Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 2

= November 2 =

British Isler
When is the time that a British Isler, either male or female, and either blonde, redhead, brownhead or blackhead will have brown eyes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.101 (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When they're good and ready. If you're not satisfied with that answer, can you rephrase the question?  —Tamfang (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify what Tamfang is saying: Your question makes no sense. If you are not a native English speaker, see if there is a Reference Desk on the Wikipedia in your language, see www.wikipedia.org for a list of languages. --Tango (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When either or both of his/her parents have brown eyes is one possible answer. It is also possible, as brown eyes are dominant, that only one grandparent need have had brown eyes. I am not a geneticist, so I don't know how far back the brown eyes can be before they stop (if ever they do) appearing in successive generations. See also Eye color and particularly the section on the genetic determination of eye colour. This information is true for all peoples, not just those in the British Isles. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Brown eyes stop appearing when a heterozygote (like my mother) transmits the blue allele. —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How insulting! Mrs Tamfang, I apologise on your child's behalf. (lol)  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That can't be true. If brown eyes are dominant, that means that if the gene that encodes for brown eyes were present in either of your parents, that parent would have brown eyes. If neither of your parents of brown eyes, this is an indication that neither has the gene for brown eyes and so brown eyes cannot be inherited. Hence, just having one grandparent with brown eyes is not sufficient. --WikiSlasher (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the OP meant "how often", i.e. what are the probabilities. —Tamfang (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Eastern European in Toronto
Which neighbourhood or part of Toronto has the most numbers of Eastern European? When I mean Eastern European, I mean Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Slovakian, Hungarian, Serbian, Albanian, Macedonian, Greek, Montenegro, Bosnian, Croatian, Romanian, Moldavian, Slovenian and Czech. Which high school in Toronto has the most numbers of Eastern European? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.101 (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think all of those nationalities live in the same place, but The Danforth is typically the Greek neighbourhood. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Roncesvalles (also known as Rącza Wólka) is the center of Toronto's Polish community. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you the same person as the one asking about Eastern European human appearances a few days ago? If so, are you going to recruit models for your porn site in high schools? &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno about that, but didn't we get a whack of questions here about the ethnic makeup of neighborhoods in Toronto a few months ago? Matt Deres (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Ah, here we go: One, Two. Different IP's though. Matt Deres (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Socialism
In the news, a lot of criticism has come up on taxing the rich more, and comparing that to socialism. It seems like the use of the word "socialism" is an attempt at a scare word. Is the usage of this word a vestige from the times of the cold war communist scare? Is taxing the rich more, one of the principles of socialism? ScienceApe (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is used as a scare-word; yes, it was used as a scare-word during the Cold War (and before); yes, progressive taxation is dear to the heart of most socialists (though there probably are exceptions, given that socialism is not a monolith). —Tamfang (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * At its heart, socialism means public ownership of the means of production. Ironically, it's George W. Bush whose administration has embarked on the most socialist experiment in the U.S. federal government since the 30s through partial nationalization of major banks. The welfare state is not inherently socialist, although it is promoted by many "socialist" parties around the world that no longer advocate a real socialist economy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Welfare State is inherently socialist, because the money to pay for the poor has to come from somehere. The printing press no use in the long run. This does not imply it is necessarily bad. Some institutionalized change of money from the richer to the poor is necessary and has always existed (charity). But the social-democratic way to lie about their institutionalized state theft mostly of the middle classes is quiet disturbing. In Germany we have erected such a hugh Welfare State, that this "economical" system can now not be paid for even in the very best years. How can anybody think such a system will not crash like Soviet "economics" in the long run? --Radh (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the welfare state has its origin in the policies of the very anti-socialist Otto von Bismarck, so I don't see how it can be inherently socialist. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on Bismark but after reading the article, it sounds like that was one of several concessions he made to appease the working class and prevent the socialists from gaining power. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The US can't pay for their economy either, hence the near continous deficits Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Socialism is an amorphous term. The way the anti-Obama people have used it, they just mean "scary." Obama is not advocating socialism any more than the Republicans already are. The United States has been a mixture of free-market capitalism and quasi-socialist programs since the 1930s and most people are pretty happy with that. I don't see McCain advocating getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.—all of which are far more "socialist" in both method and intent than the idea of progressive taxation. Americans like their socialism just fine, they just don't like the word. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You've perhaps overstated the similarities between Democrats and Republicans with regard to socialist policy—there's still a substantial anti-socialist faction within the GOP, though they've lacked a national spokesman for years—but your broad point that Americans embrace socialism but reject the word is right on. The recent financial crisis has apparently fully converted the current GOP leadership to the socialist cause, thanks to the widespread notion that the crisis was created by a lack of government regulation. (Ahem.) We can expect the anti-socialist wing of the GOP to regain some ground in the next decade, but the biggest socialist programs, like Social Security, will never go away, because once people start getting checks from the government, they don't want them to stop. 4.225.39.182 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Already back in 1906, Werner Sombart wrote a very influential essay on "Why There is no Socialism in the United States", and the Bolshevik take-over in Russia strongly reinforced the view held among many in the U.S. that socialism was a purely alien foreign ideology which had no connection with American values or political institutions (see Palmer Raid). Eugene Debs received 6% of the vote in 1912 but only 3% in 1920, and after his death, non-Communist Socialist movements became rather ineffectual as far as having any broad impact on United States politics... AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have very little idea what your comments are intended to address, or how they relate in any way to my previous remarks (which they are ostensibly in reply to), but I was just pointing out how the term "socialist" already fell into strong disrepute in mainstream U.S. politics by the 1920's... AnonMoos (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows Barack Obama is a godless socialist alien from the planet UberLiberal. Sarah Palin is just not sure if he's Kang or Kodos. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the question... Socialism is being properly used by the press as being opposed to capitalism. Of course, socialism and capitalism are not true opposites. The point the press is trying to make is that many of the "tax the rich" plans are intended to use an increase in taxes on the rich to fund social programs, such as public health care, work training, home construction, etc...  In other words, money is being funnelled from the rich, to the federal government, and (possibly) to the needy in what some believe is the best interest of society.  There is no basis for claiming that the simple use of the word "socialism" is evil or intended to scare people away from an idea.  Some people are naturally against socialism.  Some people are naturally fans of socialism.  It is my opinion that it would be dishonest and manipulative to avoid using the word socialism for programs that are clearly socialist. --  k a i n a w &trade; 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, in that many Americans consider socialism and communism to be equivalent, and believe that socialism and democracy are incompatible. I think that belief is why the term is effective for scaring people.  --Sean 14:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't state that Americans understand socialism. I have no faith in American education to believe that most Americans understand the basic concepts of anything that deals with government.  I was stating that, in this sense, the word "socialism" is being used properly.  I find it wrong to hunt down a replacement word or phrase that isn't as accurate as socialism just because the American education system isn't working. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's not the impartial media that's using the word. It's the conservatives who disagree with Obama's policies that use it as a loaded message. Like, Mwalcoff said, it was Bush who embarked on the greatest socialist policy, but no conservatives have accused him of being a socialist because they are using the word as a scare tactic, as opposed to being factually accurate. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ironic that the Republicans are using "socialism" as a scare term, when Sarah Palin's administration is responsible for distributing the dividend of the Alaska Permanent Fund to all eligible Alaska residents, which seems a pretty Socialist thing to do. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it's accurate to say Sarah Palin is a socialist simply because her adminstration distributed the dividends from the Alaska Permanent Fund. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 and is part of the Alaska constitution.  To not distribute it, would be illegal.  So just because she followed the law doesn't mean she agrees with the law.  Sarah Palin may indeed be a socialist but not for that reason. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a blatantly false claim that only the Republicans/Conservatives are using the word "socialism" or "socialist". For example, Democrats were the first to declare we needed "socialized" health care.  It was used as a positive, not negative, word.  Just because some people are using the word in a negative way and intending it to be used as a scare tactic does not mean that the word itself is always used in a negative way or that Republicans are the only people using it or that it is never used in a positive way.  Some people are truly scared of socialism and don't want it.  Telling Republicans that they cannot use the word doesn't educate the people. --  k a i n a w &trade; 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No one said only republicans are using the word socialism or socialist. People have said they are using it as a scare term to deliver a loaded message. There's a profound difference. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure true absolute socialism would have any taxes at all, since everyone would essentiallly be employed by the state. Gzuckier (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I bet they'd still figure out a way to tax you. :) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If Obama wanting to have a higher marginal tax rate for the very wealthy makes him a "socialist" then his socialist role model is Republican Teddy Roosevelt, who said in 1910, arguing for progressive income taxes, capital gains taxes and estate taxes: "At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. ... The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. ... No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered-not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate...The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it. ... No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, and hours of labor short enough so that after his day's work is done he will have time and energy to bear his share in the management of the community, to help in carrying the general load. We keep countless men from being good citizens by the conditions of life with which we surround them. We need comprehensive workmen's compensation acts, both State and national laws to regulate child labor and work for women, and, especially, we need in our common schools not merely education in booklearning, but also practical training for daily life and work. We need to enforce better sanitary conditions for our workers and to extend the use of safety appliances for our workers in industry and commerce, both within and between the States. " Not Karl Marx at all, TV news ladies notwithstanding. Edison (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychological Disorder
Is there any videos about Anxiety disorders(Panic disorder, Generalized anxiety disorder, Agoraphobia, Social Anxiety disorder, Obsessive-compulsive disorder, Post-traumatic stress disorder, and Separation anxiety), Somatoform disorder, Dissociative disorder, Schizophrenia, mood disorders, personality disorder, substance-related disorders, disorders usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood or adolescence, Sleep disorder and eating disorders on youtube.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.101 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Youtube has a searchbox. Using it would get you a more complete answer than you'll ever get here. —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Call at lunchtime
I used to live in the Gold Country. While I was in first grade at school, when noontime would roll around, a fire horn would sound off twice. Someone called it the lunch bell. A fire horn never rings. Why would a fire horn be called a lunch bell when it sounded off twice at noontime?72.229.139.171 (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lunch bells are common in many environments. It isn't the name of the device that rings, it is name of the ring that is heard at lunch time.  The same device rings for many other reasons (depending on the environment), such as when to start work and when to quit work.  In schools, it often rings 10 minutes before school and is, at that moment, called the 10-minute bell.  So, the phrase "lunch bell" is commonplace.  Why would anyone rework it to be "lunch horn" just because they don't hear a bell ringing? --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In a similar vein, we normally say that a phone is "ringing" when in all modern phones, there isn't a bell. Instead the phone is actually beeping.  Dismas |(talk) 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I've found phones that can't ring. You have tons of ringtones, but none of them ring.  Mine is one of those.  If I want it to ring, I have to purchase a classic phone ring ringtone from my phone provider. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Are mixed race people smarter or not smarter?
Are mixed race people smarter or not smarter than the pure race people? Is there any study about the intelligence of mixed race people? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Studies of race and intelligence have been performed. There is no reason to assume that studies of mixed-race people and intelligence have not been performed.  However, studies of intelligence are heavily debated.  Introducing race into the studies creates more debate.  So, any answer to your question will be nothing more than what the answerer wants to believe since there is no widely accepted relation between race and intelligence (and no widely accepted measure of intelligence). --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, as mentioned, there have been studies of all sorts on race and intelligence; however there has never been any reliable study which has shown any connection between race and intelligence. The entire concept is also sketchy, since ideas such as "race" and "intelligence" are purely subjective; you can define your terms in such a way as to "prove" anything you want... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict... so apart from and in addition to all of the above:]
 * What exactly is the question? If you're trying to make a case that race is genetically related to intelligence, you'd probably want to do quite some readings to bust this racist idea. (...) If you're wondering whether underpriviledge and discrimination are related to intelligence, guess what, yes they are. So the question is if and to which extent mixed race people are more or less underpriviledged and discriminated against than those of any one particular race. And that depends, little surprisingly, on the culture you look at. ... Or what exactly was the question? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with all "mixed-race" studies is that one has to somewhat arbitrarily define who is "mixed-race" and who is "pure-race". You either end up defining people as all being "mixed-race" or you end up just codifying social perceptions about mixed/purity that have no scientific meaning. Genetically we are all "mixed-race" in the sense that there is no genetically homogenous "pure-race." Genetically there isn't even a definition of "race" that has meaning similar to the social construct—it becomes a foggy designation for probabilistic genetic markers that float about all over the world in most cases. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend our excellent article on race and intelligence.--Shantavira|feed me 09:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Bilinguilism, which often co-occurs with mixed race, can give you an advantage with learning, but that isn't based on racial characteristics. Steewi (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There is such a thing as "hybrid vigor" in general, but I would doubt very much whether there have been any robustly-replicable statistically-significant scientifically-rigorous results in the realm of mixed-race IQ (some would say that the concepts of "IQ" and "race" themselves have never been demonstrated to exist as scientifically-useful entities in any rigorous way...). AnonMoos (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bierce quote

 * War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.

All over the internet, this quote is attributed to Ambrose Bierce, but where and when exactly does it come from? Which book, article, speech, ...? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Project Guttenburg has a whole bunch of Bierce's work: . You could check there... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt if he said it at all. I can't find any early citations of it on Google Books, and according to Ralph Keyes, in his The Quote Verifier (London: St. Martin's Press, 2006) p. 240, "The comment 'War is God's way of teaching Americans geography,' is continually attributed to Ambrose Bierce.  Biographer David E. Schultz, who has nearly all of Bierce's writing entered on his computer, cannot find this acerbic remark within that database."  Bierce, like Mark Twain or George Bernard Shaw, is just one of those writers to whom this kind of remark is routinely attributed. --Antiquary (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have seen several versions of this that attribute it to Ogden Nash, another great wit of the same time period. Many websites that attribute it to Nash use the specific phrasing "Sometimes I think war is God's way of teaching us geography." which seems to me to be a more natural way to make the statement; perhaps it was Nash and not Bierce who said it.  Maybe if you did some searches in Nash's works... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Ogden Nash is another on the "usual suspects" list, and the lack of early citations on Google Books argues against him just as much as against Bierce. On the other hand, turning back to Ralph Keyes again I find that I missed this: "Rodriguez was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as having said at a 1987 Comic Relief event that 'War is God's way of teaching us geography'...Verdict: Credit Paul Rodriguez, tentatively."  So it seems you're right in prefering the "teaching us" form.  But tentatively is the operative word: in the end it's usually almost impossible to be sure who coined a joke. --Antiquary (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's definitely earlier than 1987. A 1915 editorial in the Chicago Daily Tribune has a similar phrase: "If the European war is teaching Americans geography it is also sprinkling our thought with picturesque dashes of European history and politics." It looks to me like that line is referencing an already-known phrase, but it is ambiguous. Earliest reference I could find, anyway. Yay ProQuest. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ho! Here's another attribution of a very similar quote. "If, as Disraeli said, war is useful because it teaches us geography, we fear that many people aren't learning their lessons." (1916) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And even earlier! "If war teaches people geography by compelling them to follow the course of a campaign by a diligent reference to maps, it also lights up with its lurid torch, and makes conspicuous, many beautiful spots on the face of the earth, hitherto but little known to the general traveller." (1870) "War teaches geography." (1877) "To visit them [Exhibitions] is our modern pilgrimage; they force us to make the grand tour, as our little wars teach us geography." (1894) So we're working our way back to some sort of common quote here, or at least a shared understanding... interestingly none of these early quotes have anything about God in them that I can see. None earlier than Bierce's lifetime, so he's still in the running. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good article - why hasn't it's essence been uploaded to the Bierce section? Or even so that it would appear on google? I came across this article after I spent a few frustrating hours trying to track it's earliest use and knowing that I had never seen it in any of the Bierce works I've read....Maybe I should write an article: Sayings that were never said by famous people: include John Adams on the American Revolution: one third of the people were for it one third against it and one third didn't care He said something like that but he was talking about the French Revolution....Lincoln: you can fool some of the people.....(there are a whole lot of non existent Lincoln quotes)..No Irish need apply - that was a song title, no one has ever found it in a 19th century classified ad....and so on....Godofredus


 * The Illustrated London News of February 14, 1885 has "War teaches us geography". Source: Edward Ziter The Orient on the Victorian Stage (Cambridge: CUP, 2003) p. 168.  So, yes, it seems the joke was quite common in the late 19th century.  The attribution to Disraeli is interesting, but has no solid proof yet. -- Antiquary (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For some reason I was thinking that this was in The Devil's Dictionary.--Woland (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Moonlight
Why do so many humans (myself included) find moonlight romantic? Is it ingrained on the level of instincts, or a cultural construct? - Sikon (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Romance may be the result of not looking at things in the clear light of day (reality). Thus, moonlight (fantasy) lets you see what you are doing without revealing any flaws. IANAP (I am not a poet.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * More than moonlight, but the essay In Praise of Shadows though philosophical, is quite a romantic approach to softer/indirect lights. Japanese custom includes moon-viewing in Kigo and India customarily too. As Bielle, there's lots going for it... Julia Rossi (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not directly an answer, but I find it interesting that it's a common theme in Romantic art in addition to being romantic in the romantic-love sense of the word. See, for example, Lord Byron's mention in Canto IV of Childe Harold's Pilgrimage: "Her coliseum stands; the moonbeams shine / As 'twere its natural torches, for divine / Should be the light which streams here to illume / This long-explored but still exhaustless mine / Of contemplation; and the azure gloom / Of an Italian night, where the deep skies assume". --Delirium (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Many people also find firelight and candlelight to be romantic, which have night time and dimness in common with moonlight. --Sean 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

invoice
Hi, I am trying to find out about whether a supplier is obliged to issue a vat invoice to a buyer if both are registered for VAT.

I know the buyer is supposed to, but I just cant find any info on whether a buyer would need to expressely request for an invoice or not?

If you could point me in the direction of the relevant law/legal provision that would be most helpful.

many thanks

FG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.254.123 (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This link would suggest yes (assuming you are in the UK) - - "Whenever you supply goods or services on which VAT is chargeable to another VAT-registered person or business, you must give them a document showing certain information about what you are supplying. This document is called a VAT invoice." - it then goes into detail about what information must be included. I suggest you call the HM Revenue & Customs helpline for a definitive answer. Exxolon (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1960s Israeli communist newspapers
Was the Red Flag Flying There?: Marxist Politics and the Arab-Israeli Conflict in Egypt and Israel, 1948-1965 (by Joel Beinin, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. p. 243), it is mentioned that 1961-1963 the Communist Party of Israel had weekly newspapers in Polish, Yiddish, French, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Romanian. What were the names of these newspapers? When were they closed down? Is there any national digital collection of newspapers were one might find collections of these? --Soman (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew wikipedia mentions two: "Kol ha-Am" ("Voice of the People", in Hebrew) and  in Arabic. The first one is still published by the Communist Party of Israel. MaxVT (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Polish Wikipedia, the Polish-language weekly was "Walka" (the title means "Struggle"). It was published during the years 1958–1965 and its editor-in-chief was Adolf Berman. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 20:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I created an article for Walka. By searching "Walka" at JNUL, i came up with an additional result. It seems the Hungarian newspaper was Nepszava. --Soman (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Hungarian, but looking at Google hits for "Népszava", it seems that the word means "People's Voice" and it's apparently a fairly popular title for Hungarian socialist papers. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood
I want to watch some Bollywood films, but don't know where to start. Which films are particularly highly regarded? It'd help, obviously, if they're available on DVD (Region 2) with subtitles in English. 87.114.159.49 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you will want to start with movies that did well in the U.S. (as well as India). The following are not similar to one another, so it represents a very small variety": Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, Veer-Zaara, and Krrish. --  k a i n a w &trade; 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but I'm not in the US (as my reference to Region 2 DVDs might have indicated) and I'm not too fussed about them being crossover hits. I just want to watch some acknowledged classics. 87.114.159.49 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then see List of top Bollywood films. -- k a i n a w &trade; 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My personal recommendations are Lagaan, Hum Tum, Dil Chahta He, Raja Hindustani and Devdas. Steewi (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional: For Indian films that are not really Bollywood films, I recommend Monsoon Wedding, Earth (1942) and Water. Steewi (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You might could start, from a Western viewpoint, with Bride and Prejudice, which is a Bollywood-style film aimed at Western audiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.245.4.252 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you find the conventions of genre not to your taste, I would recommend the work of Satyajit Ray and others auteurs of Parallel Cinema. Astronaut (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Satyajit Ray is not Bollywood director.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. my personal recommendations are Satya (one of the best Bollywood movie in my opinion), Don - The Chase Begins Again, Don , Rang De Basanti and Darna Zaroori Hai.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

New York Times vs. US
In the 1971 New York Times vs. US Supreme Court Case, what was the main argument the United States used?

-Mario


 * New York Times Co. v. United States should help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)