Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 18

= February 18 =

Affair
I'm wracking my brain for the name of a diplomatic incident...I would guess it happened between 1840-1910, and I believe it involved an American being arrested in Greece (90% sure it was Greece) - and the United States threatened war if he were not returned to the United States. Ironically, I believe I first read about the affair/incident on Wikipedia and remember seeing a contemporary political cartoon that showed a man (possibly Uncle Sam?) in the bottom-left of the panel holding a gigantic megaphone of sorts, shouting across the Atlantic Ocean to give them back "x". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Greek" suggests "Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead!" See Ion Perdicaris. (The things one remembers from U.S. History in high school). Edison (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it - clearly I had the story a bit jumbled in my head since he was kidnapped by a Moroccan gang - but there were definitely Greeks involved and I had the right half-century timeframe, and there's even a little cartoon like the one I vaguely remembered. Was it actually a large enough incident to be regularly taught in American high schools, or were you just special? It seems very "minor" compared to the topics we covered in high school...Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because of the movie... AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was definitely in the high school history book, before the movie. Maybe the authors just like mottos and catchphrases, like others I remember reading about: "54'40" or Fight!" "Speak softly and carry a big stick" "We have met the enemy and they are ours" "War is hell" "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." Edison (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Friendships
What are the chances of friends that drifted apart from each other. Rekindling their friendships after they drifted apart from each other.

Here are some examples that I have. Sorry, they all of are pro or ex pro athletes, but different sports.

USA Gymnasts: Vanessa Atler & Jamie Dantzscher

USA Alpine Skiers: Lindsay Kildow Vonn & Julia Mancuso  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are way too many variables to consider to even begin to figure this out. How good of friends were they?  Why did they drift apart?  Do they live in the same place anymore?  (etc).  If we even knew all of the people and circumstances involved very well, it would probably still be quite a guess.  Human social bonds are not quantitative things; we can't measure them, and predicting them is often nearly impossible.  The only thing I know to recommend is to go with your gut instinct.  I also believe that if a friendship is meant to work out, it will with a bit of mutual effort (but that's just an opinion). Falconus p  t   c 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, falconus. Your answer was interesting.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Watching the two of them being interviewed together on NBC last night, they didn't have much friendly interaction. Maybe they've just been competitors too often.  They did say Vonn is close friends with another of her competitors, I can't remember the name of the athlete, but I think she's Austrian.  Woogee (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

biographies of presidents
I'm looking for... well... good biographies of US presidents. Nothing controversial or muckraking or anything like that. Something similar to Stephen Ambrose's books on Nixon and Eisenhower would be good: fairly comprehensive, free of bias, with little opinion and no flowery prose. (My plan is to eventually read a book about each president- I recently got a job where I can spend quite a bit of my time reading) Any ideas? Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Where do you work? More to the point, are they hiring? :) There are lots of books about Presidents, and it's hard to avoid controversy, since most every President has his share. I don't know how much you know about the Presidents, so I'm going to make a radical suggestion: Before you look for books, see if you can find the History Channel TV series that covers all the Presidents. It's both a collection of mini-biographies and an overview of the history of America. I don't recall for sure, but it might well have a bibliography that could give you some ideas. Also, if you watch the Ken Burns films about the Lewis and Clark expeditions and about Thomas Jefferson himself; about the Civil War; and about the National Parks; you will learn a lot about Jefferson, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, for starters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have bought a lawyer friend of mine (who enjoys political and legal biographies), Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis by Jimmy Carter (not really a biography, I know) and Dreams from My Father by Barack Obama, and he was impressed with both. Astronaut (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For political junkies, I highly recommend two books that aren’t biographies of people, but rather biographies (?) of political parties: Party of the People: A History of the Democrats, by Jules Witcover and Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans, by Lewis Gould. Both are available on Amazon. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Obsolete Old Party: A History of the Whigs has been out of print for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I bet "The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War" (ISBN 0-19-505544-6) is still in print. AnonMoos (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You could browse through Presidents of the United States: Resource Guides, a Library of Congress collection of various info about almost every president, including bibliographies for each. They don't have pages for presidents after Lyndon B. Johnson, nor, oddly, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. Here is the Chester Arthur Selected Bibliography, looks like fun reading! Pfly (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Robert Caro's The Years of Lyndon Johnson are truly excellent. He hasn't gotten to The Presidency yet but by the time you get through the first three it probably will have come out! --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in the ongoing Time Books American Presidents Series. I believe they intend to eventually cover all of the presidents. I've read quite a few of these, and they're usually good. Some are written by leading historians and have perhaps a bit more opinion than what you appear to be looking for. The bio on Madison by Garry Wills is superb, but he's an opinionated guy, and he assumes you already know the basic history, so he gets right down to his analysis. The bio on Jefferson by Joyce Appleby is great, but it reflects her particular concerns. The bios written by non-professional historians, like the one on Polk, are less challenging and more for general audiences.

Aside from this series, if you like Stephen Ambrose, you'll almost certainly like all of the presidential biographies by Joseph J. Ellis and David McCullough. If you've never read a bio of Washington, His Excellency: George Washington is a great way to get started with your series. I could go on all day with other suggestions, but this is certainly enough to get you started. —Kevin Myers 14:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright for Oklahoma state song?
Who owns the copyright on the Oklahoma state song, "Oklahoma"? It's from the musical Oklahoma!, so I would presume that it was owned by Rogers or Hammerstein (can't remember which one of them wrote the music), but the words have been codified into state law, so according to Wheaton v. Peters, the text is PD as part of state law. However, the music isn't part of the law — it simply says that their music is the official tune for the song — so I don't see any reason to say that it's not still in copyright. However, the song is used so often that surely I would imagine R&H's heirs or publishers to sue for copyright infringement if they still owned it. A Google search yielded nothing to help me. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rogers wrote the music, Hammerstein wrote the lyrics. That's an interesting question. Obviously the song is or at least was copyrighted. So either the state bought the copyright or there was some kind of arrangement made. I'll look around a little bit and see if I can figure out anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I googled [rodgers hammerstein copyright], and this organization popped up, apparently the publishing company that owns the songs. It doesn't exactly say, but the implication is that a license is required. I would have to guess that the state of Oklahoma made some special licensing arrangement - obviously an arrangement that's mutually beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks; I wonder what would happen if someone got sued for using the lyrics without permission and defended themselves by saying that they were copying the Oklahoma Statutes? Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

psychology/psychiatry of Jesus of Nazareth
This is a query about psychology/psychiatry not about religion (so this may not be the correct forum). I am taking the Gospel accounts of Jesus at face value. More specifically, religion and supernatural aspects aside, I am assuming that Jesus was an actual historical person and that the descriptions of him (i.e. his personality, behaviors, etc.) are accurate. So, in my readings of Jesus via the Gospels (and references from the other New Testament authors), I do not see much (if any) evidence of Jesus having a psychiatric or personality disorder. So, assuming that he was of sound mind, why would Jesus allow himself to be brutally beaten and then crucified? Personally, if I were in his place, I would be singing whatever tune they wanted me to sing before the first crack of the whip! What are some possible explanations (from psychiatry, psychology, sociology, or other such field)that would make sense of what Jesus did in allowing himself to be "sacrificed"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.117.26 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He didn't "want to", but He submitted to it because He knew it was His destiny, as He symbolically took the sins of the world upon Himself, that the rest of us might be saved. That's a core belief of Christianity. As He prayed in the Garden of Gesthemene (sp?) He in fact asked God not to have to go through with it, but then He backed off from that and affirmed to God, "Thy will be done." (It's hard getting all those H's capitalized. Did I miss any?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Messiah complex + Martyr complex = Jesus. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently there were lots of "false messiahs" around that time, and most of them were put to death and that put an end to whatever their cult was. This one was different. The question is, why was it different? Was there more to it than what you're saying? Or did Jesus just get lucky, so to speak? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There was the middle ages "Messiah" Sabbatai Zevi who similarly claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and who had many followers, but who recanted and converted to Islam when arrested so the authorities did not kill him. Crucifixion did not suit him. He was rewarded by being proclaimed "Effendi" and getting a nice salary. If Jesus had made nice to the Sanhedrin, to Herod, or to Pilate he could have lived to a ripe old age with Mary Magdelene, and/or Mary andMartha, the sisters of Lazarus. Edison (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you're right. I'm no expert, but I believe that the crime that the Romans executed him for was political, not religious. The Romans didn't really care two hoots about exotic religions (in fact, they'd often assimilate them themselves) but political insurrection was anathema. Perhaps [probably!] I'm misinformed, but I believe that the Romans executed Jesus for being King of the Jews (as they perceived it). --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a bit of both. The local Jewish leadership basically conspired with the Romans to have Him put to death to get Him out of the way, as they presumably had with other "messiahs" who they saw as troublemakers. Unlike the other "messiahs", though, it was alleged that He had been resurrected, which by the way is another fundamental, core belief of the Christian religion: Jesus died and had been resurrected, and believers would also eventually be resurrected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Baseball Bugs, I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is what would drive this. I mean, he knew that his death would be slow and extremely painful (not to mention the brutal beating prior to the crucifixion). Knowing this, why would he continue along the path he did?

In response to Sherurci, I checked out both links you suggested. The first (Messiah Complex) is not a recognized disorder and, as I noted in my original post, there is no evidence that Jesus had any kind of mental disorder (as an aside, even such people as Jim Jones (who clearly had a Messiah Complex), choose to die was via a fairly painless process (especially in comparison to what Jesus endured; also, in reading the Jim Jones article, he clearly had a history of mental difficulties that became worse as time went on; nothing indicated that Jesus had the same or similar difficulties). As for the martyr complex you refer to, perhaps this is an example of an extreme case of such. However, again, I can not see any evidence in the New Testement supporting that Jesus would have developed this condition. So I am again stuck trying to make sense of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.117.26 (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two valid psychological rationales for Jesus' actions (setting aside insanity and destiny...).
 * Jesus was trying to reform what he saw as a corrupt system by pushing it on principles. This explains his general tendencies to question the actions of the Pharisees, and to cast himself in mythological roles (e.g. riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, which was a traditional legend about the arrival of the messiah).  This is a common behavior among reformists, who often critique religious leaders as being corrupt and decadent, and challenge them to be more moral. Getting executed, in this case, would have been a miscalculation: he would have expected the pharisees to lose popular support and surrender to the reform on moral repugnance at some point before his death (though he probably would have expected to suffer some).
 * Jesus set himself on a course of changes for the society, and accepted his death as one step in the greater path of the achievement of that ideal. This would be the more Socratic approach. Remember, Socrates chose to accept death when he was offered exile, because he felt that exile would demean the principles that he was trying to teach.
 * hope that helps. -- Ludwigs 2  06:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest reading Kantzenzakis (sp), The Last Temptation of Christ, a fictional account of Jesus based on the Gospels. It starts with Jesus' crucifixion.  His agony is so great, He hallucinates and imagines life if he cooperated.  The author is able to heighten inherent conflicts in the Gosepls and Christian tradition.  A very powerful book.  As an undergraduate, I studied several courses dealing with Jesus.  This novel was more profound than any textbook.75Janice (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, The Last Temptation of Christ, by Nikos Kazantzakis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The OP wrote: "More specifically, religion and supernatural aspects aside, I am assuming that Jesus was an actual historical person and that the descriptions of him (i.e. his personality, behaviors, etc.) are accurate". That's where the problem is. The "descriptions of him" can't be separated from "religion and supernatural aspects". The only descriptions we have of Jesus (not counting two or three highly disputed one-sentence mentions in Roman sources, some of which have been proved to be fake) are the ones written by Christians who subscribed to all the tenets of Christianity, including miracles etc, and indeed had set out to convincingly support them with their narrative. These accounts were never intended to make sense in any other way than the religious/supernatural one. If you want to accept them as accurate, then you have to accept their religious and supernatural interpretation, too. So any question you ask about what really happened with historical Jesus from a non-religious, non-Christian standpoint can get only one honest answer: we just don't know, and we never will. It seems very likely that historical Jesus did exist, but the nature of the sources is such that we know about as much as we would have known if he had never existed. We don't know why the Romans killed him, we don't know what the Jews' role was and what Pilate's was, we don't know what kind of a person Mary Magdalene was and what her relationship with Jesus was, we don't know if Jesus was a descendant of King David, we don't know exactly why he died, we don't know exactly how he died, and we don't even know if he existed. And if our life today crucially depends on knowing these things with certainty, then we are as good as dead and we had better live with that.:)

That said, the question "why would Jesus allow himself to be brutally beaten and then crucified" is strange. There have been countless martyrs in human history who have endured terrible torture and death for the countless different things they believed in. If Jesus was a Christian (i.e. if he believed in the Christian doctrine as we know it, i.e. if he believed that he was the son of God and that he had to die on the cross to atone for humanity's past and future sins), that was one good reason to do so; but there are countless other imaginable reasons.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What causes dark ages
Hello i was reading about ancient grease and how they embrace scientific method and logic and had many great thinkers with minds of skeptical inquiry eventually this way of thought was returned to human civilization but for long period it was absent i would think the meme of logical thought with skeptical inquiry would be superior to dark ages that is more thought would result in more progress and advancement in society and yet dark ages happened. What caused this regression or deevolution of way of thought among the educated class? (Dr hursday (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC))


 * High philosophy requires high culture; peasant farmers have no use for it. The collapse of the Roman empire left a cultural void in which philosophical achievements were only maintained within the Church, and that only tenuously.  real philosophy wouldn't resume until the enlightenment, when culture reasserted itself sufficiently to support it.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our article Dark Ages? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya beat me to it. A lot of good info in that article. Now, I can't resist Will Cuppy's comment: "The Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages because the people then weren't very bright. They've been getting brighter and brighter ever since, until they're like they are now." That was written in the 1940s. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If 1940s folks were the end result of centuries of illumination, what came after must have been a lot of burn-outs. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They were illuminated by the burning of all that ancient grease. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   07:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That allowed them to go Roman in the gloamin'. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, now we're stuck in the dork ages... -- Ludwigs 2  07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there was the Pope who started out as a gladiator referee at the Colosseum, then was laid off and became a homeless wanderer, his uniform moth-eaten; the original Holy Roamin' Umpire. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are all of you ignorant? Don't you know that dark ages are caused by Earth's rotation, and that darkness comes after sunset?  Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bah, Dark Age. Damn you Petrarch! Well it's all Aristotle's fault really. By the way the Greeks had their dark age too... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it only in Europe that civilisation regressed? Have we any article on the preservation of the culture in other civilisations (e.g. Arabic?)   D b f i r s   11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ... sorry, yes we do, and it is linked: Islamic golden age.   D b f i r s   11:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Byzantine Empire could claim to have maintained the light of civilization during the western European Dark Age. It's often forgotten about in the west - I don't think it was even mentioned in the whole of my education. One theory goes that when the Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453, Byzantine scholars sought refuge in Italy and the Rennaisance started. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There was somewhat of a Dark Age in the East as well — urban populations had dropped significantly and culture had diminished somewhat by the days of Justinian II (reigned 705-711), but it was far less than in the West. However, there's a good reason it's often forgotten in the West: Renaissance scholars saw the Empire as a far-gone degeneration from classical antiquity — hence the use of "Byzantine" instead of "Roman" to refer to the Empire in its last several centuries, even though it was a political continuation of the empire of Augustus and Claudius and its rulers continued to use the style of "Roman Emperor" — and thus had no interest in talking up the survival of its culture through what was in the West a very dark age.  Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

An earlier "dark" age ("dark" because the previous highly restricted bureaucratic literacy collapsed with the palace cultures it served) was the Greek Dark Age following the Bronze Age collapse. "Why" is always the impossible question in history as it is in our individual histories: recently historians are working on general theories on the collapse of empires; the book to read is Joseph A. Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies. So check the section "Social complexity" at the article Joseph Tainter. --Wetman (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Our Dark Ages article isn't very helpful. Our Early Middle Ages article is much more helpful.  If you are really interested in this question, I can recommend The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins.  To answer your question directly, the general level of education in most of Europe dropped sharply after the 4th century. By the 7th century, very few Europeans were literate.  The main exceptions were a small number of monks and church officials.  Probably most of the clergy and most of the aristocracy were illiterate.  So the "educated class", which was relatively large during classical times (though still a small minority of the population), became tiny.  And even among the relatively educated in, say, 7th-century Europe, education generally amounted to little more than bare literacy and some rote memorization.  The reason for this is that the infrastructure of civilization broke down during the 5th century in the Western Empire.   As others have said, it lingered a little longer in the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, which was able to reconquer a few outposts in Italy and Spain during the 6th century and bring them briefly into the orbit of its own (declining) Greek civilization.  Across most of Europe though, the relentless barbarian attacks, at first along the northern frontiers but later throughout the Western Empire, thoroughly undermined the infrastructure of civilization.  The cost of fighting off the barbarians impoverished the empire and left far fewer resources for the pursuit of knowledge or for the conduct of internal administration, which required a formal education.  Meanwhile, the growing danger of travel and risk of loss to raiders and brigands on unsafe roads and seas rapidly shut down trade and, with it, economic specialization and prosperity.  This further reduced both the need for and the ability to pay for the kind of bureaucracy that had encouraged people to become educated in classical times.  During the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries, it was impossible to make a living as a scholar.  There was very little demand for clerical or teaching skill because commerce and government had dwindled to almost nothing and  few people really needed an education.  Ordinary people faced hardship and had to devote all of their energy to eking out a subsistence living.  Aristocrats faced almost constant threats to their security and sporadic warfare, and had to devote most of their energy to maintaining military skills and collecting meager tribute from the people farming their land. The wealthiest aristocrats (e.g., dukes and kings) might have employed a literate priest to keep track of their affairs but also to provide religious services to their extended household.  Beyond that, in just a few monasteries, a few very privileged monks, supported by the work of less privileged monks, worked to preserve fragments of classical knowledge. Marco polo (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There were a few places that didn’t completely shut down. In fact, some actually florished then.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Those don't really count though...obviously they weren't affected by the collapse of the Roman Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gee, I could have sworn the original post was about "human civilization" . . . yep, it was. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The original poster doesn't even know how to spell "Greece" so I wouldn't assume that he even knows what he is asking. The "Dark Ages" are a European phenomenon. The Mayans were also flourishing then. So what? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statute of limitations
Hello why is roman pulaski not able to return to USA yet is not the statute of limitations up on his crime? if it is not when will statue of limitations be up? (Dr hursday (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC))
 * It depends on each state's laws, but certain heinous crimes typically have no statute of limitations: murder, rape, etc. As opposed to, possibly, shoplifting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you read our article, Statute of limitations ? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Like where it says under "Exceptions": "Rape, especially sexual abuse of minors, will often fall under this category." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because he pled guilty and was due to be sentenced (according to our article on the topic). Statutes of limitations apply to the initiation of the charge.   Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. With Roman Polanski (not Pulaski), it's kind of a double whammy. He pled and fled. But if he had fled first, they would still be after him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Australia's First Fleet" printed medium by Jonathan King.
It is generally understood that this FIRST Fleet consisted of 11 ships, yet, Mr King comes up with a occupants list of "Ship Unknown" with mainly Marines with their wives and children. It is claimed that the fist born Whittle child (26 Jan 1788)becomes the first UK Citizen born in Sydney Cove was from this mystery ship.

I would like to know where this ship fits into the Fleets history.

It appears that the highest rank on board listed was Marine Sergeant.

If this of no consequence to Wikipedia; perhaps one could send me an email to A response would be very welcome! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.26.15 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello i delete your email address to avoid spam (Dr hursday (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Without access to the book you mention, I can only speculate - perhaps King means "I don't know which ship this person was on." It looks like both our First Fleet and list of convicts on the First Fleet could be improved.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  13:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Larry Mac; good insight! Cheers, Dremdee

The Times archive
Does anyone know how I'd go about reading an article from The Times in 1989? Their archive stops at 1985... Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  constablewick  ─╢ 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try your local library, they may well have either on-line access or microfiched copies. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've checked that, and I'm afraid that my local libraries offer neither :( ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do they participate in interlibrary loan? Because there are surely microfiched copies around somewhere, but you will either have to go to them or make them come to you.
 * They are all digitized, as part of the Gale Digital Archives. The Times from 1981 to the present is available through Factiva and from 1985 to the present through LexisNexis. But you will have to find an institution that subscribes to that. I don't think individuals can buy in. Alternatively, there is a place on Wikipedia (I cannot remember where) where you can ask people who might have access to send you the article in question. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Resource Exchange. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Google News archives for the Times goes back further than that. You can see articles as far back as 1858.  I don't know if every article is available, but take a look at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=1800&as_user_hdate=2010&q=%22new+york+times%22&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=%22new+york+times%22&lnav=od&btnG=Go Woogee (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP is not referring to the New York Times, but The Times. 78.146.181.195 (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem (it took me two reads to get it too) is not going back far, but things that are more recent. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My library (probably the whole county) subscribes to InfoTrac, which seems to cover this period. I can login through my county council website automatically with my library card number, this might be worth a shot; I believe it may be behind here. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 09:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

UK Chief Rabbi
How is the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom appointed/selected? Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  hemicycle  ─╢ 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question! The Chief Rabbi's website doesn't say, we don't seem to have an article about the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth (which is the body of which he is Chief Rabbi), and they don't appear to have a website. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth is just an archaic name for the organisation now known as the United Synagogue (though their website doesn't explain the process either, unless I'm missing something). I'll set up a redirect now! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  without portfolio  ─╢ 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The US website implies that the United Hebrew Congregations is not the same thing, as it says to see the Chief Rabbi's website to find out about the United Congregations. I thought that US was a member of the United Congregations, not identical with it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In practice, they overlap to such an extent that that redirect is valid (and certainly more useful than a red-link!). I think it's basically a distinction of the UHC including delegates from other Commonwealth Nations. But I still want to find out how the guy's appointed :P ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 19:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know any Orthodox Ashkenazic British rabbis? They might know :) DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not on speaking terms with any, no :P I guess I could ring their office number, but they might get the impression I'm slightly weird...! ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  draftsman  ─╢ 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read that section in the Sacks article, I'm awfully tempted to start quoting The Life of Brian, but shall try not to! DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Texas plane incident
I just heard that some man in Texas flew a plane into a building to destroy it because he hated the Tax Dept. - Is this considered political so it could be termed as terrorism, or is not the case? --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His religion will probably determine whether it is called terrorism. Edison (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edison means "is he's a Muslim, he'll be called a terrorist. If not, he'll probably be called something else". Not saying I agree... DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy is dead, isn't he? He can't be tried for anything, so what difference does it make what his crime is classified as? As far as I know, there is no reason to believe he had accomplices. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the only significant difference between this and the Oklahoma City bombing is scale. So yes, I'd say it qualifies as terrorism.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this article at the Washington Post contains the the sentence "A Department of Homeland Security spokesman said there was no indication that the crash was related to terrorism. " -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The type of criminal act - Terrorism, Criminal Damaging, Reckless Operation of an Aircraft, etc. - is also relevant for things like Insurance. The owners of the building will file their insurance claim for the damage differently depending on the results of whatever investigation takes place. In some cases, occupants of the building during the event might also have various claims - the type of incident would determine whether those claims go against the pilot, the aircraft manufacturer, or whomever. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no agreed-upon definition of terrorism. It is a very fuzzy concept. That being said, from a "common-sensical" point of view, I would suggest that if it was one person just expressing his frustration/hatred of an institution, I probably wouldn't consider it terrorism. If it was, however, meant to coerce some kind of political result, then it would be. I don't exactly see this as more than an expression of frustration—I don't think he thought he was going to set off some kind of generalized revolt, did he? In Oklahoma, McVeigh thought he was going to set off some kind of general Turner Diaries-style revolt, which puts his action much more in the traditional definition of terrorism and differentiates it (along with scale) from the more standard "disgruntled postal worker" sort of thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are legal definitions of "terrorism", but they vary by jurisdiction of course, and are of little use to what the OP is asking about. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One would presume that the Texas version was applicable in this case. Googlemeister (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not terrorism and is not being labeled as such by the media. This was one lunatic who was mad at everybody you can think of and decided to go out in a blaze of glory. Or a blaze, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As opposed to a terrorist suicide bomber where... TastyCakes (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't look very hard, but I couldn't find a definition of "terrorism" under Texas law. There is however a federal definition of terrorism (actually "domestic terrorism" and "international terrorism"), with the relevant language being: a criminal act that appears to be intended "(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." Terrorism is defined elsewhere too. For example, in  "Federal crime of terrorism" is defined in even more detailed terms, including reference to specific crimes. There are other definitions. Our Definition of terrorism article is probably a good place to start (I should have realized we had that article sooner). Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the IRS buildings are considered federal property (I suspect they are), then it probably would go by the federal definition as opposed to the state. Googlemeister (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The US government is generally self-insured, but if the building were leased from a private builder/owner, might the insurance policy have damage exclusion for acts of war or terrorism? And his manifesto seemed intended to stir up the public, following his murderous action, and/or to influence government policy. 9/11 with a smaller airplane and fewer casualties. ABC News reports that the socalled "antigovernment patriot" movement is rallying behind the guy as a "hero," and taking his words as a rallying point for their right-wing militancy. As for crazyness of the manifesto, it reads milder than a lot of talk radio and TV bloviators and  politicians' rhetoric. U.S Representative Lloyd Doggett called it "domestic terrorism," as did Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress.The White House and law enforcement are more hesitant to call it terrorism. Edison (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Flatiron Building, New York
(moved from RD/Computing) dear sir or madam

i need to reference the flatiron building from start to finish   i need to make a project version of this building with all its mathamatical figures, sizes, oddities, etc. i have searched everything i know of, along with my granny, who knows very little about doing any of this. i am 12 years old and if you can just tell me where to look for all this info i would really appreciate    thank you so much     brett ware  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.1 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You could start with our article Flatiron Building and the references listed there. In the meantime, I'm going to move I have moved this question to our Humanities Reference Desk where it might get better answers than here on the Computing Desk.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I've moved the question, if there's anything in the article that is not clear or that you need more information about, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck with your assignment.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added some essential detail to the article.--Wetman (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an interesting project. WorldCat says some books have been written about the building, such as Flatiron : a photographic history of the world's first steel frame skyscraper, 1901-1990, The prowed tower : early images of the Flatiron Building and one from 2010, The Flatiron : the New York landmark and the incomparable city that arose with it. It's doubtful these books are in your nearest community library but your nearest big metropolitan central library or university library may be able to get them for you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some books selected from among those at Google Book Search with coverage of the building which allow you to read some or all of the text:, (cool science fiction from 1908 of a mad scientist using a Tesla "disintegrator" to knock down the Flatiron Building), includes a floorplan, , , , , , , , , , , , , (the building uses hydraulic elevators, and they go much higher than that type of elevator is typically used for), photos under construction. What is a "flatiron?" see Ironing and in particular . See Daniel Burnham, about the architect. See George A. Fuller, about the construction company, which also built the New York Times building and the Lincoln Memorial. How was it different from older buildings made of load bearing stone or brick wall? See Skyscraper. The steel frame bears the weight and the wind load, something like a steel girder bridge stood on end. Almost all articles and book coverage just talk about the appearance. I could not find details of the structural engineering calculations or the novel building techniques (riveted steel beams and columns), or the calculations on wind loading. Burnham drew pretty pictures and had big ideas , and mechanical engineers did the drudgework to make sure it would not collapse or sway in the wind. These were probably working at the Fuller Company or as consultants. Issues they had to deal with, and which were probably written up around 1901-1905 were how to provide elevators to get people up and down efficiently without taking up too much of the interior space with elevator shafts, how to provide fire protection (a standpipe was used to carry water pumped in at high pressure by fire engines on the street, so there was still plenty of pressure for a fire hose at the top floor), how to provide a water supply for drinking fountains or washrooms at reasonable pressure on all floors (simple supply from a water tank on the roof might provide too much pressure at the ground floor), how to supply heat, what effect would it have on the strength of wind on the street (it was said to make it hard to walk at street level because of the increased gusts), how to supply electricity to the entire building and still have enough voltage at all floors (where to put the transformers: they were then full of flammable oil), what kind of foundation was needed, how the steel was fireproofed, considering whether it was located over shallow bedrock or on sand or marshy soil, and how heavy it was, and even how to get up and down to clean the windows. Old writings from when the building was new are likely to have more of these details, such as . This 1904 book notes that the exterior terra cotta walls were supported by the steel of their own floor, so that it was possible to build the steel frame, then attach the outside walls to one of the upper floors first. The ground floor exterior walls thus did not have to support the upper walls. A good early article about the engineering of this and other early skyscrapers is at New York Times 1908 .Edison (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to copy/paste Edison's list into the article's Talkpage.--Wetman (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinking outside yourself
What's the technical term for the ability to think outside yourself (for example, to imagine what you would look like from the corner of the room)? Whatever the answer, do we have an article on it? AndyJones (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article on the more extreme form: Out-of-body experience.--Wetman (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe just imagination? If you are trying to observe, say, yourself rom another's perspective, it would be putting oneself in another's shoes, which could be considered empathy, if that's what you're looking for.209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Self-awareness? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It can be a sign of a dissociative disorder, specifically a depersonalization disorder. --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

All good answers but not quite the one I was looking for. I have an idea that there's a quite specific term for it: more specific than the answers above but rather less specific than Out-of-body experience (which is presumably one extreme example of what I'm describing). I may cross-post at the science desk if I don't have what I was looking for in a day or so: but I find I get better answers to language/terminology questions here. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)(Not logged in: I'm AndyJones)


 * I can't recall the term, but I remember an experiment with a specific species of spider that seemed to show these spiders had this ability, which humans also have. It involved the spiders finding their way to food, and climbing towers to see where it was then finding their way without being able to see it. If this rings any bells for anyone, perhaps it can lead us to the term. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of something like projection but none of the wiki articles seem to agree with me. Livewireo (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or visualization. Livewireo (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Spatial-temporal reasoning or visual thinking? --NorwegianBluetalk 22:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe the term you are looking for is: "Extrasensory perception".Is it? (I seem to remember that that has to do with supernatural belief). --Seren-dipper (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Fixed typography & grammar, in my reply of February 24. --Seren-dipper (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're thinking of empathy? —D. Monack talk 23:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * foresight?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What state lotteries allow winners to claim in total anonymity?
I mean that they don't force you to allow your name to be known to the public. Not that you claim it without them knowing who you are. 71.161.59.15 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this question on the Powerball site, only one US state (Delaware) allows winners to remain anonymous. However, in other lotteries, it appears to vary depending on the state: a Google search revealed news results about an anonymous Ohio Mega Millions winner and an anonymous winner in Texas. However, I also read pages from the states of Oregon and Minnesota that said the names of winners are always published I couldn't find any single source that spoke about all states, but it seems likely you could look at each state's "lottery FAQ" page separately (presuming they have one, which seems reasonable). 24.247.163.175 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This brief article suggests that in many US states, it is possible to set up a blind trust (I'm not sure that the Wikipedia article's talking about the same thing as the linked article) to claim the winnings anonymously. If you really have won the lottery, the thing to do is immediately contact an attorney, rather than ask a bunch of people on the internet what to do.  After all, you can afford to pay someone who actually knows the local laws and can give you sound legal advice. Buddy431 (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are winners advised to get a lawyer? Note that this question can be answered without giving legal advice.71.161.59.15 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it can. Sure, most states might require the name of the "person" who claimed the winnings to be released, but if the local laws are also such that said "person" could really be an anonymous trust, the issue becomes much more muddied.  I certainly couldn't say where such a trust could be used and how exactly to set one up, and I doubt that anyone short of a lawyer with knowledge in local and state money laws could. Buddy431 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, the names of lottery winners were always automatically published. Until 1960, when Graeme Thorne, whose parents had recently won a major lottery prize, was abducted for ransom, and murdered. It was this country's first kidnapping. Lottery ticket buyers were then given the option of having their names suppressed, and anonymity is the norm these days. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)