Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 7

= December 7 =

Huns, Avars & Bulgars
Why did the Huns, the Avars and the Buglars move to Europe and not to the Middle East? Middle East was warmer and had fertile valleys. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a fairly continuous "steppe belt" of grasslands which runs from Mongolia in the east to Hungary in the west. Mesopotamia and Egypt were not contiguous to the steppe belt, and not ecologically suited to maintaing an animal-herding lifestyle on a large scale (and the steppe tribes were not really interested in becoming settled agriculturalists).  Some groups of steppe horse-nomads did invade the middle east at long intervals (Scythians, Mongols). AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, they liked to take things one steppe at a time. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you stare at a topography map for a while you can literally see what AnonMoos is talking about (the Eurasian Steppe), and get an idea of some of the physical barriers which would discourage a (presumably) central Asian on horseback from heading south. If you start with the Himalayas and Pamir Mountains and proceed west, you've got: the Karakum Desert and the various deserts and mountains which compose much of Iran (see Geography of Iran and this map), the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, and the Black Sea. And of course you've got the Byzantine Empire and various Persian dynasties in your way. None of these obstacles were completely insurmountable, obviously, but hey, I'd probably have gone for Europe, too. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After a stair at the steppes, I'm inclined to agree. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also wish to check the page on the White Huns. Emma Dashwood (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Empire was in the way for getting into Europe: Heraclius fought the Avars during his Persian wars. See also Basil II Bulgaroctonus.  Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lousy empires get in the way of everything. There were the Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars, too, and probably others that I don't know about. As far as I know, though, most of these wars were fought over the Balkans, and the mean ol' barbarians attacked from the north— meaning they had already made it at least a thousand miles into Europe, but raised some Byzantine hackles by turning south. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan
I read somewhere that Taliban killed Tajik and Hazara people because they non-Pashtun and non-Sunni(except Tajik), meaning they wanted to make Afghanistan an all-Pashtun and all-Sunni. Does this mean they also killed Baloch people, Nuristani people, Pasha'i people, Uzbek people and Turkmen people because they were non-Pashtun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.85 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would guess that it was more complex than them wanting to kill off all other ethnicities and religions. They likely only killed off those groups they thought opposed them or their goals.  And, even if their eventual aim was actually to kill off everyone who was different from themselves, it will still make tactical sense to wait to kill off some groups who didn't pose an immediate threat to their goals, and instead focus on those who did. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is always a bit of propaganda to state unequivocally that a group or groups goal is to "eliminate all groups not like them" or to "take over the whole world". It is rarely true, and as such holding such positions does not inform us in helping find an end to the problems.  If we say "Group X wants to kill everyone else" or "Group X wants to take over the world" then it makes it easy for us to simply apply military force and stop them; it assumes that Group X has no rational goals and as such can only be stopped by force.  The truth is that these issues and relationships are often far more complex than we wish them to be.  Every group from the Nazis to the Communists to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda has been accused of wishing to "kill'em all".  The reality is far more nuanced.  Groups DO commit genocide, and groups DO commit horrendous acts of terrorism; but their goals are often more focused than "killing everyone else"... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But nobody 'stated unequivocally that a group or group's goal is to "eliminate all groups not like them"'. StuRat (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The OP certainly makes that case quite clearly... "Does this mean they also killed [people groups] because they were non-Pashtun?". To claim that the Taliban participated in a genocide of people groups may be part of the historical record, but to claim that they did so merely because they weren't Pashtun is the sort of over-simplification that leads to the non-productive conclusions we have about how to solve these problems.  It isn't like the Taliban woke up one morning and decided "Lets just kill all the non-Pashtuns".  The Taliban has political goals, and their decisions on how to achieve those goals are not made in a vacuum.  To oversimplify them in this way is not helpful.  I am not defending the Taliban; understanding why an action was taken is NOT the same thing as justifying that action.  Understanding why can only lead to better means of preventing it in the future... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By my reading the original poster made no claims at all. Their first sentence starts with "I read somewhere", meaning they aren't stating their own opinion but rather are relaying an opinion from another.  Their second sentence is a question, not a statement at all. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Jayron was necessarily saying it was the OP opinion rather that if he/she understood the point Jayron was making (which I would agree was a good point) he/she would understand the question is nonsense and overtly simplistic and therefore pointless discussing Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Highest Mountain in the former Texas Republic
Guadalupe Peak is the present extent of elevation in Texas, but what was the highest peak before it lost other land upon becoming an American state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, different maps of the Republic of Texas show markedly different configurations for its borders in the northwest. Quite possibly they were never clearly defined and the maps represent conflicting interpretations.  However, the bottom left map on that page seems to be the most detailed and it clearly shows that the northwestern prolongation of the republic as bounded at least in part by the Rio Grande and the Arkansas River and including at least part of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in between them, although it doesn't show any northern boundary.  So one possibility for the highest point would be Blanca Peak and, if the republic extended that far north, another would be Mt. Elbert. Both are now in Colorado and Mt. Elbert is the highest point in the US outside of the Pacific Coast states. --Anonymous, 07:03 UTC, December 7, 2008.


 * The northwestern borders claimed by the Republic of Texas were defined by the Rio Grande and the Arkansas River and then by lines drawn north from their headwaters to the 42nd parallel.  Since Mt. Elbert lies between the headwaters of those two rivers, it would have been part of the land claimed by the republic.  Of course, Mexico did not recognize those claims.  In fact, the area grudgingly and sporadically recognized by Mexico as the republic covered a smaller area than the present state of Texas and would not even have included Guadalupe Peak.  By the Mexican definition, the republic's highest point would have been somewhere on the Edwards Plateau.  Marco polo (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking a little more closely, the Edwards Plateau would not have been the highest part of the Mexican-acknowledged Republic. The highest point would have been near the westernmost point of the area acknowledged by Mexico, on the plains of present-day Martin County.  Marco polo (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiger-Taming Arhat
I recently watched Stephen Chow's The Mad Monk again and became interested in the Dragon-Subduing and Tiger-Taming Arhats. I started looking up info on them and found one pdf paper that mentions the following info as if it came from Journey to the West:

"In Buddhist mythology, there were two Buddhist arhats (羅漢 luo han – an eminent monk who has achieved enlightenment), one of whom subdued a dragon with incantations and the other who tamed a tiger with an abbot’s staff (錫杖 xi zhang). The saying ‘Subdue the dragon and tame the tiger’ is often used to describe the ability of an individual to overcome powerful adversaries. In China, the tiger is considered the king of the animal kingdom, and the Chinese character for tiger is invariably associated with brave generals (虎將 hu jiang) and warriors."

The only mention of the these arhats that I remember from the novel was when Buddha ordered them to call all heavenly beings to a great mass by hitting the wind-cloud chime (or something like that). Does anyone know what chapter the arhat taming the tiger with a staff thing happened? If it didn't come from Journey to the West, what novel (or sutra) does this appear in? Other versions of the tale just say he fed a tiger to keep it from killing people and that's how he tamed it. Also, everything else I've found says the Tiger-Taming arhat is usually depicted carrying a book and bowl. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Tiger-taming and Dragon-subduing arhats are two Chinese additions to the 16 original, principal arhats.
 * In the Journey to the West they appear during the abttle with the 兕大王 the Si Dawang, a blue ox which belonged to the Taishang Laojun. This appears in Chapter 50. They also appear briefly elsewhere in the story, e.g. accompanying the Buddha when he goes to subdue Sun Wukong near the beginning.
 * However, the role of the two arhats in the Journey to the West is limited. In Chapter 50, they were among the 18 arhats sent out by the Buddha to combat the demon. These two bore special instructions, not revealed to Sun Wukong and the other 16 arhats until later.
 * It is uncertain when the two Chinese arhats were added to the list of principal arhats. Their names also vary from source to source. According to the list given by the Qianlong Emperor in the preface to a Buddhist work (秘殿珠林續編), they are Mahākāśyapa and Maitreya. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you know of any scholarly papers that discusses the addition of the two to the 16? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone is interested, I found some info on google books and posted some of it here. It explains how the Dragon and Tiger lohans were added to the sixteen around the 10th century and that some historians see their mastery over these beasts--which are two of the four direction animals in Taoist cosmology--as a challenge to Taoism. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers: terminology
The traditional dichotomy in the press in the UK taught to EFL-students used to be broadsheet vs. tabloid. But since these terms originally referred to the paper format and some quality papers have now adopted the tabloid format, with which terms could one distinguish these two extremes in journalism? (This dichotomy may be simplistic, but it is aimed at 15-year-old learners.) -- 93.132.143.225 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You could use "Serious" and "Red tops". Nanonic (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Tabloid" and "Broadsheet" are still used even though many broadsheets have switched to a compact format. I've never heard of a compact former-broadsheet being referred to as a tabloid, even though it may be technically accurate. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the term yellow journalism still used? (In German, the more aggressively sensationalized variety is called boulevard press and tabloids reporting gossip of royal and showbiz celebrities are labeled rainbow press). ---Sluzzelin talk  14:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think of "yellow press" as being an American expression. In Britain we have the gutter press - the Sun, the Star, the Express. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I once had a lecturer from England at university, and she was always puzzled by her students' use of the expression "yellow press", since she was not familiar with it... (if I remember correctly) -- 93.132.143.225 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I've only ever seen "yellow press" mentioned online (I'm in the UK). --Tango (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard British people refer to "quality" papers, but I don't know a corresponding term for the other type. --Anonymous, 07:30 UTC, December 8, 2008.
 * How about "quantity"? :P —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Like Tango suggests I believe the words have moved from being a mere description of the format/size of the paper and come to mean the actual 'style' of paper itself. The Times is still referred to as a broadsheet even though it's not printed in that format these days. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, tabloid says the etymology of the term is the other way round - "tabloid" originally meant a small, compressed pill, and was applied to the abbreviated, less detailed style of journalism in certain newspapers before they adopted a smaller paper format. Then it became, by association (or maybe post-rationalisation) a term for the smaller paper format itself. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Guardian media section seems to divide papers into "popular", "mid-market", and "quality", at least in more formal coverage., although the "popular" Star sells fewer copies than the "quality" Telegraph. Mass-market is another term, often used in contrast to mid-market tabloids (Daily Mail,Daily Express) as well as to quality/broadsheet titles.  Note that although the Independent and the Sun are the same size, the former size is called "compact" and the latter "tabloid". --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The terms you're looking for are newspapers and fish wraps. Both are, of course, the latter on the second day but only one starts out that way. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've eaten a lot of fish from a lot of different places and never seen any still wrapped in old newspaper. I would have thought someone from health and safety would have banned it, doesn't the ink on newspapers stain anything that touches it? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Leader of the Opposition and Ghanaian Leader of the Opposition
So over at Requested articles/Social sciences I have managed to redirect every request to an appropriate page, write the article, or delete the requests as non notable except for two requests: Leader of the Opposition (Ghana) and Leader of the Opposition (Israel). I have a strong feeling that neither the Ghanaian parliament nor the Israeli Knesset have Leaders of the Opposition.

A Leader of the Opposition is 'a title traditionally held by the leader of the largest party not in government in a Westminster System of parliamentary government', the Westminster system being the parliamentary system used in the UK. I believe neither Ghana nor Israel was ever colonized by the UK, so I'd strongly suspect that neither country uses the Westminster system, and consequently has no Leader of the Opposition. My belief was further reinforced by these two articles: Politics of Ghana and Politics of Israel, neither of which mentions any 'Leader of the Opposition'.

Tl;dr: I'm not familiar with Ghanaian politics, and only have a vague grasp of Israeli politics. I was just wondering if anybody could confirm for me that neither Ghana nor Israel has an official title of 'Leader of the Opposition'. Thanks! Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 17:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ghana was colonized by Britain (as the Gold Coast), and was the first of our African colonies to achieve independence. Our article Politics of Ghana has some information about her parliamentary system. Israel was not colonized (as such) by Britain, but was governed by Britain under a League of Nations mandate. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * [hadn't yet seen Duncan's answer:] Without being able to answer your question--what do you mean by saying Ghana was never colonized by the British? It was at some point a British colony. Where do you draw the difference? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad. I assumed Ghana was colonized by the French, being in West Africa. The Politics of Ghana article still doesn't mention a Leader of the Opposition. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * From the article, it appears that they have a "Majority leader" and a "Minority leader" - I am unclear as to the division of powers between the President and parliament, it appears to be a mixture of a presidential system of government and a broadly Westminster-based parliament. Do we have any experts of Ghanaian political affairs? DuncanHill (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's what I was wondering. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 20:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the leader of the largest party outside of the governing coalition in the Knesset is referred to as leader of the opposition in the press, although I don't know if this is an official title as in the UK. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that s/he was referred to as the 'opposition leader', which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is different. Hmm, wait a second. Benjamin Netanyahu, current opposition leader, is referenced as 'Leader of the Opposition' as his current office. Of course, that still could be an unofficial title, which I believe it is. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 21:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Knesset website calls Netanyahu "Chairman of the Opposition". Go to and click on "Knesset activities". DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(after two ecs) From what I gather, Ghana's system is a hybrid of the UK and US systems. There is an elected house, per Westminster style, with spokespeople on different issues both for the governing and opposition parties. At the time of the election, each party chooses a candidate to run for President, per US style. Whether the losing candidate can be considered formally as a "leader of the opposition", I'm unsure - "minority leader" might well be a more appropriate term. (Note - this information is not from an expert on Ghanaian politics - things have changed dramatically from when my father worked in the country (and met Kwame Nkrumah) in the 1960s) Grutness...wha?  22:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The website of the Parliament of Ghana refers to a "Majority leader" and a "Minority leader", with (as far as I can see so far) no mention of a "Leader of the Opposition". See . DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So can we agree that Ghana has no Leader of the Opposition but Israel might? I have found three links on the Knesset's website that mention a Leader of the Opposition, but three links isn't many, and (once again) may just be an unofficial term:, , . A google news search for israeli "leader of the opposition" returns fewer than 3000 results. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 23:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Israelis comparing Jews to anti-semits
The recent clashes between Israeli settlers and Palestinians about a house in Hebron have led prominent Israeli politicians to compare the violence of some Israeli settlers (shooting at what was described as innocent Palestinians) to pogroms.

The term "pogrom", at least in English, is closely linked to anti-semitism, possibly even "especially" to the Nazis (?). Is the same true in Hebrew? And if so, is this the first time that prominent Israelis compare Jews/Israelis to anti-semits? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the word has been adopted verbatim into contemporary Hebrew. Its correct or generalized usage is as I've noted below. Instances in Israel of Jews charging other Jews with "antisemitic" or "Nazi" behavior may be an expression by Jewish nationalist settlers being evicted from outpost settlements in the West Bank by Israeli security forces and by opponents to the Gaza Strip evacuations of the 2005 disengagement plan, that involved the destruction of property though not necessarily at the time of the evacuations. -- Deborahjay (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Pogrom as a term, as I generally understand it, invokes more of Russia than it does the Holocaust. It's a crude form of mass violence, not a sophisticated form of state violence. As I generally understand it (knowing that there were pogroms elsewhere, including Nazi Germany, although the numbers are quite paltry compared with the camps). But it is still anti-semitic in nature, of course. --140.247.10.42 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This BBC story gives some context to the use of the term. Grutness...wha?  21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The most common contexts for the word "pogrom" are, as noted above, in Czarist Russia and the Kristallnacht pogrom, hence the association with antisemitism. The characteristics of a "pogrom" are twofold: (a) acts of mob violence against persons and property, perpetrated against a minority group, and (b) slow or minimal response by the state's security forces with minimal or no consequences to the perpetrators. Otherwise, generalized applications of this rather inflammatory term are likely to be demagogic. -- Deborahjay (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all very interesting. That being said (and meant!), my initial question was about the use of the word by prominent Israelis. I take it from the BBC article (thanks!) that at least Olmert himself 1.) used it in a very reflected way, and 2.) had used it before for Jewish Israeli violence against Palestinians. (I guess he doesn't define it as requiring "slow or minimal response by the state's security forces with minimal or no consequences to the perpetrators," at least not as in "the police and the state were approving of the pogrom.") --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That "second condition" (b, above) comes from my own understanding of the word and isn't necessarily supported by lexical sources, certainly not by the page in its present form. I believe the targeting of a (racial or religious) minority plus a tardy and/or disproportionately mild response by the authorities is what distinguishes a pogrom from a race riot. THe word in use may reveal more about the speaker's or writer's mindset than a dictionary would endorse. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Have other prominent Israelis used the word before? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not likely, and I too would be interested in reading of other instances. Please note that this remark of Olmert's is one of a series of strikingly leftish public pronouncements by the lame-duck, discredited prime minister, leaving office under a heavy cloud of criminal charges related to the abuse of power, as his and other parties scramble for position towards the upcoming national elections. Caveat lector! -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

German newspaper Spiegel reports that Daniel Friedmann used the term pogrom for the Hebron incidents two days before Olmert. And yes, it's an interesting leftist approach--I would have thought they'd try to (re-?)establish themselves more at the political center, but well... Or maybe Olmert did listen to Haaretz, which suggests half ironically, half polemically that he should learn more from George W. Bush... ;o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC) PS: Do you know if Awoda politicians have used the term as well? Or anyone else for that matter?

Cost of woman
How much does a wife cost in Afghanistan?--88.27.179.64 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Which one? It depends on the woman, the family she is from, distance between there and the family she is moving to, the husband, etc... Your question is as unanswerable as asking "How much does a painting cost?" --  k a i n a w &trade; 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to read bride price.--Shantavira|feed me 09:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Foucault's Des espaces autres
In his 1967 essay Des espaces autres (available online, here's the French original and the English translation), Foucault talks about the changing concept of space and makes a passing mention of changes in our conception of space caused by (then) recent developments in information technology. Having studied philosophy and working as a sysadmin, I am in the lucky position to know both sides of the story, but I still find some details of what exactly Foucault is saying a bit hard to grasp. The passage in question goes as follows:
 * L'emplacement est défini par les relations de voisinage entre points ou éléments; formellement, on peut les décrire comme des séries, des arbres, des treillis. D'autre part, on sait l'importance des problèmes d'emplacement dans la technique contemporaine : stockage de l'information ou des résultats partiels d'un calcul dans la mémoire d'une machine, circulation d'éléments discrets, à sortie aléatoire (comme tout simplement les automobiles ou après tout les sons sur une ligne téléphonique), repérage d'éléments, marqués ou codés, à l'intérieur d'un ensemble qui est soit réparti au hasard, soit classé dans un classement univoque, soit classé selon un classement plurivoque, etc.

The English translation is easy enough to follow, although I think it is quite oversimplifying:
 * The site is defined by relations of proximity between points or elements; formally, we can describe these relations as series, trees, or grids. Moreover, the importance of the site as a problem in contemporary technical work is well known: the storage of data or of the intermediate results of a calculation in the memory of a machine, the circulation of discrete elements with a random output (automobile traffic is a simple case, or indeed the sounds on a telephone line); the identification of marked or coded elements inside a set that may be randomly distributed, or may be arranged according to single or to multiple classifications.

Now, here are my questions: I was a bit unsure whether to post these questions on the language, computing or humanities desk as they seem to fall somewhere in the middle; if you think the questions are on the wrong desk, feel free to move. As always, many thanks for your comments. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand what is meant by series, trees and grids (at least I hope so), but I'd like to know whether serie, arbre and treillis in French are technical terms used in mathematics or informatics, and if so, what exactly they mean as technical terms.
 * I don't quite get why Foucault speaks of aleatoric/random output in the context of computing - shouldn't one assume that the defining element of information processing by computers is that it is strictly deterministic? The examples of cars and phone conversations don't really explain to me what Foucault is on about here.
 * What about classement univoque and plurivoque? I think I understand what Foucault means, but from what I know these terms are not common in French. Do they have a specific technical meaning (or did they have a specific meaning in 1960s computing)?
 * My last question goes a bit beyond mere understanding difficulties: has there been any larger debate in 1960s France (or, out of general curiosity, at any later time) about changes in conceptions of space (and changes in our conception of meaning) in relation to computing technology? More to the point, is Foucault's essay in that regard part of a larger debate about this? I am well aware that outside of narrow technical fields (computer linguistics comes to mind, but that's about it) there is little to no interaction between philosophy and informatics (computer people usually thinking philosophy is a waste of time, philosophers only rarely knowing what they talk about regarding information technology), but I'd be very interested to learn about any such debate. I'm not really asking about the usual and (in my opinion) rather useless fluffle about virtual realities and stuff, I'm more interested in a semiotics perspective.
 * Emplacement is a key and difficult term in the text. The translation "site" does not really do justice to it, as it carries a dynamic sense of "the act of placing". Of course "site" in the sense of "website" was not a possible meaning in 1967. I wonder what books on cybernetics Foucault could have read at that date. The reference to a telephone line makes me wonder whether there is some reference to Shannon's information theory. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like emplacement here means 'arrangement', but could it also mean 'setting'? —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is from 1958, but still kind of interesting:
 * D'une façon générale les mots français se situent généralement à un niveau d'abstraction supérieur à celui des mots anglais correspondants. ... nous disposons de termes commes "alignment", "étagement", "jalonnement", "déroulement", superposition", "filière" [, "échelonnement"] dont les dictionnaires bilingues ne fournissent pas d'équivalents satisfaisants. -- "Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais" ISBN 2-278-00894-3
 * AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aléatoire does not exactly mean random. It means subject to chance, alea being the Latin for dice ISTR. So I think that Foucault may indeed have been thinking of Claude Shannon's work on signals and noise. From our article Shannon's ideas were made available to a wider public by John Robinson Pierce. If you can find French editions of these books they may use the terms that Foucault picked up. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer some of you questions:
 * "série", "arbre" and "treillis" are indeed technical terms describing different ways of representing data sets. In a "série", A leads to B which leads to C etc, in a direct line. An "arbre" would have A leading to either B or C, then B leading to either D or E and C leading to F or G, etc; if you graph this out, it looks like a tree, with the A to B being the trunk, and the next levels looking like branches. In a "treillis", the various points can be linked in all sort of different ways, with some lines crossing over one another; when graphed, this looks like a network.
 * "Classement univoque" would be a system of classification based on a single criteria (e.g. a list of persons in alphabetical order); "classement plurivoque" would use a number of criteria (e.g. a list of persons that can be sorted by date of birth, height or test score).
 * Foucault was very much a pioneer in his thinking and writing, and I would not be surprised if he was one of the first French authors to write about changing concepcions of space because of the development of information technology. I'm not aware of this being a wide subject of debate in the 1960s. However, Saint-Exupéry, for one, had written in the 1930s about how the airplane had changed perceptions of space ("avec l'avion, nous redécouvrons la ligne droite"), so Foucault may have been furthering this line of thought to a new technology. --Xuxl (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

describing music
I'm not too keen on musical terms. I'm trying to describe the music in this video in terms other than "ominous" and "booming" and etc. Any suggestions? Technical terms would be fine, as would allusions to other artists (the score is original). Any suggestions would be appreciated. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Words like "dramatic", "urgent" and "apocalyptic" came to me. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear echoes of Alexander Nevsky (Prokofiev). —Tamfang (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I second the Alexander Nevsky allusion: there are several, including the very opening, and they're quite direct.  (I almost expected an alto solo to begin "The Field of the Dead" during the footage of the bombed city.)  In addition I heard a pretty direct allusion to Carmina Burana (Orff).  There is another allusion that is a little less direct:  the very opening, already reminiscent of Prokofieff, recalls Benjamin Britten's Peter Grimes -- the texture, the orchestration, and even the key (A minor), though it stops just before the clarinets bubble out of the mud with their figures in thirds.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The opening reminded me more of Lieutenant Kije Suite (of all things!), also by Prokofiev. —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a problem associated with the Philosophy of Music. Can music really represent anything at all (particularly in the way that a painting can)? Llamabr (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Igor Stravinsky said "Music is powerless to express anything", and he would know, having written The Rite of Spring, which famously caused a riot at its premiere. It's our brains that associate certain music with certain emotions, and that has to do with a lot of prior conditioning from our histories - it's not the music itself that makes us do that. If the Paris audience had been populated by one-year old toddlers, they probably wouldn't have rioted.  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So music is analogous to language. —Tamfang (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

At one point is a student association [in a state of existence]
If I am trying to found a new student association and have arranged a first meeting, advertised by several means to the student body, when does the association begin to exist? Should the first order of business at the first meeting have anything to do with declaring the existence or voting on whether or not it should be formed? Since I've already had meetings with an external body (complete with recorded minutes), does the student association already exist? Seans Potato Business 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That will depend on how things work in your university/college/school. At my university new societies are formed by proposing a motion at a JCR meeting, the society exists when that motion passes. --Tango (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The first thing to do when setting up a new organization is to draft its bylaws. It then comes into existence when the first meeting under those bylaws is called to order. In my humble opinion. —Tamfang (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's a sub-organisation of an existing organisation (the student body), then it may not need its own bylaws - having a constitution is optional for societies at my uni (it's often quite important for large socs, but the smaller ones rarely bother). --Tango (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * At my university a student organization is formed simply when the appropriate paperwork has been submitted (documenting a minimum number of member and a regular meeting time), and it has been approved with the appropriate university official. It’s different at every school. However, I can say from experience that unless it is required by student policy you should never take any vote on whether a group actually “exists.” People as a rule can be assumed to be apathetic. If you want to get things done the best way is just to lead. They will follow and be glad they don’t have to make any decisions. :) A group is really formed when the allusion of a group is created, then it comes into being in truth. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * At my last university, I think you only needed at least three students to sign a form to be submitted by the group's organizer to the student government. (However, if you actually wanted money, then that was quite a different matter...) AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If your association is attached to or a sub-organisation of a larger organisation, such as the student union or association or council or guild (etc), then its formation will be governed by the rules of that organisation.
 * Otherwise, your association will be governed by the law of the land. In most common law countries, you would have the choice to incorporate your entity or not. The requirements for formation (if any) and legal status of the association will vary widely between jurisdictions, and you should probably seek advice from a lawyer with expertise in that area. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)