Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 7

= April 7 =

New motive revealed?
Did the Iranian terrorists capture the British sailors and marines and force them to confess to straying into Iranian waters simply as a logical basis to back up their claim that the waters the British were in were not Iraqi waters but their own? Nebraska bob 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clearly going to take some time-if ever-for all of the details of this affair to come out. I'm not sure, though, if it is either helpful, or meaningful, to refer to the Iranian coastal units as 'terrorists.'.  What I would really like to know is why such a small British force was allowed to operate in such dangerous waters without adequate back-up or support, especially foolish when one considers that this has happened before?  On a more general point, Iran is an important regional power, and there can be no solution to the political and strategic problems in the area without dialogue.  Clio the Muse 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure in which news report the captives were quoted that the Iranian "coastal units" changed from their uniforms into black with hoods and lined the captives against a wall but that is certainly the behavior of terrorists and everyone I know is defined by what they do or do not do and how they act or do not act. Nebraska bob 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reference desk issue, but opinion. My opinion is that the Brit troops were doing, as they were supposed, the job of looking for pirates/smugglers, and were not equipped to deal what is an act of war. A similar incident has happened when North Koreans opened fire on a south Korean police boat, or when China forced down a US spy plane. The activity is typical of the cold war. DDB 03:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mankind has always been faced with the problem of sewage but as time has progressed mankind has improved its dealing with the problem while knowing it will never go away. This is how I characterize terrorists. They have always been around and a problem for mankind from the beginning but mankind has learned to deal with them better just like it has with sewage. Terrorists will never go away because they are the result of the workings of society but they can be delt with by society in the same way as society deals with sewage under normal conditions and whenever a mishap occurs. Nebraska bob 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It always worries me when people use expressions like 'mankind has done this or mankind has done' that, just as the use of injudicious terms like 'sewage' in reference to human beings worries me, with all of the horror this 'distancing' has conjured up over time. It may not be very fashionable to say so but, in the shade of Euripides, I too believe that only reason can overthrow terror.  However, it's obvious to me that you are on a soapboxing crusade, Nebraska bob, and there is very little I can say that will make any difference to your manner of thinking or your mode of expression. I do hope you begin to think of these matters, though, with a little less passion.  My best wishes.  Clio the Muse 07:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually sewage can be quite a good thing if it is handled with knowledge and respect. It has abundant nutrients which are needed by the plants upon which we feed; allow it to contaminate a field of spinach, on the other hand, and it may present a problem no one needs. Acts of war inspire passion in me especially when they are to serve a soapbox crusader who is on the wrong side of the law, like the President of Iran. I consider my reaction, though not my feelings, to be almost benign. What concerns me and what you might like to think about is that terrorists may be doing these things for no other reason than to inspire passion in people who are even more dispassionate than you might like me to be. Nebraska bob 09:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it is obviously within your power to deny them that victory, if at no other level than the personal. You may never have any other opportunity to do so.  Clio the Muse 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly understand the emotinal need for answers and resultion when the world goes wonky. But questions about motive (WHY someone did something) are only able to be answered via reference if a guilty party admits motive...and, even then, people lie. Until an official representative can provide proof of their reasoning and justification leading up to an act, all we can offer is conspiracy and conjecture.

Which is a long-winded way of reminding folks that conspiracy and conjecture are inherently POV, and are anathema to the reference desk. Questions like this are emotionally valid, but -- due to their inherent inability to be answered with any certainty or fact -- out of place here. Jfarber 13:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @ Jfarber Although the recent Nebraskan musings and speculation about political motives may indeed be inimical to the ideals you cite, the ongoing discussion suggests not everyone agrees this kind of conjecture and emotional invective is off-limits for the "reference desk." dr.ef.tymac 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I see (but do not agree with) support for conjecture as a valid response for some TYPES of questions, it is true.   But I've been following those discussions, and nowhere have I seen it suggested that questions which are fundamentally ONLY answerable by original research -- that is, by asking people as-yet-unasked questions about their own motives, and then accepting those answers as fact -- have a place here.  But I may have missed something.  Can you help me find where, in this discussion, there is support for such types of questions -- that is, for questions which are inherently not answerABLE by reference work of any type?   Jfarber 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @ Jfarber since, personally, I agree with your conclusions, I'd rather not elaborate here, and thereby inadvertently lend credibility to the alternate viewpoint. It's enough to know you've been following the discussion, which was not obvious at first because you make noteworthy points here that I do not recall seeing there. But then, perhaps *I* may have missed something. dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that the Iranian units were outside of their own territory, but calling them terrorists is extremely biased and makes a decent discussion impossible. If they were terrorists, they a) would have just killed then b) would have killed civilians instead. Their treatment might have been harsh, if that makes them terrorists, the USA-ers working on Guantanamo are terrorists just as well.

Concrete Mixing Trucks & Corporations manufaturing them
Which corporation has the lion's share, or market share in manufacturing concrete mixing trucks??? Are the corporations Terex & McNeilus the only corporations that are competing??? --Khunter 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can find no data about market share, but in Europe Stetter GmbH is definitely a player. The Liebherr Group is another manufacturer, but my browser does not agree with their web design, and I could not quite figure out what and how. Here is a claim that SANY in China makes them, but I could not find a mention on SANY's own product page. --Lambiam Talk  08:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lambiam. --Khunter 19:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Spiro Agnew vandalism?
Spiro Agnew, former US Vice President Under "Trivia and Pop Culture" near the end of the article:

In Yippie phone phreaking newsletter TAP Issue #22 (October 1973) it is noted that Spiro Agnew's name is an anagram of "Grow a penis."

Is this vandalism??? or not? VK35 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not vandalism; the source given verifies it. In the future you'll want to post questions like this at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Picaroon 02:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, so it is! (the anagram, I mean). Trivial, yes; vandalism, no. Clio the Muse 02:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Our style manual says that "lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items." If the "true but trivial" bothers you as much as it bothers me, feel free to restructure the article accordingly. Jfarber 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but typical of those beholden to leftwing ideology who feel it acceptable to insult, belittle and lie those that don't share their views. Views and tolerance as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That last link was the one I was looking for, the rest are related sidetracks DDB 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why pointing out that someone's name anagrams to something funny and slightly offcolor is insulting, belittling, and it certainly isn't lying.  The anagram isn't a commentary on the person anymore than my friend BRAD is DRAB; the only difference is that BRAD isn't famous, and DRAB isn't really noteworthy enough to mention in the press.  Jfarber 04:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I took it out. There was already a vote on it in the discussion page (14 to 6). Clarityfiend 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing here is not so much about trivia as about relevance. I sometimes learn a lot from relevant trivia but if it’s not relevant and not trivia it still belongs in the trash. Nebraska bob 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

@ DDB The misdeeds of some interloping malcontents notwithstanding, it is disappointing to see such a broad and unqualified generalization against leftwing ideology. dr.ef.tymac 15:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Check again with what I wrote, dr.ef.tymac, you should notice I was specific, not broad and sweeping. To further clarify, I only meant those who felt it acceptable to .. I'm disappointed if you identify with them. DDB 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Come now DDB, you can see that the grammar of the sentence can be easily parsed both ways. But such pathetic duplicity in language is typical of those beholden to rightwing ideology who feel it acceptable to generalize wildly. ;-) --24.147.86.187 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I get the joke, but for the record, I'm conservative, not right wing. I have a distrust of the politics of those who excuse the dropping of an atomic bomb on a civilian population .. twice. Smile Harry. DDB 01:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @ DDB I'll buy that. Thanks for the clarification and for correcting my mistake. I'll call my buddies and cancel the scheduled protest outside your flat. :-D. dr.ef.tymac 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quick! I was going to add, dref didn't identify himself with that group, but it is really easy to impute meaning. DDB 01:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Keys of musical instruments
Orchestration would be simple if all instruments were in the key of C. Why are trumpets in B flat, French Horns in F, etc etc, etc? Plus many compositions are written for an instrument in one key but universally transposed to the actual key of the instrument used. Edison 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The simplest explanation is that then one can use the same fingering, and read the same notes with that fingering, for instruments of different sizes within the same family. See transposing instrument.  The clarinets and saxophones are good examples of this, with more than four sizes of each.  Read a middle C on the staff, and it sounds respectively a Bb below for the standard Bb clarinet, Eb above for the high Eb clarinet, Bb a ninth below for the Bb bass clarinet, Bb two octaves and a second below for the Bb contrabass clarinet, etc.  These days many composers write their scores at "concert pitch" so the conductor does not need to read the transposed part (but the player sees the part transposed).  Antandrus  (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some instruments are not stable in certain keys. For example, Beethoven and Schubert (and many, many others) both wrote for Clainets in C, but now we use Clarinets in Bb and A (and Eb...whatever).  Why?  Well, they work better and sound better.  The C Clarinet is fundamentally flawed in terms of maintaining a stable pitch.  It's a slightly different story for French Horns - which used to only play natural tones (in the baroque period anyway), and it was customary to just change the whole instrument if you're playing in a different key.  Why don't we all just use Horns in C?  Especially by now?  Good questions.  Well, what good is a horn in C if you mostly play music for horns in F (or your double [or triple] horn in Bb, too) and you're used to transposition?  It's at the same time a salute to the musical canon, a question of stability in tone and pitch, and - well - just the way it's done.  Hope this helps. Coolsnak3 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking for award list and particular book
Sorry if this is impossible, but I knew it once, forgot it, and it is now driving me nuts. I once came across a list of young adult books ranked by the number of awards and honors each book recieved; I know Monster was near the top of the list. Any idea of the name of that award and a link where I can find that list again? All my keyword searches are netting me nothing beyond a list of hundreds of awards or something aimed at adult readers, not young adult literature. The second question, is I remember a novel near the top of that list that was based in a small town slightly in the future just as the county became invaded; a girl trys to evade the occupying forces. Any idea what the title of the book might be? I know, shot in the dark, but an bibliophile can hope. Thanks! ubercreatrix —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.164.85 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I think this is what you are looking for: . Enjoy. --Sn0wflake 12:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin usage in the House of Lords Minutes
I've asked this question elsewhere (not the Ref Desk) and got no response, so here's hoping. In the article for George Jellicoe, 2nd Earl Jellicoe is this: The House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings for Die Martis 23° Novembris 1999 records ....

Why is Latin used for this reference?

(In case anyone wonders why this isn't posted to the Language desk, I know the meaning of the words but the issue is why Latin is used in this context. I'm sure the reasons are historical, hence the Humanities desk.)  JackofOz 07:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This pdf says it used to be all in Latin once, and then eventually things started to be written in English and only the dates in Latin remained. A.Z. 08:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. But why?  Clio?  Anyone?  JackofOz 04:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jack, never ask why when it comes to the dear old House of Lords; just be thankful that the minutes are not all in Latin. They still, so I understand, have pegs for hanging up their swords!  Clio the Muse 04:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio, you surprise me. For one normally so replete with scads of curious historical minutiae, you are somewhat reticent on this occasion.  Has the Easter bunny got to you?  I'm quite happy to accept that they do it this way because they've always done it this way, and one simply does not question hallowed British tradition.  I'm not questioning the tradition, I'm wondering how it came to become a tradition.  Might it have something to do with those who wrote the transcripts of proceedings back in the good old days - presumably the scarce literate people such as monks, who wrote all their Church-related texts in Latin?   JackofOz 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Jack, I though it was the residue you were interested in, rather than the history of the record keeping practice as such.  But, yes, you are quite right, this is a tradition that dates back to the monkish scribes of the Middle-Ages.  English only began to make its rude appearance in any volume during the reign of Henry VIII.  By the beginning of the seventeenth century, Latin had given way in all but some formalised residues, including the use of dates, as you have noted. And as far as my Easter Bunny is concerned, he is still curled up in bed, warm and toastie!  Clio the Muse 07:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Clio. Does the House of Commons have a similar tradition?  If not, why (and when) did they change to English dates if the Lords preferred to retain Latin?  JackofOz 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They did have a similar tradition, though as far as I can determine the use of Latin in the records of the Commons ceased to be standard practice in the nineteenth century, though I do not have a precise date for the change. Clio the Muse 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Gratias tibi, Clio. JackofOz 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-American Latino Presidents
Besides Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Fidel Castro of Cuba, are there any Anti-American Latino presidents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.133.10 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC).


 * It really depends on what you mean by "anti-American". That is a very loosely defined term. Many presidents of Latin-American countries have made remarks, or pursued or supported policies, that may not have been in the best interests of U.S. companies – and particularly not those with an interest in their countries. Some people indeed consider Evo Morales and Lula, for example, to be anti-American, but with that looseness of the concept you could in the same vein call the current POTUS anti-Brazilian, anti-Bolivian, anti-French, and in fact about anti-most-of-the-rest-of-the-world. --Lambiam Talk  14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hugo Chavez claims to be anti-Bush, not anti-American. A.Z. 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would go further than Lambiam and-sticking my neck out-say that there are no, nor have there ever been, Latin American Presidents who were 'anti-North American' as such. That is not to say, of course, that there have not been a great many opposed to specific aspects of American policy in the continent. Even in the good-old, bad-old days, when Latin leaders were largely US sponsored dictators, they could sometimes stand up and kick, as did Alfredo Stroessner during Jimmy Carter's human rights crusade. Clio the Muse 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The rhetoric employed to get in government in South America is no more sincere than elsewhere. Hugo Chavez demonising US leadership is not very different from those employed within the US for electioneering purposes. Both Chavez and Hilary Clinton have labelled President Bush as 'stupid' or 'incompetent.' One might think that Communist leaders like Castro did not need to employ such rhetoric, as they are not elected through popular election of the general population, but that would ignore realities; Castro needs to justify, constantly, keeping his people in poverty. Because the US has, and has had, such power and influence in South America. In much the same way as political decisions made under James 1st of England motivates separatists in Ireland, decisions made by the US influence internal politics of South American nations. Further, the feeling that is anti US is as strong as the IRA's militant opposition to London based politics. DDB 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I am probably as opposed to Communism as you are, DDB-just as I am opposed to dictatorship of any colour-but Castro has done far less to 'keep the Cuban people in poverty', as you put it, than the economic embargo imposed on the country by successive American administrations. I would even go so far as to say that this strategy has effectively shored up Castro's dictatorship over the years, allowing him to draw on the deep wells of Cuban patriotism.  More understanding, and considerably more subtlety by Washington, would, I believe, have driven him from his throne long years since.  He did not survive the tsunami that swept the Communist world in the Revolutions of 1989 by force alone.  Clio the Muse 22:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't view the anti American rhetoric in terms of anti Communism, nor do I lay poverty solely at Castro's doorstep. Rhetoric is a device. I think it impossible for any reasonable person to endorse Che Guevarra's acts, but for some, rhetoric has given them license. It is true that much of the Rhetoric is personal, and directed against the US President, but it still remains anti US Rhetoric. DDB 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I occurs to me that every Latin American political leader must share some of the sentiments of Porfirio Diaz, one time President of Mexico, when he said Poor Mexico; so far from God, so close to the USA. Clio the Muse 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions about Chechens/Greek/Turkish ethnic tensions and population transfers
Hello, I was reading Wikipedia articles and I have some more questions that some might be able to answer.

1. How many people were living in Greece after the population exchange in 1923. I'm just trying to get an idea of the impact of the transfer.~

2. Where did those Greeks settle? Did they take Turkish homes (I guess not since there were less Turks moving out)? Did the Greek government build thousands of new homes?

3. Didn't this create tensions between Greeks and the thousands of "new Greeks" joining them? Can Greeks still hear whether or not people moved in from Turkey by listening to the family's accent?

4. What exactly was the criterion for Turkey's modern borders? Judging from the population transfers, I'd say the idea was to make a quite homogenous nation state, for people who'd say they themselves were Turks (and spoke Turkish?) But what could have been the reason to include the lands with a Kurdish majority? Was is just brute force or were they unwilling to let Turks living there become a minority themselves in an independent Kurdish nation?

5. Why is it that some ethnic groups in Russia turn against Moscow and seek independence, and others don't? I mean : Chechens are (mostly secular) muslims and speak another language, but Ossetians speak a different language as well and many of them (including victims in Beslan) are muslims just as well!

6. I find it amazing to hear that almost all Chechens and Ingush were deported to Kazakhstan.. what happened to their homes and cities when they were gone? Just left to go to waste?(I know Ossetians took some of the land)

7. How exactly do the Armenians justify their claim that Nagorno Karabach is theirs, I was reading and it seems obvious that it used to be completely Azeri.

8. How exactly were the borders of nations like Kazakhstan and Ukraine determined? I mean, they used to be part of the Russian Empire and after the revolution, they constructed those constituent republics. Isn't kind of their own fault that some many Russians got stranded in other countries. Since the Russians pretty much ruled the Soviet Union, would it have been more interesting for them if they held a census every ten years to expand Russia's borders? (I mean : what makes the Russians in the eastern part of Ukraine more Ukrainian than Russian)

Sorry for the many questions, they are sort of related in a way. I will be very grateful if you can answer some. Evilbu 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good grief, Evilbu, what a lovely set of complex questions! Your mind has clearly been working out of hours!  Anyway, I will respond in like terms in trying to provide you with at least some answers.


 * For the Greek and Turkish part of your inquiry there are several pages of relevance: Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the Treaty of Sèvres, the Greco-Turkish War, the Treaty of Lausanne and finally-phew!-the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. If you have any energy left I would also suggest, assuming you wish to go into some of these issues in greater depth, that you read Atatürk: the Rebirth of a Nation by J. B. Kinross, and Atatürk by Andrew Mango, a superb biography of the great Turkish leader which I cannot recommend highly enough.


 * As a result of the Turkish victory in the War of Independence, and the subsequent peace settlement of Lausanne, approximately one and a half million Greeks were expelled from eastern Thrace and parts of Asia Minor, contrasting with the half million Turks who were forced to leave Greek territory. Clearly at least part of the Greek diaspora would have been accommodated in former Turkish homes, but this would still leave a million people adrift.  Most of them were settled in parts of Attica and Macedonia, where the government established a number of new townships and suburbs.  There was also wider settlement in the towns across Greece, and even today many still have what is called The Refugees' Quarter.  It is a reasonable deduction that there would have been tensions between the local people and the migrants, some of whom came from as far away as Trebizond in eastern Anatolia, but I have no specific information on this.  Accent, and dialect differences, must have been acute at the time, but I imagine these have declined over the years.


 * In essence the Treaty of Lausanne was no more than a recognition of political and strategic realities. The Turkish army already had possession of Smyrna, the main Greek base in western Anatolia, and was widely established across the rest of the Asian hinterland of the old Ottoman Empire.  In Thrace, the border between Bulgaria, Greece and the new Turkish Republic was essentially that which existed prior to the outbreak of the First World War.  The new agreement also subsumed the earlier Treaty of Ankara between France and Turkey, which established the border between the Republic and the French Mandate of Syria (not, incidentally, the exact border that exists today).  The fate of the Kurds was left undecided, in the rather empty and pious hope that the matter would be settled by the League of Nations, though the earlier Treaty of Sèvres had, in fact, provided for the creation of a separate Kurdish state.  In political terms Turkey's south eastern border became something of an open wound.  Established there by force of arms, the Turks successfully supressed several rebellions, including one that had been backed by the British from the nearby Mandate of Iraq, which led to the brief establishment of the Republic of Ararat in 1927.


 * If anything the pattern of ethnic tensions and conflicts bequeathed to the world by the old Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union are even more complex. Largely owing to the superficial treatment of contemporary news media, most people are unaware that the present Chechyn conflict is merely the reappearance of a very old pattern.  There is a Wikipedia article on the Caucasian War, not, I have to say, among the best, but at least it will give you some clues on the topic, as will the slightly better History of Chechnya.  The Chechyns did not settle down easily to Russian occupation, rising again during the war between Russia and Turkey in the late 1870s.  A further conquest of the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus followed by Communist forces in the early 1920s.  During the Second World War the entire Chechyn population was exiled to Kazakhstan on the orders of Stalin, where a great many died.  They were only allowed to return to their homes in 1957, where they found a statue of their old Tsarist conquerer, Aleksey Yermolov, erected in 1949 by the Soviets, of all people, with the inscription There is no people under the sun more vile and deceitful than this one.  Other Muslim minorities have indeed, as you indicate, adjusted more readily to Russian hegemony; but they do not have the history of the Chechyns.


 * Whatever the historic population of Nagorno-Karabakh may have been, it is now predominantly Armenian, and it is upon that alone that the area has established a shadowy independence. Most of the former Muslim population of what was, at one time, the Karabakh khanate moved to Persia soon after the Tsarist conquest in the early years of the nineteenth century.  Under the encouragement of the Imperial Government, many Armenian families moved into the vacated area, particulary after the 1828 Treaty of Turkmanchai.  Geographically and ethnically, the area is still surrounded by Azeri territory and people, hence the current problem.


 * The precise borders of both Khazakhstan and the Ukraine were established during Soviet times, though these had both been Russian territories for some time before this. I'm not quite sure how to respond to your question about 'fault', as patterns of Russian migration were well-established, with government encouragement, predating the political upheavals of the early 1990s by many years. The people in the eastern Ukraine are 'more Russian' than Ukranian, to reverse your contention, because they, well, speak Russian, rather than the Ukranian dialect, more dominant in the west.


 * I hope this helps, but please hit me with more questions, if you wish! Regards Clio the Muse 19:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My ex-wife and my children are descendants of Aleksey Yermolov. Beat that!  :)  JackofOz 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Really and truly? Did you, perhaps, feel the distant whip of Tsarist oppression, Jack? Clio the Muse 04:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, really and truly. When my wife and I separated I vowed never to speak ill of her, so I must decline to make any comment about whips or oppression.  :)  JackofOz 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to answer many of my questions. I am just trying to catch up on the "really interesting history"( not the boring stuff about the trading of sheets in Scotland 450 years ago:)) I found this website, apparently there were about 5-6 million people in Greece. The transfer is of an enormous magnitude... From your answer, I'd deduce that the Kurdish territories were just taken out of sheer imperialism? I'm sure there must have been "some frowning".  About the Chechens : well not only do they like the Russians much less than their neighbour-minorities, they consider those other minorities Russians as well and thus a potential target just as well! (I mean : the Basques are a bit more violent in their struggle for independence than the Catalonians, but I don't think they will ever target Catalonians...

What I mean about "fault" is that is-for instance: the Soviets made Transnistria a part of Ukraine in the interbellum, while the rest of present day Moldova was just a part of Romania... didn't they create the present-day mess when they transferred Transnistria from Ukraine to the new Moldovan constituent republic. (weren't they thinking ahead or something?). In short : I just find it weird there weren't a lot more border regions where Russians tried to break loose and join Russia.Evilbu 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Turks would, of course, have a different view, but, yes, their rule was established in the Kurdish areas of south-east Anatolia by force. As I have already said, some recognition was given to the national aspirations of the Kurds by the Allies at the end of the First World War, and the British went so far as to aid the rebellion of 1927.  Nobody, however, was prepared to risk outright war with the Turkish Republic, one of the strongest military powers in the region, for what was in terms of Realpolitik a quite peripheral issue.  More than that, the Kurds, a little like the Poles in Europe, were the victims of both history and geography, divided between more powerful nations.


 * Transnistria, although geographically part of the Ukraine, was in fact reconstituted politically between the wars as the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The aim was essentially to keep alive the Russian claim to Bessarabia-the main part of Moldova-which had passed to Romania in 1918.  In 1940, after Russia regained Bessarabia, it was united with the western territory in the Moldovian SSR.  Though a large number of people of Moldovian origin had settled in Transnistria, there were also significant numbers of Russians and Ukranians, and language differences were to be directly responsible for the split between the east and west after Moldova gained its independence in the early 1990s.  As far as the broader issue of Russian settlement is concerned this has created tensions elsewhere, the Ukraine being a case in point.  To a certain degree this has also been the case in the Baltic states, though the Russian minority here was not sufficiently concentrated in a given geographical location to cause major problems.


 * Incidentally, you are wrong about the Basques and the Catalans: Barcelona was once an ETA target; perhaps it still is. Clio the Muse 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Who Says that Existence Precedes Essence?
Are there major modern phylosophies, other than existentialism, that purport to existence precedes essence?--JLdesAlpins 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, the concept belongs uniquely to existentialism in general, and to Jean-Paul Sartre, the man who coined the phrase, in particular. Clio the Muse 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What is that philosophy, related to the worship of Science, which notes that people are comprised of star matter made before they ever became their individualised selves? It sounds similar to your question .. DDB 21:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That, DDB, would be just the reverse-essence preceding existence. Clio the Muse 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Carl Sagan was fond of saying that "We are made of star stuff"... but he'd be pretty opposed to any kind of worship of science. Reverence for the glory and subtlety of nature, fine. Worship as a religion, probably not. Are there any groups that actually do worship science? grendel|khan 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ Clio. I understand Essence to be that spirit unique to an individual, comprised of generic elements. The movie Metropolis explored the concept regarding an automaton. Even more interesting, parts of an individual tend to only be with that person for some five years max, except maybe the calcium of bone. In such a case, the elemental existence precedes the identity formed person :D (I had to clarify that with my wife). DDB 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine, DDB, but what you are saying is far more akin to traditional concepts of the human soul, the very thing that Sartre was placing under challenge in his contention that existence precedes essence. But, please, do not simply take my word for this, read Being and Nothingness,  Nausea, and Existentialism is a Humanism, and say goodbye to your personal life for some considerable time to come.  Clio the Muse 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It always puzzles me to see people forwarding analytical exposition of Being and Nothingness. Admittedly, I read it a long time ago without the benefit of a scholarly context into which to place this work, but it always struck me as the linguistic equivalent of abstract expressionism ... fun to look at, thought provoking, but not amenable to any single authoritative explanation. I'm sure someone out there will be happy to prove me wrong. dr.ef.tymac 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's great fun, though, Dreftymac! Try reading it side-by-side with James Joyce's Ulysses (one of my all time favourite novels), chapter about.  A whole brave new world will open up in the eye of your mind!  Incidentally, H. G. Wells, in an early review of Ulysses, described it as 'cultural Bolshevism', which, I suppose, comes close to comparing Sartre with abstract expressionism.  However, you should really attempt to roll your boulder up the hill of Martin Heiddeger's Being and Time, then you will really know what abstract expressionism is all about! Clio the Muse 01:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dreftymac, I understand that statements like "Consciousness is a Being that, within itself, is consciousness of the Nothingness of its being" may indeed sound 'expressionismly abstract'. I would like, however, to add a caveat: Sartre's uses of the French language is extremly precise, so much so that subtilities are bound to be lost or broken in any translation. Sartre even created new words such as "néantiser", which has no equivalent in any language. That is what I noticed when I reviewed an English version a while back. And this is not because the translation was not correct--in fact, the use of the English language was impeccable. You have to consider that Sartre did not invest much effort to use an easier French. The text was written during an hellish period of European history. Sartre has even been a Nazi's POW during that time. Sartre admits it himself: this is why he called his book an 'essay'. L'être et le néant, in its French version, may be abstruse, but is certainly not abstract.--JLdesAlpins 13:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note, my remark was not offered in disparagement of Existentialism or Sartre. One might justifiably feel a strong affinity for both, and even profess an intimate understanding of what is being communicated. Indeed, my point is not very far from yours. You'd agree that some concepts cannot be readily translated from French into English; even by one adept at both ... and, perhaps, some cannot be readily translated into human language at all? Nevertheless, your response and thoughts are greatly appreciated. dr.ef.tymac 16:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Existence precedes essence" is Sartrean, but it's an offshoot of Kierkegaard. "Essence," as in the "is-ness of the thing" or the irreducible expression of ideal form, cannot come before the actual, the existent.  If it does, there is "human nature" and other things related to a universal soul/nature which Sartre rejects.  Geogre 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Jews
Some orthodox Jews in Jerusalem and elswhere, where the big fury hats. Others were shorter regular hats with a rim all the way around and have those long hair loks. What is each group called. I am confused, is it Haredim, Hasidim, Chasedim, chasidic..ect.


 * In short, your question is fundamentally unanswerable -- variation among subgroups and regional communities (and even in individual preference) in Jews, AS IN ALL RELIGIOUS GROUPS OF ANY TYPE, is common enough that neither dress nor headgear will tell you "which group is which".  In general, I'd suggest, "how can I tell what kind of person someone is based on how they look" is always a null-set question.


 * In long, however...


 * Charedim (or Haredim) are members of the most theologically conservative groups OF Orthodox Jews.   Chasidim are a subset of Charedim -- all Chasidim are Charedim; not all Charedim are Chasidim.   Hasidim and Chasidim (two spellings of ONE concept) are people who are Hasidic or Chasidic (two spellings of one concept).


 * The section of our article on Hasidic Judaism which discusses dress says:
 * "It has been said that within the Hasidic world, one can distinguish different groups by subtle differences in appearance, though this is not necessarily the case. Many of the details of their dress are not peculiar to Hasidim, and are shared by many non-Hasidic chareidim. Much of their dress was historically the clothing of all Eastern-European Jews before and after the start of the Hasidic movement. However, it is mainly the Hasidim who have continued with these styles to this day, although many non-hasidic haredim do also don such clothing. Furthermore, hasidim have attributed mystical intents to these clothing styles."
 * as we see, we can't assume...but some dress styles are more typical of some groups for some occasions than others, and this goes for hat-wearing, too. Happily, there is a great section on headgear in the article on Hasidim which will prevent me from having to write seven pages about the difference here on the Reference Desk!


 * As with hats, the "long hair locks" you describe are worn by many Hasidim, and some others, and thus are not a useful way to determine who is who either. If it helps, our informative article on Peyot tells us that they result from a biblical commandment in Leviticus, which states "You shall not round off the corner of your head, and you shall not destroy the edge of your beard".


 * The long hair locks you describe would generally be worn by any Jews who take seriously the commandment to grow them, which would generally include both types of hat-wearers you describe. You may not have noticed it before -- maybe their locks were hidden under or obscured by their hats? Jfarber 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Great answer...thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.243.61 (talk • contribs)


 * Just one correction. There is a biblical prohibition for a Jew to completely remove the corners of one's head (so you won't find any Orthodox Jew with shave sides), growing them long is a custom unique to certain haredi sects. Jon513 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like agreement, not correction.  But perhaps clearer.   :)  Jfarber 17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Emergency Government
What Is Definition Of Politics Terminology " Emergency Government " ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.42.21.83 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Do you mean forms of rule established during a State of emergency, or the kind of administration that may emerge after a Coup de etat? Clio the Muse 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a test question. Geogre 01:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

United States Congressional committees
How are members of congress placed into these committees? Is it by voting or do the members just willingly go into whatever committee they choose? You never hear about this process, which is why I'm asking. Once all the people are in the committee, is it then that they, in the committee vote for a chairman or does the house/senate as a whole vote for each chairman? └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp; 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In brief, it's by seniority. Members ask for certain assignments, and the leadership of the party caucus approves them. The chairman and ranking minority member are chosen by the party leadership. (Actually, it's a steering committee, which includes the leadership, that recommends the assignments, and the full caucus votes on those assignments, but in essence, it's usually the leadership making the decision.) There has been some movement toward democratizing this process in recent years. Notably, there are now term limits on committee chairships. -- Mwalcoff 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So if I understand correctly, each party chooses who should be in which committee, usually by seniority? Is this mainly figured out before the House or Senate convenes for the first time in January? Do House or Senate rules dictate how many of each party should be in a certain committee, or is it left to the Democrats and Republicans to negotiate this? Thank you very much. └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp; 01:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to your first two questions are "yes," although you should be aware that seniority doesn't technically guarantee a plum committee assignment anymore. (If everyone hates you, they can still assign you to the District of Columbia Oversight Committee or something.) Regarding the committee party ratios, I don't know if there's anything in the rules that addresses this, but it's worked out between the two party leaderships at the beginning of the session. In practice, party ratios on committees tend to reflect the overall party ratio of the chamber, with the majority party always having at least a bare majority on all committees and subcommittees. So in the current Senate, for instance, you can expect that every committee or subcommittee will have one or two more Democrats than Republicans. See this document from the Government Printing Office website. -- Mwalcoff 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the chairperson of each committee tends to be of the majority party in that chamber. StuRat 04:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If by "tends to be" you mean "is always", then you are correct. Corvus cornix 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I could imagine a case where it might not be, say if the minority party says "we'll stop our filibuster on bill X if you agree to give us the chairmanship of committee Y" and the majority party agrees. StuRat 05:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Has that ever been done? It seems like a highly unlikely way to give in on the part of the majority. └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp; 12:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it has ever been done, but keep in mind that some of the committees aren't nearly as important as others, so the majority party might not be giving up all that much. StuRat 05:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As a political science major and an American lawyer, I found this question and answer illuminating. Most Americans pretend they know the rules to avoid embarassment. These rules and customs are not taught in secondary school which is a shame. Arlen Specter,R-PA, ran into trouble when he was supposed to become chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee based on seniority. His voting record is not as conservative as most Republicans. He developed quite a bit of expertise in federal judicial matters. Members of the Republican caucus wanted to strip him of his chairmanship. He appeared before his caucus in a tense standoff. He was allowed to become chairperson but the more conservative members thought they had chastened him. The basic Senate and House rules should be taught in high school in the states.75Janice 02:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)75Janice 8 April 2007