Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 18

= February 18 =

What can I learn from literature and philosophy
What can be learned from literature, philosophy and other kind of material (like essays, etc)? I mean, they are not quantifying anything, trying to empirically contrast affirmation, or any other form of proof. Is it only entertainment?217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is not only entertainment. Literature can teach you about the human condition and take you to worlds where you could never go; philosophy can cause you to re-think the basis of your beliefs (like the belief that quantification is the only way towards useful knowledge, which is a late-19th century philosophy itself!), history can teach you about how the world has worked and give some ideas as to how it might work in the future, and so on. As for being empirical, some are more empirical than others; literature is not terribly empirical, but it doesn't pretend to be. Philosophy can be quite empirical at times, and can certainly be logical. History is a mixture of empiricism and art; philosophy and fact. (Can you tell I am a historian?) Quantification and the hard sciences, for all that they have given us, do not shed much light on complicated human questions, like those of morality and goodness, much less something as complicated as how to run a country in a dangerous world, or how to make sense of what to do with one's life. Remember that science itself is just one large extension of a philosophy of knowledge, as well. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Why do people make and enjoy art in general? What is the difference between great art and "mere entertainment"? Personally I find the word "beauty", or perhaps the phrase "being touched", somehow significant, though hardly an answer to the question. There are aspects of life that cannot be quantified, learned, affirmed, or proved, yet are deeply meaningful. How would one attempt to communicate on this level? Pfly (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC too!) That's a big question, and deserves more than the small answer I'm going to give. A narrow view might suggest that literature, philosophy and art present little empirical analysis of the world, but that's only because they approach things more obliquely: we can often learn more by considering at how things could be or might be rather than as things actually are.  There is a lot of truth presented in fiction; it certainly reflects the real world. We have always told stories as way of developing an understanding of the world: look at ancient myths, and stories such as Arthurian legend, Robin Hood: presenting ideals of who we are and what is right and wrong.  We can read MacBeth as a means to discuss the nature of evil (see RD archives).  Check out J.R.R. Tolkein's On Fairy Stories. Gwinva (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Philosophers and artists change the way we think. They set our minds free or enslave them. Where would we be without Martin Luther and the Reformation? Science would still be in the Dark Ages. You would be worshiping the Virgin Mary, not empirical data. Wrad (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a strange thing to say. What connection do any of those bits have? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What's so strange about it? Religious philosopher/leader Martin Luther challenges the Catholic Church, ending the unhealthy religious power which had been stifling scientific progression for centuries. 2+2=4. Free-thinking = better science. It's a no-brainer. Wrad (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the entire reason the western world isn't ruled by kings anymore is because philosophers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill argued it wasn't such a bright idea. (Martin Luther helped as well, by decentralizing power in general, but that's a different story.) American society borrowed from Locke, and many other countries have followed. The artist/philosopher Thoreau wrote about Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience in turn changed the face of the world. America saw the likes of Martin Luther King overturn decades of bigotry, and Gandhi challenged the Brits with litterally nothing more than a philosophy. Philosophies are powerful. Our way of life would be vastly different without philosophers and artists. It is dangerously ignorant to think otherwise. Wrad (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The ironic thing, though, is that trust in empirical data is itself based on a philosophy! Aristotle's! Wrad (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's rather nonsensical. There was plenty of scientific progress in the middle ages, and what was not done by Islamic scholars was accomplished almost exclusively by Catholic clerics. Also, neither the Virgin Mary not empirical data are anywhere subjects of worship. If I may make a similarly simplistic statement, all the anti-scientific sentiment in the Christian world today is a direct result of Martin Luther. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I know the answer: 'without Martin Luther and the Reformation (...) You would be worshiping the Virgin Mary, not empirical data.' Martin Luther makes me worship empirical data. Of course, I repent the day I decided to study an empirical science. Thanks for the enlightening. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... That's not really what I meant, although I do personally think that there are many who worship empirical data unhealthily. It was very necessary for religious freedom to occur in order for people to think freely and for science to progress. I never said that Martin Luther was solely responsible for that freedom. He wasn't. He caused his own set of problems along the way. But the fact is, someone had to successefully challenge the establishment to pave the way for science and religion to be separated, so that you would not have to get papal approval of your discoveries in order for them to be valid. Wrad (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a website http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ which covers quite a few philosophical issues. It is by no means exhaustive because it is maintained by one person, so it may have their bias. But it does try to stress the important of philosophy. Rfwoolf (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a book which defines art as the "pursuit of creating Quality." It spends the other 400+ pages trying to define Quality with a quantitative, logical mindset. It includes a lot of philosophy, and a lot of rhetoric, too, which I think may be the bridge between quantitative affirmation and philosophy that you're looking for. Anyway, it certainly teaches a lot about motorcycle maintenance, and you would find that useful, so give it a shot; it might answer all your questions. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Chord Progressions
During one of my private lessons my teacher was writing out the chords used in the piece I was playing. I know a little but about music theory but he was blowing me out of the water. When I would play a measure or 2 he would play a single note and it would fit. What is this and how does he do it? Also any examples using the aforementioned piece would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, schyler (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I could help: but your meaning is unclear. Your teacher played a single repeated note along with what you played, towards the start somewhere? And it would fit with what you then continued to play? Or is it that your teacher played just one note once, and somehow it was "right"?
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your meaning is not quite clear, I agree. Worse yet, I cannot access pdf-files from where I am right now.
 * Perhaps you are referring to notes that are carried from one chord to the next, notes that remain the same in a chord change? This is brushed in the article on chord progression, it's an important aspect of harmonizing melodies, or voicing and orchestrating compositions. (See also voice leading and common tone). Sometimes even the lead melody will hover over one tone for several chords in progression, one famous example is Liszt's Liebestraum No. 3.
 * A note can also be held for a long span of changing chords in dissonance with the chord's assigned components, thus generating even more tension. When the note is somewhere in the bass register, this technique is often called pedal point.
 * The technique of using a single note for tension and release is also frequently used in improvised music. For an extreme example, Sonny Rollins's first three improvised choruses (about one minute of playing time) on a famous live recording of "Sonnymoon for Two" vary in rhythm and phrasing, but rest entirely on the same note, while the chords change. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort y for the confusion. It looks like, now that I look back at it, I was asking mtiple questions and wanting multiple answers. What happened would be that I would play a measure or two and the notes within that measure would be a chord. I can see it setes but in the piece (second minuet from Bach's cello suite No. 1 written for bass trombone) I can't see it at all except for once or twice. I really hope this clears it up a bit. This was the real question I was trying to ask. Thanks, schyler (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Essentially, the teacher is probably doing exactly what you are doing (looking for chords which match the notes being played) but with the benefit of much more experience and knowledge. With practice, it becomes much easier to identify what chords go with a section of melody, and, especially with classical music, there are often set patterns which the chords fall into (look up cadences for examples). Knowing what key the piece is in, when it was composed and whom it is by (not to mention possibly having heard it before or even worked out the chords earlier) all make the task much easier, allowing it to look as impressive as it does. Ask your teacher if they will explain what they are doing; it's a very handy skill. D  aniel  (‽) 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

America-related reading
I would like to be recommended some books that objectively analyze these America-related topics, if possible: I'd like to explore these issues a little more deeply since these topics have rarely much more than soundbites in the media. Obviously, I'd welcome recommendations that avoid a political slant and are more academic in nature. 75.60.171.158 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Pros and cons of regulation and deregulation of America's private sector in today's world
 * 2) Pros and cons of tax cuts in America in the 20th and 21st centuries
 * 3) Efficiencies and inefficiencies of the American federal government's spending in recent history
 * 4) Credibility of the liberal bias claim in the media


 * These are all vast topics over which much ink has been spilled. I don't know where to begin.  However, they are also all intensely political topics, and it may be impossible to avoid sources, academic or not, that "objectively" analyze these issues and avoid a "political slant".  Your best course might be to read sources on both sides of each issue and draw your own conclusions.  Marco polo (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Old British "wake-up"
Can anyone tell me the source of the following: "Up, up Glentarkin, rouse thee ho;  Watch the flock  'til I return" A 93-year old friend's father used to wake her up with that quotation.

Petera2 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I searched ... the internet... ok, Google Books, and found the first two lines, in Walter Scott's The Lady of the Lake (poem). The remainder might be an invention... –Outriggr § 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lady Jane over time
Lady Jane Grey is probably one of the least significant monarchs in English history yet she has left an abiding impression in literature and romance. I would be interested to know in waht ways depictions of her have developed over the years? Sir Night (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Poor Jane; a woman for all seasons...and none. A plaything for her time, and a plaything for posterity.  There is not really enough material, Sir Night, to construct a proper, source-based, biography, but that has not stopped people filling the gaps with the fruits of imagination.


 * The story begins with Elizabethan ballads, a tale of innocence betrayed. In one Jane, in denouncing her executioner declares "For Popery I hate as death/and Christ my saviour love."  Jane is now not only an innocent but a martyr to the Protestant cause, and appears as such in Foxe's Book of Martyrs.  She was also idealised in another way by Roger Ascham as noble and scholarly, on no certain evidence, it has to be said.  But the greatest Elizabethan tribute to her came in Thomas Chaloner's Elegy, published in 1579.  Here she is peerless in her learning and beauty, comparable only with Socrates for her courage and quiet resignation in the face of death.  He even suggests that she was pregnant at the time of her execution, an assertion that appears nowhere else, presumably to make Mary, the great villain of the piece, appear all the more heartless.


 * From martyrology and poetry, Jane finally made it on to the stage in the early Jacobean period in Lady Jane by John Webster and Thomas Dekker, where she and takes on the role of a tragic lover. This theme was taken up later in the century by Joan Banks, a Restoration playwright in his Innocent Usurper: or, the Death of Lady Jane Grey.  Here Jane is only persuaded to accept the crown after her husband, Lord Guilford Dudley, threatens to commit suicide if she does not.  And if you believe that you will believe anything!  First performed after the Glorious Revolution,  there is also a strong anti-Catholic dimension to Bank's play, which must have appealed to the audiences of the day.


 * More plays and poems followed in the eighteenth century, when a small Janeite industry began to take shape. In the early Hanoverian period she takes on the role of political heroine as well as martyr, scholar and tragic lover, putting down her Plato and taking up the crown only to save English Protestantism.  Her popularity as a subject for tragic romance increased even further in the nineteenth century, an age of mass printing, where her story appears in a variety of media, including popular magazines and children's books.


 * Jane's growing reputation, it's worth stressing, was not just a popular phenomenon. Gilbert Burnet, Whig historian and self-publicist, described Jane, with considerable exaggeration, as 'the wonder of the age' in his History of the Reformation, a phrase subsequently taken up by Oliver Goldsmith his History of England, published in 1771.  Even the sober and unromantic David Hume was seduced by the tragedy of Jane and Dudley.  It was not until the early nineteenth century that John Lingard, a Catholic historian, ventured a word or two of counter-adulation, saying that she 'liked dresses overmuch', and reminding her promoters that she was only sixteen.


 * She was recast time and again to suit the inclinations of her audience. After the French Revolution the new evangelist movement alighted on her as a symbol, marked not for her romance but for her piety.  In 1828 The Lady's Monitor declared that she inherited "every great, every good, every admirable quality, whether of mind, disposition, or person."  Remarkably the radical thinker and philosopher William Godwin wrote his own hagiography of Jane under a pseudonym, though this owed less to his admiration for her virtues and more to his need for ready cash!  For Godwin ( or, rather, for Theopilius Marcliffe!) she was "the most perfect young creature of the female sex to be found in history."  Enter Mrs Godwin stage right!


 * And so it went on, right into the twentieth century, when Jane finally made it on to the screen in Tudor Rose directed by Robert Stevenson, which appeared in the States as Nine Days a Queen. Once again Mary is the cold-blooded fanatic, while Jane and Dudley are the tragic lovers.  More recently the nine-day-queen appeared as Lady Jane, staring Helena Bonham Carter and directed by Trevor Nunn, a romance set against the political intrigues of the day.


 * Jane is now beyond history. She belongs to legend, the stuff of which dreams are made on.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this brilliant response, Clio. I've transfered it largely verbatim into the article about Lady Jane. Sandstein (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Raynald the Bastard
I watched Ridley Scotts crusading epic Kingdom of Heaven last night on British telly. I know its probably a load of old tosh when it comes to historical accuracy but would like to know if there is any truth at all in the depiction of Reynald of Chatillon? He seemed such a complete bastard!217.43.14.105 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply reading the article Raynald of Chatillon, the answer would seem to be "yes"... FiggyBee (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They didn't show the half of it! I personally can't think of any worse figure on either side of the Crusades. AllenHansen (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any truth to the pink-haired lunatic part...he was mad, but in far more interesting ways. He's the kind of guy who would be a genius and a hero if the crusades had ultimately been successful. He was originally such a minor knight that we're not even sure which Chattilon he was from. He joined the Second Crusade and within a few years married the widowed princess of Antioch, which connected him with the royal families of France and Jerusalem, much to their dismay. A few years after that, he was captured in battle, and it is probably telling that nobody bothered to ransom him for 17 years, and then it was his new son-in-law the Byzantine emperor who had to cough up the money. After his release he managed to marry another powerful widow, Stephanie of Milly, who ruled Oultrejordain. By then, Jerusalem was opposed by a Muslim empire united under Saladin, and Raynald caused all sorts of problems for both sides. Despite all of his years in the east, he still acted like any newly-arrived crusader, who wanted nothing more than to bravely fight some infidels. Usually the nobles of Jerusalem, accustomed to the political reality of their situation, could distract newcomers until they became acclimatized or got bored and went home, but not Raynald. With his castles in Oultrejordain, especially Kerak, he declared that the king had no authority over him and that any truce between Jerusalem and Saladin did not apply to him. He raided caravans travelling between Damascus and Cairo, and at one point also attacked a group of pilgrims on the way to Mecca. These attacks were later bungled into an anecdote that he captured Saladin's sister (as was shown in the movie, although killing her was an invention of the screenwriter). Another anecdote says that he attempted to build a fleet to conquer Mecca (presumably he was unaware that Mecca is not on the coast). Now, of course Saladin was unlikely to have simply left Jerusalem alone once he consolidated his power everywhere else, but Raynald's actions definitely gave him a convenient casus belli. Saladin seemed to have a personal vendetta against Raynald, and after the Battle of Hattin he had him executed. That scene in the movie is perhaps one of the most faithful to the sources. I have always wondered whether he was so stubborn that he never learned Arabic, even after 17 years in captivity, because he apparently needed a translator to communicate with Saladin. So, he had misguided and never-ending crusader zeal, and sure, he was a complete bastard, but he wasn't a raving loony who talked to himself and danced around in prison, as he is depicted in the movie. He can be blamed for hastening the fall of Jerusalem, but it was coming anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bastard, yes; Templar, no! I have to say that it has become ever more obvious to me that the Reference Desk seems to move in cycles, perhaps a little like the eternal recurrence. Anyway, here is what I said about dear old Raynald an earlier point in the cycle. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on Raynald does not fully explain his true significance, and just why he was such a figure of fear and hatred for Muslims, who known him better by the name of Arnat of Kerak. The Muslim historian, Ibn al-Athir, refers to him as "a violent and most dangerous enemy of Islam." Even today he has some significance, and you will find him in statue form in Damascus, the capital of Syria, together with Saladin, his nemesis.  Raynald did much to colour Muslim opinion of the whole Crusading movement.  If the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem can be attributed to a single man, then Raynald has better right to that claim than any other individual.  His ruthlessness, unscrupulousness, opportunism and brutality were to provoke Saladin into a furious offensive against the Crusader kingdom that led directly to his victory of the Horns of Hattin.


 * It is important to understand that the enthusiasm for Crusading in the Middle Ages often owes as much, if not more, to greed and opportunism as it did to religious faith. The path to the Holy Land was the path often taken by the 'poor cousins' and the second sons, those who could expect no inheritance at home, and would only be able to make their way in the world by the practice of arms.  In essence these men were little more than freebooters, and Raynald was the greatest freebooter of them all.  He served the greater cause only as and when it suited him, and was quite prepared to attack fellow Christians for the sake of personal gain, fully demonstrated by his onslaught on Byzantine Cyprus.  To finance the latter expedition he even extorted money from Aimery of Limoges, the elderly Patriarch of Antioch.  According to William of Tyre, the chronicler of the Crusades, Aimery, was stripped naked, whipped, his head smeared with honey to attract insects and then he was left chained in the open under the hot sun!


 * In November 1160 Raynald set out to seize the herds of Armenian and Syrian Christians, only to be taken prisoner by the Muslim Governor of Aleppo. He was only ransomed after fifteen years, emerging from his dungeon with a hatred of Islam far in excess of any love he had for Christianity.  Indeed, there is very little evidence that Raynald had faith of any kind.  Soon after his release married Stephanie of Milly, heiress of the dukedom of Outrejourdain, the easternmost part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which dominated the caravan routs from Egypt to Syria from the castles of Shaubak and Kerak.  It was from this point that he became a real nightmare for the Muslims.


 * By the 1170s there was a mood of relaxed co-existence between the Crusader states and their Muslim neighbours. Many of the Christian lords had adopted an oriental way of life, and were even viewed by the Muslims as possible allies in their own internecine struggles.  But Raynald upset this delicate political balance.  He was to launch attack after attack, chiefly aiming at plunder and mayhem.  It is even suggested by Ibn Jubair that in his pirate raids in the Red Sea, Raynald intended, amongst other things, to make off with the body of the prophet Mohammed and hold it for ransom at Kerak.  Peaceful co-existence was at an end, and Saladin took an oath to kill Raynald, whose offenses were made even worse when he tried to capture the Sultan's sister in 1187, breaking a truce to attack a caravan.  Saladin was left with no option but to preach Jihad against the whole Crusader Kingdom.  In this Raynald had encompassed his own death and the fall of Jerusalem.  Clio the Muse 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That article really does need to be updated. I'll add it to the list! I forgot that Kingdom of Heaven depicted him and the other bad guys as Templars. As usual, true events are far more interesting. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Teutonic Knights also seem to have got in there, Adam, though the order was not founded until the 1190s! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Finding information within the reference desk
I know I read something interesting on one of the ref desks recently and now can't find it. Is there a way to search only within the ref desks? If there is a technique for doing so, could it be re-made as a tool, and placed somewhere visible for all comers to see? Apologies if this is not the best place to ask this. (I was looking for the advice on which classic books to read, as it happens.) BrainyBabe (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this can be done - through Google, not Wikipedia. Type in your key word(s) and then "site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk" without the quote marks. Hope that helps. --Richardrj talkemail 11:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And there are preformatted google search strings on Reference desk/Archives with tips on searching. Foxhill (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions but it is not working for me. When I use those search strings, with serach terms "read suggest book" I get too much stuff, from too wide a range of dates. One looks good, I click, but it takes me only to the current page.  I try again with two recalled suggestions, "pillow iliad", and get nothing.  Is there a way to limit search by date, e.g. to the past month? That would be useful.  BrainyBabe (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The current page thing can possibly be solved by clicking on Google's cached version of the page. Other than that, I don't know why it's not working for you.  If "pillow" and "iliad" were both in the thread, it should come up.  Can you think of any other books that were recommended in the thread? --Richardrj talkemail 12:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on - is this the thread you were looking for? --Richardrj talkemail 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you remember (or guess) a likely and specific wikilink in one of the replies you can go to that article, hit "What links here" in the toolbox under the search box. You can then set the namespace filter to "Wikipedia". The list will still feature a lot of wikilinks to other places, but it's pretty easy to comb through, and they take you directly to the corresponding page in the archives. (That's how I do it anyway.) ---Sluzzelin talk  12:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure I like that very much. I just tried it with Iliad and it would be a lot of work to go through all the links to the RD alone, plus you don't get the context or the highlighted search terms.  Typing "iliad" plus the site address into Google is much easier.  YMMV. --Richardrj talkemail 13:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The latter suggestion worked for me. I typed "pillow book" and in six clicks I had found it here. Easy-peasy! Maybe "Iliad" just links to too much. But thanks for both your ideas, and the interesting Greatest Books thread.  BrainyBabe (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (To Richard, after e.c.:) My mileage doesn't vary, it's leadfoot rigid, I admit, I have never tried anything else. I guess I found it useful, because I usually also remember approximately when this question was asked, and I use my system's search tool to find "Reference desk" in the list. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that blows my advice out of the water. Typing "iliad" + the site address into Google doesn't bring up that thread (even though the word is there) although "pillow book" + the address does.  Sorry to have muddied the waters. --Richardrj talkemail 13:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

law of marriage on england
1.what is the qualifications to people who not an england want to be marriage with an england on england? 2.do there's a different between male and female? 3.what is the law which regulate this marriage(not an england with an england)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyosh (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your grammar is a little hard to understand, but Marriage in the United Kingdom may be of interest to you. FiggyBee (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From my experience to question 2: Yes. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cockatoo, I think that the questioner is asking whether the law treats male and female marital partners differently. I am not familiar with English marriage law, but I suspect that it treats men and women nearly if not completely the same, provided that they want to marry someone of the opposite sex.  Marco polo (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It treats them the same, Marco, if they want to marry someone of the same sex! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am hesitant to disagree with Clio, but civil partnership is not identical with marriage. The government page here says "Civil partners have equal treatment to married couples in a wide range of legal matters" -- which does indicate, not all. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I ought to back this up. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 specifically forbids the ceremony from taking place in a religious setting full text here, whereas of course marriages can take place in church. In addition, Citizens Advice Bureau issued a report finding negative "unforeseen consequences" press release here. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't ever hesitate to disagree with me, BrainyBabe; I simply love it when people disagree with me! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

how to write a grant
I am at a loss for information, or lack there of, on the internet as to how to write a grant. I am trying to start a small business and need money to do so. If you could respond on how to find such information, I would greatly appreciate it. Larry M (email redacted to prevent spam) Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.139.42 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Google is your friend. came up with tons of how-to guides and examples. From the adsense it seems like there are many companies that specialize in advice or assistance. It may be an efficient use of resources to do a little research and purchase a book which goes over the basic steps. There's a dummies book which are usually good if you have no idea how to start. There is also a wiki-how-to. There is also a good chance that you may be able to refine your search down to the specific topic area you are interested in to find a closely related example. Sifaka  talk  21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Archbishop and Sharia
Hello, Wikipedia. I would be pleased to know if it is true, as he alleges, that the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent remarks on sharia law and British Muslims was misinterpreted by the press? Pompey Bum (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Probaly yes, but it is far better (and fairer) to make your own judgement. Read his full speech and make your own conclusions. Good luck trying to understand it. Flamarande (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any invocations of hand amputations and stonings certainly misrepresent his intent, but on the other hand he did rather carelessly invoke concepts which are highly politically-controversial in the UK without clearly and unambiguously explaining his precise meaning. There was one British politician who said that he would be happier as a University lecturer, where he could make superficially provocative comments without real consequences... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the recent issue (16 February) of The Spectator. There are two good articles on this very subject; a bad-tempered and accurate one by Ron Liddle (Just a Posh version of John Prescott) and a sober an accurate one by Matthew Parris (If the Archbishop were really an intellectual he'd answer the questions he wordily posed). The consensus is that the poor old Archbishop is a muddle-headed thinker, who simply has not the first idea on the subject of his pontification. Liddle rightly questions his cherry-picking notions of Sharia, of 'good' Islam, one which does not offend Western, liberal sensibilities-"Which is, you might agree, a bit high-handed of him. What right does he have, a kufr, to determine what is humane and what is just." I particularly liked Matthew Parris' comparison between the Archbishop and the character of Edward Casaubon in George Eliot's novel Middlemarch, a man trapped in sterile and self-defeating research, whose arguments are "lost among small closets and winding stairs." Parris says "I keep reading that the Archbishop delights in 'studied ambiguity', but all we can find in his speech is a tendency, like Mr. Casaubon's, to shy at philosophical fences, taking refuge by driving back down into detail." If you read the Archbishop’s text,-if you can bear the tedium-, you will understand the point being made; that great wordy excesses are used to take us nowhere in particular, in an paper that is overlong, badly drafted and logically confused-"...at times [he] lurches into ambitious claims that the argument and evidence do not support."

Finishing on a personal note I will admit that Dr. Williams has done some good, urging Clio further along a road, away from Anglicanism towards Catholicism, one on which she is close to her final destination! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos of Mormon polygamists with their wives
I would love to see some images of authentic, old-school Mormons from the 1800s (no modern LDS splinter-groups, please) with their wives--especially if we had such pictures in Commons. Does anyone know of some good images, onwiki or off? Google images is a start, but I want something better than this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one of the best you're going to find. There aren't any color photos, if that's what you mean. Wrad (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I've seen other pictures in books. I just don't know the names of the books or have access to them right now.  I have trouble believing the pic I linked to above is the only photo available.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The man in the photo is Joseph F. Smith. There are several pictures of him and his family available on the internet. He's a very good place to start. Wrad (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbering of Western Canadian municipalities
When reading about Western Canada on Wikipedia, I've noticed that many municipalities have both a name and a number, for example Dundurn No. 314. I've looked around on Wikipedia and elsewhere to try to find out where these numbers come from, but I've found only passing references. Does the Reference Desk know why the numbers are used? Are they in common use, or are they only used in formal contexts? //130.242.107.120 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not expert on this, but I have pieced together an answer. According to the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, these municipalities were organized by the province in the early 1900s.  According to the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan, legislation was enacted in Saskatchewan in 1908 and 1909 establishing a system of rural municipalities.  The encyclopedia implies that the system of rural municipalities has been fairly stable since then.  If you examine these maps of rural municipalities, you will see that they are numbered systematically from east to west and south to north. Only a provincial-level body could have imposed this numbering system.  The numbering system seems designed to help a provincial bureaucrat quickly locate a given municipality on a map. Saskatchewan's Municipalities Act confirms that municipalities can be created or redefined by a provincial minister.  As to whether the RM numbers are in common use, I am not from Saskatchewan, and I don't know for certain, but based on some web browsing, I get the feeling that they are not commonly used.  The rural municipalities don't have a strong web presence, and local identity in Saskatchewan seems to be centered in towns such as Dundurn rather than the official rural municipalities of which they are part.  Marco polo (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In Saskatchewan, Section 49(1) of the Municipalities Act, S.S. 2005, c. M-36.1 provides that when a rural municipality is incorporated, the government gives it a number as well as the name the incorporators chose. You'll see from the map Marco Polo linked, most of the numbers run east-west and north-south, but not all of them: some have been incorporated since, and those new municipalities have numbers out of geographical sequence.


 * In Alberta similar legislation once existed, but has since been abolished. The municipalities and counties formed under the old regulations still carry the number (since it's part of their incorporated name). So the Municipal District of Cypress, which was incorporated after the old rules were abolished, has no number in its legal name, but the Municipal District of Rockyview No. 44 does. --NellieBly (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers, especially the link to the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan, which was very illuminating. I didn't find the maps you're referring to in the links provided, but I found this map which indeed shows that the numbering is very regular (I couldn't even find any really out-of-sequence numbers, only some municipalities that seemed to have swallowed their neighbours). One of the things that led me to ask the original question was that it seemed that the number was part of the name (which NellieBly confirmed), not just a number associated with the municipality, as I'm used to. A website for tourists I saw, for example, said something along the lines of "Welcome to Sasktown No. 147", which made me wonder if there was 146 other Sasktowns. //130.242.107.120 (talk), born in what would be Norberg No. 1962, 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist beliefs
I have heard that Mahayana Buddhists believe that anyone can potentially achieve enlightenment in this lifetime whereas Theravadins believe that only the spiritual elite can do so. Why is there this contrast in belief? I believe it has something to do with the teachings of the lotus sutra which I think only Mahayanists value. If anyone could help that would be awesome and please correct me if anything I have written above is wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.211.53 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, why do Catholics believe wine and bread are blood and body of Jesus while protestans do not? Cecikierk 01:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)cecikierk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecikierk (talk • contribs)


 * Have a look at transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Ultimately, it is a matter of personal faith.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is fundamental to Buddhism that anyone can attain nirvana in any lifetime, and there is nothing in the texts that suggests otherwise. Many of the Buddha's followers attained nirvana fairly quickly, but Buddhists of all schools would probably admit this is now rare. Some traditional Theravada Buddhists do seem to have picked up some odd ideas, for example what they can eat and when, and as usual it all comes down to how they interpret certain textual passages in a 21st century context. Mahayanists also use the Theravada texts but would say they look to the spirit rather than the letter. When it comes to gaining enlightenment, some people would say that the Theravadins are just being more pragmaitic, if not pessimistic.--Shantavira|feed me 08:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian National Congress and Bharata Janata Party leaders
Who are the leaders of the parties which I have mentioned above in the states of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Tripura, Punjab(Indian National Congress), Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You may find the answer to your question on the websites of the Indian National Congress and the BJP. Marco polo (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if an Indian who is an expert on these websites. Then, he will tell us who are these people. Don Mustafa 2008 Feb.20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I check all the leaders of the states except for West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Tripura. They haven't list the leader of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Tripura.

Sri Lankan Political Party
Which Party is based on Liberalism and which party is based on Conservatism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See our List of political parties in Pakistan . The labels liberalism and conservatism are somewhat subjective and mean different things in different countries.  Also, depending on the definition, there are several parties in the list which, in my view, might qualify for the label conservative.  Because the world liberalism has different meanings within the English-speaking world, it is hard to know which one you mean.  See our article Liberalism worldwide.  Marco polo (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And List of political parties in Sri Lanka might be even more helpful... the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka is a good candidate for the one based on Liberalism. Xn4  20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. Caught that moments after you, Xn4.  Thanks.  Marco polo (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan People's Party and Muslim League(Q)
Who are the leaders of these parties which I have mentioned above in the provinces of Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This page lists the provincial leaders of the PPP. Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi is the president of the PML-Q in Punjab.  Amir Muqam seems to be their president for NWFP.  Jam Mohammad Yousaf seems to be the president for Baluchistan.  The PML-Q's president for Sindh appears to be  Arbab Ghulam Rahim.  Marco polo (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

celine anti-semitism
i reed about anti-semitism of french writer called celine. how serious was this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Tsotsi (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Serious. David Šenek (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. Celine was always one to take things to excess, and his anti-Semitism has an absurdist quality, loopy even by the loopiest of standards!  His hatred of all things Jewish became a kind of metaphor for his cultural pessimism, a convenient hook upon which to hang his alienation from the modern age.  His anti-Semitic pamphlets, published in the 1930s, are quite deranged in the Gothic extremes of his prejudice.  His Bagatelles pour un massacre and École des cadavres were so outrageous that even those on the anti-Semitic right of French politics thought it was part of a deliberate attempt to discredit their ideology.  You can understand why when the various 'Jews' identified include Racine, Stendhal, Picasso, Roosevelt and the Pope!  Andre Gide even suggested Bagatelles was a kind of Swiftian satire, not to be taken seriously.  In the end Celine widened his net to include Adolf Hitler, that well-known Jew!  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How do you pronounce "Sieppe", as seen in Frank Norris' "McTeague"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.222.27 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Sieppes in McTeague are German (Mrs Sieppe melodramatically so), so I think I should pronounce the name the German way - that is, roughly "Zeepa", with the emphasis on the first syllable. The second sound is almost a schwa, veering towards the i in it. Xn4  22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

wounded students
This is in regard to the seven Northern Illinois University students who are still in critical condition. Are they going to make it?72.229.136.18 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Wikipedia's crystal ball is in the shop right now. —Nricardo (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about a crystal ball?72.229.136.18 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The intended link is this "crystal ball" article. Such questions are unanswerable and outside the purview of Wikipedia. &mdash; Lomn 05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenics and Deaf people
Schizophrenics have been known to "hear voices" or hallucinate sounds in their heads. If a person, born deaf, became schizophrenic, would he hear voices? Or just have visual or tactile hallucinations?

Somewhat conversely, can people who are blind at birth dream of people, places and things? Or the blind have all-audio dreams?

Thanks!

❦  ECH3LON ❦  23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have answers for you, but if you're getting this information for a paper or other academic work, consider people-first language. Cheers! Sing Cal  01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just me, but I think this is politcal correctness gone overboard. It works with some phrases, but does he really have to write "people with schizophrenia"? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear hear. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually believing that the word "schizophrenic" is derogatory is an insult to schizophrenics. --Taraborn (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that I ever wrote 'people with schizophrenia', but aside from the [politically correct] phrases, I think the question at hand wasn't answered. Sorry! ❦  ECH3LON ❦  21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This might be of some interest to you. Rockpock  e  t  21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * People-first language belongs in the same category of language-mauling as business-speak like "synergy" and "going forward". Sorry, I meant language for business people. Or rather. Language of people of business. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We've become so wrapped up in this controversy that we forgot about the original question. My guess is that "people with schizophrenia and the condition of being deaf" would hear voices in their head, but rather than hearing sounds they would just know what the voice said. Also, people who are born blind are also said to sometimes have visual dreams, but they just consist of strange geometric shapes, otherwise they just have dreams with sounds and touch. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on these two brief searches on Google Scholar, the answers to your questions seem to be "Yes" and "Maybe, maybe not". Unfortunately I don't have access to most of the full papers at the moment, but it looks like interesting reading. -- Kateshort forbob  23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have had experince of working with someone whom is profoundly deaf and 'hears' voices, when i am working with this person i work in conjuction with a sign language interpreter who communicates betweens us ( he lips reads but sometimes needs things explained to him), now and again he has to take some time out as the voices will become to 'loud' and will interfere with what ever converstaion he has going. a perfect example that reality is all in the mindPerry-mankster (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)