race. There were no specific views on Italians and the Irish, both of whom would have been considered, in the broadest sense, part of the Aryan race.  Beyond the Jews, the Nazis had a poor view of Gypsies and Slavs, in particular.  It is worth stressing, though, that there was a fairly high degree of latitude here, particular hatred being directed at those in the way of Hitler's demand for Lebensraum, the chief victims of which were to be the Poles and the Russians.  The stupidity of Nazi policy here was particularly evident after the invasion of Russia in June 1941, when Hitler refused to give support to the considerable anti-Stalin movement, on the grounds that this would only encourage undesirable Slav nationalism.  Clio the Muse 02:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Nazis were also Nordicists, and would have found Southern Italians to be racially suspicious (along, probably, with the Irish). (this map gives a good idea of how the Germans would have viewed divisions within the "white" race, though it is American and makes Germany look more heterogenous than the Nazis would have liked.) --24.147.86.187 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have said, Nazi racial theories cannot be defined in such strict terms, and were subject to modification by practice. The Nordic theory would have precluded the 'Alpine' category (and by inference Hitler himself) from the ideal.  Beyond people like Alfred Rosenberg, you will see very little direct emphasis on this-outwith pseudo-scientific 'academic' circles- after the Anschluss.  The Italians were allies and were not perceived in official policy in derogatory terms.  The Irish, as Celtic peoples, would be seen in the same category as the Anglo-Saxons, insofar as there was any view at all.  Above all, please remember that Nazism, before all else, was a political movement, not a collection of strict eugenicists.  Clio the Muse 02:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sex Partners
1. For an American in their twenties what is the average number of annual sex partners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes ~. Edison 05:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats an interesting question! How many sex partners do they have? The Faithless lot ... 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the number of sex partnets - on average for different countries should be an article. Like the durex survey: http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2005Content.asp?intQid=764

Organized crime
1.	Genovese crime family? a.	Of the current made members, who is though of as the most powerful? b.	Within the Genovese crime family, how power full is Frank DePergola? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes ~. Edison 05:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Try looking at Genovese crime family. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just a reference desk. --Kainaw (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish Politics
Which political party is more conservative Fianna Fail or Fin Gael? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes ~. Edison 05:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is not an awful lot to choose between the two, although Fine Gael is slightly more to the right. Clio the Muse 02:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stealing references
Say I want to provide a reference for a statement I make in a formal paper. Another paper makes exactly the same statement, and provides a reference, but either I don't have access to that publication or I'm too lazy to find it and read it. Instead I just copy the reference (and I don't say "cited in..." or anything like that). How bad is this on the academic dishonesty scale? How often do people get away with it? Does adding "cited in..." make it perfectly legitimate, or is that just a cop-out? —Keenan Pepper 03:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's bad, but it probably happens more than people are prepared to admit. I do know of one Phd thesis, subsequently published as a monograph, which was found to have incorrect source references.  There was an almighty stink, and it ruined the career of the individual in question.  In the circumstances you have given, I would simply draw attention to the secondary work, rather than pretend that I had looked at the primary evidence.  Clio the Muse 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if you do the legwork to have a look at p. 63, say, of the original source of the quotation, it would still be more candid to include your "cited in..." This offers your reader a more accurate indication of your real source, which staring at p. 63 for confirmation did not alter.  If it is important to base your argument on the original source, you should have a wider & unfiltered familiarity with it, etc.  In an ideal world, of course.  In practice, writers love to pepper their footnotes with empty displays of learning they do not possess, errors inherited from intermediaries, etc.  Wareh 03:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, you should probably indicate the intermediary source. Although, it depends (to some degree) on the more specific nature of the statement in question. Carom 04:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Another way of stating it is adding "(not seen)". AnonMoos 04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A different but related issue is that of credit. Assuming that X came up with an idea, and is cited by Y, then it is not appropriate (according to my personal code of academic conduct) to just cite Y without referring to X. If the only issue is to give credit where credit is due, and the issue is not contentious, then (again in my opinion) it is not dishonest to bypass Y, but in that case I'd make sure (using independent confirmation) that the source reference is correct. For example, I'd be happy to state that Gauss's proof of the law of quadratic reciprocity can be found in his Disquisitiones Arithmeticae without having perused the master's handiwork, and also without saying something like "according to Bell (1937), ...", which I'd find silly for something that can be found anywhere you care to look. --Lambiam Talk  12:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Related to the issue of credit Joseph Henry in the 1830's invented the compound electromagnet, with multiple layers of insulated copper wire, in place of the preceding device with one layer, and the power went from ounces to over a ton. European scientists received his journal article and described it in ther language without giving credit, apparently on the theory that the U.S was too insignificant to invent anything of importance. The compound electromagnet was for many years ascribed to the European scientists who publicly reported the invention without crediting Henry. Edison 15:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're at least considering quoting another person's reference as the authority for your statement, then consider the possibility that they too have copied it off someone else (or, worse, just made it up and are hoping the examiner takes it at face value). You never really know what the reference says till you check it yourself. JackofOz 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All that I will say is that it happens, and it happens often. This is not generally because of scholarly laziness, but the expense of keeping a library up to date and the fact that a good many older works of scholarship refer to books that are in rare book rooms/gone.  A lesser "crime" is taking a reference to a book you've read.  If you've read Wealth of Nations and remember the discussion of "the invisible hand" but don't want to go back to dig and bore yourself silly looking for it, you might nab a reference to the page number from someone else who cited it.  At the same time, this is, indeed, a source of proliferating errors.  Studies in Samuel Johnson have had some very widespread biographical errors because of every dwarf citing the works of his underlying giants.  Geogre 11:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is something I face fairly often, because many times, the original will be unavailable, or without a translation, or both. Since I usually use footnotes, I'll put the original source info, followed by (where I got it). So, not bothering with all the format details, it might go: Cicero, De Officiis 1:31:15 (Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, p. x)...and then I would make sure to stick everything in very clearly in the bibliography. So, you know, Cicero, blah blah blah, from Life and Leisure, see balsdon. None of my professors have ever had a problem with it, although if it's something easily accessible and in full translation, like my example is, they'd expect me to take a look at it...if for no other reason than to make sure it's in the right context, etc. Novium 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

route to china
why were the french not so interested in discovering a route to china? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.217.17 (talk • contribs).


 * I do not quite understand your question. There was a strong French presence in the Far East in the ninteenth century; so it's fairly safe to assume that they already had a good idea where China was.  But please let me know if you have a more specific question in mind.  Clio the Muse 06:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would guess they were asking about during the time of Marco Polo. That is, why didn't the French send such an expedition ? StuRat 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, on the basis of the above, and in the absence of any further clarification, the important point here is that formal exploration by Europeans began in a very tentative way. The Polo brothers were merchants, rather than explorers as such, whose free-enterprise probes to the east were little more than a search for fresh commercial opportunities.  European states of the day were far too concerned with problems closer to home to have any interest in exploration of more distant worlds.  State-sponsored exploration only really began in a serious way in the sixteenth century, and almost all, including the French, were looking for opportunities in the west, rather than the east.  It was not until the seventeenth century that they began to take a serious interest in the east, with the establishment of the French East India Company.  Defeat by the British, both in North America and in India, brought their first colonial empire to an end.  The second phase of empire, and the new colonisation in the east, only began after the Napoleonic Wars, and the establishment of French power in Indochine.  Clio the Muse 08:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that this is a misconception, that what you observe is not lack of interest but rather lack of names in your history book. History tends to be like Olympic games; do you ever hear who came fourth in the Olympic mile in 1952? Articles which may help guide you include Age of Discovery and French colonial empire. Seejyb 09:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Clio, I'm not sure why you would say: "State-sponsored exploration only really began in a serious way in the sixteenth century, and almost all, including the French, were looking for opportunities in the west, rather than the east." Pretty much all of the major exploration of the day was dedicated towards the goal of discovering a western short-cut, if you will, to the far east. Their discovery of America was pure happenstance. From Christopher Columbus, to John Cabot to Ferdinand Magellan to Amerigo Vespucci to the French commissioned Jacques Cartier, they were all, in setting sail westward across the Atlantic, dedicated to discovering a route to East Asia, not discovering an entirely new continent somewhere in the middle. Loomis 17:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, Loomis, state-sponsored exploration did indeed take shape with Isabella the Catholic's support for Columbus and his proposal to find a new rout to the East Indies via the western passage; but it was only after it was firmly established that new prospects for wealth and commercial explotation were available much closer in the west did governments in general become seriously interested. Mass exploration really begins in the sixteenth century with the 'scramble for America.'  This does not mean to imply, of course, that there were no more attempts to look for a short-cut to the east.  Clio the Muse 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a follow-up question, Clio: Understanding that Columbus mistook the Aboriginal Americans he originally encountered as being "Indians"; and keeping in mind that as late as 1669, the French explorer Robert Cavelier de La Salle, though granted a seigneurie on the Island of Montreal which exists to this day by its original name, as the Montreal suburb of "LaChine" (French for China), was still determined to venture further west to finally find that elusive short-cut to the real China; when would you say did the European community of explorers finally come to the consensus that America was more than a mere obstacle to getting to the Far East, but was in and of itself quite a substantial continent on its own, and a far more valuable prize than any western route to the Far East?


 * Yes, LaSalle may have been far behind his times in not recognizing America for what it was. But still then, why, in 1520, did the Spanish send Ferdinand Magellan, not to discover new lands in the Americas to colonize, (in fact he purposely avoided the coast of Brazil as it was "Portuguese" territory,) but to actually ignore the Americas and continue steadfast on a mission to find a way to reach the Spice Islands, (and, in the process, discovering the Straits of Magellan)? All I'm saying is that I would say that the "scramble for America", as you call it, seems to only completely overtaken the "scramble for a route to the Far East", not quite in the 16th century, (definitely not in the first half,) but rather, only took full force in the 17th. Loomis 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (We had an edit clash, Loomis; what a coincidence!) Another very welcome 'Letter from America' (understood in the broadest sense, of course!). Like most new ideas, Loomis, it probably only gained acceptance slowly.  The usual explanation is that it dates to the publication of Mundus Novus by Amerigo Vespucci in the very early years of the sixteenth century.  In 1507 the first map was published, naming the land to the west as 'America'.  But even earlier than this Peter Martyr d' Angheria, the Spanish chronicler, was referring to Columbus as the discoverer of a 'New World', his conclusions eventually being published in the later De Orbe Novo.  But as far as the European powers are concerned I have little doubt that the real clincher was the arrival in Europe of heavily laden Spanish treasure ships, and the popularity of the stories of El Dorado and Quivira and Cibola.  Thus begins the flight to the west, as a 'gold rush', no less! ADDENDUM. But remember, I do say that this did not altogether supplant an interest in the real East Indies. And you are of course quite right to suggest that the 'scramble for America' was a lengthy process. Clio the Muse 03:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also around the time of Polo there were people like Jordanus and William of Rubruck who headed that way. meltBanana  19:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

the Suez Canal and Port Said....
Hi,

I was wondering about the fact that if you spell Suez backwards, its spells Zeus and if you spell Said backwards, is spells Dias (a more formal name for Zeus)....is this a coincidence?

Kind regards' Anna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.158.157 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, I don't think that Dog was trying to tell us anything by using backwards spelling. StuRat 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean hallA? DirkvdM 09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Anna, you are 'bending' the facts to fit your theory-not really a good idea! Perhaps this was unintentional?  Zeus is metamorphoses of Dyeus not 'dias'.  Clio the Muse 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a widespread rumour on the Internet that "Dias" is an alternative for "Zeus", as shown here. --Lambiam Talk  09:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This may be modern Greek; see Δίας. --Lambiam Talk  09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it a coincidence that 'annA' is an palindrome? DirkvdM 09:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It all depends on how you transliterate the Arabic names. In Turkish, Süveyş spelled backwards is Şyevüs, which, next to being rather unpronounceable, has no discernable relationship to deities, or anything else for that matter. While the French brought us the spelling "Suez", I'm not sure what the British would have made of سويس, but more likely something like "Suways". --Lambiam Talk  09:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Life Style News Article of Guam Pacific Daily News Reseasrch
My name is Ms. Palomo, I am a decendent from Guam and is looking for the marc article on a news paper clipping of Estefanica Concepcion Palomo from Fonte Maina and later resided in Anigua Guam. On Wednesday, June 29, 1977 a news paper reporter named Rios Versace reported this aticle to PDN News staff.

I would like to be able to obtain this peice as this is the only heritage identity of my grandmother. Please reply to me at  regarding this research. If there is anyone who can provide me more details as the courageous woman shared her lifestyle of fishery here on Guam. Estefania was married to Jose Toves Palomo (The Budagin Family" ) This will help me bring my search closer as I am studying my roots and ethnic cultural history.

Thank You

Cathrina Graddaughter of the late Estafinia Conecption Toves Palomo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.227.189 (talk • contribs)


 * Did you contact vthe offices of the PDN? Newspapers usually keep archives of all issues. Here is a page with contact information. --Lambiam Talk  09:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Population Rankings
I am interested in the population of cities. however haven't been able to find a good page on wikipedia describing this. My first suggestion would be to implement such a page. Otherwise I would much appriciate if you could find me the following statistics.

1. Top 30 most populated cities in Germany 2. Top 30 most populated cities in EU 3. Top 15 most populated cities in Sweden 4. Top 30 most populated cities in Italy 5. Top 30 most populated cities in Spain

thanks in advance for your troubles and if there would still exsist such a page I would appreciate the link and would suggest that a more visible link be placed in the various countries information boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.124.194 (talk • contribs)


 * Have you had a look at List of cities by population and List of metropolitan areas by population? There are also a number of useful links here.  Clio the Muse 09:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Finding pages such as the ones Clio linked to above, is often easier using google than using Wikipedia's own search box. Googling for most populated cities site:wikipedia.org will give you these pages as the first hits. --N·Bluetalk 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One good site is http://www.citypopulation.de. --Anonymous, 06:15 UTC, November 20.

To what extent was WW1 a Total War?
Hello, I was wondering whether anyone could help me obtain some information and specific details that would answer this question. Or anyother information one would like to share on this topic. Thank you. --86.142.215.231 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Begin with Total war and then have a look at the details of World War I. In the past wars had tended to be limited affairs, often fought with mercenaries rather than citizen soldiers, or only involving a part, and often a small part, of any nation's resources.  From the middle of the ninteenth century onwards, wars began to demand ever greater commitments, blurring the boundries between the civil and the military.  The Great War began in a limited way, but soon drew in men, money and materials in enormous quantities.  By 1916, even the British, who in the past had always relied on a volunteer army, introduced conscription.  Those states not developed enough to stand the strain simply collapsed. The best example of this is Russia in 1917.  Clio the Muse 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your definition of total war would be critical to any answer, and the article does point out the difficulty of that. Whatever definition you use, WWI may have been a "total war" for some countries, but not for others. The involvement of each country would have to be assessed separately. The question could also be interpreted as involving "the total world" as active participants, which was not the case in "World" War I. In this regard, the info at Allies of World War I can be used to identify countries which were neutral - using the lists and map in that article would help find them. Seejyb 13:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think total war is a POV issue. For Russia, France, Germany or the Ottoman Empire it was a total war, for the US, Brazil, India or Japan it was not. Perhaps define it like this major participants on both conflicting sides were waging a total war with their resources. Wandalstouring 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What sort of musical instrument is this?
I was walking through Pitt Street today here in Sydney, and I came across a busker playing a three stringed guitar-like instrument that he was strumming with a fan-like thing. Does anybody know what it's called? My first thought was that it was an erhu, but erhus are played with bows, so it must be something else. Any help would be appreciated. —DO&#39;Neil 10:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a Japanese shamisen. (And the guy looks Japanese...) 惑乱 分からん 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Astronought Theory
Does anyone know of any books that investigate the Ancient astronaut theory, oo in any other way discuss the attitude of ancient civilzations to extra terrestrials, other than Chariots of the Gods? --124.243.155.3 10:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the links in the ancient astronaut theory article.--Shantavira 12:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Does "astro nought" suggest that you don't really believe in such things? :)  JackofOz 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Typographical error, i am ashamed :( --124.243.155.3 07:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See here: Extraterrestrial life, Ancient and Early Modern ideas. Ariel. 09:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Man and monkey
How many sex acts can a man and monkey in 15 minutes? The world may never find out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.252 (talk • contribs)


 * You will never know, Ben; you will never know. Unless, of course, you take an empirical approach to these questions.  In which case I think your biggest problem will be in finding a willing monkey.  Clio the Muse 20:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Too many, and there's a high risk for spreading diseases... 惑乱 分からん 11:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm sure any bonobo you'd find would be more than willing. As for the contention that having sex with a monkey would spread disease, I'd imagine that your assumption is largely inspired by the fact that humans originally contracted AIDS from monkeys/apes, which is of course true. Unfortunately though, the disease did not spread in as titilating a manner as you may have imagined. It had nothing to to with human/monkey sex. Rather, it was spread through the human consumption of infected monkey flesh. Loomis 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Has it been proven? It might be more plausible, although the theory of a charming pervert certainly is more interesting... =S 惑乱 分からん 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually just checked the article to make sure. It states that along with eating infected monkey meat, a bite from an infected monkey may be another possibility. Unfortunately though, no perverts. Sorry! :( Loomis 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WARNING. 'Ben-Gurione' or '24.177.35.252' sometimes posts a bunch of random question. Not quite trolling, but a nuisance nevertheless. Please ignore him.--Shantavira 12:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Define "sex act" and state who is doing what to whom and what sex they are. Your question is too vague. -THB 19:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you had an infinite amount of monkeys performing sexual acts for infinite time would they at some stage re-enact the entire kama sutra? Vespine 22:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since no one else has said it, I will:
 * Only if they're wearing masks. -THB 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, BDSM is a human thing... ;) As for masks, no bonobo would understand the trouble involved... 惑乱 分からん 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Where America's day begins.
Apropos the question earlier on from a person in Guam, The PND has this rather nice motto. Which newspaper would be able to have the motto of "Where America's Day Ends"? Seejyb 13:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Presumably the Samoa News on American Samoa, which is one hour behind Hawaii. -- Mwalcoff 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Hawaii would be after Alaska and then there's American Samoa the farthest. Cbrown1023 02:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not Cape Wrangell, Alaska? It’s at 172.5°E, further west than American Samoa but still east of the International Date Line. --Mathew5000 08:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Intervals
Hi,

What is the musical interval between an Ab and D#?

Thanks,

--Neil9999 18:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See Tritone. --Lambiam Talk  19:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a tritone. Since D# is enharmonic whith Eb, for practical purposes, on an instrument using equal temperament such as a piano, the interval is a fifth. Technically speaking, maybe you could call it a twice-augmented fourth. --N·Bluetalk 20:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, a doubly augmented fourth. As you say, in equal temperament, it's the same as a perfect fifth, but in extended meantone temperament, for example, it's much narrower than a perfect fifth. In a way, it's the opposite of a wolf fifth (a.k.a. diminished sixth), which is much wider than a perfect fifth. —Keenan Pepper 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For ear training, think of it as the interval between the first and second instances of "tinkle" in "Twinkle, twinkle little star," or between "Do" and "Sol." Edison 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Easy Answer: Fifth. Accurate answer: Doubly Augmented Fourth. A perfect fifth and a doubly augmented fourth are enharmonic equivalents. Flying Hamster 08:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexual impatience
How many partners do the americans generally have in their twenties? 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjvenus (talk • contribs)
 * You should try checking the United States Census website. Also, this article has a bit of info. Anchoress 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked this same question yesterday, try to be a little more patient. To address this this question, it's a 'bit' broad. I would say the average is somewhere between 1 and 10. If you gave a 'context' we could discuss that but I don't think a purely 'average' figure would really do you any good, it would be like saying the average person has less then two legs. It's technically true but doesn't actually mean much in the real world. Vespine 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean during that entire decade or per year while they're in their twenties? -THB 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see what you mean, I did mean per year, but the OP only said 'annually' the 1st time they asked the question, but didn't specify that above. But now that I think about it, I don't know, that would mean that the average american has slept with at least 10 - 100 people, that's probably on the bit high side? :) But I stick to my second statement about the actual figure being pretty meaningless, since there would be whole sub groups of people who have only 1 or 2 partners, neo-cons and Christians and the like, and there would be groups that have more then 100 partners in their 20s.Vespine 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone has one partner for ten years, does that mean they have 0.1 partners annually? --Lambiam Talk  18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not make the unwarranted assumption that neocons and Christians are chaste and pure and do not have as many sex partmners as liberals and athiests, or whatever the alternative groups would be. There have been recent scandals involving right-wing evangelists, and aggressive pedophile conservative congressmen and there was the outing of a prominent neocon "journalist" and male escort. It is called hypocrisy.    Edison 15:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The question is in the context of a middle class American individual. How many sex partners does a middle income class american generally have? Kjvenus 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean at one time (by one time I don't mean an orgy, I mean concurrently having several consistent sex partners)? How many have they had up to this point in their life? How many do they have over one year? What? Nil Einne 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

IN the twenties and beyond perhaps to be more accurate over 2-3 years in their early twenties and thirties. 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thousands! Kjvenus, Thousands! The bounds of American decadence are seemingly endless. On an average day I'd say the average one of us has at least 30-40 different sex partners. (I'm proud to say that I exceed that estimate by quite a bit, but I shouldn't brag!) Of course we have to take occasional breaks from our otherwise non-stop sexual activities to engage in our other favourite pastime: shopping for meaningless plastic or shiny goods of all kinds to satisfy our insatiable appetite for empty materialism. Oh, and once in a while we get together to vote for politicians who promise to do their best to attack as many poor foreign peoples as possible, in order to steal all of their countries' riches to help keep up our lifestyle of endless pleasure! For the uninitiated, Kjvenus is one of the most notorious and disgusting of trolls. The insulting maliciousness of his/her comments are overshadowed only by his/her inconceiveable stupidity. Loomis 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The last comment clearly reflects loomis addiction to porn content and insane culture of the west that the world is obligated to survive with. Stop trolling and come to the point that the lack of faith is clearly reflected in that pathetic culture. Loomis comment clearly reflects sheer intolerance towards remarks having an element of sanity. The last comment about the political rule is absolutely perfect. Selfish maniacs like the US president deserve to be kicked out of power. The world is a slave of freedom & democracy. I think Loomis u gave a mixed reaction about the culture and the imperialistic rule of the west. 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Loomis, you have an addiction to "porn content and insane culture"? My, my; what an interesting person you must be!  Anais Nin by way of H. P. Lovecraft!  How absolutely wonderful: I've always admired  existential warriors like you.  Clio the Muse 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To sum up in short, it doesn't look like you are going to get a straight answer. And as to your remark about my comments Edison, when anyone talks about a general demographic, I usually assume that it excludes the 'hypocrites', no matter how large a portion of that demographic they make, like the paedophiles and adulterers you give as example, would still make a very small minority. Assumptions like that are why people have trouble telling terrorists apart from Muslims. Vespine 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)