Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 21

= April 21 =

galley?
Is there such thing as galley? My dad says there is a gally and it is usually located at back of our house, like behind our backyard? The perfect example are the ones in former city of York, Toronto in the intersection of Keele and Eglinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Galley" can mean lots of things. See for a full dictionary definition. "Gally" is not a recognized word. Shadowjams (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean an "alley" as in "back alley"? It is usually an access road to garages at the backs of, and running parallel to, a street of houses, not normally more than a car-and-a-half wide, often unpaved or badly paved? There are lots of back alleys in Toronto. // BL \\ (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could equally be a gully. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Gallery" is a term used in architecture, usually meaning corridor. This could be extended to an outdoor meaning, at a stretch, and mispronounced or misheard as "galley". BrainyBabe (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I re-read the question, "usually located at the back of our house" suggests whatever it is sometimes isn't there. None of the possibilities we have mentioned is likely to be here one day and not the next. Aside from that, "gully' strikes me as the best suggestion so far. // BL \\ (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it "Gali"? I know some Hindi words (like guru) that are used as is in UK/US; I think "Gali" (a narrow street) could be just one of them. manya (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose there is a ship moored at the junction of Keele and Eglinton? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keele and Eg is quite a distance from the lake; you would need a lot of slaves to get a ship that far inland, and uphill at that. // BL \\ (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Maybe 10 000 years ago? (Though even then it is still rather far north.) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That space behind the house is the back galley.--Wetman (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The way you've phrased "at the back of our house" indicates that it might be inside. Perhaps he's referring to the kitchen? The kitchen on a boat might be a "galley", but not normally the kitchen of a building. APL (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The term galley kitchen is used to refer to a certain design of household kitchen (typically narrow and linear, with counters/appliances/cabinets along the long walls). -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I love Wetman's eggcorn. I have a further theory: that the OP's father was referring to the Hindu goddess Kali (pronounced with an initial /gh/ in the North Indian accent). As a deity, she can manifest or not, as she wishes. There is a small cult of women who devote themselves to one aspect of her sacredness; up until last year its main devotees were high-powered consumers who prayed for baguettes and suchlike, but now, with the decline of BRIC, a lower class of women offer themselves to this "Bag Kali". BrainyBabe (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the answer that Ranemanoj said is the one that I am talking about. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deity as personified concept
Is there a term for deities which are treated primarily as personifications of a concept (i.e. Agni of fire, many of the Roman numina, the Amesha Spenta Asha of truth, Ma'at) rather than as anthropomorphic beings? The Wiki articles on a few of these, i.e. Haurvatat, use the wording "hypostasis of *whatever", but that links to a math/logic article...

It's a deeply interesting idea, and I'd like to know a term for it so I can learn more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Euhemerism? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anthropomorphic personifications? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All personifications are anthropomorphic by definition, aren't they? &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 10:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Racism
The headline currently on the front page right now caught my eye (I wonder how). I've always thought of Israel as a racist country. Not in a bad way. But if you do give preference to people of a certain religion, doesn't that mean you are racist? Or rather, religionist. 99.227.94.24 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a question or are you trying to make a point? This is not a place to start debates. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  94.27.165.88 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (restored without glimmer of personal attack):
 * Oh my god, you're getting the same reaction I got! A couple of users spent pages and pages immortalizing their slander (click 'discussion' at the top of the page - it's still there) that I was a troll, even though this is exactly what a real troll would love: immortal recognition.  (I didn't like it or invite it, which is proof I'm not a troll).  I also didn't participate in the discussion but improved my question but they didn't want it - in any form.  Someone went through hundreds of my reference desk posts, picked about 4 he didn't agree with (none of which was a troll question) and listed them one after the other saying it proved I was a "troll", neglecting to mention that it was 4 from many dozen he found unobjectionable.  He also made the ridiculous claim that not trying to start a debate was part of my "troll MO", since I always made my questions very specific and affirmed that I wasn't trying to start a debate .  So if you know what's good for you, you will not ask questions such as yours, or you will risk not only having your question deleted but being banned from here as well.  (By the way after they banned me for a day I went packing -- the French wikipedia had no problem answering my question.  No one even vaguely accused me of being a troll or trying to start a debate, which is ridiculous.  Same goes for you, but you've been warned.  If you are interested in getting an answer to your question, translate it and stick it on another Wikipedia language's reference desk.  Good luck! 79.122.57.194 (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My reading of the above post posts the question: "if a person or government, such as Israel, gives preference to certain peoples on the basis of a certain religion [or race?], does that make it 'racist'?"
 * My answer is: depends on your perspective. Most Arab countries, many Asian and African countries, and some European countries officially support something of your view, that Israeli policies in, for example, the occupied territories are racist and discriminatory. Many other countries, chiefly the United States but also a number of other mostly Western countries, however, believe that these policies are justified and therefore not discriminatory. That is to say, unequal treatment that is proportional to the inequality between two people or groups is not discriminatory. Whether you agree with one or the other of these two points of view probably comes down to how convinced, personally, you are with either of their arguments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Muslim and Christian, Hindu, Bahai, atheist, agnostic and other religious citizens of Israel are treated no differently from Jewish citizens. They all have the right/duty (as appropriate) to vote, serve in the army, stand for office etc. The most recent Israeli election (2009) returned 13 MKs, just over 10% of the seats won. These MKs represent a surprising spectrum of parties, from "Arab" to Likud. One even represents Yisrael Beiteinu, a party which is often depicted in the British press as being fervently anti-Arab.

The only truly major difference that I can think of is that Jews are given the Law of Return, ie (and loosely) automatic permission to immigrate to the country. This is something that is interpreted extremely broadly, and not really on a religious basis - see our article and also Who is a Jew?.

I would add that much of the criticism in this aspect revolves around the treatment of Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens. They can not vote in Israeli elections, much like other non-citizen residents in Israel (eg the sizable number of Philippino temporary migrant workers) cannot. Those living in Gaza or on the West Bank may be entitled to vote in Palestinian elections, but again, can not vote in Israeli elections if they are not Israeli citizens, the same as any Jews not Israeli citizens can not vote.

It's also my understanding that there is criticism of Israel over citizenship not being conferred by marriage to an Israeli citizen unless Jewish. I'm not too clear on this, but it would presumably be in line with the other positive discrimination in the Law of Return, rather than being negative discrimination aimed at any particular religious, ethnic or racial group. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are loads of Muslim countries, many of which involve Muslims being "given preference" - better treatment, or a generally easier life; laws supporting their religious rites etc. - which is OK, because there are loads of Muslims in the world. Israel is a tiny country, reflecting the tiny proportion of Jews in the world, and I reckon that's OK too. It's not racist, it's designed for a particular race. There are plenty of other places other people can go, just like there are plenty of other places Christians in Morocco, say, can go.
 * In the case of Israel, it also had two additional purposes at the time of its 1948 creation: to provide a home for the millions of Jewish refugees displaced during the Holocaust (no countries would agree to unconditionally take them in; it was thus set up as a form of repatriative territory, like Sierra Leone and Liberia) - and secondly, to provide a place where the Jewish people could be safe from the thousands of years of persecution they had suffered. Maybe it's failed in those missions, but I don't reckon it's racist for making an effort to fulfill them. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 15:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand it correctly, the more rational strand of the "racist Israeli policy" argument is directed against Israeli policies towards the people of the occupied territories and displaced former residents of its recognised territory, rather than any policies within its recognised territory. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised by that. It's very hard to allege "racism" in the dealings with non citizens in Gaza and the West Bank. Brutality, maybe. Excess force, perhaps. But hard to see prejudice on the basis of race anywhere except in its citizenship rules. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the laws are not discriminatory on their face, and certainly not on the grounds of race. The argument relates more to the effect of the policies, with the burden falling disproportionately on Arabs compared to, say, any Jewish residents of the occupied territories. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jewish Israeli citizens are treated the same as Arab Israeli citizens. What makes them citizens in the first place could conceivably be regarded as discriminatory, but not the treatment meted out. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure - as I said, the common argument does not concern citizens within Israel itself, but the residents of the occupied territories who are often not citizens and not treated as such. I'm not arguing for that point of view, just pointing out the rationale behind the accusations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand how a "positive discrimination" which favors one racial or religious group at the expense of nonmembers is not a "negative discrimination" against those not favored. This group can "return" but that group cannot. This group can get building permits, that group cannot. Edison (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that racism is genetic and is in everybody; people who decry another race usualy dont live with that race; With Israel and Palistine even though there are Jewish/Palastinian people in each country; they and by they this applys to the whole world would like there own country; England for the English; Wales for the Welsh; Isreal for the Jewish; Saudi for the Saudi; US for the US; Mexico for mexicans; Finland for the Fins; ECT ECT ECT ECT ECT which paints a picture of all country's and person's in them being inherently Racist. BY way of this, if you are in say FINLAND the Finnish would say that they should have it best and would de-cry anybody that said it diffrent, For example imagine the richest people and best educated and people with the best jobs in finaland being NIGERIAN do you think there would be anybody saying this is exceptable? simple answer is NO not any Finnish thats for sure(even though people in public would say yes this is acceptable); we are all inherently racist; it is a question of how racist we are and how we show it...Chromagnum (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, Saudi refers to the ruling dynasty, not an ethnic group. —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How do bureaucracies know to act on contracts that are set hundreds of years in the future?
For example, some historical material cannot be released for public consumption for a couple of hundred years, and some contracts can expire or come into effect in THOUSANDS of years time. How do clerks etc know to act on material which has been archived hundreds of years’ ago, and needs to be acted on on a particular date? Come to think of it, what is the contract, or “For Action” direction with the longest time line? Are there, for example, things that must be acted on, on a particular date tens of thousands of years in the future? Myles325a (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my anecdotal experience, contracts over such a length of time are usually lost, destroyed, invalidated or otherwise forgotten about before the date arises. For example, the houses on the road on which I live are on a 199-year lease which is halfway through, but nobody on the street has any idea who owns the freehold, and I doubt that the freeholder knows that they own the freehold of the properties.  Particularly important contracts, such as the 99-year Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory, are often remembered, but in this example, when the lease was due to expire in the 1990s, it was subject to considerable negotiation as to how it should be interpreted.  If a contract is rediscovered, or the terms of it are implemented after a long period of abeyance, this often become a matter of dispute and differing interpretations (see, for example, Mark Roberts). Warofdreams talk 12:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In Britain, a lot of "sealed" material in The National Archives has large green labels marking it out, with legends such as OPEN IN 2032 - I daresay that this, plus a sophisticated computer system (which they definitely have!) would enable important documents to be located when necessary.
 * The public are guaranteed access to any public archived document (no matter how obscure - letters from the government of Oman about national anthems, faxes from foreign embassies about diplomatic incidents in the 1930s...) within 30 minutes. And that's cool - I'm sure they can cope!! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The rule against perpetuities may be relevant to some of those contracts you mention. 66.127.52.118 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Two dynamite trucks on a narrow road
The paragraph here summarises a problem from Getting to YES. I've read both books, but can't trace the origin of the dilemma, which each text attributes to Thomas Schelling. Any ideas? Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This (pdf file) indicates that the dilemma was first published in an article in 1956, which I can't place either, but the entire article was incorporated as chapter 2, "An Essay on Bargaining" in The Strategy of Conflict, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1960. See here for chapter overview. ---Sluzzelin talk  07:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's what I assumed, but all that that chapter has on dynamite is "When two dynamite trucks meet on a road wide enough for one, who backs up?" - there must surely be more of a Schelling origin for it than that? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 07:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Schelling mentions the paper Game Theory (1956) by Herman Kahn and Irwin Mann (not "Erwin" as quoted in Schelling). "The authors work out a number of problems involving dynamite, detonators, and deterrence." Maybe the trucks scenario can be found there? Here is the pdf file, but it won't allow me to search words, and I don't have the time to scan it with human eyes right now. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This paper (pdf-file) by Katarzyna Zbieć cites T. C. Schelling: "An essay on bargaining", American Economic Review 46 (1956),p. 281–306. But the paper also only quotes what you quoted, even less, "when two trucks loaded withdynamite meet on a road wide enough for one", without further elaboration. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like just a variation on the game of Chicken, which Herman Kahn asserts is due to Bertrand Russell's Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, but that was published in 1959, so maybe the dynamite trucks came first. --Sean 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Second-hand music sales
I know that selling records and CDs from a second-hand store is not a problem from a copyright point of view, since it is governed by the first sale doctrine. But surely artists and record labels should be against such sales anyway, because they are not making any money from the sale. The sale of a second-hand record deprives the artist and record label of revenue just as much as an illegal download does, because they receive no money from the sale and the purchaser could have got it new from a "proper" music store (assuming the album is still in print, which I know many are not). So why aren't record labels up in arms about second-hand record shops? --Richardrj talkemail 08:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We are talking about selling the record itself, not a copy of it - unlike selling a bootleg CD or downloading a copy from the internet. If there are 100 copies of a CD out there, the presence of a secondary market does not change the number of copies - provided nobody makes an illicit copy. In other words, the original purchaser who now sells his second-hand copy stops being able to enjoy the record, while the new buyer is now able to enjoy it. Net change in number of people listening to the record: 0. Net change to sales revenue: 0.
 * This is not the same as illegal download, where both the uploader and the downloader can, after the download, listen to the music. Net change in number of people listening to the music: +1. Net change to sales revenue: 0.
 * Of course, the economics of it is more complicated than that, but this is the key distinction from a legal perspective. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)But assume for the sake of argument that the secondary market did not exist. Then, if someone wanted to buy that CD, he would have no way of doing so unless the record company made another physical item available for sale.  So the total number of copies would become 101 and the net change to sales revenue would be +1.  Surely that would be in the interests of the record company, so why aren't they pressing for that secondary market to be removed? --Richardrj talkemail 09:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, record companies have been as up in arms as they (un)reasonably might be w.r.t. resale of their product: see this story concerned with resale of promo CDs, for example. Meanwhile the supply chain is seeking to ensure that first sale doctrine rights do not attach to digital downloads - see this story for example. They're merely refraining from taking legal action against a marketplace that is entirely legal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To prevent the existence of a secondary market, you have to have restraint of trade, which is traditionally frowned upon under the common law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some (paper) authors have spoken out against the second hand book trade. Although they aren't against it in principle, a few authors (Katherine Kerr and Robin Hobb, off the top of my head) have notes on their websites reminding readers that they do not gain any money from books bought second hand. I think they do not mind, however, people discovering new authors through second hand purchasing. I imagine that in the music world, similar principles apply. Steewi (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A secondary market promotes good literature - if the book was worth re-reading, you wouldn't sell it.
 * One could make a somewhat similar argument about music - if the recording was truly great, you'd treasure it and not sell it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Prohibition of resale reduces the value to the first purchaser, and thus should depress prices. —Tamfang (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If I buy a CD, I can legally add it to Itunes and listen to it on my Ipod. But if I sell it, then there is an extra copy. By the above discussion, I would presumably be expected to delete it from the Itunes when I sell the CD or give it away. Have there been any prosecutions of people who kept the Itunes copy and sold/gave away the CD? I have heard of RIAA going berserk against kids who downloaded/uploaded a tune over the internet, but I have heard nothing on this issue. Edison (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, they don't like second hand record shops. But there is nothing they can do about it. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Movement in Hong Kong, Macau and Mainland China
I have a question that I'd also like to see added to the Special_Administrative_Region_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China article. One thing this article does not discuss is the freedom of movement of Chinese citizens and SAR citizens. Can mainland Chinese live in Hong Kong and vice versa? The article makes the SARs sound like de facto independent countries only vaguely referring to 'immigration' policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.26 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The SARs maintain their own immigration policies. Generally speaking, it is about as difficult for a mainland Chinese resident to settle in an SAR as it is for him or her to settle in a foreign country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But does that mean that a Hong Kong citizen must also go through the immigration policy if they want to live in mainland China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.26 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone without a PRC passport who wants to move from Hong Kong to China needs permission. Interestingly, Hong Kong permanent residents don't need a passport to enter or exit Hong Kong itself, from / to anywhere. Just one more perk of living in the freest economy in the world. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hong Kong residents with ancestry in mainland China (i.e. the vast majority) are able to obtain home-visiting passes which allow them to visit mainland China fairly easily. This is, however, not always an automatic process. To settle in mainland China, the same sort of immigration control is applied as that to analogous foreign citizens. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless they are a pro-democracy politician, which are banned from visiting China and Macau. F (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quite accurate, F, but that's what I was referring to when I said it is not always an automatic process. Like ordinary visas for visitng China, normally it is a merely procedural, but in the case of people who are politically "suspect", entry control can be applied with some discretion.
 * Not all pan-Democracy politicians are prevented from visiting the mainland, and not all the time. It's an administrative tool being used politically. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

German and Soviet clashes in Poland, 1939
I'm reading this article from the Washington Post which says that German and Soviet troops fought each other in Poland, 1939 while allies:

"Eisenhower told Stalin his plans and asked that he reciprocate, wanting to avoid a repeat of the situation in 1939. Then, in a very different phase of hostilities, German and Russian troops - allied by treaty - had met head-on in Poland when that country was being carved up between Stalin and Hitler. No prearranged line of demarcation had been fixed, which had resulted in a battle with surprisingly heavy casualties on both sides."

I wasn't aware there was any fighting between these two sides at this point in the war. This was right after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had been signed but well before Operation Barbarossa. Can anyone provide more information or point me to an article or Web site about fighting between German and Soviet troops during the 1939 invasion of Poland? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it means to suggest they actually fought each other just the both rushed in to grab what they could and they weren't really working together as allies. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a peace plan between them not a battle plan. It seems they only fought together (on the same side) at the Battle of Lvov (1939) although they met other places.  meltBanana  14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I suppose one could interpet it that way, but I'm not sure that's what the author meant. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That would have been my understanding, but the article does seem to claim otherwise. Given the general dislike of Nazis for Communists it would not be entirely surprising if a certain amount of shooting had gone on. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a secret pact and the Soviet and German troops on the ground were not told they are allies. One army went east and another went west when they met they exchanged fire either thinking they have encountered Poles or just becouse they didn't have any specific orders what to do if they meet another army in the middle of Poland. Also the official rationale for the Soviet troops was saving the local population from the Germans while some German units might have been told to crush all resistance they encounter on the way so no wonder sporadic fighting broke out when the two armies met. But if any major batlle would have been fought in 1939 between the Germans and the Soviets, the Soviets would use this fact as proof that there was no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Mieciu K (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I believe that you are mistaken. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was public knowledge at the time and completely changed the balance of power in Europe.  There was, however, a secret protocol that wasn't released to the public at the time.  But the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a whole was public knowledge.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lolladoff Plate
Is the Lolladoff Plate real? If so, where is it? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this an entire fabrication, a painting was made of an imagined plate and then photographed.  meltBanana  14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiawatha
I would like to know if Hiawatha was a real person, a legendary figure, or to what extent the historical evidence points to one or the other. Our article gives little indication. (This isn't a homework question; Hiawatha was mentioned on Jeopardy! recently and it made me want to learn the basic facts about this subject). ike9898 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please start with our article Hiawatha. You could have found this by typing "Hiawatha" into the search box on the left, as is said at the top of this page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As is specifically said, "our article gives little indication" - and indeed, it doesn't make clear whether Hiawatha is a real person or not. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the confusion is evident from the Categories line:
 * Native American leaders | American folklore | Iroquois people | Iroquois mythology
 * -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that appeared rude. I thought the article summed the situation up well: i.e. that there are different opinions on the matter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hiawatha, who lived (depending on the version of the story) in the 1100s, 1400s, or 1500s, was variously a leader of the Onondaga and Mohawk nations of Native Americans." That is the opening of the article, and it doesn't give any sort of direct indication of whether or not the character existed. In fact, it's unbelievably poorly written. The user who posted the question was clearly not trying to irritate people, but hadn't analysed the categories in order to find out whether an encyclopedia article was about a real or fictional subject! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being sarcastic. The Categories line contains entries appropriate to both real and mythological people.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that's what comes of skim-reading! Comment stricken. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello ike9898. In the Encyclopedia of the Haudenosaunee, noted Iroquois scholar Barbara Alice Mann says a lot of the Hiawatha legendarium was the invention of Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, who made up myths and presented them as history. According to Mann, geniune oral history seems to confirm a real person, born around 1100.
 * In The Great Law and The Longhouse, another noted Iroquois scholar, William N. Fenton, does a more detailed evaluation of 19th century fiction versus genuine oral history but I didn't have time to read the whole thing and see if he makes a call one way or another, so I'm still not sure which way to clarify the article. I hope you will be able to!
 * Another book that might help answer this question: Archaeology of the Iroquois. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, I think I put this on my to do list, but of course I'd welcome help.  Our article on this subject is unusually underdeveloped for a topic of this prominent. ike9898 (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

US Fifth Amendment
Which crimes are counted as "capital, or otherwise infamous" crimes for the purposes of the 5th amendment? --140.232.10.139 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's some discussion in our article. This is what Congress's official annotated constitution has to say on that clause. Algebraist 19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Successful economic sanctions?
A question inspired by History class today, with specific mention to sanctions of Mussolini after his invasion of Ethiopia and the more recent example of Cuba. Have there ever (as in, any time period, any nation, etc.) been any actually successful sanctions? Thanks - Can-Dutch (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this link (http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bg1126.cfm) suggests that they aren't very successful but haven't read what their criteria is for deciding 'successful' or not. Worth a read though, will give it a read myself now. ny156uk (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is very difficult to judge the success of economic sanctions because you don't have a control group to compare it to. There is no way to know what would have happened without the sanctions - it might have been even worse. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense ... maybe ones that achieved their stated goals, then? Can-Dutch (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You might start with the anti-apartheid movement, then look at various boycotts (e.g., Gallo wine and California table grapes, ca. 1970s) that led to – perhaps, caused – significant changes in behavior.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

--65.92.124.84 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The sanctions against Libya after Lockerbie seem to have brought them around, eventually. I can also think of two sanctions which are usually listed as failures but may actually be considered a success in certain ways:


 * 1) US sanctions against Cuba. While a failure if the goal was to end communism in Cuba, they are a success if the goal was to stop the spread of communism throughout the Americas, by depriving Cuba of the money it would need to finance such an expansion.


 * 2) US sanctions against Japan prior to WW2. The goal here was to stop the expansion of the Japanese Empire.  The sanctions would have worked, but Japan instead chose to declare war against the US, which they had almost no hope of defeating, eventually leading to their defeat and the fulfillment of the sanction goal.  So, other than causing the war, the sanctions worked.  Had the sanctions not been placed on Japan when they were, Japan might have expanded to a size where it could have possibly defeated the US, before the war began.  Also, the US public would not have supported a declaration of war against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.  So, in this context, the sanctions were a necessary step in the defeat of the Japanese Empire. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Cuban sanctions weren't meant to stop Communism, nor are they what stopped it. What stopped it was the US backing extremely right-wing, militaristic regimes instead of Communist ones. That would have happened whether Cuba was sanctioned or not; Cuba would never have been able to compete with the US funding there. And your logic about Japan is, well, pretty dubious. Sanctions worked because instead of their goal it forced a military confrontation? Why not just declare war then, instead? You basically have to consider sanctions an unofficial declaration of war—which is not what sanctions are supposed to do, generally speaking. They are supposed to get the desired effect without war. --140.247.10.147 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Short story about problem-solver that invents nuclear shield, saving earth from potential MAD instigated by alien life-forms to prevent them evolving beyond their control
I originally thought this might be an Asimov, but now am not sure, as I may have been conflating it with "Spell my name with an S".

The story is kinda similar, more sophisticated beings are "incubating" life on earth, but in this story they are alluded to be longer-lived and thus slower-acting than humans. To prevent the "bacteria colony" of Earth from over-extending beyond their control, they have created a "penicillin ring", a way to end the experiement -- mutually assured nuclear destruction.

The hero (though not the protagonist, iirc, who was some detective) is able to invent this shield technology, because he is "penicillin resistant" -- not enough to prevent the task causing him to die/kill himself (I think the latter), but enough so that the mental blockage that most people have doesn't stop him from inventing the technology.

What is the story's name?!? And how would I have searched for it efficiently. These is an exemplar of frustrating situations where one recalls lots of details about something, but is still unable to search for it effectively.

Thanks 86.133.35.168 (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's almost certainly Asimov's Breeds There a Man...?. Nanonic (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And a note on how I found it - I read your question and was certain it was an Asimov story as I've got it in my collection somewhere, I also considered that most of Asimov's books use the old term 'Atomic' and not nuclear. So a quick google for "asimov atomic penicillin" gave the article as the fourth result. Nanonic (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions
I have some ideas, and I just wanted to throw them out there (keep in mind that I'm thinking about problems that I know from America and that I'm not American):
 * I think if a group of people is treated differently than others, there are going to be clashes between the groups. Japanese people would probably be hated if every Japanese person in America would get a million dollars, while everyone else would have to pay for that. But black people (and Indians I recall) want reparations for people that weren't slaves from people that don't keep slaves, wouldn't this fuel further racism?
 * Another point is how there is such a stigma against using words like nigger over black people, even if you don't mean any offence. Isn't this thought that "you can't use this word because you're white" a horribly racist idea? I believe a word's offence depends on how much offence you put into it, like if you say to your friend "Oh you fucking idiot!" and playfully punch him it's not a bad thing, but shouting "You fucking idiot!" to someone that breaks something would be a very hurtful thing. Am I wrong?
 * This point is related to the second one, I don't mind gays and I've never really seen what's supposed to be so bad about them. There are annoying gay people and there are annoying straight people, it makes no difference to me. But I do how ever use the word "gay" meaning "lame" (i.e. "that movie was gay"), a word that many gay people find offensive. But like I said in my second point I don't mean anything bad when I say it (except that I think the movie is bad), but I don't wish to further fuel prejudice against gays (although they aren't that bad where I live). The problem is that the slang 'gay' has a specific meaning, and the comment "that movie was lame" doesn't have the same effect as "that movie was gay". What should I do?

Please help me understand what would be the best thing to do, I want to speak my mind and I sure has hell don't want to be PC but I don't want to offend people (btw, on that issue about the word nigger I wouldn't actually call people niggers any more than I would call white people wiggers or crackers, but I think it's childish being afraid of just uttering some words and instead saying something like the "N-word" or "African American" instead of just "black", that's like calling penes "pee-pees" or writing f**k). Please don't construe this as racism/offensive/homophobia or anything like that, as I'm merely trying to find out what I should do. --BiT (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you do what all polite people do: avoid using words that are generally considered to be derogatory and/or racist or ethnic slurs. If you choose not to avoid them, then be prepared for the social consequences, some of which could be also physical consequences. As an aside, I don't know the use of "gay" that means "lame" and by which I assume you mean "poor" or "ineffective" or "not entertaining". Is this a common use that I have just missed? // BL \\ (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy being a grown man, afraid of using words. If the words in question are being discussed; should I not use words that 'might' offend and rather use childish euphemisms? I think the latter is offensive to people's intelligence really. Are you not willing to agree with me that some races may say some words, while other races may not is a form of racism? Am I wrong in assuming "you can do that because you are black, but you can't do that because you're Chinese" is only going to stimulate racial segregation? And once you start talking about "not using certain words because they might offend someone", aren't you going down a slippery slope? Some people might find the word 'meat" or 'slaughter' offensive, some people might not like the word 'socialism' and I'm not going to stop using those words to protect them. Or as you say suffer "physical consequences"- you're basically saying I shouldn't utilize freedom of speech unless I'm ready to be beaten because of it. I remind you once again that I wouldn't really use these words, but what I'm saying is that I wouldn't be afraid to use them. I was looking for some solid reasoning, and I hoped to get a better response than this. --BiT (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly common usage, mostly among children. It's meaning 6 at wiktionary and 4e in the OED. Algebraist 00:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Algebraist. I don't spend much time with children. // BL \\ (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think America is a richer country because of cotton and the wealth it created. The cotton industry, and related industries, required enormous manpower, especially after the invention of the cotton gin. If I were to argue for reparations, I would base my argument on the foundation of wealth that black slave labor substantially helped to create, but for which the black people themselves were anything but paid. Instead of sharing in the wealth, black people were kept in economic poverty and legal disenfranchisement. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean the descendants of race X should be charged by race Y if members of race X made X's and Y's country poor? And how much time could've passed? Could someone request money from 2000 years ago? --BiT (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The OP's point was that the people asking for reparations aren't the people that were enslaved, you haven't addressed that. This isn't really the place for that debate, though. Suffice it to say, the OP's point is one that is commonly brought up in this debate. Presumably those supporting reparations disagree with it, but I don't know on what grounds. --Tango (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Although I personally don't care about reparations, since it wouldn't affect me at all. This was just something I'd heard of. --BiT (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ref Desk is not a place to debate personal views on social constructs. There are forums for such actvities. We might also note that BiT posed similar argumentative positons positions on Pedophilia on April 16 at 18:43 and then quite arbitrarily removed both the question and everyone's answers on April 18 at 00:59, with the somewhat cheeky, IMO, edit summary "I asked a friend of mine and he provided me with the answer :)" (I apologise, but I can barely cope with diffs on things that exist. I have no idea how to do them for things that have been deleted.). I suggest BiT approach the same friend for the answers this time, too. // BL \\ (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I asked a friend of mine who is a philosopher about the pedophilia question and he gave me the simple answer "because it is physically harmful". It sounds like you're trying to insinuate something by calling these and misspelling "argumentative positions", pointing out that this isn't a forum for personal questions is great, but it sounds like you are trying to attack me personally. The reference desk is not for personal attacks either. --BiT (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In both cases our friend seems to know what he'd like the answer to be and is more interested in soap boxing than getting feedback. Assume Good Faith only applies until it is clear that someone is not probably acting in Good Faith. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No I actually didn't know what the answer would be. I'm not interested in soap boxing, I'm interested in a logical argument and I don't find // BL \\'s argument that good. --BiT (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I deliberately didn't address that point, and I'm not going to address that point. It is a difficult to answer question. Suffice to say all Americans should be provided with much better educational systems than exist. Let some money "saved" by slavery go into educating every person of educable age, and especially that should apply to those of lower economic groups. I guess I "answered" it. That is the best answer I can come up with for the "reparations" question. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was refering to the first two questions as being unanswered. I think your answer was rather good, and your second answer even better. Equal education of the poor and the wealthy would actually solve a lot of problems in my opinion. --BiT (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a "by the way": once a question is on the Ref Desk and answers have been given, it is not anyone's place to remove question or answers arbitrarily. It will now be missing from the archives if I understand these things correctly. My "arguments", BiT, are not good because I haven't presented any. I have corrected the typo on "positions" (thank you) though I am somewhat puzzled as to how such an error is either a personal attack or somehow associated with one. As for the rest of my comment above, it is a description of what your recent past behaviour has been with a similar style of question posed here. If there is any undercurrent, it is directed to potential respondents, to advise them of the degree of respect with which you may again treat their efforts to assist you. // BL \\ (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I absolutely get your point about not deleting questions but when someone in the answers accused me of trying to justify paedophilia, that is going too far- and it to me it sounded like you were alluding to the same thing. If you weren't I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion, but pointing out any "undertone" seems superfluous and presumptuous. I understand why you might construe my questions as trying to be offensive but I sincerely had difficult questions that I could not fully answer and (erroneously) thought this was a place to ask them (also because there are a lot of different users on Wikipedia I hoped I would get a lot of different views which is always a good thing). You did make the argument "don't say anything that might offend people, or prepare to face consequences" which is something I cannot believe in since I really dislike violence, and I'm not going to stop saying things simply because I'm going to get beat up. --BiT (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My opening remark was a statement of opinion, not an argument, and I shouldn't even have done that. You have been advised many times, here and earlier, that the Ref Desk is not a place to come for opinions or debate. If you want the same type of answer to your question as you accepted from your friend in the pedophilia question (and that had already been given to you by several WP respondents in various forms), then here it is: we don't use words that we know people will find offensive in a specific context because doing so does them, and us, harm. It also raises a lot of questions about our motives in doing so and few of those questions have answers that are complimentary to our sense of human dignity. What you choose to do is, of course, up to you. // BL \\ (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I should have used the work opinion instead of 'argument'. Have I been advised many times? Only now and maybe in the earlier question (I stopped reading it after I saw the comment by anon) unless I missed something (as I've never asked here before), how is that many times? I was actually talking about usage of the aforementioned words in e.g. a debate over whether the words should be used, but I understand your point and agree with it. Usually when someone asks questions like this Wikipedians often respond with wiki-link to some theory in psychology or sociology explaining the issue, but if my questions had no place to be here then I'm sorry for asking them (why didn't you just delete them then?). Still I must admit that I feel like you're talking to me with some hostility ("[...] avoid anything that could even remotely be[...]") and even looking down your nose at me. That might not have been the case but that's the feeling I got from your answers; I did not mean to offend a single human being with my questions but I'm glad about some of the answers I got. (could you also tell me what code of the reference desk I violated with my questions? I wasn't trying to start a soapbox since I was trying to approach all these things from a NPOV, like the this page does the second question) --BiT (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)