Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 13

= March 13 =

Media violating copyright?
See Ashley_Alexandra_Dupre for background. How can media like use pictures from her myspace site? Isn't this a violation of her copyright on those photos? Sancho 04:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny thing is, the Associated Press is taking credit for the pic. Some people just go with "it's not a copyright violation if the owner doesn't complain." --Nricardo (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not necessarily saying they own the copyright. They're just indicating that they took it from the MySpace page, not, say, Google News. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some instances when you can use copyrighted media without violating copyright; see fair use. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but I was wondering if there are any previous cases that cover this type of situation where a ruling was actually made as to whether or not this type of use has in the past been fair use. Sancho 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sure of it. It is not uncommon in the least. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair use is essentially the right to hire a lawyer. As personal photos generally don't get registered at the copyright office, your recompense is limited to a pittance that's not really worth going after. So, to sum up: no, it's not legal, and it probably doesn't fall under fair use, but they'll damn well do what they like. grendel|khan 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't have to register copyrights, not in the US. The question as to what you are entitled to is not related to registration. I think they could make a strong fair use claim; a lot of leeway is given to news agencies for purposes of the First Amendment. And I don't think the AP is going to be doing something like that without the input of their (many) lawyers—they have more to lose than the sort of causal copyright violation that people usually engage in. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Casual, anecdotal observation: When people are talking about "fair use" for things they support—e.g. Wikipedia, copying digital music, etc.—they are willing to find all sorts of good reasons why they think it is legal. When they are talking about it in the case of a "big company"—e.g. Associated Press, whomever else—they find themselves arguing against "fair use". You can't have it both ways. If copyright law is made more lax for the "everyman" they'll be more lax for the big companies too.) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Gwine to ride up in the chariot (early in the morning)
Does anyone know where i can get maybe a midi of this song? Or maybe a score sheet? Just wondering, i cant seem to find it anywhere! maybe it goes by other names? I just cant find alot of info.

by the way, to make sure its the right song here, one line of the lyrics that seems to assure its not confused with some other song is "Oh Lord, have mercy on me! (x3)"

The only reference i could actually find of a sound clip of any sort is here: http://www.amazon.com/Mosaic-Collection-African-American-Spirituals-Guitar/dp/B0006A9FUU

Thanks.

137.81.112.178 (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness
Would it be true to say that Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness was a reflection of a more general disquiet at the time of its publication over the effects of colonialism in Africa? Topseyturvey (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be said yes, see Heart_of_darkness87.102.8.240 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE at Heart_of_darkness it says "This caused a rise in atrocities perpetrated by the Belgian traders similar if not identical to those perpetrated by the fictional Kurtz." - what atrocities were commited by kurtz?87.102.8.240 (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you really should read the book to find out. Suffice it to say that Kurtz is associated with human heads on posts surrounding his bungalow in the same way the agents of King Leopold II are associated with baskets of severed hands. Our article on Leopold II will give you some idea of his atrocities, though a fairly muted one. - Nunh-huh 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read it quite a few times, but a while ago. Didn't rememeber any human heads, ok found an e-book you are indeed right. Also kurtz is said to have 'ruined the whole district' .. 'his methods' etc Thanks, just a bit rusty.87.102.94.198 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the novel did reflect widespread questioning of European colonialism of Africa. The touchstone case is that of King Leopold II, as mentioned above, and his private fiefdom, the Congo Free State. This is beautifully, shockingly, clearly documented in Adam Hochschild's King Leopold's Ghost -- if only all histories could be so absorbingly written! From the Leopold article, some of which I wrote (caveat lector):
 * Estimates of the death toll (in the millions), outrageous exploitation and widespread human rights abuses (including the lopping off of hands) led to an international protest movement in the early 1900s. The campaign to report on Leopold's "secret society of murderers," led by British diplomat Roger Casement, and former shipping clerk E. D. Morel, became the first mass human rights movement. Supporters included American humorist Mark Twain, who wrote a stinging political satire entitled King Leopold's Soliloquy, in which the King supposedly argues that bringing Christianity to the country outweighs a little starvation.  Leopold's rubber gatherers were tortured, maimed and slaughtered until the turn of the century, when the conscience of the Western world forced Brussels to call a halt.
 * You could say this had some influence on the public mood into which Heart of Darkness was published. The above links should help you find out more. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, Topseyturvey, your question is aimed at the more general picture, going beyond the specific example of the Congo Free State. Read in this context Heart of Darkness reflects a new awareness that all was not well with the European 'civilizing' mission in Africa; that imperial expansion had become a cover for a venture which increasingly subverted local life.

It was in consequence of this that the African Society was founded in 1900, in memory of the writer and ethnographer, Mary Kingsley, dedicated to building up respect for African customs and changing European understanding about Africa and the Africans. The West African Mail was launched in 1903 by E D Morel-yes, him again!-, with the aim of supplying 'reliable and impartial intelligence' on West African issues. More and more journalists and writers began to condemn what was happening in Africa, not just in the Congo, but elsewhere, particularly South-West Africa, where the Germans were carrying out the the first genocide of the twentieth century. Another British journalist, H W Nevinson, investigated slavery in Portuguese West Africa, publishing his findings in 1906 as A Modern Slavery.

To add to Conrad's fictional treatment of the horrors of colonial exploitation, Mark Twain wrote King Leopold's Soliloquy, and Arthur Conan Doyle The Crime of the Congo. In Red Rubber, published in 1906, Morel made it clear that the worst of Leopold's atrocities had been a consequence of the rising world demand for rubber for the growing automobile industry. It is no coincidence, perhaps, that the first Model T came of the Ford assembly line in the same year. In 1909, in an attempt to strengthen the front against the abuses in Africa, the Anti-Slavery Society united with the Aborigines Protection Society to form a single Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society. This investigated abuses not just in Africa but all over the world, including the Putumayo atrocities in South America.

Heart of Darkness came at just the right moment in history. But in the end, when Marlow returns to Brussels to report Kurtz's death to his fiancé, he hides the truth under a comforting fiction. Some realities are just too hard to bear. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Marlow lies to Kurtz's Intended in Brussels, and suffers for it, but he continues to tell others about the actual horrors as a kind of warning, which is how the narrator hears about them, and we read about them. I'd like to think that Conrad was demonstrating something he had observed: the tendency of those aware of distant atrocities to deny them - and that though Marlow is in many ways the author's alter ego, in this respect the narrator is the author's stand-in. - Nunh-huh 03:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your answers. The second last was particularly good. Topseyturvey (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Maybe you'd like to tell the rest of us since when you've had the right to make moral judgements on other peoples questions?  ? Do you wish to know if the questions you ask are in my opinion "ugly"?87.102.83.204 (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would please me to have no more responses from you to my questions, ugly or not. Topseyturvey (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Black soldiers: German propaganda campaign, 1920s
Was there a racist background to the German propaganda campaign agaionst black colonial soldiers in the Rhineland in the 1920s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topseyturvey (talk • contribs) 07:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - for example search for 'rhineland bastard'87.102.8.240 (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not sure at all that there was a "German propaganda campaign agaionst black colonial soldiers in the Rhineland in the 1920s" specifically at that time - more a case of " black colonial soldiers in the Rhineland in the 1920s provided fuel for any propagandist..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.8.240 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In Mein Kampf, Hitler talks about african soldiers brought into the rhineland by belguim as neutral people to keep the treaties in place. AH says that they must be exterminated forthwith, to paraphrase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not doubting Hitler's intent to do just that, but I was under the impression that he never really mentioned anything as extreme as mass murder and genocide in Mein Kampf. i'd always thought it laid out his beliefs in Aryan superiority etc but never really mentioned what he'd do to non-Aryans, beyond declaring that they were not German. I could easily be wrong. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest, guys, that you look into these issues in just a tiny bit more depth before making statements of this kind. Hitler neither called for the extermination of Africans in Mein Kampf nor implemented such a policy when in power.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Topseyturvey, there was a racist background to the propaganda campaign against the colonial soldiers in the Rhineland, known at the time as the Schwarze Schande-Black Shame. However, it goes well beyond this specific example, reflecting a more general hostility to the involvement of black people in white affairs. In 1920, after the French decided to use Senegalese and Moroccan units in the occupation of the Rhineland, E D Morel, a leading English radical journalist, complained in The Nation, a left-wing weekly, about those "who thrust barbarians-barbarians belonging to a race inspired by nature...with tremendous sexual instincts-into the heart of Europe." This is all the more ironic because Morel had campaigned against colonial exploitation, being involved with Roger Casement in the Congo Reform Association.

When some Moroccan soldiers shot dead four German demonstrators in Frankfurt in April 1920 the outrage in the press, both German and international, reached an ever more intense pitch. Stories began to circulate that ‘coal black primitive African barbarians were roaming out of control.’ A lot of these reflected the usual sexual anxiety with which some whites perceive black people. Morel, encouraged by the response to his piece in The Nation, went on to publish a brochure he called The Black Horror on the Rhine. This, and many others in the same vein, played on the usual sexually-based stereotypes. Black people, after all, could simply not control their lusts; they were nearer to 'animals that the average white man', as The Liverpool Courier declared the previous year.

The expression Schwarze Schande actually comes from a medal designed by Karl Goetz and issued by the Bavarian mint in 1920, which showed, on one side, a black phallus wearing a helmet to which a naked German woman was tied, and a caricature of an African soldier, on the other. There were mass meetings in several cities in which Ray Beveridge, a granddaughter of a former governor of Illinois, now married to a German, called for the lynching of 'black savages.' The right-wing press, of course, made the most of this hysteria, but it also extended to those on the left, with Friedrich Ebert, then President of the republic, calling the presence of black Africans in Germany "a provocative offense against the laws of civilization." The offensive went international, involving the League of Nations, Pope and several women's organizations, all calling for the removal of the colonial troops.

In actual fact there were never more than 5000 colonial soldiers in the French occupation force, and they were withdrawn as early as June 1920. In all this time there was only one accusation of rape, subsequently withdrawn. French propaganda countered the Schwarze Schande offensive with their own on 'White Shame', a comment on the seduction of their soldiers by the local women! The German hostility to the Africans is really quite ironic when one considers that after all their European forces stopped fighting following the armistice in 1918 the struggle was still carried on for some weeks by askaris in East African, under the command of Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me congratulate you on your obvious erudition. A very good answer indeed, better than I ever expected. Topseyturvey (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. Maybe you'd like to tell the rest of us since when you've had the right to make moral judgements on other peoples questions?  ?87.102.83.204 (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Topseyturvey. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's street address in Somerville, Mass.
Isaac Asimov apparently lived in Somerville, Massachusetts during 1949-1951. What was his street address? Thanks. Rumpuscat (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this, he wrote from 762 Broadway, Somerville 44, Mass. and it fits the dates that this says he lived there during. Hope that helps. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * excellent, thanks. Rumpuscat (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

HISTORY: compulsory in school systems in how many countries?
196.10.121.2 (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)HOW MANY COUNTRIES IS HISTORY COMPULSURY IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM


 * I would be very surprised to find if there was any country, anywhere, where some form of "history" is not taught, specifically national history. What defines "history" and from what perspective it is taught would be the elements that vary, I suspect. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's always the countries that don't have compulsory education at all. I can't find a list, but it must include those countries with no effective government, such as Somalia. Algebraist 17:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Charities combating racism
hi, does anyone know any organisations or charities which target racism, either specifically or in general? The Updater would like to talk to you! 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm partial to the Love Music Hate Racism concerts myself, even if they are organised by ANL wimps, and our article on anti-racism has a section an anti-racist organisations. --superioridad (discusión) 06:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Spread of religions
Why are some religions so successful at spreading and replacing an existing one? I'm thinking mostly of Christianity in Europe; it built up slowly and then exploded. Why was this? Why were they able to convince people originally to choose Christianity over another religion? How was it able to so (relatively) quickly overtake the Roman pantheon? 81.96.160.6 (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no doubt specific reasons, but an easy unspecific one is simply power. When a religion is adopted by a rich or ruling class, or by a rich conquering people, it adds a lot of incentive, both explicit and implicit, for those underneath to convert. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd though of that but I couldn't understand how they converted the powerful in the first place. I can't see any incenives for converting to what was originally an illegal fringe religion. The people in power across the Roman Empire already controlled a powerful religion, so why convert? Or why not attempt to absorb christianity ino the Roman tradition? Make him the son of Jupiter, for example. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, for over 250 years Christianity was pretty much the religion of the powerless in the Roman Empire -- slaves, urban lower classes, etc. It was only AFTER Christianity had converted a significant fraction of the population of the empire, despite not having received any government support (and in fact in the face of periodic persecutions on the part of the Imperial government) that Constantine turned to Christianity. AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also by that time Christianity had begun adopting many pagan beliefs and practices which made the religion more acceptable to people in Europe. Wrad (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It mainly did so after 313-325 A.D., however. During the period between the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Nicea (over 250 years), Christianity converted a significant fraction of the population of the Roman Empire (sometimes estimated to be as much as 1/4) almost entirely "climbing uphill" (i.e. without significant external support, and often in the face of strong external disapprval). AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all the questioner seems to a bit ignorant about ancient religions and cults in the classical and late antiquity. There wasn't a single Roman religion, there were several religions/cults some related to others and sharing a common mythology while others didn't.


 * As the Roman empire expanded the conquered were largely allowed to worship their gods as they had done previously. Their gods were many times imported into Rome. The ancient Romans were by modern standards were very tolerant and highly superstitious and tried to bribe the local gods to be on the Roman side, local gods were therefore easily adopted and worshipped. The common attitude seems to have been: "we have so many gods that there is always room for one more". However, there were some cases (Celtic druids and Carthaginian gods - however there is a chance that this was also Roman slander against their enemies) were this wasn't allowed: a religion which required regular human sacrifice was despised and forbidden. As this happened the priests of such cults would obviously preach against Roman rule and the end-result was the destruction of such a religion/cult.


 * However, some exotic oriental cults were regarded with suspicion by the Roman establishment; some of which were accused of being against Roman family values (in other words: it was suspected that the average "weak minded" Roman woman would be seduced and would turn into a slut if she became a member of such a cult - "weak-minded woman" was a fact of nature as far as far the ancient Romans were concerned). From time to time (in the wake of a major scandal or something similar) such cults would be locally prosecuted (normally only inside Rome and Italy). But by the large and as long as they kept a low profile such Mystery cults were also left in peace. Some of these cults were even useful and quite popular: the cult of Mithras, an all-male warrior cult, was very popular in the legions.


 * The overwhelming majority of the people in the Mediterranean area were polytheists. While usually they worshipped their local gods of which they were more familiar with, they readily accepted that the gods of other people were also real. E.g.: an ancient Roman would usually not worship and sacrifice to any Egyptian god, unless he was in Egypt, but he would accept that the Egyptian gods existed. Some ancient academics also pointed out the similar attributes/roles between many gods (Jupiter = Zeus = Wotan) and some even defended that the same gods only had different names in different countries. The major point was that such polytheist believers had no big problem of showing respect and making a sacrifice to the Roman gods and to the divine emperors from time to time as a sign of their loyalty. See: Imperial cult (ancient Rome)


 * All except one strange and curious religion in the Near East: Judaism. This strange religion preached that there was only one true god, which was theirs alone, and that all the other gods were evil fabrications. Their god had no face - most of the other gods had faces which one could see in statues and could sacrifice and relate to - a god with no face? Weird and strange. They had strange rules about their food and they practiced circumcision (something which did not appeal to Roman and Greek sensibilities). They were accused of being atheists (hey, they denied the existence of all the other gods). Adding to these facts they also refused to show the proper respect towards the Roman gods or even worse, to the divine emperor. There was an incident where Emperor Caligula declared himself a god and ordered his statues to be set up in temples throughout the Empire. The Jews refused, and began preparations for armed revolt- it was only avoided in extremis by the local Roman governor. The region was a hive of weird prophets and messiahs and small rebellions, which from time to time even turned into major ones. However they kept a low profile because they didn't try to convert none to their strange religion. This religion of the god of the Jews was surely not a Roman-friendly religion or intended for Romans at all.


 * Then something strange happened: new Jewish cults appeared which separated itself from the ancient Jewish religion. They had some differences among them, but almost all of them spoke about single person, the son of the god of the Jews. All these cults claimed to be Christians, and they preached to and tried to convert all classes and nations.


 * At the same time Roman rule in Iudea was threatened by a major First Jewish-Roman War. The new cults claimed that they had nothing to do with it: They were Christians, not Jews. The Romans concerned themselves more with the rebellious Jews. They might even leave the Christians in peace to divide the Jewish population as far as possible


 * Most of the Christian cults weren't limited by absurd rules of food or sex of the worshipers (not even speaking about circumcision). They preached to men, women, and even slaves. It was largely a family oriented religion, all members of the family were invited. Many of the other oriental cults were uni-sex organizations (the cult of Mithra was intended only for men, and mainly warriors, many of the female cults were just intended for women). This approach appealed to some classes and sub-groups but not to the vast majority as the rival Christian approach did. The new Christian cults copied many aspects of other cults appealing to (almost) everybody at the same time. Still the Christian cults kept the reputation and aura of being mystery cults.


 * They refused to sacrifice to the divine emperor and to other gods but they were largely peaceful to Rome: they were always clobbering each other, and the Jews, but didn't revolt against the Roman state. This religion was indeed different: most cults and religions promised earthly rewards. You want something/or have a problem? You go to a temple and make a proper sacrifice and you will get your reward/or the solution of your problem. It was in many ways a business transactions. This religion spoke of a heavenly reward. Many Christian cults adopted Roman attitudes: women are morally weak and guilty of the original sin. Poncius Pilate was deceived by the Jews. ETC. At the same time many Christians refused to reject their religion no matter the punishment. They rather burned to death than repent - something which would spark the interest of many disaffected persons. You know these persons who are always looking for a spiritual message for their lives. Christianity was new and different, it was gaining popularity, it was appealing to men, women and to the youth. It was considered a danger to Rome by some emperors.


 * And as their numbers increased they became an asset in the political power struggles (civil wars). Some Roman emperors prosecuted this religion. However by doing this they also ensured that their political opponents would protect or at least be passive towards this religion. If the emperor was overthrown in a coup the new emperor would many times change certain policies to gain popularity as he wanted to show that he was different. Constantine might have been a Christian, but he wanted the Imperial throne first. He realized that if he protected the Christians he would gain the support of many, including many inside the territories of his adversaries. So he did, and the rest is history. Flamarande (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC) PS:This is largely OR (my knowledge and opinion is based on book I read and documentaries I watch) - I particularly recommend "The rivals of Jesus" a BBC documentary which shows many other cults and how they influenced Christianity. If you want to believe that Christianity is exactly the same since the time of the gospels and wasn't influenced by other religions fine by me. However I must point out that the image of the holy Mary holding baby Jesus is uncannily similar to images of Isis holding Horus, etc. I strongly suspect that Clio is going to answer the original question in a much better fashion.


 * Grossly simplified: In the time of widespread polytheism this new religion, Christianity, had one enormous appeal:
 * There is but one God. He is omnipotent and He demands your subservience.
 * This sounds like the stuff any politician, then or now, would diligently copy into their manifestos.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Those who have seen this thread as merely a convenient opportunity to snidely take a passing whack at Christianity have done little but expose their own ignorance of conditions in the Roman empire in the first three centuries A.D. Christianity most definitely did not invent monotheism -- Judaism came first, and various abstract theoretical forms of quasi-monotheism were taught by some ancient Greek and Roman philosophers (such philosophical quasi-monotheism being compatible with practical participation in the rituals of emperor-worship, of course).  Nor did Christians invent "Deus vult".  The truth was that many members of the educated upper classes in the Roman empire had lost respect for the old mythological/ritual polytheism, and turned towards either oriental mystery religions (Cybele, Isis, Mithraism), abstract philosophical systems (Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc.), or astrology.  And as I already stated above, Christianity conspicuously attracted much more support among the lower classes than among the Roman political classes in its first 250 years... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For some people in some places, like academics in the Greek half of the empire, monotheism wasn't so new - even Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and other philosophers recognized that a multitude of idiosyncratic gods was silly, and there was probably just one god encompassing all aspects of the others. There was apparently a monument "to the unknown god" in Athens, which Paul (I think?) used as proof of the Christian god. So for some people at least, Christianity wasn't too great of an intellectual leap. (But there were still pagans in the east until at least the 6th century, when Plato's Academy was closed, and in the 4th, one emperor, Julian the Apostate, tried to undo the Christianization of the Empire.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Adam is entirely right about Paul--see Unknown God, as well as Areopagus. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also chapter 15 of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, easily accessible from links to Project Gutenberg on those articles. Gibbon discusses just this question in relation to how Christianity, a Jewish sect, rapidly overshadowed Judaism and then subverted the paganism of the Roman Empire. In a nutshell: Christianity imposed an obligation to proselytise (unlike Judaism) and did not require circumcision. You might also like to look at the opposing opinions of Saints Peter and Paul as to whether Christianity was a Jewish religion or open to the gentiles. Gibbon argues that Christianity subverted paganism because of its belief in an afterlife, which the poor old pagans had to do without.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer's Will and Representation
I hope to begin a reading of this book shortly. Does the author assume any form of prior knowledge of his style of argument and thinking: does he give any indication what other texts would aid in the forward journey?217.42.105.41 (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Schopenhauer himself gives some guidance here in the preface to the first edition of The World as Will and Representation. He says that it is quite impossible to understand his great work without first having read On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, his doctoral dissertation.  Beyond that he assumes a good knowledge of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and a passing acquaintance with Plato.  He also suggests that some familiarity with the Vedas, particularly the Upanishads, would be useful.  I would say that, as far as Kant is concerned, unless you have already read the Critique of Pure Reason, it might be best to have a look at a good general introduction to his work.  The Critique may be important as a work of original thought, but the prose is positively leaden!  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Understanding the failure of monetary policy in Japan
Can anyone point me to sources addressing the failure of monetary policy to overcome deflation in Japan since the 1990s? I am looking in particular for a description of fiscal and monetary measures taken in Japan and an analysis of why they largely failed to help me understand the prospects for the Federal Reserve in its current efforts to prevent deflation in the United States (and globally). Thanks in advance for any tips. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul Krugman wrote a lot about Japan and the liquidity trap at the time, here are some articles: . Another economist who spent a lot of time studying Japan's problems was... Ben Bernanke (See for example: ) David Šenek (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

history of tanzania
please i want to how Seyyid said became the sultan of oman and his rulership.Thank you17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)82.206.239.148 (talk)gabriel
 * Said bin Sultan, Sultan of Muscat and Oman doesn't have much, but at least says how he became sultan. Algebraist 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Government spending
Does anyone know where I can get a list of countries with their government spending as a percent of the GDP, or even in absolute value? Thank you ahead of time 99.226.39.245 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The CIA World Factbook has figures for government expenditure and for GDP, so you could make a list from their data. They haven't done this themselves, alas (why make a database that isn't sortable by all numerical fields?). Algebraist 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Greatest English king
Who is the greatest king in English history?86.151.241.101 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A very easy question. Alfred the Great was the only great king in English history.  If you mean fattest, maybe Henry VIII of England.4.234.24.7 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about Canute the Great? ---Sluzzelin talk  17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth I of England presided over England's rise from an island off in the corner of Europe to a major respected European power, and she didn't do it the way that earlier English kings had done -- i.e. seeking military glory by tramping around France fighting semi-pointless battles of personal ambition that didn't really lead anywhere in the end -- but instead laid some fairly solid foundations for England's future greatness over the next two centuries or so. Considering the constraints Elizabeth worked under (limitations of resources available, tremendous external pressures, etc.), and the fact that she would only have had to commit a relatively few mistakes for her rule to come crashing down -- in which case Protestantism might have been doomed in Europe, and history could have turned out very differently -- I think that she has a real claim to being considered great.  AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Though her claim to be a king is less clear. Algebraist 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm" -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to swim against the tide and propose John of England. The fact that he held the country together as his big brother was playing Christian hero/Crusader instead of doing his duty of ruling his kingdom and people speaks for itself. The English barons forced John to sign the Magna Carta which created/reinforced a English proto-parliament. Besides being a corner-stone of modern liberty, the system of parliament is one the most successful political creations ever (most countries have some kind of parliament - or senate or council, whatever). Winston Churchill summarized the legacy of John's reign: "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns". Another strong candidate is Oliver Cromwell who while technically not being a king, showed to all kings in Europe that there was a limit to their powers. He and his supporters had the plain courage to publicly execute a king who had been found guilty of treason showing to everybody that not even a king was above the law. Before that it was considered that a king was above the law and that in fact the king was the law. The whole issue was and is far more complicated than that but they created the ultimate example. Flamarande (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is this "John of England" stuff? He is always called King John by historians. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NCNT -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and your beloved WP:NCNT completely contradicts the principle of "use the most common name in English". Nobody, but nobody, calls him "John of England". Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I "loved" it; I merely pointed out the policy which determined the name that you objected to. If you want to complain about this in any non-ineffectual way, the place to do so is at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29, not here... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And who would you think should get the title of King John? There are several who have the right.  Or should the article be at King John of England, which doesn't much change what you're objecting to.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "King John of England", although still flawed, is at least a single step in the right direction. John of England sounds analogous to Geoffrey of Monmouth or William of Ockham – the difference being (apart from that Geoffrey was not the king of Monmouth, nor William the king of Ockham) that they are commonly referred to by those names. Who talks about "John of England"? Nobody.
 * I really do think that this ridiculous naming convention does Wikipedia no favours in its claim to be a serious work of reference. All the same, I won't bother bringing it up at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29, since I could more profitably spend my time banging my head against a brick wall. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Flamarande, I am not going to challenge your choice, though I think it would have been better if the question was about the most significant king in English history. I certainly consider John important-as I made clear not so long ago; but he can hardly be described as a great king: not by any measure.  Nevertheless, it is an interesting response to the question.  There are just one or two points of fact that I would take issue with.  I am not at all sure what you mean in saying that John 'held the country together' in Richard's absence.  He had, in fact, promised not to enter England, only to break this to head the opposition to William Longchamp, Richard's justiciar.  John was thus effectively in a state of rebellion.  I think, moreover, your statement about Richard is based on a misapprehension about the nature of Medieval kingship.  For one thing Richard had charge of an Empire, of which England was not necessarily the most important part.  For another there were all sorts of expectations about kings at the time: they were the font of justice, yes, but they were also expected to bring glory in war.


 * As far as King Charles is concerned I am not at all sure what the nature of his 'treason' was and by what right he was put on trial, other than by force of arms and on the authority of a purged and unrepresentative Parliament. But let that slide.  Oliver Cromwell may very well have shown all the kings of Europe that there was 'a limit to their power', though I'm not aware that any were mindful of the lesson.  It's a pity, though, that he did not seem to appreciate that there were limits to his own power, far greater, in the end, than those of the king he and his colleagues murdered.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * John's reign, however you want to call him, was a disaster for the crown. He was a dreadful ruler. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

86.151, for me the only candidate here is Edward III, who hs ever right to be considered as the ‘greatest of kings’ for reasons I gave below in answer to a previous question. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the most common perception of Edward's reign is one that brought England success in war, from the Halidon Hill and Neville's Cross against Scotland, to the even greater victories against France at Crecy and Poitiers. In 1356 England had two enemy kings in captivity: David II of Scotland and John II of France. In some ways the country had reached the high point in its Medieval history.  But success in war brought two more innovations: the enhanced role of ordinary people in attaining military success, and the rise of Parliament as a unique English political institution.


 * Before Edward England had continued to rely on the feudal levy for its military arm, which meant, in essence, dependency of the great feudal nobility and the armed knight. But Edward's wars saw the recruitment of professional armies, where the decisive arm was not the knight but the plebeian archer.  It was through Edward's wars that the ordinary people of England (and Wales!) acquired a direct interest in the course and the outcome of the nation's foreign adventures, which did much to forge a common sense of nationhood, distinctly lacking at earlier periods.  Even more important, the wars demanded money, and money meant Parliamentary grants, and Parliamentary grants meant detailed scrutiny of expenditure, as well as the granting of petitions.  By the end of Edward's reign the Commons were able not only to introduce legislation, but also to hold officials to account.  His successor, Richard II was to discover just how assertive Parliament could be.


 * It was Edward who raised England from the nadir of the reign of his father, and created a sense of common identity and purpose. More than that, it was his patronage that turned St. George into a national saint, and he was the first king to give first place to the English language, as opposed to the Norman-French favoured by his predecessors.  Not only did he use English himself in everyday discourse, but also in 1362 he passed legislation recognising English as 'the tongue of the nation.'  Where he led the great nobility followed.  So, the answer has to be, yes: Edward has every justified right to be considered as the father of the English nation.  Clio the Muse 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that his last years were a terrible decline. I also disagree with the point someone made that Elizabeth did not tramp around Europe in pointless military campaigns: well, not personally, but her armies did in the 1590s. So I am going to go for Edward the Elder, whose method of defeating the Vikings through advancing, fortified increments was brilliant and had a lasting effect on the country. qp10qp (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth's continental military interventions (other than the "singeing of the King of Spain's beard") were almost exclusively aimed at preventing the economic powerhouse of Europe (the Netherlands) from falling under the complete domination of England's deadliest enemy (Spain). Elizabeth didn't have the resources to go militarily adventuring for personal glory like the English kings of the Hundred Years' War, but she was able to achieve a foreign policy success by defending England's political and economic interests in a vital area. AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But look at her dismal military interventions in France in support of Henry IV in the 1590s. Also her earlier failed attempt to win back Calais by occupying Le Havre. qp10qp (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, all political careers end in failure; do they not? Edward's sad descent into senility-and the losses in France-did nothing to undermine the solid achievements of his reign: the advance of Parliament and, above all, the creation of a new English identity, uniting all sections of society.  But I do not quibble at your choice of Edward the Elder, qp10qp, though if I had gone for a pre-conquest king it would have been Alfred or Athelstan.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What, no votes for Tara or Harry? Carom (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Clio, you argue very persuasively for Edward III, yet I struggle to like the man, and certainly cannot consider him to be wholly "great". For all his admirable attributes, he had many less desirable.  His wars in France were foolish, expensive and brutal.  Edward III spent far more money than was reasonable or even possible for a kingdom of England's size, and all for Edward's egotistical and covetous designs on France.  Edward borrowed most of his money from foreign banks -and caused a couple of these establishments to become bankrupt due to the vast sums he owed (and was unable to pay).  Refused credit from other bankers, and refused money from his own treasury, Edward was even forced to pawn his own crown! The chevauchees that Edward led through France were fine tactical strategies, perhaps, but ruthless and destructive.  Edward's armies laid waste to vast tracts of countryside, burning and pillaging, in an horrific campaign which affected the common people dreadfully.  The pope even had to intervene with monetry grants to relieve the sufferings of the people.  Forget any concepts of chivalry or the noble ideal, or even ethics of warfare; the destruction was more complete than the carpet bombing of WWII.  For all his round tables and courts of chivalry, many of Edward's contemporaries throughout Europe condemned his actions.  The culture he created in his army (and education he gave his son) led to further atrocities, such as the sack of Limoges: a massacre by any standards.
 * Having now attacked your choice, Clio, I fully expect (and even look forward to) your further defence of Edward! But I will offer another suggestion: James VI & I.  Controversial, perhaps, but he was a shrewd, intelligent man, and a bit of a scholar.  He broughht about a peace treaty with Spain, and kept the kingdoms from war, the countries were prosperous (low taxation) and he encouraged writers and philosophers (including Shakespeare!), commissioned a definitive English translation of the Bible.  Now I shall sit back and see who's first to point out James's (very many) faults!  Gwinva (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The contrast between his scholarship and his political tactlessness is how he got his nickname (the "wisest fool in Christendom"). The country was reasonably well-off under his reign, but much of it was due to reaping the fruits of past efforts by others (e.g. the peace with Spain was possible because Spain had finally given up any idea of conquering England in the near or medium term, after its past debacles, and because James was the son of Mary).  James' actions often didn't seem to be greatly influenced by serious consideration for how to preserve England's peace and well-being in the future (exhibit A: Laud).  He was one of the first anti-tobacco campaigners, though...  AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't feel any need to offer any further defence of Edward beyond that I have already given, Gwinva. My stress was on the empowerment of the people, the development of Parliament and the evolution of a distinct English identity, all traceable to Edward's reign.  The French Wars, brutal as they were, played a vital role in this whole process.  They were important, I might add, precisely because they were expensive.


 * James may have been a successful Scottish king, but he was an acutely disappointing English one. Besides, he brought from the north an entirely alien doctrine,-drawn from his contest with his narrow-minded Kirk- a piece of royal folly which was to be arguably the single most important factor leading to the English Civil War, an event which came close to destroying the English monarchy altogether.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd offer two contrasting candidates. The blood and thunder Edward I, who came closer than any other English monarch to establishing some kind of massive trans-European empire for his heir to benefit from (the fact I say "closer" hints that he didn't quite get there, lol) and Henry VII, who's so often overlooked, but managed to put an end to the damaging civil war of the Wars of the Roses and, as my history teacher once put it "laid the foundations for Tudor prosperity". Iain Duncan Smith may have been ridiculed for his "quiet man" speech, but sometimes greatness comes in small still voices. Henry was a terrific king. Again, he was not without his flaws, but there's nary a single one of our monarchs who have been unflawed. To argue against myself, Eddy I's plans came unstuck, Henry's low profile is not entirely undeserved, lol. What a fun question. But impossible to answer, really. --Dweller (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about the same Edward, Dweller? In which case what was the Empire he came 'close' to establishing?  His only solid gain was north Wales.  What he bequeathed to his son-and generations of kings thereafter-was an unwinnable war in the north; a  'running sore', if you like, and a semi-permanent threat to English security, all the way to the sixteenth century and even beyond.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He wasn't far off securing Wales, Scotland and Norway for his inheritor. He failed. But nice try. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and a chunk of France, as Clio reminds me. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

James I & VI is certainly one of my favourite kings—our last scholar monarch, more's the pity. He has been considerably rehabilitated in the past decade from the tradition of scholarship (including "wisest fool in Christendom", which goes back to Weldon) established by the anti-Stuart historians of the mid-seventeenth century. I do give him great personal credit for peaceableness: he had to hold off allcomers on that, from Parliament to his own son and Buckingham. Also, though this is not always believed, for religious tolerance. But a close look doesn't reveal him as our greatest king. His reign in Scotland and his early reign in England were by no means unsuccessful, but once Cecil died in 1612, it seems to me that he began behaving stupidly. Jumping at the chance to try out his own, rather inflated, vision of personal royal government, he put favourites and factions in high places, much to the detriment of the country– Robert Carr was a particularly bad choice for high office. By opposing Parliament, and failing to control it properly through his own placemen, James allowed a balanced system of government to lapse into dysfunction. qp10qp (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

german guns of ww2
Greetings. The vast majority of light weapons used by german military forces in ww2 had the individual main components metal stamped displaying origin of manufacture, year of manufacture, etc. I have seen some rifles and light machine-guns with a stamp on the barrel, on the stock and just above the trigger guard on the same weapon. What was the purpose of this identification process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.111 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ok I don't really know but there is at least one possibility - if the different parts of the gun were made by different manufacturers/factories and assembled from parts of different origin then each part would have it's own origin stamp - plus in the case of a bad part it would be possible to trace its origin - just a guess - where the stamps all from the same factory?83.100.138.116 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point is that when a part of your gun is broken you must be sure that the replacement is correct one. There are several models and issues, each different in small details. To order the correct one from the depot (which is far away and can't see and compare the broken one) you must know the correct serial number. I believe that this system of identifying still applies today. Flamarande (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Political Correctness
I've looked at the article, but can't really come up with a good definition of political correctness for a debate I'm doing tomorrow. I'm proposing that political correctness encourages racism, but I can't figure out a snappy definition to start with. The internet seems to yield only general things about not using certain language; can anyone here help?

Thank you, D  aniel  (‽) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Political correctness is merely language (or any media) that is altered with the purpose of producing the least amount of offense towards any minority group that could possibly be offended. It is easy to argue that it is demeaning.  It implies that certain minority groups of people are inherently so weak that they must be protected by the majority group.  It also creates rather idiotic situations, such as a speech I saw in which a U.S. Congress woman referred to Nelson Mandela as an "African American." --  k a i n a w &trade; 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See Newspeak. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I always thought the term meant civility, as in not being a dick. For instance instead of saying "Retards are too dumb to drive" you could say "Persons with Down's Syndrome do not have the cognitive capacity necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle." Both convey the information but one is much more dickish than the other. But, IANAD. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, you could perhaps do no better than begin with Jacques Barzun's observation-"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred." Above all, it's a form of condescension that presupposes a single-correct-perspective. It usually also involves an atrocious abuse of language, as 161.122 has illustrated. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clio, you do realise that 161.122 was arguing for greater sensitivity in the use of language, right? --Richardrj talkemail 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That second statement I took to be a perfect example of bad English, an ironic illustration, I supposed, of the tortured absurdities of 'political correctness.' Was it really meant to be taken seriously?  Oh dear!  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But presumably you see that it is preferable to the first one? --Richardrj talkemail 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first is stupid; the second ridiculous. There are ways of conveying meaning without being one or the other.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then how about "Political correctness is the myth about how left-wing totalitarian academics oppress and brainwash freethinking victims into worshipping speech codes, feminism, and multiculturalism."  ---Sluzzelin  talk  01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Problem is, it's no myth. It's alive and well, a creeping cancer.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have never visited Oz yet, but the supposed cancer never crept its way to where I lived and worked (including an American University campus during PC's supposed heyday in the 1990s). I never experienced speech code enforcement, just people who were usually decent and smart enough not to feel the need of making sweeping or thoughtless offensive remarks. Occasionally someone slips and says something, and it's embarassing, but no big deal beyond that. No Coleman Silks, no one got reprimanded let alone fired, no witchhunts, no scandal press. Yes, excesses have been and will continue to be reported, particularly in the speech code department (which is so easy to ridicule). But is this the distinctive social difference between now and when our grandparents lived? I'm glad people don't think it's cool to label minorities the way they used to anymore. Enough said. I'll agree to disagree. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's subtle, I'll admit. Very little overt or gross enforcement of terminology goes on, except in places like Wikipedia. :)  Actually, the very term "political correctness" is pretty revealing.  It suggests that the only reason you'd moderate your language is to avoid incurring the displeasure of those around you, and you don't give a fig for the feelings of the people you're actually talking about.  Just because they're not within earshot doesn't mean the attitudinal ripples don't reach them.  It's absolutely fine to choose forms of expression that have a lower risk of offending people, and I wish more people would do it.  But it's not necessarily about anyone changing anything.  It would never occur to me to refer to "dumb spastics", except in a discussion like this.  Whatever terminology I do use would depend on the context I'm involved in.  But some people normally do talk about "dumb spastics" among themselves, only moderating their language when they're talking to perceived authority figures, or the subjects of that term themselves.  They're pretending to be sensitive when they're really not.  They're "limelight sensitives".  They're the ones who are being "politically correct".  They're torn between caring far too much what their peers or authority figures might think of them, and far too little about the third parties, as demonstrated by the disparaging terms they use to refer to them when they're not around.  Less of the first caring and more of the second caring might help here, and maybe then we'd see a diminution of this rotten phenomenon.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An issue I find with political correctness is that the words act as paint that doesn't affect the real meaning. You can say, "persons with Downs Syndrome do not have the cognitive capacity necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle", but you still mean "retards are too stupid to drive". You have only decorated it with long and neutral words. Politically correct speech doesn't affect your beliefs, only how you voice them. H YENASTE 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One could reframe that in the opposite way.
 * You can say, "retards are too stupid to drive", but you still mean "persons with Downs Syndrome do not have the cognitive capacity necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle". You have only chosen short and unnecessarily offensive words.
 * I'm not saying the long version is necessarily the best way of putting it, I'm just making a counter-argument here. --  JackofOz (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the definition and merits of PC speech in general, I find the "long version" more precise and informative than the "short version". Not all people afflicted with mental retardation have Down syndrome. Driving safely requires, next to sensory and motoric capabilities, also cognitive capabilities, but being smart isn't one of them. Conversely, some smart people are lacking in some cognitive ability (for example, that of being able to judge the speed of an approaching object) needed for safe driving. The two versions do not have the same semantic content, and (lacking further context) do not convey the same meanings. --Lambiam 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Lambian and Sluzzelin. Precision and sensitivity in language is not condescension, it is simple politeness. A person with Down's syndrome is not a "retard" or a "Mongol". They are a person who happens to have a specific chromosomal disorder, but they are not defined by that condition. Of course, precision and sensitivity in language should both reflect and enourage precision and sensitivity in thought as well. Using four words instead of one is a small price to pay for the benefit of adopting and demonstrating a more civilised stance. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * @JoZ: Yes, you can reframe my statement. No matter how politely or impolitely you choose to word it, it all expresses the same idea. @Lambiam: This is true in this scenario. The word "retard" does not accurately define people with DS. Similarly, "stupid" does not reflect the actual limitations that any individual may have. The phrase "operate a motor vehicle" means the exact same thing as "drive", and choosing the longer words makes the statement more ostentatious. However, its easy to make a more accurate statement and remain impolite: "People with DS aren't as capable as regular people and therefore can't do things normal people can do, such as driving". Anyone who finds that statement more polite than the 5-word phrase is being enchanted by prettier words. @Gandalf: The verbose statement is no more civilized than the short one. I can politely say, "homosexual persons may be unsuitable to serve a position in the armed forces," but I am expressing no sensitivity in thought. The phrase is nicely worded, yes, and still reeks of intolerance. The civilized stance you desire can be avoided by carefully phrasing statements to seem tolerant. H YENASTE 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we're at cross purposes here. An attitude exemplified by "homosexual persons may be unsuitable to serve a position in the armed forces" is one of intolerance, no matter how you say it.  But there's a big difference in tolerance levels between "retards are too stupid to drive" and "persons with X Syndrome do not have the cognitive capacity necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle" (although the latter is far too long and can be cut down).  The former does indeed define the person by their condition.  A person may have X, Y or Z condition - they're separate concepts, the person and the condition they have.  I'd be wary of even using an adjective such as "retarded" because it relates to what some might consider to be the most obvious effect of a certain condition but takes no account of other features of the condition.  "Down Syndrome", "Alzheimer's Disease", "Parkinson's Disease", or whatever, describe the condition itself, not the perceived effects of the condition, and certainly not the person.  "Asthmatic" or "alcoholic" have their uses because they relate to the condition (asthma; alcoholism) rather than any one effect of the condition (eg. breathlessness; inability to speak coherently). But as soon as you start using a noun such as "retard", "spastic", or "Mongol", you've definitely merged the person with their condition.  This is no different from describing a person who commits a single thoughtless and damaging act in an otherwise careful life as "a moron".  It's the act that's moronic, not the person.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, you may be interested to know that this is one of Clio's all time favourite TV shows! Why? Because it flies in the face of all political correctness and has one of the most adorable, foul-mouthed little heroes. Goddamn Hippies! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Goddamn crack whores, respect my authorityPerry-mankster (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)(uncle f****r)

Naming of military units
I've always wondered this, and my wiki-fu is lacking today. How do they come up with the numbers in the names of military units. An example being the unit from Band of Brothers. Were there really 506 regiments of airborne infantry in WWII? 142.33.70.60 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there were not many US Army paratroop regiments or separate battalions. They were all numbered starting with 501. Why? "Ordinary" infantry regiments had never had numbers in the 500s range, so those were unused and distinctive. Ordinary infantry regiments normally had numbers from their previous WW1-era incarnations when there had been 4 regiments in a division, so there were gaps in WW2 when there were just 3 regiments in a division. The 28th Infantry Division (United States) was made up of the 109th to 112th Infantry Regiments in WWI but only the 109th, 110th and 112th in WWII. The "extra" 111th Regiment, no longer needed in the 28th Division under the new organisational structure, was sent to the Pacific. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the time, the regiment is named for lineage purposes. The 1st US Infantry was named to take the lineage from just after the Revolutionary War (1791).  New regiments without a lineage are named so there will be no confusion with a prior regiment.  The 506th was named for this reason.  If you take a look at Category:Regiments of the United States Army, you'll see how the numbers jump around, from regiments being disbanded, reassigned, redesignated, de-activated, or suspended.  On a few occasions, they were named for counter-intel, mainly during the build-up to D-Day in WWII with the "Phantom Army".  Naming it the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States) gave it a unique name, without a lineage, and ensured that the name hadn't been used before.
 * Hope that helps. Leobold1 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the modern era (WWII+ at least) military units - especially composite ones like divisions - are not numbered sequentially. If they were then the enemy could deduce things about the number of divisions you had just from the numbering scheme. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)