Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 22

= May 22 =

paul Biya's first wife
C.C. How old was Paul Biya's first wife Jeanne-Irène Biya die. Few years late, Paul Biya marry Chantal Biya, a white women from France. Was Jeanne Biya, Paul's first black wife under 60 or over 60 when she die. What was marial date of both black and white wife?--69.226.39.79 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Paul marry his first wife in 1960, then she is probably no younger than DOB in 1940, the most smart estimate is she is born in range of 1937-1939, then she is in her lower 50s when she die.--69.226.39.79 (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the marital dates, our article Paul Biya says"Paul Biya married Chantal Biya on 23 April 1994". This news website says Paul Biya and Jeanne-Irene Atyam were married on September 2, 1961.
 * Re the ages, our article Chantal Biya says she was born in 1971. (NB: the article also says she was born in Cameroon, not France, and that only her father is French while her mother is Cameroonian.) This article says Jeanne-Irène Biya was born in 1935 and our article Jeanne-Irène Biya says she "died on 29 July 1992". So she was 56 or 57 when she died, depending on when her birthday was. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arduin of Irvea's wife
Who was she? All I got was that it was some lady name Berta from the Italian wikipedia. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) La discendenza di Arduino d'Ivrea e Berta degli Obertenghi originò i diversi rami dei conti del canavese; tra queste le antiche famiglie:


 * Google says she is "of the Obertenghi", "of Luni", "of Lorraine", "of Ivrea", etc. We do, at least, have an article on the Obertenghi. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't read Italian, but the first hit here might say she was the daughter of Oberto II? (who was a younger son of Oberto I, we say, though Oberto II is still a red link). WikiJedits (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Utilitarianism and Human Nature
According to utilitarianism, is human nature good or evil? What do utilitarians think about the belief and idea that humans are born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that an individual's use of utilitarianism requires him to believe this, or disbelieve this. By the way, after reading your last three questions on this subject &mdash; have you read through the State of nature article?  It (and Human nature) seem to lead to many related articles that I think you will find interesting.  Tempshill (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read them before I asked all those questions. Can you please just give me an answer now?

Bowei Huang (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of your questions share a certain common trend: you don't seem to have considered or accepted that beyond a certain point, you can't really make sweeping statements about specific religious beliefs or philosophies, such as "this is what utilitarians think about the human nature", because such concepts are extraneous to the tenets of that religious belief or philosophy. I think that's precisely the case here: you can have a multitude of opinions about human nature and how it is affected by corrupt society without it having any kind of impact at all on the basic tenets of that idea.
 * Also, you should understand that utilitarianism (just to pick it as an example) differs a great deal from organized religion. If you compare it to Catholic Church, it's certainly true that they both address questions of ethics and morals, but utilitarianism has no organization and no rules. It has no dogma. The Catholic Church, by comparison, has a pretty rigid set of beliefs and tenets, which are shared (at least in theory) by its members. Accordingly, in certain areas, you can make fairly sweeping statements about Catholics -- I mean, you can say that "all Catholics believe in transubstantation", although even that's inaccurate, because all Catholics don't believe in it. But at least they are expected to believe in it and probably pretend that they do, at least if they're active within the church, because the Catholic Church has a lot of rules, traditions, beliefs and tenets that the members try to follow. But that kind of thinking doesn't really apply to utilitarians, because beyond the basic concepts (such as "we should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number of people") there exists a vast field of different (but not necessarily incompatible) opinions and views which are all still recognizably utilitarian. I mean, there's no Grand Council of Utilitarianism that decides what's right and what's wrong: there are, at best, people who present reasoned arguments one way or the other (or get into drunken late night conversations) about the subject.
 * And finally, you're probably not a utilitarian to the exclusion of everything else. You could well be a utilitarian Catholic, for example; chances are that it's not going to cause a great deal of conflict. If that is the case, your Catholic beliefs will probably influence your view of humans being born good (since the Catholic view is, essentially, that humans are all born "bad", or at least sinful, and it takes constant work to get away from that initial state).
 * The point is, you're asking a question which has no real answer. The realities and rules of the philosophies and religious you are interested in are far more fluid than you seem to think. (Also, I believe this has been mentioned before, but when you say things like "can you please just give me an answer now", you should understand that nobody is withholding anything from you. He did give you an answer. Obviously, it's not what you wanted to hear, but it's pretty much the same answer I just gave you -- just much shorter.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament
Sinn Féin members don't take their seats in Parliament, so what kind of "parliamentary business" do they perform? F (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an excellent question. You'd have to ask them. --Richardrj talkemail 10:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sinn Féin members have offices at Westminster and presumably they still perform all the duties and activities of an MP that don't actually require them to swear the Oath of Allegiance. As I understand it, they don't object to participating in the activities of the House of Commons, only to swearing allegiance to the Queen. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sinn Féin have documented all of the expenses claimed for here BigDunc  Talk 20:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

European Hockey Skate Manufacturers
Are there any European hockey skate manufacturers?68.148.149.184 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If so, what are they?68.148.149.184 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Graf are a Swiss skate manufacturer, founded in Kreuzlingen. ny156uk (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh also Reebok is, historically at least, from Bolton and I think RBK stuff is popular in hockey. ny156uk (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I had Jofa skates when I grew up. Jørgen (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bills Signed Into Law By U.S. Presidents
Anyone know where I could find a list of the number of bills signed into law by each U.S. President during each of their terms? I'm curious to see the trend of legislation over the history of the country (would make a cool wiki table as well).TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know where to find a list, but U.S. public laws are numbered by term of Congress, so in concept it shouldn't be too hard to just look at the highest-numbered public law each term. For example, the highest-numbered public law in the 110th term (2007 - 2008) was Public Law 110-460, so there were 460 public laws for that two-year period.  Recent public laws are online, but I don't know of a similar way to access older public laws.  If you have access to a good library, though, you could just look at Statutes at Large, which collects U.S. public laws.  John M Baker (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the statutes at large are exactly what you want, since many of the public laws aren't going to affect the statutes, nor do many of them affect it (although am I confusing the statutes at large with the U.S. Code?; I understand they're different, but not quite public laws either). The Fed Reporter might have these actually, although I'm not at all sure about that. If I remember right, I've found books of them that were just labeled "Public laws", and these should be at any U.S. Federal Depository library (usually law schools). Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've still not located what the OP requested, but I did come across its opposite. Here is a list of how many bills each president vetoed, and how many of those vetoes were overridden.  152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Shadowjams may indeed be confusing Statutes at Large with the U.S. Code, which is the codification of U.S. federal law. Statutes at Large compiles the actual Acts of Congress, both Public Laws and Private Laws. (Private Laws affect only individual persons or institutions and typically are enacted to grant citizenship by Act of Congress.) It turns out that copies of Statutes at Large are available online, except for the 1925 - 1994 period, see the sources linked from the Wikipedia article. If a library is available, though, that would probably be easier to use than those pre-1925 sources. However, it seems that the practice of numbering Public Laws began only in 1957, according to our article on Act of Congress, so it would not be as easy as I thought to get numbers prior to then (i.e., actual counting would be required). John M Baker (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Baker's right, although I wasn't confusing statutes at large with the U.S. Code. I was mistaken about the "public laws", partially too because the Statutes at Large should include public as well as private laws. As for their legal effect, this is probably the most authoritative and explanatory source (skip to part 3 of souter's opinion)  United States Nat'l Bank of Ore. v. Independent Ins. Agents (92-484), 508 U.S. 439 (1993). Also, if you have access, take a look at 22 Minn. L. Rev. 1008. Finally, this link  is the most comprehensive explanation of how the federal laws are published (since 1789). Shadowjams (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The OP did ask for "signed into law", and the only domestic law is going to be in the statutes at large. However executive orders are also laws, and they don't require congressional action (at least not in the same way), so the OP, maybe unwittingly, asked for a much larger set of data than the Statutes at large provides. Shadowjams (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Party Buddhism Zoroastrianism Jainism
I already know that Bharatiya Janata Party are Pro-Sikh due to fact that Sikhism is related to Hinduism and they (BJP) opposed to 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, but what about BJP being anti-Zoroastrian, anti-Buddhist and anti-Jain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.206 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of curious as to why you so often ask questions which seek to fill in all the cells in some big abstract matrix? (I.e. the policies of each of the entities A, B, C, D, and E with respect to each of the groups #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5, or whatever.) Often, the state of the real world is such that many of the questions in the theoretical hypothetical matrix are in fact rather meaningless and irrelevant -- while if the questions in the matrix are all valid, then it would often take a huge research project (beyond the normal Wikipedia Ref. Desk efforts) to answer all of them adequately.


 * However, in this particular case I have the impression that BJP is suspicious and distrustful of those religions that lower-caste Hindus are converting to in significant numbers (i.e. Buddhism and Christianity) while probably not feeling too threatened by the numerically tiny and decreasing group of Parsis in India... AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What I find a little disturbing about this series of questions is that they are not neutral. If you had asked "What position do the BJP take with regard to Sikhs, Christians etc?" the questions might or might not have clear answers, but they read as reasonable questions. But because you are asking whether they are "anti-Sikh" etc, I read the questions as suggesting that you are looking to support some strongly held view (though I don't know what that view might be). --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's use of the GFDL
This is an honest question for the Reference Desk, and not a soapbox post. It is also not a legal advice question, as I am not contemplating a lawsuit. I will point to this RD question from the Computing desk as well, since it deals with the GFDL and GPL.

Background 1: When a Wikipedia editor makes any change to an article, he is told that he irrevocably agrees to license his contributions under the GFDL, which a footnote expands to, "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation...."

Background 2: The text of the GFDL 1.2 says that if the license says or any later version, then "you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or any later version that has been published" by the FSF.

Background 3: The FSF created GFDL 1.3 in November 2008 with a new "Relicensing" section that says that any site like Wikipedia can, at any time before August 1, 2009, "republish" all its content under the CC-by-SA Creative Commons license. The Wikimedia Foundation board proposed that Wikipedia invoke this new rule.

Background 4 (which prompted the question): About 75% of the 17,462 votes cast on the matter voted to approve this change.

My question: Since the Wikipedia editor is the licensor, and since the licensor has the option of choosing either (a) GFDL 1.2 or (b) a later version of the GFDL, what is the legal theory that grants the Wikimedia Foundation the ability to decide for all Wikipedia editors that all their previous contributions fall under version 1.3? One item in the FAQ basically says "We believe this is legal because CC-by-SA is in the same spirit as the GFDL", but my question is about the legal theory and not a question of the practical consequences of this (probably benign) change.

The question is important to me because it seems to me that this is a change in licensing terms that was made unilaterally after the fact, and if this is legally sound, then it does not seem to me that it's dissimilar from Microsoft or Adobe changing their EULA after I start using their shrinkwrapped, offline software. All they would have to do is have the EULA state that I agree to use "version 1.2 of this EULA, or later", and under the same principle, Microsoft or Adobe would be able to make whatever arbitrary licensing change they would want to, without my having agreed to this license. If anyone can point to any real-world cases where a retroactive, unilateral licensing change like this has been held to be legal, I'd appreciate it. Tempshill (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the newer, later version of the license had some practical consequence, then a lengthy legal battle could either null it or the original license agreement's later version clause. There is a lot of legalese which is intentionally left open (think about every time a contract is between a party or its agent).  In the event of a major change to the license, any reasonable legal expert would agree that a method exists to anull the original "or later" clause to invalidate new terms that were not originally agreed to.  Nimur (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand - it's not the licensor that decides which version, but the licensee. The WMF is a licensee, so can choose to use the later version and, in doing so, relicense the content under CC-BY-SA. There have been some questions about whether such on "or later" clause is legal in all jurisdictions, but it doesn't appear to be legal in the US, which is the law the WMF worries about. --Tango (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect, actually. When I contribute to an article, I am releasing the contribution under the GFDL; in other words, licensing it; in other words, I am the licensor.  Just as the authors of the Linux kernel are licensors of the kernel under GPL 2.  Anyone who downloads and uses the Linux kernel is a licensee, meaning they have to abide by the licensing agreement.  Under GFDL 1.2, the licensor is supposed to choose "1.2 only" or "1.2 or any later version" (as per "Background 2", above).  The WMF, upon receipt of the contribution, is merely a licensee.  Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it incorrect when what you've said is entirely consistent with it? --Tango (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think essentially it comes down to whether the change renders the original agreement unconscionable. Wikipedia contributors have in fact agreed to release under any later version - it's not like there has been a change to their agreement after the fact, it's just that the later version (explicitly anticipated by the release) has come into being. In my mind, it's just a matter of whether the initial agreement (as seen through the lens of subsequent events) is so ridiculously one-sided and horrible that a court wouldn't honor it. In my mind, there doesn't seem to be any problem here. The essential point of the CC-by-sa license is to allow broad redistribution under a viral license, same with the GFDL. If the FSF released a version of the license saying something like "all copyrights are transferred exclusively to FSF/Microsoft/whatever" I think this would clearly make the "or later version" clause unconscionable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that unconscionability would be an easy determining factor if the licensor (or the third party controlling the "or later" license) were to abuse the situation. I disagree with your second sentence because of my background point #2 above.  Wikipedia editors have not explicitly agreed to release under any later version, as the text of GFDL 1.2 makes clear.  They each have the option, with every single edit, of choosing "GFDL 1.2" or "GFDL 1.2 or later".  Wikipedia has never included this choice in its user interface, of course, so the choice on every single edit is unknowable.  Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you three for your feedback. It confirms for me that the retroactive change to the license of all previous Wikipedia contributions is invalid, which to me shows the WMF and the FSF in a bad light; but, being pragmatic, I doubt that anyone could prove any damages; if there had been damages, then it sounds like unconscionability would unfortunately be the default way to challenge such a change.  Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that actual damages would not be necessary for a decent payoff. If Wikipedia is using your work without your permission (i.e. violating the license terms) it's copyright infringement. The US provides hefty statutory damages for copyright infringement, even in the absence of any actual damages. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote "the licensor has the option of choosing either (a) GFDL 1.2 or (b) a later version of the GFDL", which is false, as Tango pointed out. The intent of the licensing agreement is and always has been that all contributors multilicense their work under GFDL 1.2 and all later versions. That is how the GPL and GFDL usually work; the suggested boilerplate at the end of the licenses themselves makes that clear. When they write "you have the option...", "you" refers to the licensee. One could argue that the wording chosen by Wikipedia was confusing—it seems to have confused you—but you can't seriously believe that Wikipedia would allow each editor to choose a different license and yet not even provide a way to indicate which license they chose. How the heck would anyone be able to use Wikipedia content? Under the intersection of version 1.2 and all possible later versions? No, everyone licenses under the same terms, and those terms are the union of version 1.2 and all later versions. That was in fact the intent, and it's also the only interpretation that makes any sense. -- BenRG (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct! BenRG, your message forced me to reread everything in a different light.  Apologies for my confusion.  I had somehow been reading the license agreement as instructions for the licensor.  My revised conclusion is that the "republish" clause of GFDL 1.3 is valid and that we're all mildly crazy to agree to release our contributions under a license that can be changed at any time by another party without our consent; and that indeed the only defense we have against this or future FSF licensing revisions we disagree with is to gamble that a court might agree the revisions are unconscionable.  Thank you all!  Tempshill (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A new version wouldn't have to be unconscionable to be invalid, just "not in the same spirit". The license includes that restriction on the FSF. --Tango (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there, that's another contractual restraint on their ability to release new licenses. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

does anything you whip pass the sound barrier?
I heard the characteristic whipping sound is from the tip passing the sound barrier... is this true for anything you whip with a loud "crack", even a big towel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.76.231 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No. When you flick a towel the sound is from the towel hitting itself. The tip of a whip moves so quickly because it is tapered, the momentum of the part of the whip moving stays constant but the tapering means the mass reduces, that means the speed has to increase. --Tango (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS You probably wanted to post this to the Science desk, this is the Humanities desk. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely clear at all. See This Straight Dope article that links to This research project where a group of students at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics prove that it's entirely possible to flip a towel-like piece of cloth super-sonic, and that it creates a satisfying "crack" noise when it happens. APL (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I question the accuracy of those results. There doesn't seem to be a realistic mechanism for achieving such high velocity since the towel isn't tapered. --Tango (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone who's tried it knows that to "crack" a towel, it's vital that you roll it so that the "popper" end of the makeshift whip is a corner. If you roll it up like that, there's significantly less mass at that end. (Properly rolled, the tip should be only one thickness of cloth)APL (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never really tried it, myself, certainly not enough to have learnt the technique! So the tip is narrowing to a corner and has a reducing number of layers? I suppose that might be enough tapering for it to work... We would need somewhat more reliable evidence than that high school project, though. --Tango (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Scientists never answer the questions I want them to research. I suppose it's probably hard to get grants for towel-cracking research. Anyone here have access to some high speed cameras?  And some towels? APL (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Big Brother / Police State developments in the United Kingdom
Is there an article anywhere that lists all the surveillance and centralised record keeping that has been developing in Britain over the last few years? For example this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/whos_watching_you/8064333.stm, identity cards, local goverment CCTV, the government monitoring of emails which was almost implemented, probably other things. It would be nice to keep tabs on them and see how Brtain compares with other countries, and with itself in the past. An aside - the identity cards iris scans can be used to monitor the movements of people in the same way that number plates will be monitored, since I read a few years ago that even motorist's irises can be scanned by laser at 50mph. 89.242.85.248 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Back in Margaret Thatcher's day, people used to be worried about big brother at GCHQ Cheltenham, but it was the numerous "little brothers" (in the form of automated surveillance by numerous local police agencies, city departments, and private corporations) which seem to have turned out to be most intrusive... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Open Rights Group is one starting point. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this mask called?
I'm not sure what you would call this mask. Seems like a lot of women in Oman wear them. This article makes it seem like it's a Bedouin thing ("Bedouin women in frightening, beak-like masks sell goats" - referring to this market). And this natl geographic photo of a woman from the same town wearing the same thing says she's a Bedouin. I've found references elsewhere to face masks that Bedouin women wear called al-battoulah and betula (presumably spelling variants) but I'm not having much luck with my searching (haven't come up with photos to confirm if that's what this is). The national geographic article calls it burqa but that seems just like a general term - is that really the most specific word out there? And if it is how is it different from betula? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Batūl &#1576;&#1578;&#1608;&#1604; is the Arabic word for "virgin" (not sure if that's relevant). Otherwise I can't really find it in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (but of course there are a lot of colloquial dialect words not listed in that book)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Burqa is the general term for any veil and batula/betula is the specific term used in Oman   and the south of Iran, derived from the Arabic word for "virgin." --Omidinist (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My last post was removed, because someone took offence to me saying that the person in the picture did not look like a virgin. I was referring to the fact that black is not used for virgins. It is used for widows or married women. Stop being so sensitive, people! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, the Western cultural association of white with female virginity didn't really take hold in a major consistent way in English-speaking societies until the year 1840, and it's been growing ever more archaic since the 1960's -- not to mention that other cultures have significantly different color associations (for example, in China white was traditionally the color of funeral mourning), so your comment was rather parochially ethnocentric at best. AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I mention white? Of course I didn't. I merely said black was the colour for married women and widows. Check it out yourself. You'll see what I mean. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The meaning of black is often defined in polarized contrast to the meaning of white (as you seemed to be implying). In any case, such associations are often much more culturally-dependent and historically ephemeral than you seem to imagine... AnonMoos (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I lived in Bahrain, and ever since then over the course of my work as a translator (not Arabic, though!) I have had extensive contact with clients from the Middle East. I have also been so bold on occasion as to ask them about their culture, as I am interested. One of the questions I have asked many times (as the answer is always slightly more enlightening than the answer before) is about female clothes, and about what colours represent what. The question about black has, in every case, been a resounding affirmation of my previous post. I did not imply anything about white, or anything else ethnocentric. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- in Iran both married and unmarried woman alike frequently wear black overcoverings; while in English-speaking societies, any moderately strong and consistent association between black clothes (as worn by women not in mourning) and married status was pretty much confined to the Victorian period. Meanwhile, your original (deleted) comment made little sense, unless it implicitly referred to the conventional (but now growing somewhat obsolescent) Western association of white with virginity). AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm not getting through to you, as you don't seem to understand the words 'I did not imply anything about white'. Let's close this here, as any further explanation will be just as much as waste of time as it has been already. PS Certain comments below seem pejorative to me, and serve no purpose. Would you like to delete them, too?) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete anything in this thread; however, I fully agreed with the deleter that what you thought was funny was in fact not funny. AnonMoos (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the stiffened blinder down the center to keep the woman from looking sidelong? Is she wearing a bridle beneath? --Wetman (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dunno if this is silly but if shes from Oman maybe shes wearing it to protect herself from the sun? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Try sartorial hijab -- maybe their talkpage can help. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So how does this work on Facebook? 86.4.190.83 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)