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

= November 13 =

Babylon as a symbol of "orgiastic decadence"
What does orgiastic decadence mean? Elchananheller (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Orgiastic means "pertaining to an orgy". And also decadence. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Any relation...?
Hi all - does anyone here know whether rock musician Eddie Vedder is related to 19th century symbolist artist Elihu Vedder? I haven't been able to find a source which mentions a possible connection, but thought someone here might have some idea. Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha?  01:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd infer yes from this but in exactly what way, I don't know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This geneology: confirms that Eddie Vedder, through his mother Karen Lee Vedder, is related to Elihu Vedder the painter.  Following BOTH of their lines back, the closest common ancestor for both of them was one Harmen Albertse Vedder, one of the original settlers of New Amsterdam, who migrated to what is now Schenectady, New York from Amsterdam, Netherlands.  H.A. Vedder was Eddie's 10th generation ancestor, and was Elihu's 5th generation ancestor, making them 4th cousins, 5-times removed.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This book title
I remember reading the wikipedia article for this book a long time ago and I want to buy it. I remember some guy murdered his friend with a shovel or something. He goes to hang out in a police station or something and finds a city inside a giant cave. I remember that the constable had all sorts of witty wordplay. Then in the second half of the book he dies and repeats all his adventures as a ghost with the murdered friend. Anyone have an idea? .froth. (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a punt on The Third Policeman. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Two hours of googling couldn't turn that article up.. I was searching "shovel" instead of spade, "constable" instead of policeman, "cave" or "cavern" instead of underground chamber.. THANK you ! .froth. (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that Flann O'Brien would appreciate that sort of google-fu :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Back from the dead
Someone goes missing, is declared dead, their will is executed, and then they turn up alive. What happens? --Carnildo (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of instances of this, and it much depends where it happens. In undeveloped countries, there are cases of these people being treated like zombies and stoned. In developed countries there is a lot of red tape to go through and it's sometimes impossible to be officially recognised again. I don't have immediate access to sources, but this sort of thing is often reported in Fortean Times. If they have commited pseudocide they usually end up in jail.--Shantavira|feed me 09:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also List of premature obituaries and the John Darwin disappearance case in the U.K. Darwin was arrested for fraud along with his wife after turning up in 2007. Both received prison sentences in 2008. Idaho-an Jeremy Bass has to prove he's alive here after a mixup. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See also Association of the Dead. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What a terrible article! (pseudocide). You've written more than the article says. Actually let me copy what you've written into the article -- i hope you don't mind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me find the original projections of social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace
duplicate question removed --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Role of the Israeli prime minister
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am currently doing a school project on Israel, more specifically its political system, and I was wondering: what is the role of the prime minister in Israel ? I have found information on the role of the Knesset (declare laws, dismiss the prime minister, etc.) and the President of Israel (ratify laws approved by the Knesset, meet foreign dignitaries, etc.); but my search for information about the PM's duties remains unfruitful. Most of the information that I find is related to the history of the position. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The PM leads the government meetings and is in charge of the work of government in general, he takes over the role of resigning ministers, he decides the government agenda, and has final word in foreign policy decisions. (My translation of the Hebrew entry)Elchananheller (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While Prime Minister of Israel isn't very helpful, most of the information at Prime Minister is relevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling Joe de Maistre
Yo, I'm intending to expand the Joseph de Maistre and have a question about how to refer to the cantankerous old git when omitting his first name. Is it "de Maistre" or simply "Maistre"? I have seen both conventions used in the literature, and am wondering which would be more proper for our purposes. Any informed response appreciated, the skomorokh  05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, "de Maistre" sounds more formal and is therefore preferred here. The one time it's abbreviated in the 1911 Britannica article, it uses "de". (But de Sade truth is, there doesn't appear to be a strong consensus.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than inspecting our gut-feelings for the answer, as the US President does, let's note clearly that the comte de Maistre is referred to as "Maistre", just as the marquis de Lafayette is called "Lafayette": Try saying, "De Lafayette, we are here!" See?. --Wetman 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Je ne parle pas 18th century mannerisms, desolee. Is "de Maistre"/"Maistre" not then a surname but rather a title of sorts, "head-dude of Placename", where Placename thereafter serves as a metonym? the skomorokh  06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor me, but conventionally the Australian artist Roy De Maistre is referred to as "de Maistre", fwiw. Maybe it's just Australian-style. Why the capital D in the article title, I've no idea. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Even stranger still that he is the son of a chap called "Etienne L. de Mestre". Immigrant populations have a tendency to disregard the mannerisms of their ancestral homelands, so I'm not sure how much of an indication Roy's example is to us...unless that is he styles himself as "Roy, comte de Maistre...'just call me de Maistre'"! the skomorokh  09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Portia de Rossi is referred to as "de Rossi". You would expect to find people like Herbert von Karajan (who's referred to as "Karajan") and Hans von Bülow (who's referred to as "von Bülow") under K and B respectively.  Dutch people whose names start with "van", who are referred to as "van ___", are categorised under the final name (e.g. Eduard van Beinum is found under B), except for Vincent van Gogh, who appears under V rather than G.  Why we make an exception in his case I've never quite worked out.  --  JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * von Braun, von Neumann, van Johnson ... My personal theory is that people add the extra bit to emphasize the person's significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whose system are you discussing, Jack? Because in American alphabetization, they would all be under "v". In Dutch ordering, the tussenvoegsel would always be ignored. Rmhermen (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The de may become an integral part, particularly of a non-aristocratic name, as Dupont. To appear to be knowledgable if one really isn't might be pretentious. If one actually is an Ochs von Lerchenau, then to insist upon correctness might make one a figure of comedy. But it is "the luck of the Lerchenaus" not "the luck of the von Lerchenaus", and even an American will hunt in vain under D for Lorenzo de' Medici. --Wetman 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, Rmhermen? Are Herbert von Karajan and Ludwig van Beethoven really listed in the V section of an American encyclopedia?  I wonder.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In Britannica Online, Ludwig's listed under the Bs. Ernst van de Wetering, a Dutch art historian, is in the Vs, as are Belgian priest and academic H.L. Van Breda and Dutch inventor Cornelius van Drebel.  So it goes.  --- OtherDave (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it quite odd that Britannica (a formerly British publication now headquartered in Chicago) follows neither the Oxford Guide to Style nor the Chicago Manual of Style's guidelines but its own mismash. (Diemen, Anthony van for one Dutch explorer; van Neck, Jacob for another near contemporary)  Rmhermen (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Dickens Quiz Question
I've got a very vague quiz question I can't find an answer to elsewhere on-line & I don't have time to read the complete works of Dickens so I wanted to ask if anyone can answer the question: "According to Charles Dickens 'who was willing'?" Thanks
 * See "Mr. Barkis" in David Copperfield (novel). Deor (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

first world war and Vatican
oh Did Vatican join the first world war? Was there any war that this country join? If yes, please explain a little about that. Thank you. 114.58.129.58 (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Holy See (which at that point was of unclear status, having lost almost all its territory to Italy but not yet acknowledging this fact; see Prisoner in the Vatican) took no part in the first world war. The Vatican has not taken part in any wars since, and indeed has almost no military. Before the loss of the Papal States, the Papacy took part in lots of wars over more than a thousand years of history. Algebraist 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Vatican is not a country. It is a city-state.  There is a big difference there when discussing foreign relations (such as going to war).  As far as joining a war, a military is required. It is not reasonable to claim that a country with absolutely no military involved in a war has "joined" the war.  The Vatican has a ceremonial unit of the Swiss guard.  It is not for combat.  It has a police force that is not used for combat.  All true military defence is provided by Italy.  Basically, if your intention is to claim that the Vatican is the only country never to go to war, you will have redefine "country". --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article cited above by Algebraist is a good place to start; as noted between 1861 (when the modern nation of Italy was born) and the 1929 Lateran Treaty, the status of the Holy See was in question. Between those years, there really wasn't a Papal States as we come to understand it; the Roman Question was left unresolved however, for all intents and purposes there was no secular state between those years. Also, it should be noted that the "Vatican City" is really just a small complex of buildings in Rome. It covers just over 100 acres, or 44 hectares. By comparison, London's Hyde Park is 390 acres, and New York's Central Park is 843 acres. The entire population of Vatican City consists of ordained clergy who handle the daily administration of the Catolic Church. There are a handful of non-clergy employees: accountants and other minor clerks, a few police officers, and the ceremonial Swiss Guard, which while an official "armed force" really just wear goofy outfits and stand around. The Vatican has no military force, and could not actually be involved in any war in any meaningful way. If we answer the question literally; the territory of the Vatican during WWI was a de facto part of Italy (even though it was "officially" an unresolved issue), and so it "fought" on the side of the Allied Powers during WWI.  However, if we consider that the Catholic Church did not officially endorse either side during WWI, and essentially The Vatican = The Catholic Church, then one could also claim that it was neutral during WWI.  In any event, it isn't really an answerable question, because, as kainaw notes, the Vatican is not really a "country" in the classical sense... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Swiss Guard: "really just wear goofy outfits and stand around"? Then what are there "SIG P225 pistols and SIG SG 550 assault rifles" and head of state protection training for? Rmhermen (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine, "really just wear goofy outfits, carry big guns, and stand around". As the Swiss Guard are all first active-duty military of the Swiss, they do have extensive military training, but they are really just an honor guard, and they are trained and prepared to defend the pope. But they aren't a "military force", and are not organized or prepared to undergo military operations of any sort! --Jayron32. talk . contribs 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Offensive operations, no. (They are not commandos, and there are not enough to do much) Defensive operations, sort of. (In an emergency, I think that they would be able to shed the "goofy" uniforms for bullet-proof vests etc. and put up a pretty effective last-ditch defense...those guys train a lot.) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, declarations of war is a fairly offensive act; no one declares war and then sits back and waits to be invaded. Yes, the Swiss Guard do have the training to handle themselves in a gunfight, and could probably be expected to defend the territory of the Vatican in an organized manner should it come to that.  However, to consider them a military force on par with that of any other sovereign nation is stretching it a bit.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:15, 13 November 2008 (UvcTC)
 * Standing around is what being a bodyguard is all about, most of the time. They are of course ready to defend the pope if it becomes necessary. Algebraist 15:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They wear Goofy outfits? Like this ? That's one dangerous group of men. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a city-state with almost on military is no guarantee against declaring war. San Marino declared war on the UK in WWII. - Jmabel | Talk 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * San Marino, at 23.5 square miles, or 15,000 acres or 6000 hectares, making it 150 times the size in area of Vatican City. Its population of 30,800 is about 36 times the size of the Vatican's.  Plus, since San Marino's military defense is, by treaty, handled by Italy, it's declaration of war on the UK was merely a formallity; Italy had declared war itself, and San Marino was powerless not to declare war.  It really should be noted that the Vatican City really is a sui generis creation.  There is no other "sovereign state" like it in the world.  Even really tiny countries like San Marino or Liechtenstein, or true "city-states" like Singapore don't compare in any meaningful way.  Remember, the entire "state" is a dozen or so buildings, a few gardens, and a big plaza tucked away on a hill in Rome.  To attempt to fit it into the standard model of what a "country" is expected to do is simply silly.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The closest parallel to the Vatican's status I'm aware of is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Algebraist 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican also has thousands of missals they might find useful if war broke out. Edison (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thousands of missals!!!! ROFLMAO.... That's fucking brilliant... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 20:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And that fool Stalin only asked about the divisions. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bengali Christians and Buddhists
Is there any Christians and Buddhist presence in West Bengal and Tripura like Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.30 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the 2001 census, Tripura at that point had a population 3.2% Christian and 3.1% Buddhist, while West Bengal was 0.6% Christian and 0.3% Buddhist. This compares with Bangladesh census data of 0.6% Buddhist and 0.3% Christian. Algebraist 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

there are factions of buddhists that they call them as "Baruah's" or "Mog's" and seem to have lineage towards bangladesh and are sparsely scattered accross assam and have a very little presence in states like delhi as well and their language sounds like an extract ob bangla itself.but with the recent influx from bangladesh the muslims have superceeeded them by leap and bounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikram79 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Educational background of Sara Palin
I can not find information on Palin's education. Did she graduate high school, college or have and advanced degree? How did she rank in her class? If she went to college, what was her majors and minors? Can she use a computer, cell phone, fly an airplane, etc? What is her IQ? Dawgrg (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Rick
 * → Sarah Palin.  Grsz  11   →Review!  17:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * She attended a number of colleges, each for a fairly short time, before finally graduating. No explanation has been printed for her moving from school to school. Edison (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones Massacre
When all those people died, how were the remains handled? I cannot believe the mammoth job to organize and dispose of the bodies somehow. I'm sure it took days to clear up. Does anyone have any information on this? --12.170.106.12 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Our article on Jonestown does contain some information about what became of some of the bodies. About 70 were examined by a medical examiner, so one assumes these were removed to a morgue somewhere, and 7 were returned to the U.S. for a more formal autopsy.  As far as the other 800+, it doesn't say, but they must have been disposed of somehow... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They all came back to the United States in metal coffins. They were returned to families when possible.  Approximately 400 went unidentified (including a lot of the children), and are buried in a mass grave, with an accompanying monument, in Oakland, California.  Here's the (rather devastating) entry at Find-A-Grave.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Fairytale or other stories..
I am looking for a fairy tale or any other story (don't remember) in which there is some mystical world/land in which only comes to life whenever the main character shows up and then freezes or ceases to exist once the main character leaves.... thanks in advance.--12.170.106.12 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats a tough one, but I think the dragon in Puff,_the_Magic_Dragon kinda counts. A dragon lives forever but not so little boys

Painted wings and giant rings make way for other toys.

One grey night it happened, jackie paper came no more

And puff that mighty dragon, he ceased his fearless roar.

His head was bent in sorrow, green scales fell like rain,

Puff no longer went to play along the cherry lane.

Without his life-long friend, puff could not be brave,

So puff that mighty dragon sadly slipped into his cave. oh!

--Jabberwalkee (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Bagpuss --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about Brigadoon? Thomprod (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden endorses...
Before he became the pick for VP, did Biden endorse Obama only, or did he first endorse Clinton, and then later changed his endorsement to Obama? Also, if he only endorsed Obama, did he do this before or after Clinton lost? ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * May 27 2008 said: "Biden, who has not endorsed a candidate after dropping his own bid earlier this year." Clinton conceded on June 7  so I guess Biden made no endorsement before that. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * June 7 2008 said: "Biden, who has not endorsed a candidate after dropping his own bid earlier this year." Clinton conceded on May 27  so Biden made no endorsement of her. would have made more sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um except the reference which said Biden had endorsed no one was from the May 27th. Clinton conceded on June 7th. (Per the references.) We obviously don't no for sure that Biden didn't make an endorsement between May 26th and June 7th but given Clinton's campaign was already considered dead by all and sundry then, it seems rather unlikely. Obviously this is just a guess, hence PM said so and perhaps you can find a reference after June 7th but since this was what PM had and given the details, it seems unnecessary Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(Newspaper) layout: why this?
This is probably a trivial question, but still one I couldn't find an easy answer to. Why are newspapers layed out the way they are, with columns tastefully arranged on the page? Why not just have everything top-to-bottom, left-to-right, sorted by descending importance, pictures on the sides? Wouldn't this actually be easier to read while still properly directing attention? In general, how much of layout is objective? Is there active research to what's easier to read and does this influence design, or is it mostly tradition and instinct and what people are used to?

Again, it sounds like there should be some beginner's book on something that explains this, but I wouldn't know where to start. Pointers are welcome. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The (somewhat trivial but correct) answer is that newspapers are arranged as they are because that is what appeals to the readers. If, for example, readers found that having articles ordered by importance was useful, then newspapers that were so arranged would garner a larger market share (on average) those that weren't and would eventually replace the non-arranged newspapers. Then we'd be asking why are all newspaper articles ordered by importance. Wikiant (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that, often (but not always) in the U.S., where there are two competing daily newspapers, the layout is often quite different between them, perhaps as a sort of branding. Consider the Boston Globe vs. the Boston Herald or the New York Times vs. New York Post vs. New York Daily News, or the Philadelphia Inquirer vs. the Philadelphia Daily News.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Historically, newspapers were laid out in columns because the manual method of selecting type and building up the article was easier with narrow with blocks. Headlines - using larger type - could be wider. The same thing applied when pre-cast type changed to hot metal type. It is only since the advent of computers that freely chosen layout has been possible. Also there have been many studies into how people read and it turns out that llong line lengths are less readable than medium length ones (you have to move your head or eyeball excessively) whilst very short ones also have a problem in that words don't comfortably fit and the flow gets broken up. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reason is marketing: if every front-page story starts at the top of the page and continues down past the halfway point, then when the paper is folded in half and stacked or placed in a vending machine, people will need to buy it if they want to finish reading the stories. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the way they're laid out allows multiple stories to appear on the prominent page-one-above-the-fold spot, so even if the the #1 story doesn't grab you, one of the lesser ones might. --Sean 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, they need to fit articles around advertising space, which is usually more of a priority than whatever news they pull of the wire. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your last question, tradition and expectations (not instinct) influence newspaper design (as well as other periodicals) in an extreme way. They do push the boundaries on occasion but generally it is a pretty conservative field. Part of what drives the tradition (and expectations) are the practicalities listed above. It is certainly not the case that people want to read wide pages of small text, which is what a newspaper would be if it were the way you described. It's incredibly hard to keep your place in such things—it's easy to get lost in the middle of a paragraph or to jump from the end of a line to the wrong beginning of a line. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless I've missed it, no-one above has mentioned another obvious advantage of columns, which is that it becomes difficult to read text that's in a block that's significantly wider than x-times the height of the font. In turn that's because it's more difficult for the eye to spot where the next line begins. You can check this out for yourself by printing a block of single-spaced prose on A4 paper. At 12-point or above, one column that is the width of the page is fine. But anything 9-point or below becomes far easier to read if you spread it over a few columns. AndyJones (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC) PS Sorry, I see SGBailey did actually touch on this. AndyJones (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, AndyJones. I'd never quite realised that before, but I'll keep it in mind.  It will, of course, depend on which typeface you use: Verdana 12 is a lot bigger than Times New Roman 12, which is why I almost always use Verdana 10 in my private writings.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Factors that Affect Air Fuel Price in India
Is the air fuel price increasing in India now? If so, are the insurgent separatist groups that operating in the Northeast(Assam), affecting the price of air fuel in India or is there not enough oil to supply the demands in India? Sonic99 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this recent article air fuel prices are falling in India, as one would expect, since air fuel is made from crude oil, whose price has been falling for several months. It is unlikely that insurgent groups in Assam would affect the price for air fuel, except perhaps locally within Assam.  India's main refineries, which produce its jet fuel, are located along its coasts, far from Assam. Marco polo (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I heard that Assam provides like 30% of the crude oil in India. Since insurgent groups are attacking oil refinery, it would have an effect on the price of the jet fuel. India would have to pump more oil from other areas of India. Sonic99 (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthropocentric viewpoint and animals
I have three questions:
 * why there are so limited number of political parties for animals?
 * why these parties have so limited public support?
 * I want to know the names of some persons who have philosophical works from non-anthropocentric viewpoint. The only person I know is Pentti Linkola who supported the Holocaust with the logic it helped to maintain the ecological balance by reducing overpopulation. Are there past or contemporary philosophers like him? I did not find any more name in wikipedia.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't harangue the Reference Desk volunteers. The Reference Desk is not a soap box.--Wetman 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are talking about? I was reading the article Pentti Linkola and found it to be interesting. His viewpoint is out of mainstream, and my question is if there are others like him. If you do not know anything on this topic, do not engage in this thread.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Otolemur asked legitimate questions, he was not delivering a speech. Please be civil to other users Wetman. ScienceApe (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (a) There are a lot of charities and other organisations that work for the welfare of animals. Few are political parties. Most have some elemnt of political lobbying. (b) They have limited support because, generally, humans are more interested in things relating to humans, animals are secondary. Many political parties have a view on animal welfare, but they aren't animal welfare parties. (c) Can't help. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When animal rights and philosophy appear in the same sentence, Peter Singer springs to mind. Algebraist 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Does Peter Singer's views strike you as non-anthropocentric?--droptone (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in the article on specieism. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer to the first two questions in the original post is this: there are still far too many human beings in need of help, and so parties and individuals prefer to put their scarce resources into more productive endeavors.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The second question probably answers your first question. Politicians are in the business of getting elected, so anything not likely to increase those chances is unlikely to flourish. Lack of public support is probably caused by confusion, both in the sense of people not being sure they want to support something that can be a very nuanced topic and also in the sense that people are often unsure of their own opinions on it. There's a delicate balance of the objective, the ethical, and the subjective there that often leads to strange situations. If you ask a question like, "Do you think it's wrong to experiment on animals?" or "Do you think it's ethical to eat animals?" you'll get the usual yeses and noes, but also some shockingly strong responses both ways, which sound more like someone trying very hard to convince themselves their opinion is correct. I imagine that's a difficult topic to build a platform on; one step the wrong way and you're not simply out of line with what some people want, you're out of line on a topic where opinions carry a lot of emotional baggage. Much easier to pound the podium about abortion or gay marriage, which will also be emotionally charged but also more binary. Matt Deres (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember a thing called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Should turn up on a Google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.6.82 (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UK Gold state coach
How are the paintings and the gold leaf on the state coach protected from the elements. For example if it was raining and the state coach was going to open parliament or something, what would stop the watercolors from being damaged? --Thanks, Hadseys 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Queen usually uses the Irish State Coach for the opening of Parliament. The Gold State Coach has only been used three times during her reign: for the Coronation, and during the Silver and Golden Jubilees. I would assume that the paintings on the side (which are not watercolours) are varnished. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The putty on the windows at Chatsworth House is covered in gold leaf because it protects better than paint. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Did whites participate in the Biafra war?
I wonder if any white soldiers/fighters participated in the Biafra war? Perez del Toro (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Our article Biafra War mentions that foreign mercenaries were involved, including Count Carl Gustaf von Rosen. Algebraist 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)