Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 10

= April 10 =

Stories within stories
I remember once reading several stories in which the characters tell each other stories. They were all by the same author. Does anyone know who I might be thinking of? Thanks ahead of time. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Canterbury Tales? Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall them being about pilgrims. If I remember right, I think that one of them was about merchants on a desert trade route. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * However, I may also be wrong and they may not all be attributed to the same author, but just grouped together. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Thousand and One Nights? That's not really by one author though. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My first thought (stopped by quadruple edit conflict) was The Decameron which includes at least one tale of the desert as well. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1001 Nights does include plenty of stories about merchants, and many nights involve someone telling a story about someone telling someone a story. They're all portrayed as being the stories of one woman, too.  Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It definitely was not the 1001 Nights. I know this because there were several books in that collection. The stories I read were in one book. While the ones from 1001 nights were in an entirely different one. Also, non of the stories had 100 stories within stories in them. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 99.226, on a point of information The Canterbury Tales are told by pilgrims; they are not about pilgrims. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So they're real pilgrims, and not pilgrims in the story? Or is it that they're fake pilgrims in the story who are telling stories to other fictional pilgrims for the sake of connecting the stories? But I suppose it doesn't matter. Because it's not the canterbury tales. XD 99.226.39.245 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And if we haven't yet delivered what you seek, see also the articles on frame story and story within a story for more literary examples. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As proof of the obscure nature of this story these stories, I haven't been able to locate in the articles.99.226.26.154 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To briefly explain the Canterbury tales, it's the story of a band of pilgrims who tell each other stories along the way. These stories are narrated by one of the characters, but have characters all of their own, and Chaucer interjects quite often to make points about the tale-telling characters. It might be worth looking at story within a story to see if the one you're looking for is in there. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said before, the story is not to be found in the articles. Thanks for the suggestion, though. 99.226.26.154 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple which haven't been mentioned, and aren't in those articles are the Heptameron and Melmoth the Wanderer (which takes story within a story within a story ... to ridiculous lengths; a favorite of Wilde and Balzac, though probably not what you're looking for)John Z (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Several dozens or even hundreds years newer is Arthur C. Clarke's Tales from the White Hart. -- LarryMac  | Talk  14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it wasn't a horror story or only half(three quarters) finished, and there was no science fiction involved.99.226.39.245 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly either If on a winter's night a traveller or The Castle of Crossed Destinies. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dual county seats
Most counties in the United States have one county seat, including all the counties in at least 45 states. Arkansas is the big exception: it's got (I'd estimate) at least a dozen counties with two seats. Any ideas on why this is? Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The county seat article says that "The practice of multiple county seat towns dates from the days when travel was difficult." Particular instance may also have other historical reasons - in a similar circumstance, the country of the Netherlands has an interesting situation where Amsterdam is technically the capital, but The Hague is where the government is (see Capital of the Netherlands). -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sebastian County is a special case, for a few years after it's creation the county seat was moved back and forth between Fort Smith and Greenwood as rival political factions attempted to assert control of the county government. A later compromise allowed for the creation of two districts, which is specifically mentioned in Article 13 § 5 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution. Writers' Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of Arkansas. (1941). Arkansas; a guide to the state. p. 146. . Twelve Arkansas counties have two county seats, but all have the same county officials. The two districts in Sebastian have each their own county courts and quorum, and are essentially separate counties. Wager, P. W. (1950). County government across the Nation. p. 532. .&mdash;eric 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That may have been the case at one point, but a perusal of the Sebastian County website reveals that it now has a single quorum court (county legislature). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like the Arkansas Supreme Court stopped the practice of maintaining two separate quorum courts in Robinson v. Greenwood District, Sebastian County Quorum Court (1975). This 2006 Attorney General opinion speaks to what is or is not a "county seat" in Arkansas counties with two judicial districts.&mdash;eric 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline Prices
I was wondering the other day if all major oil companies in the U.S. have some sort of agreement to keep their gasoline prices within a certain amount of each other. I have never seen gas stations compete by attempting to charge lower prices, and this does not make a great deal of sense to me as almost no one i have known personally prefers a brand of gasoline over any other and everyone is mostly looking for the cheapest available. Wouldn't selling gas 30 cents cheaper than all the surrounding stations easily create such a high demand for your gasoline that the 30 cents could be easily offset? Thank you for your time, i greatly appreciate it. 24.88.103.234 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Timmy


 * In most parts of the United States you will find gas stations that sell gas for 30 cents more than the lowest price in their area. These are typically service stations that aim to make money on repairs and the like rather than gas sales.  Then there is a large group of stations with prices all within maybe 5 cents of each other.  The reason why they are all within that range is that they are charging a price close to their cost.  The lowest-priced stations may be charging 1 cent or less above the cost of providing the gas.  They are hoping to make money on volume and on sales from their convenience stores.  It would be impossible to charge 30 cents less than the lowest-priced gas stations without losing money on every fill-up. The cost of gas in a given area is virtually the same from one oil company to another.  This is so because the wholesale price of gas is essentially set on a global market. The cost of delivering gas to a given metropolitan area is virtually the same for every company.  Then, there are uniform gas taxes charged in any given state. Marco polo (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] No firm source for my thought, but I think I've read somewhere that gas stations make almost no profit (like 1¢ or 2¢ on the gallon) on the gasoline itself anymore. My father has spoken of fierce price wars before the 1973 oil crisis, so I'd guess you, like I, am simply too young to remember such a thing.  Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen gas wars in the U.S. years ago where competing stations across the street from each other were lowering the price reactively to stay cheaper than the competition, clearly selling below cost, with cars lined up to take advantage. It sometimes dropped to half the regular price. Edison (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting stuff! 24.88.103.234 (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Timmy

Wouldn't any price-fixing agreement constitute a cartel, and wouldn't that be illegal even in the US? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and yes, but "even in" the US? -- LarryMac  | Talk  15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nyttend is correct that the end marketer (the corner gas station) typically makes only a few cents per gallon profit - by far their greater profit margin is on things like twinkies and bottled water. If any station today could sell at 30 c under the typical rate in an area, they would run out of product far quicker than they would reap any profit by virtue of increased volume of sales. There is certainly no agreement among companies to set prices - most retailers, even biggies like Exxon, must purchase (on the open market) much of the oil they refine into gasoline, because they cannot come close to refining enough from their own production to accommodate the demand at the gas station - so they sell it at whatever price they must to make that tiny profit. Generally, that will be about the same amount for everyone in a region. The price is "set" by supply and demand for the most part (daily fluctuations in oil price reflect jitters and emotions on the part of market traders, but the general range of price reflects supply and demand.) Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several states that mandate a minimum gas price.  With the charge for each credit card transaction, some stations loose money selling gas.   --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  03:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts: retail gasoline in the U.S. (and probably many other countries) is highly price competitive. Few other products advertise their price to the tenth of a cent on large roadside signs. The consumers are already in cars, so driving down the road for a cheaper price is not much of a burden. Anecdotally it seems that consumers are extremely price sensitive, at least in deciding where to buy their gas, with many consumers sometimes driving miles out of the way to save as little as a nickel per gallon (not realizing they're losing any savings in increased fuel usage). It's no wonder retail gas profit margins are razor-thin. --D. Monack | talk 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conversely, I always wonder why, when I see two stations across the street and in plain view of each other with differing prices, why the more expensive one still does great business. There are three stations on at my corner, with the convenience-store-brand being reliably cheaper--sometimes by 10¢ or more--than the brand-name ones. The prices only change once or twice a week, with one brand-name always the most expensive, the other brand-name a little less, and the convenience-store "brand" substantially less. They clearly aren't competing on price alone. A few weeks ago, the spread was over 20¢, yet people were still filling up at the most expensive one. DMacks (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

J.J.J Tissot
I found a painting by J.J.J Tissot the title: A Spring Afternoon. My question is, was one of his series of paintings in reference to this one A Spring Afternoon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by April Correll (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just had to clarify for myself by clicking off that caps lock. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We have an article on James Jospeh Jacques Tissot. Unfortunately, I do not understand what your question is about.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tissot painted two works titled Spring: an oil on canvas in 1865 and an oil on panel ca 1878. The prints and posters titled A Spring Afternoon which are sold online and elsewhere are copies of Tissot's A Widow from 1868 (oil on canvas, private collection). ---Sluzzelin talk  07:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

William Essex (author)
I am trying to find information of William Essex. I have managed to find out some of the books he's written, but I need information on his life. Essex has written the book I'm doing a report on: The Pack. It was published in 1987. The only article I could find out about a William Essex was about a man who lived in the 16th Century. If somebody knows of a site or article I can look at with information on the Essex I'm researching, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.133.228 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You could try a search on "John Tigges", which seems to be his real name, but I could not find a biography under that either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

-Arch dude (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Iconic photograph
There's an iconic photograph that I've seen, but have absolutely no idea what it is of (in terms of specifics), or what it stands for; and it's kind of hard to search for, being a photograph. Anyway, it's of a man standing in front of 3 tanks preventing them from passing. Anyone who can point me in the right direction? Ta! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We have an article about it: Tank Man.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From most countries, if you search Google Images for "tiananmen square", versions of this photo are the top results. However, I am told that this is not the result obtained within the Great Firewall of China. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

statehood within the United States and ambassadors
Have U.S. states ever sent ambassadors (by whatever title) between themselves? Is or was there, for example, a Maine ambassador to North Carolina? Were there ever permanent legations or embassies between the states, at a subnational level? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Historically, no. There may be some equivalent to ambassadors in the Colonial period, where the pre-states did act as de facto nations. After the founding of US, no real equivalent in the legal sense. (Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii maybe an exception as they were true republics before becoming states in the US; other more powerful states such as California, which if it was a nation would be the 6th largest economy, may have offices.) On a side note, while many have compared the European Union to the United States, the comparison only goes so far as the US is a truly a Federal State as opposed to a Supranational state. And of course, Supranational states retain certain rights, such as to continually operate their own embassies, unlike states.


 * Other considerations: first, states are sovereign. This means that US citizens technically belong to both the state they reside and pay taxes in, as well as being American. States are their own operating entities in the Federal sense; e.g. they have their own state wide legal system that may have completely different from National legal standards (ex. Louisana's law system is based on French and Roman ideas as opposed to the Federal government's basis of English Common Law).


 * In the end however, history has taught us rather bloodily each state is inherently equal to any other but ultimately under the Federal Government so only the Federal government may operate embassies. It is also due to the legal implications of the Full Faith and Credit Clause as well as the Privileges and Immunities Clause, states traditionally did not, nor ever will have embassies in other states. Delegations maybe, satellite offices maybe, official visits maybe, but embassies no due to legal, financial, and lack of historical precedent among other reasons. Zidel333 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It hasn't prevented states from occasionally sending delegations (that are not embassies) to other countries, or other subnational entities. For example there has certainly been cooperation, and even treaties proposed, between the US states and the Canadaian provinces surrounding the Great Lakes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Article I of the United States Constitution says very specifically:
 * No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
 * -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff, and thanks for all the links. "Delegations, satellite offices, official visits" sounds perilously close to quacking like an ambassadorial duck to me. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Help: What are the lyrics (in English) for the song "ARENA CALIENTE" by Torazinas?
Moved to entertainment desk.

I think therefore I am
In his dualist philosophy does Rene Descartes go so far as to suggest that the mind can exist independently of the body? Caroline Finkel (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also of interest is this article.--droptone (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But what I mean is does the mind continue to exist in the event of the death of the body?Caroline Finkel (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As most of us on the reference desk are in a state prior to the death of the body, the best you can hope for is speculation, surely not a suitable method for encyclopedias.
 * Induction, however, is a notoriously problematic mode of reasoning, meaning that I can not exclude the possibility that some advisors on the RD have, indeed, passed away whilst maintaining some earthly networking connection.
 * Some other notoriously speculative hypotheses can be found under the entry on religion, life after death and the fate of the granny and Little Red Riding Hood.
 * The reverse question, "has the mind existed prior to the birth of a body", curiously enough, is infrequently pondered. Cookatoo ergo non Zoom.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again thank you. But it is not really your speculations, or anyone else's speculations, that I am interested in. Rather I would like to know if Descartes expressed a view on this problem?Caroline Finkel (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The important term in his noted quotation is not cogito, it is dubito. The citation is sometimes given as "Dubito, ergo cogito;  cogito, ergo sum".
 * On the other hand, in his Meditations he attempts to prove God´s existence.. It is a moot point if the idea of God contravenes the "laws" of his methodological skepticism.
 * From my recollection, R.D. states that body and soul are distinct, potentially independent entities and postulates the possibility of a mind existing without a body. I cannot remember any speculations of his referring to an afterlife but I may be wrong, having read R.D. long ago (and only in parts).
 * I can only suggest studying his Discourse on the Method and Meditations for any definite references to his opinion. His books, as you may know, were banned by the Vatican (he remained a Roman Catholic till his death, despite living in the Netherlands and dying in Stockholm).
 * I apologise as I can not answer your question precisely. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Caroline, I offer you this from the Meditations on First Philosophy;

''Next I examined attentively what I was. I saw that while I could pretend that I had no body and that there was no world and no place for me to be in, I could not for all that pretend that I did not exist. I saw on the contrary that from the mere fact that I thought of doubting the truth of other things, it followed quite evidently and certainly that I existed; whereas if I had merely ceased thinking, even if everything else I had ever imagined had been true, I should have no reason to believe that I existed. From this I knew that I was a substance whose whole nature is simply to think, and which does not require any place or depend on any material thing, in order to exist. Accordingly this I-that is, the soul by which I am what I am-is entirely distinct from the body, and indeed is easier to know than the body, and would not fail to be whatever it is even if the body did not exist. ''

In the end Descartes 'resolves' the whole problem of the mind-matter interaction by an act, it might be thought, of intellectual bad-faith; by saying that it is a mystery, only understandable to God.

Picture, if you will, the following images. There is a bewigged philosopher in a pensive mood. A bubble appears from his mind with a question mark. “Ah”, says the sage, “I think therefore I am.” The said philosopher continues in his pensive mood. Another bubble appears. This time nothing comes. A look of panic appears on the thinker’s face. The bubble only contains an exclamation mark. And then-POOF!-the thinker vanishes from the scene, wig and all! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Caroline, in response to your question about the mind existing after death, the answer, is, I believe, yes. As C.e.Z and Clio note above, Decartes was a devout Catholic, and God was central to his whole philosophy: God provided the certainty and assurance that everything held together.  The idea of separating flesh (matter) from spirit (mind/soul) was not new in Christian thought, and although Descartes approached it from a different angle, his basic premises were the same: the mind (spirit/soul) is the true individual and exists and lasts outside of this temporal, material, world.  Life exists after death, the soul will be united with God, the mind will find completeness within the ultimate knowledge (truth) provided by God ("now I know in part; then I shall know fully").  A mind that did not exist beyond death has little meaning in a Christian philosophy, and certainly offers none of the certainty Descartes was looking for. As to C.e.Z's speculating about the mind existing before the body, I have no idea what Descartes thought on that, but mainstream Christian thought holds that the individual exists before birth (and even, before conception, hence the Catholic concerns about contraception). Gwinva (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To avoid any misunderstanding, "now I know in part; then I shall know fully" is not a statement made by Descartes but one by Paul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthians 13:12 that became part of general Christian belief. It is interpreted by some Christians not so much as referring to life after death, but to the conditions that will arise upon the second coming of Christ (see Continuationism). --Lambiam 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your responses. A particular thanks to you, Clio. That's exactly what I was looking for.Caroline Finkel (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Kiev
I've been reading about the Russian defeat in the 1941 Battle of Kiev. I would really like to know-not fully explained in your article-what acconts for the completness of the disaster, beyond the aggressive tactics of the Germans? Was there a failure of leadership, and if so was this local or central? Would a break out not have been possible? Is there nothing the Russians could have done to retrieve the situation? Thank you.Turnvater (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, standing back from the tactical details, the broader picture might be that the German army had not yet endured a Russian winter, while the Soviet army had not yet recovered from Stalin's purges... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lieutenant-Colonel Albert Seaton in The Russo-German War, 1941-45 emphasises the orders of the Soviet High Command to hold the line of the Dnieper at all costs, and Hitler's diversion of the armour formations of Army Group Centre towards the Donets basin and the Caucasus."The movement of von Schweppenburg's 24 Panzer Corps to the area of Starodub and Gomel and the destruction and dispersal of the divisions of Kuznetsov's Central Front were regarded by the Kremlin as an effort to outflank from the south Timoshenko's West Front and the Reserve Front, both of which lay one behind the other covering the western approaches to Moscow. The Soviet High Command was hardly at fault for its failure to appreciate the illogical thought processes by which the Führer had sent his panzer troops off at tangents to the obvious and shortest axis to Moscow. pp. 144-5."According to Zhukov, he had advised a withdrawal even at the cost of the abandonment of Kiev on 29 July. The result was an angry outburst from Stalin, and Zhukov's replacement as Chief of General Staff by Shaposhnikov. Khrushchev would claim that he and Budenny asked permission to withdraw on 11 September, but the request was categorically refused by Stalin. Only Budenny was removed from his post. Khrushchev would also claim that Shaposhnikov ignored all warnings of the impending catastrophe, that he proposed a widthdawal again on the 16th, but that by the time Stalin agreed it was already too late. Seaton states that Khrushchev's account "is unlikely to be entirely true".&mdash;eric 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly a failure of leadership; and as Stalin had ultimate responsibility, the failure has to be his. But there is more than this; for Stalin was a politician, not a soldier. He had to trust the command of the Red Army; and he had to trust Semyon Budenny, a military dinosaur, whose moustache was far more impressive than his intellect or his judgement. Stalin wanted to hold the line of the Dnieper, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that he would have ordered a tactical withdrawal to the east if this was the advice given by all of his senior command; but Budenny said that he could fight it out in front of Kiev, and that he had at his disposal "formidable defensive positions."

It's also as well to remember that, even if a withdrawal had been ordered, it would have entailed huge risks in the face of almost total German air superiority. Budenny, moreover, had a huge force at his disposal-a million men-, who could have been expected to make the passage of the Dnieper very difficult for the enemy. But the whole thing was appallingly mismanaged. If Semyon Timoshenko, or Zhukov, or even Mikhail Kirponos, Budenny's subordinate, had been in charge, matters might have turned out differently. Instead the Red Army did nothing, as vital days slipped past. What could have been achieved with the right kind of aggressive leadership was shown by the 2nd Cavalry Division, with its daring probes on the flanks of Walther von Reichenau's Sixth Army. But local successes could do nothing to make up for Budenny, who stood transfixed, like a rabbit in the headlights. Heinz Guderian was allowed to advance with his tanks, uninterrupted and unimpeded, cutting across the rear of the Soviet 5th Army.

Budenny was eventually relieved, though by that time it was far too late. The situation was beyond retrieval. Permission was eventually given for a withdrawal, though only after Walther Model and Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist had closed the ring. By this point the Russians had neither the ammunition, nor the fuel nor the necessary co-ordination to attempt a break-out. The courage of the ordinary soldiers was extraordinary but in the circumstances, completely and utterly futile. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just from reading the article, the battle was a horrific defeat for the USSR. The USSR lost 163K killed an wounded and 450K captured, versus the Nazi 150K killed and wounded, for a 5-to-1 advantage to the Nazis. However, this was in reality a phyrric victory. The USSR could afford to lose at 5-to-1 to the Nazis, and the "winners" were also completely exhausted in the military sense. It does not really matter whether Stalin or his subordinates understood this. The USSR forces at Kiev delayed the Nazis until the beginning of winter, and this assured the defeat of the Nazis before Moscow. war in Russia is all about logistics. -Arch dude (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Tolstoyan view of history! War is always about logistics; but it's also about people, in Russia as much as anywhere else.  It is also about calculation and risk.  In the opening stages of the Battle of Moscow the Germans destroyed the last significant Russian reserves in the European theatre.  All that remained was the Siberian divisions, facing the Kwantung Army on the Manchurian border.  On Richard Sorge's intelligence that the Japanese did not plan to attack the Soviet Union, Stavka took a calculated gamble in moving these units to the west.  The German advance had certainly been slowed by poor weather conditions, though by the October thaw, rather than by winter's hardness.  When the ground froze again the advance continued, though impeded by equipment failures and the tough resistance of the Soviet 16th Army before Moscow.  Once the Siberians were in position, the counter-attack began.  Winter did not defeat the Germans; Zhukov did.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was nothing pyrrhic about the German victory at Kiev. It was complete and total. It destroyed almost the last of the pre-war Red Army in the West - as Clio said, the only other place there were trained soldiers was the Far East - and cost vast amounts of equipment. The Red Army lost over 600,000 men permanently, mostly dead or soon to die in German captivity. German dead and seriously wounded can hardly have been a tenth of that number, the rest, the great majority of the 163,000 casualties, would have been back with their units quite quickly. In round numbers, if we guess on 30,000 German permanent casualties, German permanent losses, compared to the total strength of the army in east, were about one frontline soldier in a hundred, while Soviet permanant losses were rather more than one sixth of the Red Army's frontline strength. Catastrophic doesn't really do the scale of the Soviet defeat justice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, Angus; it was arguably the most crushing defeat in world history. But for the Far Eastern reserves it's almost certain that the Soviet Union would have gone under.  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just another point of view: Józef Czapski was a Polish officer captured by the Soviets in 1939 and recounts in his partial autobiography The Inhuman Land how the Russians were apparently quite content to abandon their matériel in the face of Operation Barbarossa but insisted in retaining their prisoners, death marching them away from the Germans. This is a very good read, by the way; Czapski's life was saved during this retreat when a fellow Polish prisoner, a doctor, recognised the early signs of hypoglycaemia, and surreptitiously passed him a sugar cube which saved his life (the doctor himself died shortly afterwards). In the book, however, Czapski himself marvels at the perverted sense of priorities which placed the preservation of prisoners above sensible defense and rational military priorities. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Browning and Strauss
Good afternoon. I would like to know, please, to what extent Robert Browning's poem "Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day" was influenced by David Strauss's "The Life of Jesus", an English translation of which appeared not long before its composition? Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.6.121 (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The third great aspect of Christian thought in 1850 which Browning dealt with in Christmas-Eve was Rationalism, and this point of view was represented by the lecture of the 'hawk-nosed, highcheekboned Professor' in the university at Göttingen on ChristmasEve...the figure and the discourse mainly represent the German critic of the Scriptures, David Friedrich Strauss and his book, Das Leben Jesu, published in Germany in 1835. Browning's German was not adequate for reading the book in the original,...but read it first in the translation by Marian Evans (George Eliot) which appeared in the late spring of 1846."DeVane, W. C. (1955). A Browning handbook. pp. 201-2. . The author cites Fnäulein Käthe Göritz, "Robert Brownings Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day und Das Leben Jesu von D. F. Strauss", in Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen 147:197-211 ( 1924) and Raymond, W. O. (1950). "Browning and Higher Criticism." in The infinite moment, and other essays in Robert Browning. .&mdash;eric 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Browning fashions Easter-Day as a discussion between two voices, exploring, amongst other things, the nature of faith, how insecure it is, and how necessary God's help is in sustaining it. The simple fact is that the Victorian world was beginning to lose some of its past certainties in matters of faith and religion, a process that the publication of David Strauss's The Life of Jesus helped to accelerate. Browning was later to say "I know the difficulty of believing...I know all that may be said against it [the Christian scheme of salvation] on the ground of history, of reason, of even moral sense. I grant even that it may be a fiction.  But I am none the less convinced that the life and death of Christ, as Christians apprehend it, supply something that their humanity requires; and that is true for them." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia
Isn't it getting cross with each other over a name a bit silly. Why not name FYROM "North Macedonia", and then maybe the Greek side "South Macedonia". I do not expect any great offers of money for this brilliant insight that one is more north than t'other, but do so in the interests of humanity. I am not a dog (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a great article on this at Macedonia naming dispute, but after reading it the whole thing only seems slightly less silly to me. "Upper Macedonia" was suggested for FYROM but it "had invariably fallen foul of the Greek position that no permanent formula incorporating the term "Macedonia" is acceptable". Recury (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From the point of view of many Greeks, the name "Macedonia" was originally imposed by Tito as part of a communist plot to impose Communism on Greece and partition its territory, which resulted in years of fighting in which thousands of people died, and so is not especially "silly"... In any case, Greece has found "Slavomacedonia" acceptable for years now. AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Self identity
I'm not sure if this is the right place, but here goes anyway: in the article self identity, it says that this is the idea that "sentient beings hold for their own existence." Does this mean we exist for the sake of existing?--AtTheAbyss (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Define 'we' 'exist' and 'sake' :) Not being facetious; it's not really answerable without this. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article Self identity begins thus: "Self-concept or self identity is the mental and conceptual understanding and persistent regard that sentient beings hold for their own existence." In simple words, this means: "Self identity" is a word for how people think about themselves. Well, I've tagged the article with confusing. Sandstein (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * persistent regard makes those sentient beings sound so self-centred. 130.88.140.110 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Persistent" refers to those cases where the awareness of your identity is subject is not subject to major discontinuity. It is not a confusing term, it is a necessary term.  Some mental patients (possible some bipolar disorders et al) may NOT have a persistent awareness of their self.  ::::This, however, is unrelated to the query by the OP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably you meant "is not subject to major discontinuity"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the right place. I'm not surprised by your confusion, AtTheAbyss; the statement in question is devoid of all meaning and sense: it is quite literally nonsense. It is not even clear what is meant by 'sentient beings', if sentience is understood in the widest sense, to include non-human subjects. Do dogs hold a 'persistent-regard' for their own existence?! And in what precise way is the 'self-concept' different from 'self-consciousness', which, so this argument proceeds, 'is an awareness or preoccupation with one's self.' They would seem to me to be exactly the same thing! I can just imagine what Wittgenstein would have made of the woolly-minded assertion that the 'self' is based on the 'sum total of a being's knowledge and understanding.' Do you wake in the morning, does anyone wake in the morning, with the sum total of your being and understanding at your disposal?! Alas, I am the limit of the world, but I cannot draw a boundary round it, for to do that I would have to be able to step outside of it, which I cannot do! There is no I, no ego or subject, that stands alone in the world and sees and thinks and confers sense on what it sees and thinks. That wasn't me, guys; that was Wittgenstein! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. I appreciate the help. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Financial Markets - Azerbaijan
Really random question but does anyone know anything about the stock market in Azerbaijan? Im trying to understand how many companies are listed there, what the market cap is, market cap/gdp, government bond market turnover and corporate bond market turnover for 2000-2006/7. I've been looking on bse.az but not getting anywhere so i thought i might as well have a stab at asking here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.251.12 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Azerbaijan stock exchange has a web site, presumably in Aziri. The article on the Baku stock exchange has a link to http://www.feas.org/Member.cfm?MemberID=6, which contains information which may be of use to you.  I know too little of the subject matter to evaluate the data.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, http://www.bfb.az/index.php comes in English and Russian, as well. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Death of Bayezid I
we know no more about death of Sultan Bayezid after battle of Ankara? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enver M (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Enver. Apart from the article on the battle of Ankara there is an entry on Bayezid I, which has some notes on his captivity on the Timurid court.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a lengthy article on Bayezid I at http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/imber.pdf, but it does not refer to his captivity in Aksehir. There is, of course, an article in the Britannica, but this requires a subscription (or a free trial), so I don´t know if it contains anything new. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Britannica article isn't helpful here. It's a short article and ends: "In a confrontation between Bayezid and Timur in Çubukovasi near Ankara (July 1402), Bayezid was defeated; he died in captivity." -- BPMullins | Talk 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Enver, the story of Bayezid's end is altogether more prosaic than that given by some of the more fanciful Ottoman accounts: he died of natural causes in March 1403 in the central Anatolian town of Akşehir, as you will discover if you ever consult the Reisebuch of Johann Schiltberger. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Legal Definition of a Public Space
Hi, to begin with I am aware of Legal disclaimer, and I'm not asking for legal advice here. My question is whether anyone can point me to any online legal codes or case law that may or may not be relevant to the legal definition of a public space in Canada (specifically Vancouver, BC). Specifically, I am interested in whether the outdoor, common land of a strata title (i.e. condominiums, apartment blocks) is considered public space, and to what extent "consuming alcohol in a public place" laws may apply. To reiterate, I'm not asking for legal advice or interpretation, I'm asking if anyone knows of any resources that might be relevant.

Thanks in advance, -24.82.140.138 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A good rule of thumb is that if you have to ask if something's OK, it probably isn't. Vranak (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As a guide, in Oz, the common land is managed by a body called the Strata Management which looks after the externals and the interests of the property. They would know the details if you ask about whether it's okay for people who own/rent the properties to do so in the common spaces. It's not okay for outsiders to just use the space, so it's common space, not public space within the grounds and environs, though this can be hard to police unless there's a specific incident and a complaint, afaik. If people who are residents want to hold a party near the pool say, as a courtesy they usually let others know re noise and how long it will go on for. Best to check with a management body. I get the feeling complaints need first to happen at the body corp level. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BC statutes and regulations
 * Vancouver by-laws -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone, those references helped. -24.82.140.138 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pipeworks toy
When I was a kid (mid-1980s) I had a toy that I think was called Pipeworks. It consisted of PVC pipe with special holes drilled in it, and little connector pieces that you could use to snap them together (and a little plastic tool used to make them separate again). It came with some sort of book or manual with all the neat sorts of things you could make out of them (a chair! a slide! a car! a jungle gym!). It was sooo cool. But now I can't find anything about on the internet, and were it not for this blog entry that mentions them (and has a little scan out of said manual in the corner) I would doubt their name and existence.

Who made these? Where can I find information on them? Are they still made? Were they at all popular? If anyone can give me any information at all about them I'd be so happy. I spent YEARS playing with these things and now I can barely remember them. --140.247.240.182 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, a little more searching, and I see they were made by Hasbro and even found a copy of the manual. Damn they were cool. --140.247.240.182 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh snap, there's even a Wikipedia entry on them. Playskool Pipeworks. Well nevermind then. I think the problem is that Google searches for "pipe works" when you search for "pipeworks" so unless you add the company name, nothing useful comes up. --140.247.240.182 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if you try those two searches (pipeworks and pipe works), you'll find that's not the case. You will see, for example, "Texas Pipe Works" in the first search, because their domain name matches your search string.  There are ways to modify the search so that domain name matches don't come up, but I'm a little too lazy right now to hunt down that syntax.  In any event, I searched for pipeworks toy and Hasbro was one of the first hits.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You can sometimes force it by searching pipeworks -pipe-works. The - in front acts as NOT and the - connecting pipe-works makes it a phrase. But it is annoying when you know exactly what you want to search for and Google thinks it knows better :) My cousin had one, and I was very envious. Now I know what I was envious of. 130.88.140.110 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethics vs. Morals
What is the difference between ethics and morals? The article pages seem to suggest they are synonymous, simply two sides of the same coin, or related to each other like theory and practice (and here I've heard people call ethics both the theory and the applied practice, so that distinction in itself seems confusing). All this seems a little unsatisfying. To take as an example, some might say it is immoral to be sexually promiscuous, but it wouldn't make much sense to call sexual promiscuity unethical, or at least it doesn't sound right to my ear. Likewise, if I stole someone else's writings and then published them under my own name it would be easy to call that unethical, but immoral sounds wrong, at least to me. It seems like morality has to do with care for the self, whereas ethics have to do with care for others. What's going on here?--Beaker342 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I recall from my legal ethics course, ethics is a discipline of philosophy and tends to be concerned with abstract, rather general rules on how one should act, e.g., the golden rule. Morals, on the other hand, are a sociological or cultural phenomenon; written or unwritten community norms concerning correct behaviour. They are typically specific to a culture, civilisation, time and place; they also tend to be more concrete (e.g., what sort of clothing is considered decent). Indubitably, more learned folk than I will soon correct me. Sandstein (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds right, but then how do we account for people like Kant and Rawls explicitly calling their work Moral Philosophy? Here I'm apt to just throw up my hands and say the words have been hopelessly muddied and move on.--Beaker342 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the lines have blurred to the point that there's now a considerable degree of mutual overlap between what we mean by ethics, morals, principles and even values, so it's become reduced to a semantic question. (Anyone who disagrees with me has none of any of them, obviously.)  The preceding parenthetical sentence isn't actually true, obviously.  I was just highlighting that these are all personal matters, and what may in the doer's mind be ethical/moral/principled behaviour may not appear to be so to an observer, or any observer.  I hesitate to mention his name, but if you asked Hitler about the moral or ethical basis of the atrocities he caused to be perpetrated, I'm sure he wouldn't just hang his head and plead utter absence of either; no, he'd go into interminable chapter and verse about why what he did was highly principled, moral and ethical, and of profound value to his nation.  I trust you wouldn't ever be convinced, but that's not the point.  I realise this may not be of even the slightest assistance in helping with the distinction between morals and ethics, assuming there is one any more, so I'll shut up now.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, the article on ethics states "Ethics and morals are respectively akin to theory and practice."
 * Consider: Would you then call the categorical imperative a philosophical or a moral construct? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On the categorical imperative: I would not consider it necessary to have an either/or situation with philosophical and moral. Although my opinion is that Kant himself would have said that it was a philosophical construct designed to illustrate moral truths. Categorising it like that also depends on what you mean by a "moral construct". If you mean a rule/set of rules derived from morality, then it certainly is not that, but if you mean a statement designed to give moral guidance then it qualifies. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In my understanding, ethics are concerned with the best course of action because acting in such a manner will give you good results in the long run. Morals state behave properly or else. Ethics comes from enlightened self-interest, morals come from authority and fear of punishment. Again, this is in my understanding. Vranak (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to attempt to draw the line between morals and ethics, although I'm sure my answer will be far from definitive. Morals are essentially social, they are the process by which we distinguish right from wrong, right and wrong clearly being defined by society, context and tradition amog other factors. Ethics, or to put it better, ethical thought, is the act of attepting to define when something is moral, which is to say whether an action is right or wrong, inside of a coherent system. So I may say that "my actions were moral, based on my subscription to utilitarianism", or "my belief in Kant's ethical system leads me to believe that my actions were moral". So although it is a little more complex, Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM summed it up pretty nicely with the quote about theory and practice. Ethics is essentially an attempt to rationalise morality, and morality is basically the act of of identifying actions as right or wrong. They overlap a lot, and can be used as synonyms without much complaint, but they are seperate concepts. I hope that helps rather than making things more complicated 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The word ethics comes from ancient Greek; it is derived from the word ἔθος (ethos) meaning "custom". The word morals comes from Latin; it is derived from the word mos meaning "custom". This suggests that the distinction is originally not deep. One can distinguish the degree to which the use of these words involves a philosophical outlook or not. Another dimension is whether it involves principles stemming from an inner conviction of what is right and wrong, or rather external norms as determined by society or Church. The following summarizes my impression how these and related words are actually used:
 * ethics (noun) — philosophical, principled
 * ethical (adj.) — possibly philosophical, principled
 * unethical (adj.) — usually not philosophical, principled
 * morals (noun) — usually not philosophical, usually not principled
 * moral (adj.) — possibly philosophical, usually principled
 * immoral (adj.) — usually not philosophical, often not principled
 * --Lambiam 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of death
I am trying to find out the date of death of a person for an article. He was born in 1887 and the last known record has him living in New Jersey in 1952. Any suggestions? -- Sp in ni ng  Spark  22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Social Security Death Index. If he got a SSN, you know what state he probably died in, and he isn't named John Smith, it should do the job.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighting
I'm writing a graphic novel. I've finished the first chapter. Can I copyright the first chapter and protect the whole book at the same time? The reason I'm asking is because I need to show it to others to get advice before submitting it to a publisher. Particularly my writing coach. Thanks for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.18.174 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright in the United States automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship, which is to say your first chapter is already copyright, as presumably are the characters in the story. You cannot copyright something that has not been written; copyright is not of assistance in protecting the plot of your proposed book. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But although you're work is automatically your intellectual property you want a way to prove it was written at a certain date and thus be able to enforce your right if there is theft or unauthorized use of it (I wouldn't be too paranoid about it). You can register what you have written with a lawyer (or at least ask him for advice) for a fee or with something like the writer's guild of America or some such association that deals with graphicaly comical novels (also for a fee). I don't think mailing it to yourself registered post still works in court, maybe if its done properly (stamped post-stamps sealing the envelope) You're 1st chapter has to be pretty original for you to want to copyright it though since for any use of your drawings you're covered because you have the originals and can prove they are yours (e.g. your name on the top of the page). You only need to worry about someone stealing your plot or characters but then what an homage! Don't worry about it too much and good work. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Assuming you are in the US or in a country that is a member of the Berne Convention then you don't have to do anything to have your work automatically covered by copyright. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's automatic in Australia too, though international copyrights have to be sought usually. Afaik though, people still stand a better chance if they document whatever they have created (copies, images, CD etc) with logs, and mail it to themselves registered post, (which you leave sealed and file away) than being empty handed and on the back foot. You might as well do your best with precautions in the first place as a personal practice. The law likes concrete proof after all. Originality is moot, but authorship is something else. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Ah, the poor man's copyright. I seem to have seen this come up on the reference desk a few times in recent months. Note that the article provides little reassurance in its actual effectiveness. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 07:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A better solution, IMO, than the standard poor man's copyright would be to scan the image as a TIFF and calculate a hash for it, and then post the hash all over the place wherever you can, and e-mail it to a bunch of people too (put it in your e-mail signature, even). You could easily prove that your original file was the source of the hash, and it shouldn't be too hard to rustle up witnesses to having received the hash if need be. You could even post the hash to your Wikipedia user page—it has a nice, firm timestamp (and if need be you could get someone involved with WP to write an affidavit saying that you would have had no ability to retroactively change the date). (I don't know if any of these solutions would hold up in a court of law, but in any case they aren't totally novel. Galileo used to do stuff like this to protect the priority of his own ideas; sending little encrypted bits to his friends and competitors so that later he could tell them how to decrypt it and they'd see he had it all along. I think a solution like this is much more sound than a poor man's copyright, because it involves so many more independent people.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, check this reputable explanation of copyright facts and myths and, (if you feel you must register the written chapter somehow), how-tos. Be aware there are copyright registration scams out there too. WikiJedits (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I found that confusing. Quote: Registration is a prerequisite for filing a copyright infringement suit, but it is not required for copyright protection. So without registration you can't sue someone who infringes your copyright. What kind of protection is that?
 * The argument that it is easy to fake PMC is also a bit weak. If you have an envelope with the flap along the long side, use the back side of the envelope as the address side and place the postage stamps such that they go across the lower edge of the sealed flap, and convince the postal clerk to put the postmark stamp also partially overlapping that edge, then it is very hard to open the envelope later and reseal it without visible evidence. With some kinds of envelopes – I don't know the name for the material, but it is hard to tear it – and self-adhesive stamps you have fairly tamper-proof evidence. Also, instead of addressing it to yourself, you can send it to a trusted party who keeps the sealed document for you, and who can testify under oath, if needed, that the envelope was received shortly after the postmarked time, and has not been tampered with.
 * I further wonder if, in the US, the services of a notary public can be used to facilitate establishing authorship.
 * See also Trusted timestamping, which, it would appear, can be used on a digitized copy. --Lambiam 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to register to file the suit, but you can still sue over infringement that takes place before you registered (although you can only recover actual damages for that). --Carnildo (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Countering code talkers
In code talker:


 * Adolf Hitler knew about the successful use of code talkers during World War I and sent a team of some thirty anthropologists to learn Native American languages before the outbreak of World War II. However, it proved too difficult to learn all the many languages and dialects that existed. Because of Nazi German anthropologists' attempts to learn the languages, the U.S. Army did not implement a large scale code talker program in the European Theater.

Wasn't it easy to counter code talkers? Hitler could send some spies to Australia and the North and South Americas to hire native language speakers to Berlin under various wonderful excuses, e.g., circus performers, church activities, factory labors, ... anything other than language research purposes. By the time the U.S. entered the war, he could retain the language speakers and force them to help the Nazis. Did he do this?

Then how did the U.S. prevent the loss of language to the enemies? Did Uncle Sam monitor or control obscure native language speakers?

I think Nazi Germany didn't need to have strong language expertise to make it work. The remote possibility that they could understand one language could have forced the U.S. not to use that language. Owning a number of native speakers and maybe a little bluff (e.g., a radio message of a Cherokee saying hello to his people recorded during pre-war language collection) and luck could have forced the U.S. not to play this trick in the very beginning. Then, how could the U.S. play the same trick again? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing to remember about code talkers is that their communications were not just a direct in-language translation of the message content. There was a substitution which added another level of complexity "(the word for "potato" being used to refer to a hand grenade, or "tortoise" to a tank, for example) ... To an ordinary Navajo speaker, the entire code-talking "conversation" would have been quite incomprehensible, because the nouns and verbs were not used in the contextual sequence for conveying meaning within Navajo sentence structure." So even if Germany/Japan had someone who understood Navajo/Choctaw/etc., they would still need to figure out why the U.S. Army wanted to feed potatoes to their tortoises. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks to be a dubious claim in the code talker article. According to Kenneth William Townsend in World War II and the American Indian, the difference in employment between theaters was due to the success of the Marine Corps training and recruitment program, and the failure of the Army's.&mdash;eric 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I share Eric's scepticism here. Toytoy, this is a subject, I confess,  of which I know little, but I would treat that statement about Adolf Hitler and code talking with extreme caution until such time as some definite and reliable support is forthcoming.  It all looks so very Indiana Jones!  The extensive use of Navajo code-talkers, in particular, in the Pacific theatre was because Philip Johnston, the son of a Protestant missionary, who grew up on a reservation, conceived the idea of constructing an unbreakable code on the basis of the Navajo language.  His proposal came before Major General Clayton B Vogel of the Marine Corps, and was duly taken up.  It was used in the Pacific theatre because, well, that is where the Marines did almost all of their fighting.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Many years ago, I have seen a number of pre-war Japanese anthropological reports in a research library. Japanese people have always been interested in their ancestry (as a race or a nation). Their scholars went everywhere in South East Asia to study the aboriginals. That is why when I heard the code talker story, I was kind of skeptical. Maybe you could fool them for a while, but their brightest minds could always solve the puzzle in a few more months.

I guess the code language shall only consist of a limited number of words. The change of grammar shall be irrelevant to a linguist who knows nothing about the language but armed with all study tools.

I think these codes were only used for instant decisions. If you can not solve the code in five minutes, you may take your time to enjoy an afternoon shower of 500 lb high explosive bombs. It would be too risky to use the code to transmit the placement of your navy fleet.

Did the U.S. really use any Native American language during WW I? -- Toytoy (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Choctaw code talkers were apparently used for a short period at the end of WW1 - see Choctaw. My understanding is that code talkers were only used for tactical battlefield communications, in situations where there was not time to set up a more secure radio code. They also provided a check on the authenticity of radio messages, as a native speaker could easily tell whether or not they were talking to another native speaker. To counter this and respond sufficiently rapidly, the enemy would have to embed translators at company level, which would require hundreds of translators. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Chapter 5 of Simon Singh's book "The Code Book" deals with the use of Navajo code talkers. He quotes the official report on the original proposal "The Navajo is the only tribe in the United States that has not been infested with German students during the past twenty years." He continues "In Northern France during the First World War ... eight men from the Choctaw tribe (were) employed as radio operators. ... the Choctaw language had no equivalent for modern military jargon. A specific technical term in a message might therefore have to be translated into a vague Choctaw expression, with the risk that this could be misinterpreted by the receiver." For the Navajo code talkers, the complete original lexicon contained 274 words with specific military meanings, and less predictable words and phrases were spelled out using a phonetic alphabet based on English words translated into Navajo. (Alternatives were added for the most commonly used letters.) Another 234 common terms were added later. Before they were sent into operation, Navajo code speakers' transmissions were sent to an American Navy Intelligence unit, who had cracked the Japanese Code Purple. They reported that they "could not even transcribe it, much less crack it". The Navajo were to serve in all six Marine Corps divisions, and were sometimes borrowed by other American forces. Altogether there were 420 Navajo code talkers.  It remains one of the very few codes that was never broken, as acknowledged by Lieutenant General Seizo Arisue, the Japanese chief of intelligence.  SaundersW (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)