Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 18

= April 18 =

Why Uppercases With Comic Strips?
The use of uppercase for dialogs with comic stips must be some kind of established standard (example). Why are uppercases always used? Does anyone know of a reference for this? Thanks.--JLdesAlpins 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why the comics industry would adopt an formula, but I can easily imagine why newspaper editors would demand upper case letters: readability. The majiscule is much less likely to be confused, and, since the comic strip has "hand lettered" writing, demanding all upper case would increase readability.  This is the same reasoning that the US Post Office uses when preferring (demanding, really, if you want a bulk discount) upper case only lettering on address fields.  In the far past, with the origins of the cartoon in newspapers, there would be a printed caption in the newspaper's fonts or a "script" font, but once the strip had dialog balloons and thought balloons and other instances of the artist's own handwriting, upper case would have been much better for the job.  Geogre 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While I don't know for a fact why the lettering in comic strips is traditionally all caps, I find it doubtful that legibility was the reason. Quoting from our article Typography: Some commonly agreed findings of legibility research include: text set in lower case is more legible than text set all in upper case (capitals). Rather than being demanded by newspaper editors, I find it more plausible that it is a matter of the artists' choice. The early examples of comics, such as The Yellow Kid, Mutt and Jeff, and Krazy Kat, all used all caps, and my guess is that other artists just followed the conventions they saw in successful comic strips. --Lambiam Talk  12:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur that upper/lower case together is more readable and less tiring on the eye. Another possible reason why comics are always in upper case is the kind of words they are.  It's a different kind of representation of speech from the kind you encounter in novels, for example: it's more declamatory and rhetorical, it's all about getting the point across.  In that sense upper case is arguably more appropriate.  It would be very interesting to know if there are any examples of comics/graphic novels with lower case text. --Richardrj talkemail 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure there are some among contemporary daily comics. For example, the venerable strip Gasoline Alley, which started out all caps in 1918 or 1919, now follows the conventional mix of upper and lower case used in ordinary writing. I don't know when the switch-over happened. Concerning the history, I found a statement that [F.] Opper was the first cartoonist who used speechballoons in comics on a permanent basis starting with the new century, in 1900. He used all caps. --Lambiam Talk  13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jump Start cleverly uses mixed case for children's speech and all-caps for adults. Ziggy uses all-caps except for the word "I," which seems to emphasize Ziggy's lack of self-esteem. -- Mwalcoff 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's simply that text in all lower case can be read faster, and text in all capitals can be read easier. Dr Zak 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Read Lambiam's first post above again. --Richardrj talkemail 05:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A related question is why, at least in Disney comics, is every utterance followed by an exclamation mark (except for question marks after questions). JackofOz 23:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott McCloud expresses ideas about uppercase lettering in his book Making Comics. I can't find his sentiments at the moment but maybe later I can add something. Root4(one) 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think All capitals is used because the text is drawn, not written. The text is more legible this way if you dont write much.Polypipe Wrangler 22:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

longest prison sentence
what is the longest prison sentence ever? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Er, life? - Eron Talk 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The question cannot be answered. There have been many instances of individuals given multiple life or multiple 99 year sentences, but "longest" ever is simply something no one can know or reliably report.  Geogre 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To the extent that prison sentences are on the public record, it must be technically possible to compile a list and work out who had the longest sentence in history. But whether this is feasible is a different matter.  JackofOz 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And in fact if you Google "longest prison sentence" you come up with this page. It looks about 30 years out of date. This page offers another possibility (which seems legit) — a guy who was sentenced to 10,000 years in prison. In any case, it's amazing what sorts of things people decide cannot be known without even looking! ;-) --24.147.86.187 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jamal Zougam, Otman el Ghanoui and Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras were each sentenced to 43,000 years in prison for their participation in the Madrid train bombings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7071990.stm  Article retrieved 2007.10.31 (31 October, 2007)  Allan Gabston-Howell 06:23 (UTC), 2007.11.01 (01 November 2007)


 * Prison sentences are on the public record in Western countries. They may not be on the public record everywhere. There is no certainty that the longest prison sentence would have to be in the West. -- Charlene 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. That's why I said "to the extent that ...".  JackofOz 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, guys. That's why I said it couldn't be answered.  No one is going to know even in the West, but only in the West since records have been kept and where records have been preserved and survive.  In the 14th century, all sorts of hyperbolic sentences were given by legal courts, but generally prison was not a place of punishment as much as a place where a person awaited execution of the sentence.  Therefore, no, it is not an answerable question even in state courts.  Take in various ecclesiastical courts, and you have the possibility of damnation and eternal punishment, and that would be the longest of all.  Geogre 11:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, what exactly is the point of 10,000 year sentences anyway? My initial reply was not entirely facetious; the longest sentence that can be served is from the effective date of sentencing until the end of the convict's life. Anything beyond that is meaningless. - Eron Talk 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case of perpetrators of multiple murders (eg. Martin Bryant), it's a symbolic statement about justice being seen to be done in respect of each of the victims, not just one. Also, a person may later have their conviction quashed in respect of one or more of the murders, but the other convictions would still stand.  JackofOz 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, some jurisdictions allow the prisoner to be eligible for parole after a certain percentage of their sentence has been served. By setting a long sentence, that percentage also becomes a very long time.  Possibly longer that the prisoner is expected to live, thus giving them a life sentence.  Dismas |(talk) 06:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up question (morbid curiosity): any reliable sources on the longest prison sentence actually served? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I found references to people in various countries serving for 30 years before a pardon or parole when sentenced to life in prison. Per in the U.S. numerous children as young as 13 have been sentenced to "life without parole" when convicted of murder. Per  there are 9,700 prisoners in the U.S. serving life sentences for crimes committed before they were 18.   Thrill-killer Nathan Leopold served 33 years of a life sentence before parole for killing a 14 year old when Leopold was 19. The Birdman of Alcatraz, Robert Stroud, was imprisoned for 54 years, until his death at age 73. He murdered a prison guard while serving a sentence for manslaughter. Nazi official Rudolph Hess was imprisoned 46 years by the Allies from  1941 until his death by suicide or murder in 1987 at age 93. I could not find a specific claim of a given person being the longest time served, but clearly 80 years would be possible in the extreme case of a 13 year old who survived to the age Hess did. Edison 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I make no claims about the validity of this source, but a "Richard Honeck" was apparently released from prison in 1963 after serving 64 years for the murder of a school teacher. See |here. I'll see if I can't dig up some confirmation. Carom 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Saturday Evening Post on March 14, 1964 had an article entitled "Richard Honeck Released After 64 years in prison" per a listing of a copy of the magazine at EBAY . Looks like the makings of a Wikipedia article if someone finds the magazine in their library. Another EBAY listing says about this article "After 64 years, the prisoner comes home ... by Robert Gannon." and " Robert Gannon, a free-lance writer who lived with Richard Honeck during his last few days in prison, found conditions and methods strongly geared to the rehabilitation of inmates -- not like in the old Bogart movies at all." Edison 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Article Richard Honeck added, based on research in contemporary issues of the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. It's an interesting story, to say the least. Unfortunately I live in the UK, which means the Saturday Evening Post is hard to find (the only run I know of is at the British Newspaper Library at Colindale), but I'll add it when I get the chance. Mikedash 06:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Zhang Xueliang was a Chinese warlord who arrested Chiang Kai-shek in 1936. When Chiang regained power in 1936, Zhang was imprisoned for ten years for treason, followed by "house arrest." Chiang took his prisoner to Taiwan when the KMT was forced out of mainland China in 1949. Zhang remained a prisoner until 1990 at the age of about 90, after the death of Chiang and his son and successor, for a total of 54 years, resulting in a claim he was the longest serving political prisoner. He lived to be about 100. Edison 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * William Heirens, convicted as a serial murderer, has been imprisoned since his arrest in 1946. He is 79 years old, so he has the potential to surpass the 64 year term cited above, especially if his pretrial jail time is included. Edison 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do hunters with illegal firearms register their weapon in Japan
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-04-17T184607Z_01_T370433_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-JAPAN-SHOOTING-DEATH-COL.XML

Japan has very strict gun control laws and illegal firearms are mostly in the hands of "yakuza" gangsters or registered hunters.

202.168.50.40 00:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you are misunderstanding the sentence. Illegal weapons have been found in possession of registered hunters who obviously are breaking the law. The illegal weapons haven't been registered at all. Flamarande 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hunters have to register *as hunters* in Japan. That doesn't include the registration of their weapons. So a hunter who wants to use a rifle (and good luck to him) needs both a hunting registration and (were it possible) gun registration. -- Charlene 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, what? When I was looking up Japanese gun laws for another question, I found that only shotguns are allowed to be used by hunters. Hunters aren't allowed to use rifles and pistols still, afaik. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

：that's right. In Japan, possession of gun is strictly banned, but only police officers and hunters are allowed to have guns. A police officer is allowed to have a pistol only while working,( It's forbidden to take it out of work). And hunters have to resister every gun(Actually, the kind they can have is only shot-guns for hunting ). Of course, in big cities, there's no place for hunting in Japan now, so I have never seen a shot-gun which a hunter has in my whole life though I've lived in Japan for 30years. Yes, hunters can have shot-guns for their activities in Japan, but hunting itself is not common anymore. In hence, Having a gun in Japan is still really rare and nothing like in America at all.(You know,people can get guns in shops). In addition, people in Japan are sure Japanese gangs,Yakuza posses guns, in fact, murder cases by guns are often happened in Japan. But most of people never see guns and I don't know about Japanese gang's gun possession things.

List of Chinese Fraternal Communist Parties in the USA
The Chinese Communist party has had numerous sister or fraternal communist parties inside the United States although Chinese sister parties have never had the same relationship as say the Soviets and the comintern. Nevethlees I'd be intrested in learning the history of the links. From my researh it seems from 1919-1960 CPUSA 1960-1970 PLP 1970-1976 ???? 1976-1980 Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) 1988-2007 CPUSA

If anyone could provide more details on the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and and the intenrational communist movmeent especially post1991 I would really appreciate it.

--Lee1863 02:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can read something about that in our article Maoism, in particular the section on Maoism internationally; unfortunately it is somewhat shallow and gives no references for further reading. See also our articles Communist Party USA, Progressive Labor Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (also for some time a CCP-aligned "fraternal party"), and Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) (USA). --Lambiam Talk  13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, concerning the post 1991 relationship between the CCP and the international communist movement, I think no groups outside China who label themselves "communist" would consider the present CCP to be communist other than in name. --Lambiam Talk  13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

warrior cats volume 2 book 6 sunset
why is Ashfur so jealous of Brambleclaw?! I bet he had enough time with Squirrelflight.75.36.218.55 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a question on a question: What is this person talking about? Bielle 03:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It would seem the question is about motives in a series of texts called "Warrior Cats".  Reference desks don't do questions about literary motives, however, except where resources exist which themselves explore motives in the text under consideration.   Given the name of the series, I suspect there is no such resource set out there.   Without such resources, we cannot answer without offering original research, and that's counter to Wikipedia's standards.   Worse, without such resources, we can offer only opinion.    Perhaps an internet forum on/for similar types of works would be a better place to ask the question.   Jfarber 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This person would be talking about a series of books called "Warriors" by Erin Hunter. To awnser the question though:Ashfur is jealous because he feels that Brambleclaw has stolen Squirrelflight from him.

Lawyers & Law Offices/Firm (Legalities) Sites.
Hi, > > I have some questions regarding on how can I find or > search for some office addresses in malaysia, more > exactly on Law Offices/Firm or check for thier > legalities as well as some Lawyer Names? > > Thank you and hope you could help me with this > matter. Hope to hear from you asap. >

Neil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.104.2.80 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Check Martindale-Hubbell--you can select Malaysia from the drop down menu. GreatManTheory 11:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Boudica's age
I couldn't find it in the Boudica article, but does anyone know how old she was when she began her revolt? When she died? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.67.174 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC).


 * "Her place and date of birth and her parentage are not known; nor in fact are any details of her early life except that she married Prasutagus, who was allowed by the Romans to rule his tribe, the Iceni, as a client king. By him, she had two daughters who were probably teenagers by A.D. 60. It seems likely that Boadicca was born circa A.D. 20 to A.D. 30. (Magill, Frank N. (1998) 'Boadicca,' Dictionary of World Biography: The Ancient World Vol. 1, p. 136)"&mdash;eric 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The date-and the circumstances-of her death is not known with any precision. She is said, according to Tacitus, to have poisoned herself to avoid capture soon after her defeat at the Battle of Watling Street by Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, though Dio Cassius says she died of natural causes. There is some confusion over the date of her rebellion. Tacitus says it broke out in 61AD, though it seems more likely that it began in 60AD and continued to the following year. Clio the Muse 05:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that Tacitus did not use the AD system. More than likely that he used the 'year of a consul', or perhaps even the Ab urbe condita. To use these two systems today to backtrack the "correct dates" is very difficult. Despite what the article List of early imperial Roman consuls suggests, the 1 January was not always the beginning of the 'consular year' and the Julian calendar was not perfect, likewise for the Ab urbe condita system. Flamarande 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, absolutely right, Flamarande, and it should, more correctly, be expressed as 'in accordance with calculations based upon Tacitus'. Clio the Muse 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Calculations which might be wrong (or not). Flamarande 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, hence the ambiguity. Clio the Muse 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

books
what is the book with the most volumes


 * The 11,095 of the Yongle Dadian?&mdash;eric 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, it's the Book of Sand, of course, or it is one to be found only on the shelves of the Library of Babel. Clio the Muse 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Book of Life? The Book of Fate?  Whitehead and Russell's set of all sets?  (For a serious answer, we need some definition of "volume" other than the author's, because authors gamed the designation pretty early, sometimes for commercial reasons.)  Utgard Loki 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno. But I bet it was Elsevier that published it. Dr Zak 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Identify a famous impressionist painting
I need to identify this painting:. I think it's mislabeled and need to find a free alternative to replace this recent upload. DHN 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is by John Singer Sargent, DHN, and is entitled Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose. It was first exhibited at the Royal Academy in London in 1887. Clio the Muse 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DHN 05:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Amount of deaths of witches and accused witches
Can anyone tell me the most accurate estimate of how many people were executed during the Witch Craze/ Burning Times? The period of time I am looking fo is 1450 to 1700. I am looking for the murders that were done in Europe and the early U.S. to actual witchcraft practitioners and those who were falsely accused. I have searched thoroughly throughout the web and witch related Wikipedia entries, but I can't seem to attain a direct answer or even a ballpark range. I have been told 40,000, 100,000, 9 million, etc. Help! 67.142.130.18 07:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the number of Witches burnt. The amount is dependant on their weight, which is a sensitive subject. Witch-hunt has some broad figures. There is a theory regarding wheat fungus and witch burnings ;) DDB 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is among the best web pages on the subject . You may also wish to refer to the Wikipedia article on Witch hunts, with related links.  The short answer to your question is that we will ever know for certain.  However, the true figure would seem to be far closer to 100,000 than the absurdly high 9 million, a holocaust, in the literal sense of the term.  The intensity of the persecution increased dramatically with the onset of the Reformation, especially in Germany, in an outburst of collective hysteria.  The last execution for witchcraft in England was in 1684, though the Scots held out until as late as 1722!  Incidentally, the preferred method of execution for witchcraft in the Anglo-Saxon world, by which I mean England and the American Colonies, was death by hanging, unlike Scotland and Continental Europe, where burning was the method of choice.  For more detailed information on the whole subject I would urge you to read The Witch-hunt in Early Modern Europe by Brian Levack.  For the mindset behind the persecutions you could do no better than to dip into the infamous Malleus Maleficarum.  Double, double toil and trouble; fire burn and cauldron bubble.  Clio the Muse 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Salem witch trials mentions the ergot rye poisoning theory. DDB 08:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Burning Times" identifies the questioner as at least employing a term coined by Wiccans. Within that context, the period extends vast centuries and places.  Mainline historians reject the concept.  From my point of view, for example, the answer would be "zero."  I have never seen evidence that there were any witches in England who were taken to trial and executed.  As for the number of persons executed (by hanging, most of the time) under such a charge, the number is relatively low.  In England, witch trials and the personal religion of the King are tightly correlated.  James I, while still King of Scotland only, wrote an On Demonology book and made it very clear that he believed that there were witches and Satanists all about.  When he became King of England, the number of witch trials exploded.  When he passed from the throne, they all but stopped.  (See Jane Wenham for the lady who was the last convicted witch from my point of view (people disagree).)  Geogre 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you discount the case of Helen Duncan, Geogre, the last person in England to be convicted under the Witchcraft Act of 1735? I have little doubt that you do know this, but, for the benefit of casual readers, Shakespeare seems to have been very well acquainted with On Demonology, and all of James' views on witchcraft.  His play Macbeth shows just how much insight he had into the psychology of the royal obsession, and I believe even makes oblique reference to a real life incident-the North Berwick witch trials.  Clio the Muse 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To add to what Clio said, the people convicted and executed for witchcraft included heretics, apostates, and various people who confessed under trial by ordeal. For example (and not to open another giant historical pot) the Templars were accused of Satanism, and they were executed for it (see Jacques de Molay).  Well, they were defenders of the faith, protectors of pilgrims, etc., so the idea that they were practitioners of paganism or animism is beyond silly, and yet the entire order's executed population (which might not be very, very high) could be included.  Inasmuch as the authorities in Germany, Italy, Scotland, and France were vague themselves about what constituted "witchcraft," we cannot be any more certain.  Utgard Loki 12:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you want to know how to find a witch, etc., see Matthew Hopkins. It looks like much of that article, though, is taken from Charles Mackay's always-interesting Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.  There is an inexpensive edition of that out these days, and every Wikipedian should look at it (because Wikipedia is often cited in the "Wisdom of Crowds" counter-argument).  Utgard Loki 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Logic argument
Is there a name for the argument that can be summed up as "If it were possible, someone would be doing it"? I realize it's a (very) poor logical argument but I figure someone would have made up a name for it by now. Dismas |(talk) 09:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, this is not a logical argument but a statement of statistical probability (slightly expanded, what you are saying is "if x were possible, it would be highly probable that at least one out of 6 billion human beings would be doing it"). This might be classed as an argumentum ad ignorantiam ("I don't know of anybody doing x, therefore x is impossible") or an ignoratio elenchi (x being possible or impossible does not directly follow from the fact that nobody is doing it). -- Ferkelparade &pi; 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems strange that every possibility is instanciated in the actual world? Or are you saying that if it is possible it ought to be done? Then it is an issue in deontic reasoning but also that seems wrong. Take some extreme torture where you peal someones skin of - it is possible - ought we to do it - hardly.

Maybe the saying is expressing something weaker: If x is possible then x is necessaryly possible. That is the S5 axiom in modal logic. And it is debatable if it is true. RickardV 10:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the poster meant something along the lines of, very simply 'if you keep tossing a coin indefinitely eventually it will happen that you get 100 heads in a row'. i.e. given enough time, everything that can happen, will happen. --Alex16zx 10:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I should expand on what I meant. A person sees a process and decides that it's, for whatever reason, too complicated, therefore it should be simplified for greater productivity/cost savings/etc.  But what they don't realize is that the process is so well known that there are already a lot of people who have deteremined that process X, although it appears complicated, is actually the best way to do things.  Therefore the person should concentrate on something else because if there were an easier/more cost effective/etc. way to do process X then it would be done that way already.  More clear or more muddy now?  Dismas |(talk) 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a bit different than how it sounded in your first post. In that example, we have a classic case of argumentum ad populum -- Ferkelparade &pi; 10:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about argumentum defeatism? Definitely not a productive argument for would be inventors/innovators :) -- 38.112.225.84 11:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I keep thinking that it's just a bad set of assumptions, but the assumptions seem linked to the medieval notion of plenitude. The universe fills every void, and humans fill every occupation.  Therefore, if no one is doing a thing, it is because it is not a void.  Otherwise, I think Ferkelparade is right that the original was a form of ignoratio elenchi.  The "we've always done it this way, so this is the best way" is argument by authority/tradition, which is a subset of ad populum.  It was formerly very popular.  Utgard Loki 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One of Nietzsche's aphorisms addresses this. He said something like "everything than can run, does run". In other words, the only proof of possibility is manifested possibility: actuality itself. The only proof of ability is the actual instantiation of that ability, the act itself. It's like someone saying, "If conditions get bad enough I can always kill myself". The proof for that ability is lacking until the suicide is actually carried out. Vranak

translation of the Qur'an used in the Baha'i Writings
I have a copy of the Kitab-i-Iqan by Baha'u'llah, the Prophet of the Baha'i Faith, and one of the Qur'an, translated by JM Rodwell. It is fairly clear that the quotes from the Qur'an in the Kitab-i-Iqan are essentially based on the Rodwell translation. I've compared them, and they match very closely, however, they are not the same. Does anyone know if there is another translation of the Qur'an based closely on Rodwell's? If not, I shall be able to conclude that the Kitab-i-Iqan is using a revision of Rodwell's translation. The Mad Echidna 10:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for asking this, as I've just done some more reading, and found the answer to my own question. I don't know if it would now be good form for me to just remove this whole question, so I'll leave it, but others are free to just remove it if they wish. regards, The Mad Echidna 12:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can post the answer you found, to quell the unrest caused by unanswered questions felt by the illimitably curious amongst us. --Lambiam Talk  13:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Kitab-i-Iqan was translated as well. Also, can you cite was verses of the Quran are being quoted? You can check them for yourself against the three most popular English Translations of the Quran, Pickthal, Yusuf Ali, and Shakir.here.--Kirby♥time 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

history question
Can anyone here tell me where I can find a list of cities founded between 500-100BC? Also any information about major cities that existed before then would be useful. I am interested in all cities, not just those that still exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.142.207.208 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 18 April 2007  (UTC)


 * I haven't found a specific Wikipedia list of cities by age or a timeline that would directly answer your question (though one may exist). However, helpful information can be found in the City entry and in some of the links from there. You could also look at List of oldest continuously inhabited cities, Lost city, and Historical urban community sizes. These should provide you with links to articles about cities that meet your criteria, though none will be a complete list. - Eron Talk 14:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My recommendation would be to find a copy of the DK Atlas of World History, which has maps of the world in 500 BCE, 250 BCE, and 1 CE. These maps show the major cities at each date.  Among the cities that appear between 500 BCE and 1 CE are Teotihuacán, Moche (surrounding Huaca de la Luna), Huari, Nazca, Tiahuanaco, Carthago Nova, Lyon, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Seleucia, Pratisthana (today known as Paithan), and Kashgar.  To this list, I would add Axum, which probably became a city during this period, Minnagara, and many cities of southern China, such as Guangdong and Hangzhou.  There were many cities already in existence in northern China, northern India, the Middle East, southern Europe, and northern Africa before 500 BCE.  Marco polo 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how pedantic the questioner wishes to be about the cities being founded in that period. It's very rare that we have a specific date for the founding of a city... and of those we have, some are based on shaky evidence. Anyway, where's Clio - this question's right up her street! --Dweller 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is one instance where Clio is more than happy to sit in the shadow of Marco Polo, the great explorer, whose answer could not really be bettered! I would also have recommended the same atlas, as well as the Oxford Atlas of World History and perhaps the slightly more narrowly focused Penguin Atlas of Ancient History.  However, this is one of these questions that could conceivably produce an impossibly detailed answer, depending if a settlement is defined as a city already existing within the time period mentioned, or one that merely dates its foundations to then, like, for example, Paris. You are also quite right, Dweller, to emphasise the quality and uncertainty of much of the evidence-skins within skins, shells within shells!  Clio the Muse 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

how do i form a state in the US?
out of another state or out of a territory.


 * Get a petition on the ballot and get the majority to vote for this. The best chance in the near future would be for Puerto Rico to become a state. StuRat 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The state would also need to be confirmed by Congress. Here is the relevant passage from the US Constitution.  I would consider it very unlikly that any new states would be admited at this time.  The balance of power is so close in the USA that any new state (Puerto Rico, Washington DC) would likely tip the balance in favor of the Democrats and would thus be vigorously opposed by the Republicans in congress. -Czmtzc 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Republicans are unlikely to ever allow Puerto Rico to achieve statehood, just as they are unlikely to ever allow the District of Columbia to elect a congresscritter, because both areas would vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The same calculus will apply if you're trying to split a state (so NorCal won't be allowed to split from SoCal).
 * Atlant 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Congress is working on legislation that would give DC one real representative, while also adding one representative to Utah for balance. Czmtzc 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you guys are ignoring the huge negatives involved in refusing to allow a state to enter the union. If Puerto Rico voted for statehood, and Democrats supported them, while Republicans rejected them, this would move the Hispanic vote heavily into the Democratic camp.  That would likely have more of an effect on the balance of power than the addition of a 51st state. StuRat 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as negatives go politicians can be VERY short sighted. Some guy in a safe district in say Alabama would care more about keeping Puerto Rico out than on losing hispanic votes.  If Republicans cared so much about the Hispanic vote, they wouldn't pull out the Illegal_Immigration card so often.  Luckily for the republicans, Puerto Rico does not particularly want to cahnge its status. Czmtzc 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At some future date there could be a compromise in which, say, a "blue" state such as Illinois, New York or California split, gaining 2 more Senators, and at the same time a "Red" state such as Texas also split. (The barrier to that might be the Texans fighting over which state got the Alamo). All the smaller states which now achieve extra power by having a disproportionately high number of senators would see their power inthe senate and the electoral college diluted. It would work against proportionate representation if the District of Columbia, far smaller in size and population than many U.S. cities and counties, gained not only a representative but 2 senators by becoming a state. It would be more democratic to turn it back into "Washington County" Maryland, from which it came, thereby giving every resident the same representation as every other citizen in the country rather than a disproportionately  "overrepresented" rotten borough. Edison 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This idea is called "retrocession." I believe former Maryland governor Parris Glendening supported it. But the people of DC presumably don't want to give up their independence, even if it means getting to vote for Congress. The GOP would also be hesitant to effectively kill the chance the GOP could ever elect a senator in Maryland. If DC were "given back" to Maryland, it couldn't be called "Washington County" -- there already is one.
 * Also, it should be noted that Wyoming has fewer people than DC but still gets 2 senators. -- Mwalcoff 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been talk of retrocession of all of the District of Columbia except for the area immediately around the Capitol Mall and the White House, which would remain a "federal territory", and which has few permanent residents. Corvus cornix 20:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved this question here from the Misc desk because it deals with society and is thus a part of Humanities Ref Desk. --Parker007 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let Alberta seperate. Alberta is conservative province. In the last Federal Election it was sweeped by conservatives. --Parker007 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So if they don't vote in a way you approve of, they're not Canadian enough for you? Perhaps you're unaware that 45% of Albertans vote Liberal and NDP in most elections, and that support for separation has always been in single figures. The squeaky wheels get the media attention. -- Charlene 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The original question didn't concern society, only the answers do. --172.142.207.208


 * New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. --Parker007 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the formation of West Virginia seems to contradict that passage. Corvus cornix 20:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what part of the passage you were referring to, but Lincoln at least made an argument as to why the formation of West Virginia did follow the above requirements. Since he considered secession illegal, the Virginia legislature's decision to illegally secede from the Union meant that the legislature was no longer the "true" legislature of Virginia.  Lincoln then formed a new, "true" legislature of Virginia which (not surprisingly) followed Lincoln's lead and agreed to cede territory to the new state of West Virginia. GreatManTheory 23:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Which was the last state in the United States, and is allowed to vote for a President of the United States? And what procedure did the Congress use to do this? --Parker007 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * nvm I found the answer. Hawaii was the last state by Newlands Resolution & the Hawaii Admission Act. --Parker007 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a dumb question...I was discussing this with my uncle, who has become a USA-er, and he pointed out that there is a huge difference between "becoming part of the USA" and "becoming a state" and he showed me a map giving the dates for each state. But I don't get, when a piece of land is not a state... what country does it belong to? What nationality do those people have?  How are they represented in a democratic way?Evilbu 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Click on the Puerto Rico link to discover a good example of a place that is, in some senses, a "part of the USA" but is not one of the 50 states. It may one day become the 51st state (unless Australia beats them to it).  JackofOz 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above-mentioned District of Columbia may be the most-analagous thing now to the old western territories. Territories, like DC now, have no separate constitutional status from the federal government. Thus, while the federal government is limited in what it can do it Ohio or Texas, it can micromanage DC all it wants. Congress may set up an elected legislature for a territory, but the residents do not have voting representation in Congress. DC, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa each have one delegate in Congress who cannot vote on the floor but may serve on committees. -- Mwalcoff 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this mean that in a sense, people living in those territories were "occupied"..Evilbu 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because they have civil government. In addition, most people in Puerto Rico and the USVI like being part of the U.S., and there doesn't seem to be much of an independence movement in Guam or American Samoa, either. DC is in a strange situation -- its lack of congressional representation appears to be an oversight by the framers of the Constitution, or perhaps an understandable lack of foresight that one day the district would have 572,000 people. It is increasingly likely that DC will get a congressional representative through an act of Congress, although the constitutionality of that law may be challenged in court. -- Mwalcoff 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Economic status versus the power to kill
I recall a situation in which a very clean professor who enjoyed wearing casual cloths was shopping in a Wal-Mart for rechargeable batteries where a student and her boyfriend were leaving the area of CDs. The girl commented very load as she passed the professor: "What's that smell?" (Mimicking the Capital One commercial in which the daughter with much indignation and contempt spurts out this question while in the box car on the freight train.) Although judging others by the standard of what money they have is a very common thing doesn't the fact that most people possess the power to kill (or at least give you a failing grade) merit respect despite the apparent economic status they may have?  Clem  18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A fair query. The answer: evidentally not. Vranak

Meriting respect and actually getting it are two separate concepts, and some may fear losing economic status more than they fear losing their life. dr.ef.tymac 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are those who have respect from others simply for not drinking. On the other hand there are those who care nothing about respect and rather jump from a train than have to work for a living. 71.100.8.252 10:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The root of all evil after all is greed. Nebraska Bob 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, bob, if you have St. Paul in mind, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil. You must know, surely, that greed is good?  Clio the Muse 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus to be a good bacterium but still a lower life form. Nebraska Bob 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Portugese people in Boston, Lincolnshire
Hello,

I am just wondering why there are so many migrant Portugese peole in Boston, Lincolnshire? In most other parts of the UK where immigration is an issue it is all ways eastern European, in particular Poland, but Boston seems to be a Portugese hotspot. I find this strange because I didn't think Portugal was a particually less well off country, like in eastern Europe. It has a HDI of 0.904!

Thanks, --Killer 777 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Portugal has a per capita GDP of $18,465 versus $39,213 for the UK, per List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. Even measured by purchasing power parity, the UK has a substantially higher income level.  It is fascinating to me that Boston, England, has lots of Portuguese migrants.  So does the region around Boston, Massachusetts, where I live.  Most of the Portuguese migrants to Massachusetts originally came for the fishing industry.  That industry has since declined, but the Portuguese-speaking community has remained a draw for job-seeking migrants from Portugal and other Portuguese-speaking countries, such as the Cape Verde Islands and Brazil.  Does or did Boston, England, have much of a fishing industry?  Marco polo 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Portugal is, surprising though it may seem, one of the poorest of the "old" EU countries. As to why Boston particularly, two options - a) Immigrants are slightly more likely to move to somewhere with a preexisting local immigrant community, if given the choice, so if one gets started it's likely to grow; or b) some form of industry or business there (once?) heavily recruited from Portugal, and this is the effect. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why "surprising though it may seem"? Flamarande 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Portugal also has had a bumpy political past, and revolutions and change of government seem to be frequent occurrences (at least compared to the UK). My family (which comes from Portugal/still lives there) has also noted a long-standing love between Brits and the Portuguese. They would go North for vacation (or else south, to old African colonies) while the Algarve in the south of Portugal was a regular hotspot for British holidays. Russia Moore 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Brave New World
How is Henry Ford significant in Brave New World? Nick 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)nicholassayshi


 * Did you read the book? If not, I recommend reading it first, and then our article Brave New World. --Lambiam Talk  20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You should also have a look at the article on The World State, Nicholas. It is here that Huxley sets the action of Brave New World. Try to imagine a world that combines aspects of the corporate state with systems of technocracy: a material world, based on social control, manipulation and trivialisation. Imagine still further a world devoid of some of the intangible things, like spirituality and curiosity, that serve to make each of us individual and human, then you have entered Huxley's future. Henry Ford has become a replacement for Christ. It is he who has become the new Messiah, the focus for an entirely material set of values. The assembly line is the dominant motif, even at the level of human reproduction, and people live their lives 'in the year of our Ford.' The past is irrelevant, because, in the words of our Ford, 'History is bunk.'  The World State's calendar begins in 1908, the year the first Model T came off the assmbly line, and Brave New World opens in AF 632, which would be 2540 in our own calendar. The cross, as a symbol, has been replaced by a T. May the blessings of Our Ford be upon you. Clio the Muse 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolivian efforts to end genocide.
Has Bolivia made any efforts to support the prevention and punishment of genocide internationally?

-Anonymous


 * You asked that question on April 16th. Why not look above? AnonMoos 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But this question wasn't answered above. People merely stated one instance of alleged "genocide" in Bolivia, rather than discussing the stance Bolivia holds on genocide. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bolivia signed the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, but never ratified it.   --TotoBaggins 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That information is out of date. Bolivia ratified the Convention in 2005. . --Mathew5000 09:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)