Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 6

= February 6 =

The fact that English is an international language is like rape of people whose only language is English
They're not taught another language in schools and have no reason to use another language, yet the same is not true of other peoples. Hence others can talk in a code, but not them. Their communications are comprehensible to all others. Is this true?--Picturesonthewall (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not true, and your comparison with rape is stupid and offensive. Communication in English is comprehensible by those who have English as a second language and are in earshot. Lack of a second language for a native English speaker is ... a shame and probably a wasted opportunity. I suggest you try to think through the wilder elements of your assertion yourself. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the box at the top of the page: "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." However, if you wish to learn more about the issues raised in your (badly worded, IMO) statement/question, see English, international language, monolingualism, multilingualism, English as a Foreign or Second Language, language education, second language acquisition, International English.  Oh, and also (to avoid making really offensive comparisons in the future) you might want to look at History of rape. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Plenty of native English speakers learn foreign languages. Perhaps not to the extent that other people learn English, but it's really up to the individual. Also, a native English speaker speaking very quickly with a strong accent using lots of idioms and local dialect terms will be pretty incomprehensible to the average person that knows English as a second language. --Tango (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, this is true for most languages. Heck, english is my first language and I have difficulty understanding people with a thick Cajun or Cockney accent.Livewireo (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'd say it's true for pretty much all languages, but that doesn't really make any difference. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It should also be pointed out that English native speakers are free to learn any further language if they want to. Of course, many English, French or Spanish speaker (as the legend go) see no advantage to learn foreign languages since many foreigners know their language. --Mr.K. (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to print the OP and hang on the wall, because it is so original! So everybody can read and laugh (no offense)... And since it is in English, no need of translation! --pma (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The question brings to mind a piece of colloquial English possibly not understandable to those for whom English as a second language, or even those speaking a non-UK variety of English. The word is bollocks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A perfectly understandable term to us Americans who are fans of One Foot in the Grave. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about Zoroastrianism?
Nietzsche's philosophical writing was titled "Thus Spake Zarathustra". I am curious to what is the relationship between that book and Zoroastrianism (If there is any at all).  Marlith  (Talk)   00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a whole paragraph on that in the Zoroaster article. Search in it for Nietzsch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

a method of drawing
you draw something on paper which looks meaningless. but when its reflection is viewed on a curved surface a meaningful image appears. what is it called? where can one get more information on it? 59.92.82.172 (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See "Anamorphosis". --Milkbreath (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Creationists' beliefs
Do creationists believe in Pangaea? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly compatible with the whole 4000 year old world beliefs... &mdash; CHAN  DLER #10 &mdash; 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Facts shmacts. Conservapedia's fascinating page on pangea puts its breakup at the time of the Great Flood, which in turn it puts at 5000 years ago. Unfortunately the normally super-duper-reliable Conservapedia has wickedly censored the real story of how Kangaroos got to Australia (or "America 2" as it's now called) - they used to have the truth about Kangaroos, where they get to australia on mats of vegetation rather than this stuff about them walking there before Pangea broke up (a week past Tuesday, I believe). What nonsense - animals walking?! Pah! Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sort of.--droptone (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that there are a lot of very different forms of Creationism which have a real spectrum of how old they think the Earth is, etc. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, although I expect the OP is talking about Young-Earth Creationism, otherwise it's a rather trivial question. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this article in conservapedia out. I thought the talk page was even more fascinating. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it more than a little ironic that they link to Wikipedia for their image. AnyPerson (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh Upazila elections
Where can I find the results of Bangladesh's 3rd Upazila elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.100 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese Election 2005
Is there a website where it shows the candidates for each party representing each seat of the Lebanese National Assembly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.100 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the links in this article of ours might help: Lebanese general election, 2005. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Find yourself literature
I would like to find some 'find yourself' novel in the style of Fightclub or Into the wild but with a higher literary level, possibly classical works.--Mr.K. (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The genre of Bildungsroman is something along the lines of what you're looking for. And many venerable novels have subplots about 'finding oneself', for instance the arc of Levin in Anna Karenina. Lantzytalk 18:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Walden by Henry David Thoreau might be something to look at. Livewireo (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How to tell when censorship is fascist
hi i wud like 2 no how to tell when cencorship is fashist pleas lookin for an objective criteria not "use ur judgement thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know what fascism is? We have an article on it. Often people use it generically to mean "anything I disagree with", but it's meant to have a more specific meaning than that. Friday (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * some1 removed this question what criteria cud I use 2 decide if doing this to my question was fascism? i looked at the article u linked and searched for crit and got the criterion of German national socialism was biological determination. The basis of Nazism was a racism in its most extreme sense but i am not asking about nazi ism but about fascism. there is no section in that article on criteria or ways 2 decide if something is fascism thanx
 * If you have something to say about the ref desk, use Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. You give the appearance of someone here to act silly, rather than someone seeking real answers to real questions, so this may explain the removal.  If you read the article, you'll see that someone editing content on some website doesn't have much to do with fascism.  Now do you have any questions actually suited to a reference desk? Friday (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry about my vocab what word shud i use instead of fascism pleas thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ps it is a real question and i am looking for a guideline or criteria i can use - it is not about wikipedia in specific —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As there is little agreement as to what actually constitutes fascism, you are unlikely to get a defintive answer. There is no agreed upon checklist. To start, fascism is a form of authoritarian government. The removal of your question was not as a consequence of a goverment requirement, even if only in the sense of the government of Wikipedia, such as it exists. Thus, the removal was not, in my opinion, "fascist". You will have to spend some time learning about fascism in its many forms and then, in the final analysis, use your own judgement. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * thanx but i alrady said the word fascism is not the word im looking 4. do u know the right word? i will change the title with the right word when somebody tells me pleas thanx!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick bit of advice - people will be more willing to help you if you make an effort to write correctly. This isn't a text message, there is plenty of room to write complete words in well-formed sentences. Writing like you do comes across as disrespectful. --Tango (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * please forgive me owing to that I did not mean no disrespect


 * We can't help you find a word to describe a concept when you haven't told us what the concept is. What is it, exactly, that you want to know about censorship? Is your question about who enacts the censorship? Governments, religions, societies, individuals and whole industries are groups that permit, require or encourage various kinds of censorship. Is your question about the obligations or rights to enforce censorship? These may be matters of law, or of continuing membership in a formal or informal community (like a family or club or church) for example. Perhaps you are just looking to know when censorship is appropriate to its context. For example, it may be perfectly appropriate to keep specific types of images out of the areas where children might view them, and be perfectly inappropriate to keep adults from seeing them. If you are specific as to what you want to know, we might be able to help you, but not otherwise. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * what I mean is very simple: when some one on a forum says removing their post is "fascism" what should they say instead of fascism, since its not the right word? I mean from their point of view.  How should they express themselves...you know what they MEAN, but the word fascism isn't the right one to use.  How would a more eloquent person who knows the right word express that factual opinion?  Thanks.  (I spell-checked this reply in Word).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to avoid any such hyperbole, just say it's "unfair" or "unjustified" or whatever is appropriate. There is no need to have technical terms for everything, just describe it using everyday language. --Tango (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ok how do I tell if censorship is unjustified and unfair? For example this question was removed two times by someone, so if I don't put it back you don't even see it.  What criteria could I use to see if this is justified?  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very subjective - it's a matter of opinion. Do you think the reason given was a good one? Was any reason given? However, be careful calling it "censorship" - censorship is stopping some form of expression is order to stop people knowing the information contained. Removing a question is not necessarily censorship, the question may just have been inappropriate for that forum. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to determine whether something is "fair" or not, you need to have an idea of what the rules are. If your posts have been removed because they breach Wikipedia's rules in some way, then this is not "fascism", nor is it "unfair": you need to play by the rules. If you don't like the rules, then agitate to change them - but the RefDesk is not the place for that. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason given for removing this question (the thread you are reading now!) twice was that it is "silly". Do you think this thread breaches Wikipedia's rules in any way?  Do you think that it is fair?  Read the edit history: it says it is removing my question because it is "silly".  Is this justified?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When censorship becomes unfair is when the use of the information, in providing another view or representing a certain section of a population (or website readership, for example) or in the public interest (eg. allegations of corruption) are not outweighed by legitimate reasons for censorship- national security (or website integrity), the avoidance of legislation or where mater published breaks the rules. In countries, it would have to break the law; but by agreement some censorship laws are not accepted by the international community - any actions taken using them are deemed inappropriate. In most cases, possible censorship is not enforced, so a precedent is very rarely an excuse to publish libellous or otherwise inappropriate material. So, in order to judge whether removal is unfair, simply balance the use of the material against its possible damage. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As this appears to have turned into (or may have been geared to change to this all along) a question about censorship on the Ref desk, the OP's disclaimer notwithstanding, I think that, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the Ref Desk's Talk Page. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect anyone to remove this question, so it wasn't geared to address this aspect at all. the question is not about the reference desk.

Besides, on a forum, there's no such thing as unfair removal. The moderators and administrators are in charge; when you registered with the forum you agreed to be under that rule. If you don't like it, leave. Forums are not a democracy. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there's just a think as unfair removal. Just because it isn't a democracy doesn't mean there isn't a concept of fairness. If people are treated differently for no good reason, that's unfair, regardless of who is in charge. Unfairness may be acceptable in certain circumstances, but it's still unfair. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another try at the question
Let me take a shot at asking what I think you meant to ask: "How can one tell when censorship is used to oppress people and hide information from them, rather than protect them ?". Is this what you wanted to ask ? StuRat (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say if the rules are the poster should be notified but the question is just removed (censored) without notifying the poster with reasons, that's unfair/high-handed and that's like "facism" or abuse of authority. If the rules say they can take an inappropriate question away anytime for set reasons, that's not censorship, that's the rules.  Julia Rossi (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, good for you to use the spell checker – a good move. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Fascism" (couldn't resist). --Milkbreath (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "facism" is an even better term, as fascist leaders always have their faces plastered all over the place. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hahaha – well-spotted. Do not only torture the little typo, my grammar's crook too. :)) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not torture only the little typo... BrainyBabe (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Madam Lash. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Defining "Universal Health Care" for the U.S.
Hi all,

I'm planning on making a bet on whether or not the US government will be able to implement some kind of "universal health care" within the next X years. However, I'm getting hung up of the wording of the definiton of "universal health care." There seem to be so many different way it can be implemented -- single-payer health insurance, tax-cuts for health insurance, mandates, no health insurance but just free health care (like England), etc. etc. etc...

How would you define a metric by which you could say confidently "yes" or "no" as to whether universal health care has been implemented in the US? Total number of uninsured? That wouldn't work because we could eliminate the need for insurance. Total access to health care? How would that be measured?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks,

Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article at Universal health care, especially the section on the United States and its links? AnyPerson (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it didn't provide any way to come up with an easily judgable definition. &mdash; Sam 146.115.120.108 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You might try choosing 5 example situations. If all of the people in the 5 cases obtain complete health care for a total out-of-pocket charge to them of under $50 each (that is, the charge is a result of their health care; taxes are not factored into the evaluation) then the nation is considered to have universal health care.  The five cases might be something like (a) a poor illegal immigrant who suffers a heart attack and needs a quadruple bypass; (b) a poor illegal immigrant who has a bad cold; (c) a wealthy railroad baron who needs a heart-lung transplant; (d) a wealthy railroad baron who has a bad cold; (e) a tourist temporarily visiting the country who gets into a car accident and needs their hand re-attached.  You could add (or explicitly exclude) controversial stuff like gender reassignment surgery and snake-oil supplements if you want.  Tempshill (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

drew memorial church,grosvenor road,belfast
this church formerly stood stood at middle of grosvenor rd,belfast.ibelieve the church was physically relocated at the end of the nineteen eighties-early nineties.i beleive the church was removed brick by brick and relocated somewhere in the united states.can anyone tell me if this is so,and the present whereabouts of the church —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.185 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything about it being relocated, but this page has a section on the church's history that includes the names of some people you could probably look up and contact for more information. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect that the church was removed brick by brick to the US. The church was no longer used by the Anglican community, it fell into disrepair and was demolished around 2000. Here is a photo of it in 1999.

What's this short story? (or) Who wrote this short story?
I thought the title was: The Town That Got Stuck On Sunday

I'm trying to track down a short story a read a long time ago about a town that got stuck on a particular day of the week. It's not a "Groundhog Day" kind of story, because the days do keep changing. It's just that the townsfolk believe that the "day of the week" isn't changing. Consequently, their businesses stay closed, and their farms don't get tended. I think neighboring towns help out, since their days of the week are changing.

Since you can't answer, "When did I read this?", I'm hoping someone will be able to tell me "Where."

Victorcamp (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.193.220 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't have been set in Greece by any chance, would it? --  JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't remember; it was too long ago.Victorcamp (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Twilight Zone?--Wetman (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I picture it as a story in a book, with a drawing of a small town with steeples. ).Victorcamp (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more it seems like something I might have read in a grade school or freshman Social Studies textbook. I'm sure I wouldn't have thought of it at the time, but it sounds like a lesson in critical thinking, that is, "think for yourself." Now, it's even ringing bells about the current economic situation; to wit, if everyone believes it, it's "true" (vis-à-vis confidence).Victorcamp (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) For whatever reason, it's in my mind today, and I'd like to read it again.Victorcamp (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember this short story from an English textbook in ninth grade in the US, in about 1965. Set in England, a blue-collar worker wakes up and "realizes" the day after Sunday that it is Sunday: it just feels like Sunday. He convinces the town and this idea spreads throughout the country. The whole country stays on holiday until the Prime Minister states (seven days later) that it is finally Monday, and everybody agrees. It turns out that the government had not intervened during the week because there was a diplomatic crisis and they needed a week of holidays to allow two fast naval cruisers to reach the crisis spot -- this would put the time of the story in the early twentieth century. -Arch dude (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility; certainly the ninth grade textbook sounds about right, and 1965 does put me in high school. However, my recollection is of a boy whose job it was to ring the town bells on Sunday. When he woke up the day after, he realized it was still Sunday, so he rang the bells again. When others asked, he explained, and they too said, yes, you're right, it's still Sunday. I think this went on for much more than a week. I don't remember anything about a prime minister or a crisis. The concept, however, seems too similar to be coincidence. Perhaps a standard textbook story, updated periodically?--Victorcamp (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The story is "Never Come Monday," by Eric Knight, originally printed in the March 1938 issue of Esquire. The plot is essentially as summarized by Arch dude and Victorcamp, except for the date, of course, and that the knocker-upper was Sam Small.  John M Baker (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction: Sam Small was in the story, but was not the knocker-up.  John M Baker (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The story can be read here: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks08/0800581h.html#ch54 89.243.214.67 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)