Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities/February Werdnabot Archives

= February 13 =

Matrixism
Is Matrixism a real religion or just a parody? 206.188.56.108 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on your definition of religion. If you define religions by physical presences (eg. churches), then no it is not a real religion. On the other hand Wikipedia defines religion as the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life.  Nonetheless, administrators on Wikipedia do not consider Matrixism a real religion and futher more do not believe it warrants an article. As you can see by the link, the page was deleted several times and is now protected to prevent re-creation. More or less, it's a real religion if you want to believe so. However, it is at best a very small and underground religion with only 963 hits on Google. --The Dark Side 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you did a Google Canada search. There are 9110 hits on Google.com. So this religion might be considerably larger than you indicated. 206.188.56.66 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A parody religion is defined by Wikipedia as either a parody of a religion, sect or cult, or a relatively unserious religion that many people may take as being too esoteric to be classified as a "real" religion. It's up to you to decide whether Matrixism is a real or parody religion. --The Dark Side 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hinduism believes that all life is an illusion (maya)- somewhat of a Matrix-esque concept. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the Matrix has a lot of Christian symbols and beliefs in its subtext. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

do humans have free will
do humans have free will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.201.217 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 February 2007


 * Yes. If I wanted to I could have avoided answering this question. --Taraborn 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? How do we know it was not your destiny to answer that question? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm absolutely sure since your "theory" isn't falsifiable, therefore useless. --Taraborn 12:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You can start your essay by defining free will. Even if you decide there is no omniscient deity, in any civilised society, can you really do as you wish? Are you not restrained by formal and informal laws and conventions? Your prejudices? Your nature or nurture? Your physical limits? If I decided, with free will, to grow a second liver, how likely would I be to succeed? --Dweller 10:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, my favorite unanswerable question. No philosopher, saint, scientist, artist, or anyone else has ever been able to answer this question satisfactorally. There's no way wikipedia will do any better. I think after all these thousands of years of people trying to find the answer it is pretty clear that there is no logical answer. Perhaps the question is a semantic paradox. The words "free" and "will" undermine one another.


 * The Tao addresses it through paradox. The Tao Te Ching is full of statements like: The World is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering. The Tao symbol can be taken as the interpenetration of both determinism and free will (or any other pair of opposites). Many koans in Zen force the issue by demanding a definitive answer to questions like this, but reject "there is free will" as unjustified faith, and reject "there is no free will" as nihilism, and reject "I don't know" as defeatism.


 * The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart addressed the question by inverting the phrase "Thy will be done" into "Will, be thine". The Dark Night of the Soul of John of the Cross says as much.


 * Then there is Laurie Anderson saying, I don't know about your brain, but mine is really bossy. Pfly 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think my wife has free will. Is she really human? DDB 19:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, she is a goddess. ;) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a meaningless question. Why dont you ask if heroin addict has free will? 202.168.50.40 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I rolled dice and they said "yes"hotclaws**== 09:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

help! tisha
please help me i searched in the archives the question i wrote here.but the problem is i dont know what question it is but it i remembered that it is as the same day as the question "do humans have free will?"203.76.201.217 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)date it was last year
 * You can also read the question above this one. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably the same question, although her browser shows a cached copy. 惑乱 分からん 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Crusades Viewed so Negatively?
Before 9/11, it was acceptable to use the term "Crusade" to refer to any noble mission, such as "the Crusade to find a cure for cancer" or "the Crusade against hunger and poverty". However post-9/11, "Crusade" has become a dirty word, due to its supposed pro-Christian and anti-Islamic connotations.

But these are the historical facts: Having possession of the Holy Land, in 391, Roman Emperor Theodosius I established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Therefore, as of 391 AD, the Holy Land was Christian land. However, 245 years later, in the 636 AD Battle of Yarmouk, the Muslims invaded, and took the Holy Land from the Christians.

What followed were the Crusades, which were essentially the many attempts by Christians to retake the Holy Land they had lost to the Muslims in 636 AD. Of course all these battles, from the Battle of Yarmouk to all the Crusades, were equally bloody and cruel.

My basic question is this: Why the double standard? How was the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 636 any less offensive than the attempts of the Crusaders to take back what they had lost? Why is a Muslim conquest of Christian land so much more acceptable and reasonable than those "awful Crusades" which were essentially attempts by Christians to recover the land stolen from them in 636? Loomis 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Loomis, I think your question answers itself. The word "crusade" has long been used in a positive manner, and it's only because of that that people have pointed out the original Crusades weren't all that super to everybody. An equivalent could be the word jihad, which some people say they use in the same apolitical, nonviolent way as Christians who talk about "crusades" against hunger. But use the word "jihad" to a Christian, and he'll be more likely to think of violent struggles -- like the seventh-century conquest of Palestine. -- Mwalcoff 03:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am Christian. How can any Christian condone the bloodshed? My New Testament Gospel readings don't depict Jesus of Nazareth leading such an attempted conquest. Some Christians aren't Christian. I am not Muslim so I can't comment on what they did. I doubt if they followed in the best tradition of the Koran. Both sides were despicable.72.92.17.51 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice


 * I disagree with the statement that the word 'crusade' has always been used positively. Personally, I've never heard the term 'crusade to find a cure for cancer' or anything like it, and I've heard the word used in many negative contexts, like Senator McCarthy's actions being called a crusade, Captain Ahab, etc. Overall, the ways I've seen the word used have generally implied a misguided, invasive, hurtful campaign based on a narrow-minded, self-righteous viewpoint. I think reducing it to a pre/post 9/11 context is flawed. Anchoress 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly the connotations would depend on the particular circles you socialize in... 惑乱 分からん 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I don't think I can remember the last time anyone used the word in conversation; my interpretation comes from print and news media. Anchoress 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have recently seen a thread on the Reference Desk where Islamicists denied that Islam was spread with the sword (by coercion). By this notion, the crusades (wherein Christianity was re-introduced militaristically) would have been more intrusive than the earlier Islamicization of the Holy Lands. Of course the Old Testament conquest of Canaan by Joshua and company provided a model of coercive conversion or slaughter. Edison 06:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the word (as opposed to the historical events) can be either positive or negative in Western culture, with the former predominating. Just from random Googling, I get Dwight David Eisenhower's book, Crusade in Europe and Campus Crusade for Christ as positive examples. Clarityfiend 07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You state that Roman Emperor Theodosius I had possession of the Holy Land in 391, and so the Crusades were just an attempt to regain these lands. However, these lands were not simply given to Rome as a friendly gesture, they were taken by force. In fact, that region has been through the hands of many, many empires (very interesting link). Ah, the things people do for some dirt. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Twas, you should know that I'd be the absolute last person to deny the fact that Rome acquired the Holy Land in any less coercive a way than did the Muslims in 636, followed by the Christian Crusades. Of course Rome took land that wasn't rightfully their's. All I'm asking about is the seeming double standard in attitudes between the Muslim invasion in 636 and the Crusades. One of the things that really gets me is how when one attempts to list the various dark periods of mankind, I so often here the following associations being drawn, as in the following sentence: "From the Crusades, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Holocaust, mankind has repeatedly shown its capacity for cruelty and inhumanity". Now wait a sec! Those three periods of history are in no way comparable! Perhaps the Inquisition and the Holocaust are comparable on these terms, but the Crusades should certainly not be included, at least not if the 7th century Muslim invasions are excluded. Loomis 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it depends on the opinions of the author. There are even people, as you know, who would consider all of those periods as good… But I think most historians would not agree with the comparison, since they all arose out of different situations. The Inquisition and the Holocaust are fairly similar—seeking out members of a particular group in ones own country—whereas the Crusades were a war of conquest. I suppose the Crusades and the Holocaust are similar in that sense, since the Nazis engaged in a war of conquest to kill the Jews of other nations. Anyway, depending on their background, different people have different opinions about these periods in history. Are you saying the majority of books you have read on the subjects have compared them to each other? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never read of a positive aspect to Crusade. Even a moral crusader is seen as someone who goes too far. My siblings were always going on crusades, and parents rolled their eyes. I understand the word is related to the fight for the cross (?). If so, it is a Christian, not Islamic symbol. I think the reason for the negative connotation relates to the flowering of corporate social conscience experienced in England circa 1800. England had acquired a sizable empire in 1749, the year Nelson was born, and affluence exerted itself in counter culture. Adam Smith published a treatise on moral sentiment in 1759. Hume was writing on Human understanding in 1740's. During these years, literacy rates sky rocketed in England and social reformers achieved political strength.

The crusades had been successful for Christians. Bad military policy saw the french speaking outremer kingdom collapse in Jerusalem. It was a time when Europe was overpopulated and had muscle. By the time Zionists began pushing for a homeland in the late 1800's, social opinion began to oppose European mid East involvement, as illustrated by T. E. Lawrence.

Western style politics, with the embrace of the 'great argument' dialectic has one 'side' opposing the other. The term Crusade is an easy one to color any government that shows initiative.

More recently, but predating 2001, terrorists making claim to Islamist ideals have used the term to politically color argument. They never used it in a positive sence. DDB 07:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Many excellent responses here, with brilliant and enlightening links. Ref Desk at its best. Just a few historical links - to add that the concept is believed to originate from Saint Augustine's concept of Just War and that the First Crusade was proclaimed by Pope Urban II at the Council of Piacenza in 1095. Subsequent Crusades were declared against the pagans in modern day Germany, a sect that may or may not be regarded as Christian (the Albigensian Crusade) and, (hugely) ironically, the Fourth Crusade ended up in an attack on Christians living in Zara and Constantinople. --Dweller 10:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Edison 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Crusade" used to be used more positively than it is now, and not that long ago - think of Batman, the "Caped Crusader" - but it's true that the real Crusades are not looked back on with pride by most of the Christian-heritage countries of the world. They were a series of imperialist wars driven by religious ideology and fought with often horrific cruelty and zeal, and we like to think of ourselves as better than that now. Those who see the current situation between the west and Islam as a "clash of civilisations" tend to appeal to the Enlightenment to demonstrate our values are better than theirs. Nobody really wants reminded that there was a time when Christians were promised instant paradise if they died killing Muslims. --Nicknack009 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Crusades also pitted Christian against Christian, and the battles tended to be indiscriminate. "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" appears to have been the order of the day. Many Crusaders went on crusades not "to take the cross", but to liberate as much property/steal as much loot as possible. The Crusades also functioned to siphon off the excitable/violent members of Western society (at least the male half) and often pitted these loose cannons against regular armies and civilian populations. -- Charlene 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a popular perception that has generally been debunked in recent historical research. The Jade Knight 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Crusade" actually originally was synonymous for "pilgrimage". "Taking the cross" meant "to go on pilgrimage". Originally, military involvement was incidental, not an integral part of the crusade (but something that was common). One could be a "crusader" without having lifted a sword. Over time, however, the military aspects of "crusades" were emphasized, and the term came to have the different meaning it has now. The Jade Knight 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I had originally considered ignoring this thread, because I did not believe that it served any useful purpose. However, I now think it important for the record (on the assumption that this is soon to vanish into the archives) to clarify one or two issues. First and foremost, we are dealing with two quite separate and not completely related areas of discourse: one of history and one of contemporary politics. It does not seem to me to be in any sense legitimate to attempt a direct comparison between the Muslim occupation of the Holy Land after Yarmouk and the incursion of the Crusaders at the end of the eleventh century. This cross roads between Africa and Asia has been fought over for centuries; and of all the invasions that of the Muslim armies was, as far as I am aware, far less destructive of human life than the original incursion of the Jewish tribes at the time of the Exodus, or the wholesale massacre carried out when the crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099, or even the invasion of the Persians earlier in the reign of the Emperor Heraclius. Indeed, far from the land being Christian in any unified sense it had, prior to the Battle of Yarmouk, seen an intense factional dispute between the local Monophysites and the orthodox authorities in Constantinople. The Monophysites, who rejected the doctrine laid out by the Council of Chalcedon, settled down with very little resistence to Muslim rule, and the Byzantine state made no attempt to recover the lost heretical provinces.

The Crusades, therefore, most assuredly, did not follow follow from the conquest of Yarmouk, but came almost five hundred years later ( a time span which seperates contemporary England from the reign of Henry VII), and under very specific historical circumstances. Under pressure from the Turks in Anatolia, who had been steadily moving westwards ever since the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus appealed to Pope Urban II for military aid. He wanted professional mercenaries; he got something quite different. Urban conjured up a popular movement at the Council of Clermont (not Piacenza). Thus the crusades began, and with it began centuries of massacre and atrocity, from the pogrom of the Jews in the Rhineland, moving through the wholesale murder and rape of Christian communities in the Balkans, to the ultimate sack of Jerusalem. And so it continued. The attitude mentioned by Charlene actually arose from the Albigensian Crusade in the thirteenth century. In taking the town of Bézirs, the crusaders, unable to distinguish between Catholic and Albigensian heretic, asked Arnold-Aimery, their leader, what they should do, he replied, 'Kill them all. God will know his own.'

In view of all of this it would hardly be surprising if the word 'crusade' had negative conotations. But it has not; at least not until recently. It was used in positive terms for centuries, long after the atrocities and outrages had been forgotten, as something good, noble and Christian, a myth of purity washed clean of blood. To offer a personal note, my brother's first yacht was even called Pacific Crusader! The negativity now associated with the word comes as a consequence of ever closer western military engagement with the Islamic world. From memory, I believe George W Bush actually used the 'c' word in the early days of the Iraq word, until he was reminded of the implications of this for Muslim people, and the history he was bringing to mind. I think it safe to assume that many Islamic people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are threatened with a new crusade. We have now, it would seem, created Outremer once again; and it remains to be seen if it will be as long lasting, or if, in the end, Baibars will walk over the ghost of Richard the Lionheart. Clio the Muse 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

= February 14 =

Why -12- roses?
Apropos of the date, I come to wonder why it is traditional - on St. Valentine's Day, in particular - to make the gift of twelve roses, rather than any other number thereof. Clues remain elusive, residing neither in the article for the day, nor the number. Worthy of love, indeed, would be assistance in this most enigmatic of mysteries! 87.242.136.76 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheaper by the Dozen? --Wetman 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dozen is a good number to sell things in. It is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6.  That is the main reason it (as well as 144) has been a popular quantity for sales for so many centuries. --Kainaw (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My guess is twelve months of the year, showing a comittment to the whole year. DDB 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A year of love that dies withers in a week. No wonder the divorce rate in the U.S. is so high. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you can get away with eleven. I once bought someone eleven because it was all they had left at the flower stall. She didn't count them and it did the trick!--Shantavira 09:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Tis classic to say "Eleven American Beauties- the twelfth is you!" Edison 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of people
Does the Wikipedia list the religon of famous or wealthy people? -- Barringa 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

While I haven't noticed such, I understand the frustration of not knowing if you agree with someone or not by what they say, because you don't know their religion. Actually, to be really honest, I don't know what that is like.DDB 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lists of people by belief. They may or may not be wealthy, but they all have some claim to notability or they shouldn't be in Wikipedia.--Shantavira 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You may find Category:Forbes World's Richest People and its "see also" categories interesting. Dar-Ape 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blue Lighting Fad or not?
Do you think that the ubiquitous blue ambient lighting in today's electronics and other industries is a fad, or something that is here to stay?--Technofreak90 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is cool because those who buy them feel that they have something special. When everyone has it, it won't be popular anymore.  That is merely a fad. --Kainaw (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fad, but I don't think it'll be unpopular, considering blue is a common favorite color. I like my computer case though. It mostly glows blue, with multicolor lighted fans (I got it in 2002 I think). I will admit that I have been getting blue ambient lighting on my other computer parts to match my computer case, including my mouse (which I still think is the coolest thing). --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Definately a fad - due to the better availability of blue led's perhaps (though curiously the blue lights aren't always due to led's) - I can remember when just having a red dot on a piece of hi-fi (red led) was 'red hot' - as far as I'm concerned it still is - but it's definately just a fashion thing.83.100.158.13 08:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1st amendment
I was just watching Frontline on PBS about the leadup to what is now "The Scooter Libby Trial". Anyways, at one point the narrator mentions that 49 states carry some law(s) that in someway protect a journalists right to not reveal their sources or protection against a subpeona to testify. I am wondering what is the 50th states stance? do they have no laws? complete protection? what state is it!?!?

Thanks! 72.70.4.120 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)moe.ron

I will research it further. I wanted to see this Frontline. When they say that 49 states someway protect a journalist from revealing sources, the emphasis should be on some way, which is not very much in most cases. Courts protect journalist rights and the need for confidentiality. A criminal defendant's rights always win. Scooter Libby's trial is more bizarre with some journalists freely breaking confidentiality, Judith Miller obtaining a waiver half way through her imprisonment. I hope I can watch the show.72.92.17.51 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice


 * I don't know where the TV show got its information. The Poynter Institute says 17 states lack shield laws for journalists. -- Mwalcoff 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you visit the pbs home page and search for Scooter Libby and Frontline, a plethora of resources is listed. Instead of stating the one exception, the site lists all fifty for one to casually peruse. It would take me about one week to compare all the statues. Fine gradations of language and policy are involved that will be difficult to compare. I was taught that all respect is given to the importance of journalism in a free society but it is an inferior right when a criminal defendant needs information that could clear the defendant. I wish PBS put in a webcast of the program.75Janice 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice

Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow
How is it that Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow can be elected (however trustworthy the election results are) as the leader of a country and his birthdate is unknown?? Dismas |(talk) 09:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many people don't know exactly the date of their own birth. However it may be the case here that the birthdate is known - but wikipedia doesn't have that information yet.83.100.158.13 10:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be due to administrative errors in the Turkmen SSR at the time of his birth, or (more likely, it may be due to systemic bias, as we don't seem to have many Turkmenistani editors around. A  ecis Brievenbus 11:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which would be strange, since there are apparently about 20 editors in Category:User tk. A  ecis Brievenbus 11:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how not knowing a person's birthdate would be a reason not to vote for a candidate... 惑乱 分からん 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that it would sway a vote neccesarily but that I thought it strange that he would get to such a position and such a basic fact about the man is so unknown as to not be in the article. Dismas |(talk) 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That said it would be helpful if a turkmen speaking user could see if there is any further data to be extracted from *tk:Gurbanguly Mälikgulyýewiç Berdimuhammedow83.100.158.13 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain
I hope this question goes to right place. I have heard rumors about Great Britain that are hard for me to believe. Please tell me are these true or false or do they belong to the past.
 * 1) Is it true that most windows have only one layer of glass, and that windows are sometimes so poorly insulated that moss or fungus may grow inside houses?
 * 2) Is it true that houses have so poor heating systems or insulation that you have to take bottles of warm water with you at bed?
 * 3) Is it true that with washbowl there are two water taps, one for cold water and one for hot water, and if you want middle warm water, you have to pour both hot and cold water to washbowl and mix them there?
 * 4) Is it true that water from water pipes is not fit for drinking?
 * 5) Is it true that it is a crime called "anti social" to be too sarcastic or peculiar? 193.65.112.51 11:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last question, see Anti-Social Behaviour Order. It makes reference to the case of an 87-year-old man ordered not to shout, swear or make sarcastic remarks to neighbours or their visitors. See this BBC News article for more information. A  ecis Brievenbus 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which country are you from? Anyway, my responses are:
 * most houses are double-glazed these days
 * largely untrue, though some people like a hot water bottle in bed on cold nights
 * true
 * untrue, it's always safe but in a few areas tastes awful
 * untrue
 * --Auximines 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * --Auximines 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let me try: Hope that helps. Come over and see us some time. We're lovely people. When we're not being sarcastic. --Dweller 12:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "most" is difficult to define. Many homes have single glazing, rather than double glazing. No, the latter part is untrue, unless you take "sometimes" to mean "very rarely, bordering on virtually never".
 * 2) Some people do use hot water bottles. It's something particularly associated with elderly people. Mostly, it's because it's uneconomical (and not very environmentally friendly) to keep the heating on all night.
 * 3) Some people have mixer taps. Some don't. Like in lots of countries I've visited.
 * 4) There are two types of taps, generally. Some are specifically for drinking. Some, say in bathrooms, aren't. I've no idea how the cleanliness of the latter measures against the cleanliness of water elsewhere in the world where there is no differentiation.
 * 5) Yes, sarcasm is a crime. Sorry, I was being sarcastic. It's a national sport. Oops, there I go again. No, it's not. Being peculiar might be a crime, depending on whether it's about having a funny walk (not a crime) or having a tendancy to kill people.
 * Now I wonder what other countries have separate "faucets" for hot and cold water. Rmhermen 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When you find out, you can add the information to the new article on Mixer tap, if you like. --Dweller 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The degree of insulation which is desirable depend=s on the climate. Per Climate of the United Kingdom the Gulf Stream limits extreme cold, so the higher cost of double glazing is less justified than in, say the northern U.S. where (not even counting Alaska) it can get to −60 °F (−51 °C) (per Climate of Minnesota) and where it sometimes goes weeks without rising above 0 °F (-18 °C). Similarly, it does not get as hot in Great Britain as it does, say in the southern U.S. "temperatures rarely go much above 35 °C (95 °F); but it is not unusual to record temperatures of over 32°C during a particular summer. The record maximum is 38.5 °C (101 °F)" "The north west and north east have cooler summers (average 14 - 15 °C (58 °F)), the south west has rather warmer summers (average 16 °C (61 °F)) and the south and south east have the warmest summers (average 17 - 18 °C (63 - 64 °F))." Double glazing would not be much of an advantage when it is around 18 celsius outside. One thing I noticed in GB was that the homes seemed to have a masonry exterior, more expensive than the wood or vinyl siding common in the U.S.Edison 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I Live in Finland and most windows here have 3 or 4 glasses. I have never seen described 2-taps system here. Its always mixer tap and usuallly with one switch. In some older mixer taps there is 2 switches. Tuohirulla puhu 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An expert in home construction in the U.S once told me that triple glazing was not economically defensible here even if the materials were free. Lots of heat transfers through single glazing, far less through double glazing. Diminishing returns means the third layer has less benefit than the second, and the 4th is basically along for the ride (little if any benefit). Edison 05:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is Edison? (In other words, Edison, please state your jurisdiction.)martianlostinspace 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Where is Edison? (In other words, Edison, please state your jurisdiction.)martianlostinspace 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

hendrix
u no how hendrix is often cited as THE greatest guitarist in music history? well, u can still put he was one of the most but can u people please post something citing he was the best. u ask anyone on the street if he was the best and they would all probably say yes.Jk31213 06:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It obvious hendrix is the best see http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030828/ai_n12713574 "'JIMI HENDRIX has been named by Rolling Stone magazine as the greatest guitarist in rock history.'".

83.100.158.13 19:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rolling Stone has an obvious bias toward musicians from the 60s and 70s. On their 500 Greatest Albums of All Time edition, the list was composed of the following:
 * 1950s or before - 29 albums (5.8%) → low percentage because rock was just in its infancy
 * 1960s - 126 (25.2%)
 * 1970s - 183 (36.6%)
 * 1980s - 88 (17.6%)
 * 1990s - 61 (12.2%)
 * 2000s - 13 (2.6%) → low percentage because this list was published in November 2003


 * Ignoring the 50s and 2000s, the 60s and 70s have twice as many as the 80s and 90s. It is also evident that Rolling Stone has a bias toward American and British musicians, and mostly (almost necessarily) just rock musicans. My point? Andrés Segovia was pretty damn good. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of taste. I much prefer David Gilmour and Brian May. Loomis 06:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't everyone just settle with, "considered by many (site Rolling Stone here) the best rock guitarist of all time" ?
 * Because that is considered weasel words, and is frowned upon here - see WP:WEASEL. You could put "considered by a writer from Rolling Stone to be the best" instead.  --Richardrj talkemail 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. In this case it is absolutely fact that "Jimi Hendrix is widely considered the best rock guitarist of all time." No question. He may not be, in your opinion, but that's not what the statement says. If you asked 1000 people who the greatest rock guitarist of all time was, I'd say at least 30 percent, easy, would go with Hendrix. That's not a statement that needs verification.

i just think that people who think he is not the greatest should look closer at his LIVE playingsJk31213 06:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is about a number of misinformation I found in the encyclopedia
For the attention of  The free encyclopedia Wikipedia organization Wikipedia Italy

Dear Madame, Sir, My name is Luca Benatti and I am writing because I have great expectations from Wikipedia, from the “Internet era”, and I really hope Wikipedia will achieve his educational and reliability targets. For this reason I am to ask the application of the guideline concerning neutral point of view of the information, reliability and verifiability of the sources. In fact I have found relevant discrepancies demonstrating the poor reliability of the sources of the encyclopedia, and I am writing my expectation for a revision of the intellectually dishonest information you publish. I am sure that Wikipedia will have appropriate attention for accurate documentation, for the reliability of the sources of the information, and will take objective distances from any kind of misinformation and intellectual discrimination.

Best regards Luca benatti

A) The missing information

The missing information is concerning intellectual rights in Italy. In fact Italy does not allow patents for public interest technologies or products, and in Italy was never patented or developed any since Italy was established with Italian laws. The documentation of the source of this information is in the Italian Patent Form and Patent Laws. The Italian Patent form is available at any UPICA office of any Chamber of Commerce, or may be asked any Italian Consulate to provide one. On the Patent form you may read the restrictions concerning Public Interest Products, including medical instruments, information technologies and more.

C) Few Consequences

Science: For example mister Antonio Meucci (see Wikipedia) had to go to the US of America in order to try to Patent his invention and to try to make a business of it. But Meucci had to leave his native country because the Italian Patent laws were the first of his problems in developing his invention. And after Meucci, actually recognized the “inventor of the telephone”, many others had to leave the Italian country in order to try to have their intellectual job recognized and have the opportunity for research and commercial development. This “intellectual oppression in science and technologies” is still happening today in Italy, despite the Italian regime organize the propaganda concerning Italian Renaissance scientific traditions

Economy The Italian Economy is poor because the intellectual rights are not protected and “rich industries” cannot exist developing technologies to export. In Italy you may find almost everything counterfeit, and the “counterfeit and forgery” industry is the only flourishing rather than the industry in technologies and science. In fact all Public Interest Products and technologies have to be imported in Italy, with the Ministry Authorizations on top of the price.

Culture Italy is proud of cultural Renaissance heritage, but in Renaissance time Italy did not exist. On the other hand should understand the Renaissance culture was the culture of early modern era science, was the culture of the reformation of the churches. Should not surprise Italy is a Catholic Country and bans the development of science and intellectual rights.

Information and Education Why everybody believes in Italy people is free to patent Public Interest technologies, when is not true? In Italy was never patented any public interest technology since Italy exists, and Italian people have to emigrate because of the Catholic regime imposing intellectual restrictions? Since Italy exists Italy made tradition of scientific and Intellectual traditions “Italy had before existing”, it is written in the evidence of the Italian laws. And concerning the history (see wikipedia) have to say Italy was established as Savoy Kingdom, but in 50 years become Fascist regime. The end of 20 years of Fascism was also the end of the World War II, and that was the proclamation of the current Italian State named republic. In the history Italy changed three states in one century and bankrupted twice, and actually is in economic recession… Again and again.

Intellectual discrimination As far intellectual activities are not protected, cannot make a job and the “intellectual class” has been cancelled with accurate “misinformation” I would indicate as brainwash. It is not in Italy was never invented any technologies because all Italian are stupid, but because Italian cannot do that in Italy, and have to leave with 1000 more problems. In fact somebody went missing and vanished along the way to escape the Italian regime and intellectual oppression.


 * Ehmmm, if you find any errors in an article, you could fix it yourself, cited sources is preferred... 惑乱 分からん 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Meucci was a false claimant in telephone patent litigation in the 1890's. Although Italian-American organizations, the U.S. House of Representatives, and even the Soprano's TV show have claimed he invented the telephone, his claim is highly suspect, as is his understanding of the technology of telephony. He probably first built a sort of "string telephone" such as may be made with paper cups abd string. He also claimd to have a system with a high voltage battery in which the telephoners held a copper piece like a spoon connected to the battery in their mouth against their tongue and talked, and the electrical current through the other person's mouth was somehow supposed to make him hear. It has little relation to successful 19th century or present day telephones. If he had invented something of value, he could have patented it in the U.S. as he did numerous devices before and after. He had left Italy many years before he ever claimed to have invented a telephone, so he did not have to leave Italy to patent it. Edison 06:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

to which clan gonge & bagal sirnames belong?
to which clan gonge & bagal sirnames belong? their kuldevat is tuljabhavani.

margaret pearson pendle witch
is there any information regarding margaret pearson a pendle witch other than the mention of her on your site.

many thanks j pearson


 * Did you visit the sites listed in the external links section of the Pendle witches article, especially: Potts, Thomas, The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster (London, 1613) at Gutenberg.&mdash;eric

= February 15 =

Uncle Sam wants you

 * Can anybody provide a faximile of the U.S. enlistment contract? I'm not out to sign up, but I'm wondering what its terms are, exactly. Trekphiler 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This site has a link to the contract. - Akamad 09:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanx so much. Trekphiler 06:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. - Akamad 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ulysses Grant - Family Connections
I have an old Daguerrotype photograph of a woman from the mid-19th Century which is a family heirloom. I have been told that it is a portrait of a neice of Ulysses Grant who was married to a member of my father's family. The surname "Morgan" has been suggested for this person. Can anyone suggest where I can locate a Grant family tree/photo gallery which I can check this against?


 * Jesse Root Grant and his wife Hannah Simpson Grant had six children. The first, Ulysses S. Grant, became president. Of his siblings, Samuel Simpson Grant and Clara Rachel Grant died unmarried. Virginia Payne Grant married Abel Corbin and had one child who died in infancy. This leaves two possibilities: Orvil Lynch Grant, and Mary Frances Grant. [1] Orvil Lynch Grant married Mary Medary and had four children, three sons, and one daughter, named Virginia Elizabeth Grant. [2] Mary Frances Grant married Michael John Cramer and had two children, one son, and one daughter, Clara Virginia Cramer.  So the only two possibilies for a blood-related niece of the president would be Virginia Elizabeth Grant or Clara Virginia Cramer (who obviously could have different surnames after marriage). Virginia Elizabeth Grant married Walter Hunt Turner. Clara Virginia Cramer resided at Paris and married Alphonse Bernhard.  Of course, the woman in the Daguerrotype could also be a niece by marriage, that is a daughter of a brother or sister of Julia Boggs Dent, if there were any.  There was a Rachel Maria Grant (1829-1853)  who married Alfred Gray Morgan. She died childless. (She was the daughter of Peter Grant and Permelia Bean; Peter Grant was son of Noah Grant and Anna (Buell) Richardson; Noah Grant was by his second wife the father of Jesse Root Grant, U.S. Grant's father.)  - Nunh-huh 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, this is most helpful!!203.21.40.253 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New theory?
Is it possible that human sacrifices attributed to the priesthood in widespread and varying cultures was (is?) done for the purpose of eliminating the possibility of a serious challenge from any of the priesthood's moral (not mortal) enemies? 71.100.10.48 05:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think they would simply achieve that by murder (assassination, perhaps?). Perhaps the reason virgins are often sacrificed is not because that is what the gods want, but to satisfy their own sexual desires beforehand. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one needs to specify a culture before attributing purpose, as cultural pursuits are not generic, although humans being what they are, there are surface similarities. The Cannibals of New Guinea ate their enemies. Khmer Rouge soldiers similarly ate their victims, aiming for particular organs to claim spiritual dominance. The Khmer Rouge soldiers acted as individuals, while the PNG activity was communal.

I don't know if the South American practice is known with any certainty, but the African/ West Indian practice is tied to voodoo spiritualism. The witch hunts were linked to ergot poisoning, although, clearly, some were not. In Fiction, Edding's Belgariad included the sacrifice of people, much to the disgust of those worshipped.

Nazi apologists claimed the sacrifices never took place, but if it is accepted that they did occur (as I believe), then clearly this was an example of non mortal enemies being 'sacrificed. DDB 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)'

Sentence Structure
Is there something wrong with the sentence: X-gal (5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-β-D-galactoside) turns colonies which produce β-galactosidase blue. - I dislike the separation between "turns" and "blue". "Turns colonies blue" I would be okay with, but something seems wrong when you add a few extra words. I can't be the first and only person to "notice" this and I would like to know how to describe this situation and how I feel about it. --Seans Potato Business 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of stylistic preference, not right or wrong. You already know how to describe it: closely related words are separated by a long intervening phrase. --Anonymous, February 16, 2007, 00:51 (UTC).


 * I think the example you cite is normal English; the complexity of the sentence is what I would expect in technical writing, which is not to say the example is a model of clarity. There is a term for "the separation of words naturally belonging together" (Smyth): hyperbaton.  As a reader of Greek and Latin, I think of hyperbaton as involving much more violent and rhetorically effective departures from normal syntax than in your example, but the term is also used in a weak sense (meaning little more than "use of non-normal word order") that could embrace the placement of subordinate clauses as in your example.  Wareh 14:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Colonies that produce β-galactosidase are turned blue by X-gal (5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-β-D-galactoside). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence is fine in speech because you use intonation to indicate a phrase barrier after β-galactosidase. In print, however, intonation is unmarked, so the sentence is harder to read.  You can passivize as Twas suggest, or choose a different sentence structure: "X-gal gives β-galactosidase producing colonies a blue color." --Diderot 09:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many people find long compound adjectives ugly as well, and in addition, those who still believe in hyphens will demand one in there: "X-gal gives β-galactosidase-producing colonies a blue color." Another alternative rewrite is "X-gal turns colonies blue if they produce β-galactosidase." --Anonymous, Feb. 16, 00:51 (UTC) again.


 * Without wanting to be a pill, I just want to point out that there is a Language Reference Desk which is a bit more specific for this sort of question. --24.147.86.187 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What Generation am I?
Unable to find a wiki article clarifying the concept, I'll ask the question here: Three of my four grandparents were born in Europe, and immigrated to Canada at about the turn of the last century as toddlers. My maternal grandmother was born in Canada, of immigrant parents. Both my parents were born in Canada, as was I. Leaving aside my maternal grandmother for the moment, and assuming all four of my grandparents were immigrants, does that make me a second or a third generation Canadian? Thanks! Loomis 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Encarta defines "first generation" as "having immigrant parents." By this, your parents were first generation and you are second generation. Edison 16:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Edison! The only problem is that as this link shows, there seems to be a serious inconsistency among different dictionary definitions of the term "first-generation". Some dictionaries actually provide two inconsistent definitions, one being the child of an immigrant, and the other being the immigrant him/herself. Therefore, by some definitions, I'm second generation, and by others, I'm third generation. I suppose I've answered the question myself, i.e. that there is apparently no authoritative answer to the question. I was just hoping that someone could perhaps provide me with some sort of authoritative source I'm unaware of, (of course the nature of language being what it is, there are no real "authoritative" sources,) or at the very least to get an idea of which definition predominates. I know I shouldn't really be asking for "opinions" here, but I think that this may be one of those unique instances where it might be appropriate to request several other users to give me their understanding of which definition they would tend towards. But guys, please be civil! :--) Thanks again, Edison. Loomis 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There really can't be a single answer, because in some families only the parents have immigrated, and in others two generations (parents and children) have immigrated. The ambiguity has to be lived with, or resolved by specifying exactly what is meant (e.g.: second generation born in Canada). (I'm a little perplexed by the notion that there's been any incivility in answering this question....) - Nunh-huh 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no incivility, that part was a joke. My grandparents indeed did immigrate with their parents, and, I believe even with their gradparents (my great-great-grandparents). However they were all immigrants. I believe I left out an important factor in the first of the two definitions of "first-generation": I should have said "the Canadian born child of an immigrant". Otherwise, if first-generation applies to any child of an immigrant, It would be possible to say that I'm fourth generation, which I'm clearly not. I was working with the assumption that the older generations that immigrated along with their children were irrelevant to the term. I was working with the assumption that it's only the youngest generation of immigrants (my grandparents), who are the starting point. Am I wrong there? I'm having a little trouble understanding why you say that the ambiguity is necessary. For example, in the case of myself, with all the information I've provided, is there still a necessary ambiguity or has that been resolved? If so, what generation am I? Loomis 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The ambiguity is between "xth Canadian-born generation" and "xth generation to live in Canada". When you specify which is meant, you resolve the ambiguity. If your great-great-grandparents immigrated to Canada, and the first generation born in Canada was your grandmother, you are in the 3rd Canadian-born generation in that family, and the 5th generation of that family to live in Canada. - Nunh-huh 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If your mother's family had lived in Canada for 5 generations but your father immigrated to Canada from, say, Poland only a year before he met her, how would you describe yourself?  You might consider yourself a 6th-generation Canadian on your mother's side, but you couldn't claim that in respect of your father's line.  Calling yourself a "6th generation Canadian", without qualification, would lead people to think both your parents were 5th generation Canadians.  What about a child born in Canada to immigrant parents who become Canadian citizens only after their child is born.  The child would have been born a Canadian citizen to Canadian-resident non-citizens.  Would they all be called "1st-generation Canadians"? I don't know, to be frank.  JackofOz 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that in Tasmania you'd be considered an outsider, as will your children and their children, but great grandchildren might be allowed to play with other Tasmanians at school. ;) DDB 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hieros gamos and incest
I have heard that in some cultures Hieros Gamos myth or ritual contains incest. Is it true and if it is true, which cultures? Tuohirulla puhu 18:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Zeus and Hera were brother and sister. Corvus cornix 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Hieros Gamos, involves not the person behind the mask, but the deity spirit. So, in the belief system, the two participants are not related. However, practically, any culture that practices such would be suspending incest taboo. Recent research into why incest is generally taboo everywhere, is covered in kinship detector DDB 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Most children
who has the record for having the most children
 * Male or female? There's a huge difference (both capability and verifiability) between the two. &mdash; Lomn 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As a start, Brigham Young had at least 57 children. Muhammed bin Laden, father of Osama bin Ladin, had 55. There are probably men with more. - Nunh-huh 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The 1998 Guiness Book if World Records says that t"he greatest officially recorded number of children produced by a mother is 69 by the first of the 2 wives of Feodor Vassilyev (b 1707-fl. 1782), a peasant from Shuya, 150 miles east of Moscow. In 27 confinements she gave birth to 16 pairs of twins, 7 sets of triplets and 4 sets of quadruplets. The children, were born in the period c. 1725-1765." - Nunh-huh 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

man or woman i would imagine that the person with the most kids would be a man

Ancient Egypt probably set the record. They never had tv. DDB 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rumour has it that Ghenghis Khan wins this award, though the article on him fails to note how many children he had. The Jade Knight 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it is definitely a bloke, by a margin of over 1300%. I have heard it said that some evidence God is a bloke can be found in the fact that guys get of relatively easily in reproduction.  Anyway, Guinness World Records also records the most prolific father, at somewhere in the region of 900 (why he got that idea, I haven't a clue).  Apparently, this excludes polygamous countries - where number of descendents (spelling?) can become uncountable.martianlostinspace 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A second pair of eyes
Hey,

This is somewhat shameless abuse of the desk here, but could someone cast a second pair of eyes over List of countries named after people/temp and note whether I've made any stupid mistake or they can help with classification of some of the unsourced or abberant examples before I propose that this page replace the present page List of countries named after people.

Neil --Neo 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the present page says Saint Vincent and the Grenadines were named after St Vincent Pallotti, I very much doubt this is so. He was born after the islands were colonised, and he was canonised only in 1963.  List of places named after people and List of eponyms (L-Z) both say that it was named after St Vincent of Saragossa, whose own article, while mentioning that he is the eponym of the Cape Verde island of São Vicente, makes no mention of him also being the eponym of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.   The official website of the country has no information about who the country is named after.   The CIA World Factbook is similarly silent on the matter. However, this says "Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Day", January 22, is the feast day of Saint Vincent of Saragossa, so it seems more than likely he is the correct eponym.  JackofOz 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't put temporary pages in the main article space. Create a subpage for that: User:NeilTarrant/List of countries named after people. Thank you − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is foreign investmen so important for the development of a region?
Seems to me that the resources will go to the foreign power and the local people will only be exploited. However, it is regularly mentioned as something wanted by Russian leaders around the year 1900 for Russian industrial development. Why is that? Thanks. --Taraborn 20:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * look at international trade, foreign investment can bring money in that is not available in the country at the time. Both parties win because those investing see a return and the employment/investment that money brings boosts the economy of the local region. Most of the wealthiest nations in the world are exporters of things, ranging from actual products to things that make up the knowledge economy. I am sure someone can point you to more texts on the subject, but essentially your assumption about foreign-power receiving the money and local-people being exploited is wrong. This is not to say that all investment in foreign economies is a success, and that exploitation does not occur but being able to attract international investment is a positive sign for the economy of a nation. ny156uk 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

studies done on progressive economies show that communities benefit from some exploitation. Magic Johnson being paid more for his Nike endorsement in one year, than the Malaysian Nike factory's combined salary is a telling condemnation. Except, without the factory, people would not have had the income and could not have afforded to get a decent education for their children, or eat regularly. DDB 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha, fine I think I get it now. Thanks. --Taraborn 10:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How many people die of poverty?
How many people in the world die every year as a result of lack of food and clean water, including sicknesses caused by this? Multiple sources would be appreciated, even if they are high or low extremes. Thanks. Clq 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since poverty itself is never the proximate cause, any "statistics" will be rhetorical, the use intended for them here, perhaps. --Wetman 03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that everyone dies. The answer is that all poor people die in poverty, and if you include the middle class, that includes some 99% of the world. Dieing from poverty is a different thing. People die from neglect or abuse, but not from poverty, directly. DDB 06:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * According to netaid.org, more than 8 million people around the world die each year because they are 'too poor to stay alive'. Very sad. BenC7 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this BBC article, "17,000 children die every day from hunger-related diseases". - Akamad 11:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "middle class" could be considered "poor", at least not in developed countries... 惑乱 分からん 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

= February 16 =

Nigerian oil crisis
What was the main cause of the nigerian oil crisis  happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.232.52 (talk) 02:16, February 16, 2007
 * The main cause is the guerilla attacks by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, which is comprised of Ijaw people. The Ijaw live in the Niger Delta, where most of the oil comes from, but they don't get much of the oil profits. So they've decided to fight to gain a larger share of the money. See also Conflict in the Niger Delta. Picaroon 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What were the main events of the oil crisis in timeline types of ways because im making a timeline for it to go on a poster board in my school project.75.64.232.52 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll have to find those yourself. Try the links I gave above. Picaroon 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A Nigerian doctor is in the office next to mine. I asked him about this a while back.  If you want a complete picture, take into account the religious divide between the north and south, the education divide between the north and south, and the financial structure of the north and south.  Also, you can go back to the pre-oil days when Nigeria was a large peanut producing country, mainly in the north, and the south had almost no production to bring in money. --Kainaw (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see that you were talking about the 2004 Nigerian Oil Crisis. I thought you were referring to the current oil-related fighting. Anyways, yes, Kainaw's completely right about this. Picaroon 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that I was only repeating what I heard (from a Christian doctor from southern Nigeria). I have no first-hand experience with anything happening in Nigeria.  That is also why I avoided repeating specific comments by the doctor, which were all extremely anti-Northern Nigerian.  I guess the conflict continues even when a Nigerian leaves Nigeria. --Kainaw (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The 1980's - Why? -
Alright, 80's rant: I was watching Growing Pains, and I can't believe the culture from that time period! It differs so much from now, especially, and it differs dramatically from the 1970's, a time of social liberalism and social progress. It's almost like the 80's is a 'lost' decade that doesn't belong between the liberal 70's and the resurgence of liberalism in the 90's. I really just don't understand how the frame of mind changed so dramatically, and how the people who would have been liberals, became social conservatives. I really need to know this from the point of view of someone who lived through this transition, because I don't think I can fully understand it without living in it. Thanks --Technofreak90 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was only a small child during the '80s, so I can't really give a first-hand view, but it is pretty much inevitible that periods of strong liberalism will be followed by periods of conservatism (and vice-versa) - the same thing happened between the liberal '40s, and the strongly traditionalist '50s. To give you a slightly different angle (a bit closer to home for me), in Australia almost the opposite situation occurred. In 1982, the conservative Fraser government (who had been in control for much of the '70s), was replaced with the progressive Hawke government. During the '90s, that government was then replaced by the highly conservative Howard government. So essentially, the public opinion in a democracy basically oscillates between progressivism and reaction.


 * Furthermore, note that the détente that had been enjoyed by the US and USSR during the '70s, had basically ended by the '80s, and many were concerned about the threat of nuclear conflict between the two superpowers - a fear that was encouraged by Ronald Reagan's talk of the "evil empire". This led to an increased sense of patriotism amongst Americans, who felt that hardline action was needed to prevent them from mutually assured destruction. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The 80's as a decade, means different things to different people or peoples. Not merely geographically, but within a family too. In music terms, there was a rebellion against the arty progressive rock of the mid seventies, and a rise in Punk. Stylistically, flares were out, and futuristic synthetic fibres became popular. Jimmy Carter's presidency had failed, and Reagan captured the liberal heart through big spending.

At the end of the cold war, Reagan's big spending policy, lifting US arms expenditure to 5% GDP, forcing the Soviet Union to exceed 100% of their GDP (and they were falling short) pushed the Soviets to collapse. Carter's administration had scared children through nuclear policy, so that when Reagan was voted in, scaremongering acts like Midnight Oil got lots of airplay.

The affluence of the eighties was prior to the late 80's correction. Junk Bonds rose and fell. For a while, it was as if spending could solve any problem. One stockbroker salaried himself annually $100 million. DDB 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I lived through it and still don't get it,but I'm an old hippy at heart even though I was in a punk band,hotclaws**== 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous to the 80's, credit cards were not extremely common. In the 70's, department store credit cards and gasoline credit cards were just becoming accepted by the majority of the population.  In the 80's, it was expected that everyone had either a Mastercard or Visa.  That opened a world of commericialism that hadn't been seen before.  Everyone could appear to have a lot of money: wear fancy clothes, expensive jewelry, and drive a nice car.  Of course, that time was short-lived.  By the end of the 80's the yuppie nation was so deep in credit card debt that it simply couldn't continue.  To further push this false sense of selfishness, the 80's was unique in that there wasn't any major military conflict for the United States to take part in.  Vietnam was forgotten.  Nobody considered the Cold War a real threat.  Iraq didn't kick in until the the 90's.  So, we invented wars on drugs, wars on obesity, wars on illiteracy... anything to make it seem like there was something to rebel against.  As for television, it tends to reflect society as Hollywood believes Americans wants it to be.  At the time, all seemed well and everyone seemed one step away from being rich.  So, that's what television gave in return. --Kainaw (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

ritchie blackmore
for as big as he is, shouldnt there be a picture in this article? afterall, he did invent the greatest hard rock riff ever. also, can someone find a reference (not that hard) to any meanings to his tempure? i heard he's kind of an a**hole in the media.Jk31213 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is this image. It mentions in Ritchie Blackmore that:
 * At the culmination of the performance he destroyed one of his guitars and threw several amplifiers off the edge of the stage. He also struck one of the ABC cameras with a guitar, and in recorded footage can be seen arranging for his road crew to set off a pyrotechnic device in one of his amplifiers, creating a brief but large fireball.
 * And Ian Gillan, after quitting Deep Purple, said:
 * ''"There are certain personal issues that I have with Ritchie, which means that I will never speak to him again. Nothing I'm going to discuss publicly, but deeply personal stuff."
 * − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

UN Millenium Development Project
I found a statement in the MD Project internet pages that the nations wishing to receive Project financial assistance are "encouraged" to improve their governments, presumably to come up to one or more of the standards of the "Ten Economic Freedoms" stated in the "2007 Index of Economic Freedoms" published by the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal.

My Question is: Will the UN MDP only "encourage," or will if make such improvements mandatory before money is disbursed?

The MDP internet pages are too vague really to pin this down.

( Note that a similar organization, our State Department's "Millenium Challenge Corporation," sits down with the nation's leaders in advance of disbursing funds ≥and agrees on which changes must be made, and then withholds aid until the changes are accomplished ).

If you would be so kind, I've enabled my email address in my Preferences, so would appreciat such an email. Thank you.

°≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→·§ Harry E. ThayerHarry E. Thayer 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sturgeon?
Can someone identify this fish please, in the link, also the language of the commentator in the video as well if possible.

Thank you.87.102.11.134 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like a skate to me. ---Sluzzelin 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't think of that - could be. thanks87.102.7.220 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

recognition
hi. i think that wikipedia should start up an article that says opinions of the most recognizable rock singers. just to give you one, i personally think brian johnson of acdc is the most recognizable, easy. just an idea.Jk31213 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't such a list be blantantly pov? "Recognizable" seems like a vague and unencyclopedic criterion. 惑乱 分からん 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you meant editors' opinions on rock singers, or rock singers' opinions (on whatever). In case you did mean the latter: wikiquote offers some opinions uttered by Brian Johnson. Example: "Punk and all that was just an image that ripped people off. Johnny Rotten's a wanker, and that's all there is to it." ---Sluzzelin 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, i mean like just take other people's opinions on just who do they think is the most recognizable rock singers. it can be people from wikipedia itself or rolling stone magazine or guitar world or something. just not 'expert' opinions'Jk31213 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for clarifying. Now, what do you mean by recognizable? Do you mean their level of fame? Do you mean what would the answers be if you asked 1000 people: Who is the most famous rock singer? Do you mean recognizable by how easily they're identified by their voice, by their appearance? Wikipedia does have List of best-selling music artists and Best-selling music artist for hard numbers. And I found List of songs in English labeled the best ever. A wikipedia poll would probably only be acceptable in a sandbox,and would have absolutely no notability. A Rolling Stone poll, or better yet a synthesis of polls conducted by notable sources might have the better chances of surviving as an article or list. I remember a worldwide poll held sometime in the early 1990's asking people around the globe to name famous people. Of the living people I believe Michael Jackson was somewhere way on top of the list at the time. ---Sluzzelin 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean like prably the most famous rock singer done by like 1000 people or wutever. u no how when one listens to the radio and they say, "oh i recognize him!" probably has to do with how many notes they sing until recognized. but probably the most famous done by 1000 people would be a good guess. but im just giving u nothing more than a personal opinion of mine of who the most recognizable rock singer is and thats brian johnson. again its up to wikipedia to start an article with a title saying list of most recognizable rock singers. doesnt have to be in order from 100 to 1 or anything but just a list taken from different people.Jk31213 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well,I wouldn't Recognise him if he called round to my house and bought me a pinthotclaws**== 08:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By "recognizable" do you mean "famous" (I had to look him up) or "unlikely to be mistaken for someone else" (his face does look distinctive, at least in that shot)? For the latter I'd nominate Ray Sawyer and Cass Elliot.  &mdash;Tamfang 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting last criterion, Ozzy Osbourne and Joey Ramone are good examples... 惑乱 分からん 17:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

= February 17 =

WW2 in singapore
i have a few qns on world war 2 in singapore...pls help me ans them...its kinda like a survey or interview...on what ur views are....thx

1)how do u think ww2 would have affeced families ?

2)what do u think of the british as songapore's colonial master?

3)were the japanese any different from the british?

4)How can war be prevented?

5)Is war a solution to all problems?

--203.124.2.24 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) hello??--203.124.2.24 04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to say it, but I suspect most people are avoiding this question because it looks to them too much like a homework problem. 68.39.174.238 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2)Like any other,flawed 3)yes 4)with difficulty 5)no hotclaws**== 08:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)Very much in deed

1) My granddad had served for the brits in Gallipoli, and Ireland after the Easter Rising in ww1. His life was framed by the two world wars. He served for Sir Roden Cutler's 7/5th Field Artillery of the AIF in Sudan, and when a change of government in Australia saw the ALP recall our soldiers, survived the journey home. Many returning soldiers had been sent to 'bolster' Singapore, or were killed or taken prisoner when their boats were sunk by Japanese forces on return. While my grandad had been serving overseas, my great grandfather's estate passed to my grandmother, who left home with my dad, and made a new life for herself. The loss of Singapore was a crushing blow to the defence of the Pacific. Only the youngest of troops were available for Australia to defend Papua New Guinea.

2) I think Brits took Singapore for granted. The commander, Arthur Percival had advised London of needed defence improvements, but they were denied as cost cutting. However, had the defences held, I think many a tragedy of WW2 might not have occurred. The Fall of Singapore was a tragedy.

3) Japanese culture is different to Western culture, but no less refined. The Japanese war effort seems to have been an extension of their ongoing policy, as might be seen when compared with the Rape of Nanking. Japanese leaders were generally seen to be treated more harshly for Japanese war crimes by the post war trials than Nazi Germany's leaders, with more hangings.

4) I believe Neville Chamberlain showed that war cannot be prevented, however, Clinton showed it might be sparked, when he involved himself in the Mid East at the end of his presidency.

5) War solves nothing. However, I believe there are some things worth fighting for. I view the Japanese war effort as a fancy case of suicide by cop by their middle ranks. I view the Australian war effort as politically bungled. DDB 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Jo Swinson
Does anyone know anything about her sex life and or romantic relationships.


 * Anyone? I would assume that she does.  However, I'm rarely correct in my assumptions. --Kainaw (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we should feed this troll much more when he just returned after a healthy long leave. 惑乱 分からん 12:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it, and I KNOW it was once here...
A while ago I came upon an articel about some obscure part of Portuguese culture that had to do with, basically, getting something done even if by unconventional means. It was described with one word, "Des[something]çrão" or something similar, and meant something like "untangling ropes", but was really one of those hard-to-translate concepts. The articel was headed with a pic of some dude leaning out an apartment window working on his AC with someone else holding his legs and another out on a balcony.

Did I make it up and forget as much, or did/does something really exist? 68.39.174.238 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Google Translate gives "desembaraçar" for "untangling"; perhaps the word is "desembaração"? I can't find the article you are talking about, but it sounds interesting. --Lph 13:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, "desembaração" only gets around 20 Google hits, "untangling" and "disentangling" bith gets more than 100.000. 惑乱 分からん 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are searching for the word: desenrascanço, verb: desenrascar, adjective (2person singular): desenrascado. It more or less means getting something done despite any difficulties whatsoever even whithout the proper tools. The closest I know in english is the word: improvise. The Portuguese value this highly. I personaly think it has something to do with their great inability to plan and prepare something for the future. Flamarande 14:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, what I had feared has come to pass... Articles for deletion/Desenrascanço... 68.39.174.238 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The photo, at least, is still available via Google Images... --Lph 16:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

POEM ABOUT ABE LINCOLN
In the 1960's I grew up with a set of 10 Junior classic books. #10 was on poetry. I memorized a poem that started out "If Nancy Hanks came back as a ghost seeking news of what she loved most.First she'd ask, where is my son? What's happened to Abe, what's he done." my memory has failed me and with much searching I cannot find the poem. Can anyone help? Many thanks16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Mykidzmom


 * It's Nancy Hanks. text. Shimgray | talk | 16:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Germanic culture
Should most of the countries listed in this new category really be listed. It not only includes the English, the US and the Celts much to my surprise, it also includes Brazil, Caribbean islands, Liberia in Africa (?) etc etc. Take a look.-- Z eitzen (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Waht's the point of the category? Is it referring to Old Germanic cultures, or the modern cultures with their diverse origins? Would Jamaican and Austrian culture share traits that are missing between Dutch, French and Polish culture? (Note that the article Germanic culture currently only speaks about the culture of German-speaking Europe.) 惑乱 分からん 21:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone has got confused as to the meaning of 'germanic' - very confused. swedish and danish inclusion is very debateable - ie no. no. no. welsh, falkand isles and samoan WHAT! no.no.no.
 * Only perhaps dutch and german would be suitable here - mass delete.87.102.2.106 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * here's a clue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=R9tgokunks 16th Feb 2007 edits around 20.00 all the same user - suggest delete the whole page as a bad lot.


 * Admins help87.102.2.106 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ehhh, don't mix up German and Germanic, Swedish and Danish would probably still qualify, as Germanic speaking countries. However, I still have my doubts about the category. It's too broad and over-generalizing, and tries to draw strong connections between matters that don't really have them. 惑乱 分からん 21:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, while the inclusion of Brazil is pretty ridiculous, there is no debate as to the Germanic status of Swedish and Danish. Methinks the confusion is thine, 87.102.2.106. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you might need to correct the article Germanic culture then, perhaps it's name should be changed to culture of german speaking peoples87.102.13.148 13:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bhumiya, do you know how to put up the category on a vote/discussion for deletion? I might be biased, but I think it's impractical. 惑乱 分からん 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most of the worst, taking into account your comments about the nordic countries. There's still a few I've left such as welsh,scottish,finnish. I'll leave the rest for now. 87.102.13.148 13:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:R9tgokunks got a bit carried away - that's the only possible explanation I can think of.87.102.13.148 13:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1948 Arab/Israeli War
During the 1948 Arab/Israeli war, did Israel recieve land after winning or did they just maintain and get to keep the land Britain had given them?

-I Choose to Remain Anonymous


 * According to 1948_Arab-Israeli_War, yes they did gain additional land: the State of Israel's borders increased to 78% of mandatory Palestine, compared to the 54.5% allotted by the UN. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The November 29th, 1947 partition plan agreement (UNGA Resolution 181) was legally valid and binding only if BOTH sides agreed to it, but only the Jews accepted the plan (while the Arabs rejected it). And Britain didn't "give land" to anybody -- it adopted a very open and deliberate law-of-the-jungle strategy in May 1948, whereby the British government and military evacuated Mandate Palestine without handing over authority to anybody or recognizing any successor, instead just leaving the Arabs and Jews to fight over everything.  Of course, the Foreign Office mandarins and Arabist civil servants in the British government were convinced that the invading Arab armies would militarily roll over the Jews within weeks, or Britain might not have withdrawn at all. AnonMoos 09:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Holocaust
'Could i please mention that my question refers to the Extermination'' rather than the concentration camps? Thank you''' Ahadland 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering why all of the extermination camps, i.e. Treblinka were all in Poland, when the Nazi regime could have placed them in other occupied territories, such as France, Austria or the Czech Republic. I'd have thought Poland would have been a bad choice because it wasn't in mainland Europe and would have been difficult for transport; but, more importantly, if Russia turned on Germany, the Holocaust would have become well known a lot more quickly than the Germans anticipated. So, I was wonderin, why Poland?


 * Two reasons: Close proximity to the major Jewish centers of Europe and a population that would object far less than the population of France or Bohemia. (Of course, there were many Polish rescuers, but the overall level of antisemitism was higher in Poland than in France or Bohemia.) -- Mwalcoff 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Poland also a rather weak nation at that time? Not a country that would be able to give the German army much resistance? 惑乱 分からん 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Poland had been dismembered by the Germans and Soviets at the time. The country was under German rule. -- Mwalcoff 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, "if Russia turned on Germany" ?? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the pact that the Germans made with the Soviets regarding the invasion of Polan. If Russia decided to occupy all of Poland, and boot out the Germans, the Russians would have stumbled across German plans for the final solution. Ahadland 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What about Theresienstadt concentration camp? It was in the then Czechoslovakia.  JackofOz 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not all concentration camps were in Poland, just a great bulk of them. After all, Dachau was/is a suburb of Munich. Loomis 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Without actual knowledge, I presume the camps were set up, and guarded, by those who were powerless to influence proceedings. I understand that the smell of Dachau ovens was known to locals, but they hadn't considered it to be what it was. I understand few actually escaped the camps, and those who were sheltered had not been sent to a camp, so the rumors of the camps was really only realised after the war.

Those who poured the poison in the chambers must have known what they were doing. Some must have talked, but probably few really believed what they said. I have heard one interview with a guard whose job it was to make sure gas chamber victims had removed their clothes and valuables. One shy teenage girl had been unwilling to strip, but the guards made her. Clearly, few knew, or believed. It would have been easier to set up on territory where the guards did not speak the local language. Also, France would not have been useful, as it had an allied government, whereas Poland's one had been crushed. DDB 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * DDB, I must respectfully disagree with one of conclusions and one of your assertions. I disagree with your conclusion that clearly, few knew, or believed. Perhaps it is so, and perhaps not. I tend to believe that quite a few more new than you do, but neither of us have facts one way or the other, so I'll just leave it at that. You also assert that France had an allied government. This was certainly not the case. Of course France was an ally before it surrendered to Germany in June 1940, but this happened well before the implementation of the Final Solution. Afterwards, the French Government, though "officially" neutral, collaborated to a great extent with Germany. Of course, as I hope you'll understand, that's a whole separate issue that I'd prefer not getting too far into for the moment! :-) Otherwise, I consider Dweller's answer below to be quite accurate. Loomis 17:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a horrible efficiency to this. The demographics of pre-war European Jewry was hugely skewed to the east, with vast numbers in Poland and Ukraine etc. Placing the majority of camps to the east meant less transportation was required for most. Remember, as an administrator, Adolf Eichman made the process of the Holocaust very industrial and efficient. If you're running any kind of large-scale industrial system, you want to minimise transportation inefficiencies as a top priority. --Dweller 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be suffering from a lack of sourcing. Please do not insert your personal opinions as answers to contentious questions - instead, cite reliable sources, or link to wikipedia articles. Thank you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One source to consult on the importance of the populace's antisemitism in permitting genocide is Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust; the original questioner will find much to contemplate in that work, though it primarily considers German antisemitism rather than Polish. - Nunh-huh 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is worth pointing out that quite a few historians dispute Goldhagen's conclusions. It is a book best read aside one which takes a contradictory point of view, i.e. Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men. Personally I find Browning's conclusions a bit more persuasive, both for their historical content as well as their psychological insight (Browning's is much more compatible, in my reading of it, with other studies of killing and atrocity, e.g. Grossman's On Killing). --24.147.86.187 03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, I hope that message wasn't aimed at me in any way. I think I made it clear that neither DDB nor myself have any hard evidence to back up our assumptions concerning who knew what and who didn't. All I did by responding with my POV is attempted to make it clear that his assumption was just as POV as mine, rather than a factual conclusion as seemed to be implied by the language he used. His assumption may very well be a lot more factually correct than mine. I just wanted to make it clear that it was an assumption, not a fact. As for the France thing, that part was sourced directly to the wiki article on the subject. Loomis 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

With reference to the main question - I feel I should point out that poland is in mainland europe - in fact fairly central to mainland europe - so in terms of positioning placing camps in poland makes sense. From poland '..is a country in central europe..' - if you are uncertain of the geography this image shows how central poland is. 87.102.10.217 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also compatable with a need to rid the east (see:lebensraum) of undesirables (see:untermensch) prior to germany colonisation eg from General Government:"'1941 Hitler made a decision to 'turn this region into a purely German area within 15-20 years'. He also explained that 'Where 12 million Poles now live, is to be populated by 4 to 5 million Germans. The Generalgouvernement must become as German as Rhineland'"Also poland (see:General Government) was under more effective military rule than collaborating states like Vichy France or Hungary (see:Hungary) - western parts of poland had been incorporated into the third reich as well.87.102.10.217 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I take your point and thank you for the endorsement. I would like to search for the references I have, but time is a luxury DDB 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah!- a very good question on which to announce my reappearance! First of all, I would like to thank the single user who corrected the contention that Poland is somewhere firth of mainland Europe! On the central point under consideration, there are a number of things that should to be made clear. First and foremost, there was indeed a clear difference in the Nazi scheme of things between concentration camps and Extermination camps, which were built for one purpose, and one purpose only. Concentration camps were located all over Germany and elsewhere in Europe; but extermination centres were located either in areas annexed from Poland, or in the General Government. The first category included Auschwitz-Birkenau and Kulmhof. To these we should probably add the minor camp of Stutthof near Danzig. The second category includes Majdanek, as well as the main Operation Reinhard camps of Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. Why were these camps established where they were? The simple answer-one that has already been given-is that they were all close to major Jewish population centres. It would have presented much more severe logistical problems to have transported millions of eastern European Jews to, say, France or any other country in the west. Poland, moreover, had good transport links with the rest of the Continent, and people from France, Holland and elsewhere could be taken with relative ease to the east. The main camps were still fairly remote, and the marshes at Auschwitz offered the opportunity of disposing of tons of human ash. Poland had the additional advantage of being more completely subject to the Nazis than any of the other conquered territories, many of which retained some semblance of self-rule. If anyone wonders why there were so many Jewish people concentrated in Poland it was here that they were officially allowed to settle during the Tsarist days, in the area known as the Pale of Settlement.

On the subject of the Holocaust itself, there seem to be a number of misconceptions. It is important to understand that there was a considerable degree of improvisation in Nazi policy towards the Jews; and as late as 1939 mass migration was still the favoured option, with Madagascar being given serious consideration as a likely destination. Only the outbreak of World War Two put a stop to such plans, which had involved Adolf Eichmann, amongst others. From 1940 onwards the favoured strategy became one of 'ghettoization', with the Jews of western Europe being transported to join pre-existing communities in the east. But up to the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 there was no specific plan for mass murder; so, Ahadland, there would have been nothing for the Russians to discover if they had 'turned on Germany', as you put it. The mass killings in fact started in Russia, with the introduction of the Einsatzgruppen, following in the wake of the armies. The favoured methods were gas vans and mass shootings; so it's a fair assumption that the Russians had good knowledge of what was happening at Babi Yar and elsewhere. Nazi policy overall was now taking a far more radical turn; and in December 1941 the first gassings started at Kulmhof, where Jews were transported from the nearby Lodz Ghetto. However, the various strategies were still considered to be too ad hoc, and there were also concerns about the rates of mental breakdown among the SS personnel involved in the field executions in Russia. To remedy this-and to ensure maximum co-ordination amongst all government agencies-the Wannsee Conference was summoned in January 1942. It was from this point forward that the Holocaust, in the sense we understand it today, acquires a much more definte and systematic shape, with the major extermination centres coming into gradual operation. Ahadland, if you wish to pursue this whole matter in a little more depth there are many fine monographs and studies; but amongst the most accessible, in my estimation, is The Holocaust by Martin Gilbert. Clio the Muse 00:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! What an unexpectedly accurate answer! I truly commend Clio for the quality of her response. I couldn't have put it better myself. Bravo! Loomis 05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Future of English Language. US vs UK
If spellings in the World English are based on American, rather than British English, is anything lost other than a little British heritage and links to the etymology of those words? If it's an inevitable change, I don't want to cling on like a person might to pounds and ounces. Of course I did read that World English might not completely conform to either standard. --Seans Potato Business 05:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * English is not like French as a language. There are regional additions and amendments. Sound and pronunciation are different within Australia, as they are within the US. The English spoken in Maine is similar to how Londoners may have spoken two hundred years ago. The largest nation of English speakers is China.


 * What influences English speaking is the regional language preceding it. People tend to a family tongue, and while they might learn English, their native tongue influences it. Hence New Zealanders have a very different sound to Australians. One interesting curio is the effect of learning English from different places. Indian English has some fascinating peculiarities, and Chinese, but compare them to Vietnamese and Phillipine English speakers who learned from US peoples ;)


 * My tip for the direction of English is to relate it to Indian or Chinese peoples. DDB 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as World English and there never will be. It is a bit of specious nonsense thought up by the British Council to cover up the linguistic provincialism of anglophones and obscure the way that English dominance in global affairs handicaps 95% of humanity.  English has no serious standards and it is unlikely that it will have some anytime soon.  There is no emerging global standard for English, nor is there any standard of English to which learners can be compared other than the way native speakers use it.  "World English" will always be the English of native speakers, and non-natives will always have a disadvantage speaking it.  Even Indians - people from a supposedly anglophone country - find themselves at a linguistic disadvantage in global anglophone circles.


 * China is not the nation with the largest number of English speakers. China is the nation with the largest number of people who've once taken an English class.  You can't even begin to function in Chinese society in English, and most Chinese "English speakers" are hard pressed to form comprehensible sentences.  The vast majority have never spoken English outside a classroom or ever met a native speaker.  Many of them have English *teachers* who have never spoken English outside a classroom.  And, the Chinese are every bit as provincial as Americans, may be more so.  The wealthier they get, the less English they will study.  When a billion people with western standards of living all speak Chinese, it will not be China's problem to communicate with the rest of the world, it will the be the rest of the world's problem to communicate with China.


 * Children of immigrants who come to anglophone countries and integrate show almost no influence of their parents' native tongues on their English. NZ and Australia speak English somewhat differently but this has nothing to do with "influences from native tongues".  It's no different from how people in the UK or US have different regional accents.  The English spoken in Maine is no more alike to that of early 19th century London than modern London English is.  The two have evolved differently, both retaining some features the other has dropped.


 * There was nothing inevitable in the rise of English and there is no guarantee that it will continue. It happened for historically grounded reasons, and it may be overturned by the same forces of change.  But there will never, ever, *ever* be a World English separate from the English of native speakers; nor will there ever be a World English that is genuinely accessible to more than a small fraction of humanity.  World English is an excuse for anglophones to not study languages; it is a thin justification for holding the rest of the world to standards that they do not hold themselves to.  It is rank hypocrisy and it does real damage. --Diderot 10:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite apart from the somewhat mad rant on English as the world's second language, the question seemed to me more about a move towards a standardised spelling of words than the language's spread across the world. If American-English becomes dominant in english text-books, novels and on the internet then over time it is plausible that a more standard spelling of words will come about. Dropping the 'u' in things like colour are probably the most likely to occur first, as to most readers the U doesn't serve a purpose (i'm sure someone who studies language can explain that part).


 * To tackle the 'ignorance' factor of being English-speaking and not learning another language, I fear this point is overly stated. A good 99.9% of my time is spent speaking with english (as a first language) speakers. The other .1% of the time is broken up between those with english-as-second-language, and those who speak their own native-tongue. Were I to move to somewhere where that .1% turned into, I don't know 5% or 10% then, yes, suddenly learning another language is viable, sensible and worthwhile. There is no reason why an international-standard language could not be developed using English as a basis, esperanto tried to be the world's second language and whilst not based on English (it seems to be built from a variety of european language bases) the idea was right. ny156uk 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to determine was, whether I should cling to English versions of words or just go with the flow and embrace the American versions? --Seans Potato Business 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't cling to words too strong, the english language is always changing - that's one of the reasons it's so vibrant. You should just go with the flow. ny156uk 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "go with the flow"? Most of the world outside America uses various versions of English which are closer to British English than American English. Use the dialect of English that's familiar to you and be proud of it. Don't try to change the way you speak because of some inevitably flawed perception of what is going to be the "standard" in the future - despite what some American sci-fi films and television programmes would have us believe, there isn't going to be one. -- Necrothesp 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Advice:
 * Do whatever your publisher tells you to do.
 * If you're not writing for a publisher, do whatever you want, or whatever the people around you expect.
 * The US just happens to have a preponderance of speakers compared to the UK (it's a much more populous country). Don't expect the Brits to adopt American English anytime soon, however.  The Jade Knight 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Netherlands, they learn a lot of English from movies and programs with Dutch subtitles. For example a colleague of mine new the word 'flashlight' but not 'torch'. I figure since there is more American media floating around, the world are more likely to be exposed to these forms than British ones. I mean they changed sulphur to sulfur so why not just get it over with an change the lot? No point in me being proud of something I never did. --Seans Potato Business 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, a torch would be a flame on a wooden stick, not a battery-driven device. Maybe that's due to American impact, I don't know... 惑乱 分からん 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about changes in language -- they come with an awesome unstoppability (unless you are French and you have the Accademie to protect you). How many of the English still use 'mediaeval'? And how many use 'prevaricate' instead of, e.g. temporize. Doubt that 'prevarication' means 'lying'? Look it up in what's-it-called Wikipedia. Sad, isn't -- best just to lie down and think of ... -- but that's where we came in, isn't it? Chris Towner 13:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking for further information about finnish volunteers in the soviet red army during the winter war/continuation war
I'm looking for more reading material about finnish people and finnish speaking karelian people who fought in the red army against the finnish army during World War II. I have seen references to "71st division" "106th Karelian National Rifle Division" and "1st Finnish People’s Rifle Corps" but do not know anything more about these units than their name. Several thousand finnish people fled to the soviet union after the finnish civil war, did they join the red army? Also, the puppet regime (Finnish_Democratic_Republic) lead by Otto_Ville_Kuusinen had an army named People's Army of Finland but they were not allowed to take part in the war?

All in all, I'm looking for sources, on this page there is an article in english written as the third post, but no source cited.

I'm not looking for information about people from ingria fighting with the red army. Vildmark 12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You may find this page of some interest, which announces the intention, amongst other things, to form a Finnish army core to fight alongside the Soviets. . It would seem, though, that this was chiefly for reasons of prestige and propaganda, and was expected to 'carry the flag', so to speak, into Helsinki. There is also this page on the 106th Karelian National Rifle Division and the Finnish People's Army Kuusinen's troops were largely involved in occupation and garrison duties, though some fighting was done. One ski detachment was allegedly massacred by Finnish troops during the Battle of Tolvajäravi. Some of the last fighting, moreover, was by Finn against Finn. I suspect that the 106th-and other formations-must have been well understrength, if for no other reason than significant numbers of Finns who fled the country during the Civil War of 1918 and the political upheavals of 1930 later vanished in Stalin's purges. Clio the Muse 02:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric Hobsbawm, English 20th Century historian
Are there any enteies eelating to his books? Gregall


 * Yes, the Age of Extremes, although that appears to be the only one. Carom 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The page on Eric Hobsbawm has a full list of his publications, but it is a pity that only the Age of Extremes is given any detailed analysis. It is not amongst his best work. Clio the Muse 01:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama
Just two very simple questions.

(1) Does Obama eat pork?

(2) Does Obama drink beer? 211.28.131.148 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You could write and ask him about any and all of his dietary habits. If this is a veiled question (like my pun) about him being a Muslim, then according to our article, Barack Obama is a "baptized" Christian. But I'll assume good faith and guess you're just curious about celebrities' culinary preferences. In which case I've not been very helpful. --Dweller 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I'm entitled to a correct answer because if Obama becomes the next president of USA, he could change the world. 211.28.131.148 12:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And Obama's beer-drinking/pork-eating would affect his competency as president? Did you read the response? A person's dietary preference is not common knowledge, so there is no way to know unless you contact Obama's office yourself. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, beer drinking would affect his competency, though in the negative. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood that this is intended to be tongue in cheek, but I don't see how the act of drinking beer (not getting drunk, but drinking any, at all, of any quantity) would affect competence...negatively OR positively...unless we accept current scientific evidence that alcohol in moderation on a regular basis has a positive impact on heart-health, or Obama is a SERIOUS lightweight.   Jfarber 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't alcohol affect health positively in some areas, and negatively in others? 惑乱 分からん 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Does George W Bush eat pork? His pork-eating is hardly relevant to his ability to "change the world". Why ask these specific "simple questions" about Obama, and not Hillary Clinton? If you want to know, Is Barack Obama a Muslim? ask that. And the answer is no. --Dweller 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Obama's Christian faith imposes no dietary restrictions on pork, but this meme about him being a Muslim is tenacious among some parts of the population, he should make sure all of the traditional New Hampshire "eating with the common people" campaign stop photo-ops he attends include pictures of him with a pork chop in his mouth. Plus bacon for breakfast. :) --TotoBaggins 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many African-Americans who don't eat pork, regardless of their religious faith. Corvus cornix 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I heard about that, but I haven't understood why. 惑乱 分からん 01:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Some possible reasons. ---Sluzzelin 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTCs)


 * I heard a theory that trichinosis might have been the reason pork became impure in Judaism to begin with. Animal welfare would be a reason for vegetarianism/veganism, not abstainment of pork, in particular. 惑乱 分からん 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting theory. Doesn't really explain why Jews are forbidden to eat cheesburgers. Or indeed any of the other myriad dietary laws. --Dweller 12:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My father stated that most of the forbidden animals on the list were scavengers eating human corpses. (Amazingly, Wikipedia lacks a good article.) Interesting theory, albeit perhaps not fool-proof. An alternate theory would be that it was some way of systematizing the fauna. 惑乱 分からん 14:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the Jewish dietary laws don't really fit into any convenient bracketing like that. Even if that were correct (it's not - rabbits and pigs aren't kosher, many kinds of fish and seafood aren't kosher, even the hind quarters of kosher animals aren't kosher!) it's overlooking the prohibitions on mixing meat and dairy etc. Ultimately, the dietary laws are a Statute, without explanation. --Dweller 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is he anti-pork, he sponsored a bill in the Senate to that effect:. --Mathew5000 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of anyone who doesn't have the time to click the link, it's about Obama sponsoring a bill trying to establish a database to track "federal grants, contracts, loans, and "earmarks"". The latter is nicknamed apparently "pork". --Dweller 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Lord Brahma, the god of creation, does not have temple?
I have seen many incarnations of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva being worshipped and also they have temples for them. But I have never observed temples or special worship or prayers for Lord Brahma, who is considered as God of Creation. I would like to know about the reason behind that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyasingaraju (talk • contribs)


 * Brahma. There are temples, but not very many. It is a very curious thing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also Brahma third paragraph and Brahma second paragraph explains why.87.102.20.186 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I heard once (a course in Hindu Mythology, UIUC.edu, circa 1979) that the big B is not worshipped because he created the world by raping his daughter. &mdash;Tamfang 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Riddle:: One guy lies, the other guy tells the truth - how to determine between?
There's this riddle which I think appears in Doctor Who, where there are two guardians of something and one can only lie and the other can only tell the truth. The idea is that you ask them both each one question and are able to determine from it, which is the guy that lies and which tells the truth. What are the questions that need to be asked? --Seans Potato Business 15:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"How many fingers am I holding up?" --80.0.108.101 15:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. These are beautiful puzzles. Raymond Smullyan wrote several books full of these riddles. ---84.75.111.138 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Try asking each of them "Is he the liar?". 68.39.174.238 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't work - they'd both say yes. Clarityfiend 05:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask one what the other would say, and then do the opposite. GreatManTheory 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That would tell you what the answer to the question is, but not which one is the liar. --80.0.103.191 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is The Riddle of the Sphynx (Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannos), a related riddle, as well as many a koan. Great Man gave the answer. Riddles are an important teaching tool, illustrating and defining issues within the western dialectic. Of the Europeans, French philosophy schools employ logic ultimates to define surroundings (cf Descartes' 'I Think, therefore I am') in the Scientific Revolution, Germanic Philosophy (logical positivism, German Idealism) which overlapped the French, but is distinct. Note, post Kurt Gödel, there has been a revolution of research into logic and philosophy. DDB 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many variations of this puzzle. I can't believe we don't have an article on these? Anyway, this particular puzzle can be solved with just one question. Ask one of the guardians "Would your companion tell me that you are the liar?" If the answer is yes, you are talking to the truth-teller; if he says no, he's the liar. Of course, these questions always assume that the liar is being rigidly logical rather than genuinely trying to mislead you.--Shantavira
 * Well, we do have Knights and knaves, as my anonymous sockpuppet pointed out above. ---Sluzzelin 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What if the answer is "I refuse to respond to that question, contact my lawyer."?dr.ef.tymac 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about a catchphrase I don't understand
I saw a T.V programme a few weeks back, and the theme on it was history. The episode of the show incorporated a lot of stories that all fitted together. All the characters were trying to re-write their history. At the end of the show, the narrator summarised all the storylines, and concluded with a phrase that I don't understand. The phrase was "What is history anyway, if not lies agreed upon". Isn't history based on fact rather than lies? SOmebody please explain the phrase to me, thanks guys Ahadland 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, history isn't really based on fact, it's based on peoples' interpretations of events. Unless you were actually at an event, you only know about it through other peoples' accounts. Thus, how do you know whether what you have read is what really happened. For example, imagine if the Nazis had won World War II. The way we view the war would be radically different: Hitler would be seen as a hero, and the Allies would be viewed as the twisted, evil people.


 * Another example would be during the reign of Stalin in the USSR. People were taught that Stalin was an important figure during the October Revolution and ensuing civil war, when in fact, he was an extremely minor figure. He also erased records of the significant contributions of his political enemy Trotsky. You can see Historiography for some more information on the subject. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It expresses a cynical view of the study of history: about how much we can know and how much is simplified to produce a good story. It is a famous quote of uncertain origin, probably by someone French, usually blamed upon Napoleon, Voltaire or Fontenelle. In fact the varying authors illustrates the quotation. To quote from one interesting work of history, 1066 and All That "History is not what you thought. It is what you can remember".  meltBanana  23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As Winston Churchill once noted, "History is written by the victors." Although, I recall an Egyptian pharoah who managed to turn a crushing military defeat into a "victory" by using the big lie technique. Clarityfiend 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I recall a much more recent Mesopotamian leader who managed (or at least attempted) to turn a crushing military defeat into "the mother of all victories". Loomis 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And I've been to Talk:Vietnam War, where there are still some willing to deny the defeat of the US. Algebraist 14:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * History is based on "facts" but what a fact is is not at all straightforward. It is not, generally speaking, based on lies, or outright deceptions, but that does not mean it is actually based on anything like a standard, easy to grasp "truth". Historical "facts" can range in their rigid relation to the truth, from "Mr. X went here on this date" (which is either true or it isn't), to grand interpretations, decisions about what should be relevant to a given question, to musings about big-picture questions. The jump from one to the other is not easy and even the little facts can be very hard to get right — even harder than the big ones (it is easier to describe the general movement in a war that it is to describe any one day of it, for example). Professional historians grapple with these basic epistemological issues every day in their work, at least if they are honest with themselves. --140.247.248.18 19:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Often simple facts are inferred; in this case, history may or may not be factual. In most of the rest of the cases, history is based on remaining evidence and the writing of others, which writing may or may not be honest.  All sorts of falsehoods have been promulgated because people who experienced an event lied about it, or, more commonly exaggerated.  Or, people will hear a story, and record it as fact, often adding the little white lie that they had seen it themselves…  The Jade Knight 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Worst possible condemnation...?
Both Moses and Jesus condemned Jews who demonstrated their love and worship of money, wealth and possessions above God. (Moses and the Golden Calf, Jesus and the Money Changers). Is not then the worse possible condemnation of Jews demonstrated when a person or group possess, loves or worships wealth, material possessions and money above God? -- Barringa 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks somewhat like a leading question. Leaving that aside, there seems to be a logical link in the terms you've provided.  Wealth and money should be considered one and the same, and material possessions can be easily considered merely an extension of money.  What, then, is the particular weight of a condemnation of simply "money"?  How is it weighed against a condemnation of hypocrisy?  A condemnation of arrogance?  What of the fairly common doctrine that sin simply "is" or "is not", without a distinction of "more sinful"? &mdash; Lomn 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to forms consider then the physical body and the various organs including blood which are essential to life and one’s love of the life such organs bring above one’s love of God. -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't specify that the person or group is Jewish, so presumably it's no condemnation of Jews at all for some arbitrary person or group to love wealth. I know I sure love having a little scratch, and I'd hate to think I'm impugning "the Jews" by doing so.  --TotoBaggins 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The question does not pertain to persons or groups who do not claim to be Jewish. -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The situation with the Golden Calf was not about money, if you read it. Neither was the situation with Jesus and the money changers, really. Jesus made it clear that the most important thing was to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, [and to] love your neighbour as yourself". If you want to know what God says to people, it's not hidden away in the Bible to be discovered by the intellectual. It's there, stated fairly explicitly. BenC7 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I differ on this point believing the Golden Calf was a symbol of money, wealth and material possessions which the Jewish people demonstrated that they held in higher esteem than God. (Exo. 20:3) The situation with the money changers was that they were using the Temple, the place reserved for worship of God and the House of God to conduct their worldly business which demonstrated they held their business in higher esteem than they held God. (Mat 21:12-14) -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because you belive it doesn't make it a facthotclaws**== 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It most certain makes it a 'fact' for the believer. -- Barringa 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the message of this 'question.' The statements regarding Moses and Jesus are wrong. The links provided don't support the argument. The statements that follow a fallacy are fallacious. The assertion that Jewish peoples are not acceptable to god because of a faked observation is unworthy of anything less than condemnation. I appreciate the politeness of those who have pointed out the clear deficiencies. DDB 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mat. 21:15 -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I too think your question doesn't make much sense - the golden calf is about idolatry not money. The story about the money changers is often read as a message that temples are not places for worldly things. Note the money changers exchanged money - that was used as an offering to god - there is not any mention of 'profit'.


 * My reference to the Golden Calf is as a symbol for the Idolitry of money. As for profit me reference is for the selling of doves: Mat. 21:12 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. Mat 21:13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'[f]" -- Barringa 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you meant that 'loving or worshipping money' was the worst thing a jew could do in terms of their jewish faith?87.102.7.220 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What I mean is whether the act of a greater affinity for worldly things is by its expression the worst possible form of anti-Senitism since it serves others who are looking at Judaism from the outside as an example of what Judaism is truly all about. -- Barringa 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if Jews have a greater affinity for worldly things than they have for their god it helps make people anti semitic? Note: the phrase 'by its expression' doesn't make any sense - is it supposed to mean something like "if jews love money/worldy goods more than their god it serves the to confirm the views of anti-semites" or something like that?87.102.13.148 12:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your comments, DDB. You seem to have a very good handle on the OP and his seemingly endless series of condemnable questions somehow trying to link up Jews with the worship of money. I also don't understand the repeated references to the Golden Calf. As I've mentioned before, the story speaks of a Golden Calf being created and worshipped, and then, upon seeing it, Moses, with the help of God of course, gave the Israelites a choice: Worship the Golden Calf (representing idolatry, materialism, money etc.) or worship God. Those who chose the calf were swallowed up by the earth (along with the calf). Those who chose God were left to survive and go on to being the ancestors of today's Jews. I can't imagine a better illustration of the fact that Judaism is about worshipping God, not money. Loomis 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately history has a tendency of repeating itself and once again today there are many persons who worship money and yet claim to be a Jew. -- Barringa 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Barringa, I agree with those who have decried you here for not actually asking questions, and wish you would get over yourself and stop. This is not a place for use of the socratic method to convince others of your own agenda or beliefs.   More, there are plenty of people of all faiths who seem to pursue money in such a way as to fit your odd definition of "worship."  Some are Jews.  Some are Christians.  Some are Muslims.   In all these religions, obsessive pursuit of anything material is generally seen as anathema to spiritual pursuit.   And in both Judaism and Christianity, at least, there exists "history" which suggests that such behavior is seen as UNIVERSALLY not acceptable (not religiously, just not right for the "us" that spiritual leaders talk to and about).   So I fail to see why this discussion is about Jews, or why you seem so much more concerned with making us think that somehow this is a jewish issue.    It's a shame, really.  This forum is otherwise quite useful.  Jfarber 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti Semitism does not merely refer to denunciation of Jews. It includes attempts to discredit the faith and people. Even were it the case that the Golden Calf underlay Modern Judaism, and even if it represented the totality of Jewish philosophy, as the question assumes, it goes nowhere near the actual praxis of Judaism involving Jewish peoples.


 * Okay then put in a more direct way: Does not the love of worldly possessions above the love of God by a person claiming to be a Jew represent the worst form of anti-Semitism there is? -- Barringa 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So your saying that somebody who is antisemitic might act as if they love money and then pretend to be a jew - to increase disrespect for jews? Yes I'd say that is bad. But please note that you're asking a rhetorical question there as far as I can tell - that's not really the sort of thing the reference desk is for.87.102.13.148 12:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OP has also referred to genetics and an 'evolutionary war.' It is not just money or Judaism that OP is targetting.


 * DDB are you on crack? Your comment above is so out of context as to make this question about your mental health real. -- Barringa 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an observation that many Jewish people are wealthy, although that is not the case for all, or even many, Jews. Jews do not control the world. I thought, for awhile, my father did, but I matured. DDB 00:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Again DDB and in response to your email and postings to my talk page the question I am asking is whether the Jews by their own acts such as worshiping the Golden Calf extrude a greater degree of anti-Semitism than those who on the outside do who observe such things and ask if there are two kinds of Jew - one who love worldly things and one who loves God. In my own personal opinion and in conformance with Loomis' comment above those Jews who choose to love the Golden Calf are no longer in my regard considered Jews. Therefore comments or questions regarding them can not be in any way anti-Semitic. However your repeated misinterpretation of my questions and comments most absolutely certainly is. -- Barringa 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Barringa, you said on the 3rd of February "Brothers and sisters are restricted from marrying each other in most cultures with few exceptions (Hawaians). Brits and American already pride themselves on the different starting point of their respective heritages since the Revolutionary War, not the evolutionary war. -- Barringa 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)" Have I misquoted you to earn your accusation about Crack? Or is that an uncomfortable reference for you, as you do not wish to stand by your assertions? I don't mind debating you, but I would feel more comfortable were you to not resort to anti semitic rhetoric that holds Jews are lesser people (through marrying kin) that love money and nothing else. Your questions are largely fools errands, with no real academic merit, but often such questions are asked by very young people who have been brought up poorly, but who are beginning to question why the world is as it is. The nature of your questions lead me to believe that you are not so very young, but an apologist for a discredited ideal that underpins Nazism, Islamo fascism and racism. I am not Jewish, nor were any of my mother's ancestors Jewish. I was raised an atheist. I am not giveing you my POV, I am giveing you worthy argument, which you are arguing ad hominem. DDB 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Barringa. What Barringa said on the 3rd of February has nothing to do with the question here. You sound on the other hand like you have some misplaced grudge against Barringa who is obviously only trying to come to an understanding as to why anti-Semitism exists except for the obvious contention between Moslems and Jews. In fact if you trace the ideals that underpin Nazism back far enough you may find that this is where they start although the death of Jesus Christ on the cross of which the Jews are accused is the proclaimed beginning by the Nazis. As for racism and Jews it is only those Jews who have lost their right to call themselves Jews by virtue of their own actions such as loving worldly goods more than God who want to uphold Judaism as a race instead of a religion so as to escape consequential excommunication. Had you been raised Christian or Jew you might know this. Baked Beans 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * — Baked Beans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * — Corvus cornix: No personal attacks — many may find the accusation of being a single purpose account as insulting. Baked Beans 06:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * — Baked Beans has been blocked as a sock puppet of Barringa. Corvus cornix 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Barringa, it's overwhelmingly clear to all that you're an anti-semite. Yet, representing a significant segment of the world's population, I'm totally against having your questions and comments censored or removed. That would be to no one's benefit. To me, sweeping anti-semitism under the rug is nothing but a cop-out. Rather, despite the ugliness of the phenomenon known as anti-semitism, I believe it's in everyone's best interests for it to be explored, not dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. If only we can come to better understand the inner workings of the mind of an anti-semite, i.e. what makes you "tick", perhaps then we'd all be the better for it, and perhaps we'd all, yourself included, benefit from a discussion on the topic. Perhaps you'd even reconsider your hatred, and be cured of the ugly disease you seem to be afflicted with. You obviously bear some sort of hatred toward Jews, one that I, as well as I'm sure the great bulk of RefDesk editors and all the good people of the world simply cannot make any sense of. Your case in particular is a rather confusing one. So far you've asked about a half dozen questions linking up Jews with the worship of money. Yet your questions seem to be tangential at best, which only further confuses the rest of us. Perhaps it's time for you to stop beating around the bush and to finally get to your point, or at least the fundamental, central question that's on your mind. If only you'd do so, I'd be pleased to discuss it, not only for my benefit, or for the benefit of other readers, for yours as well. You seem to continously base your tangential questions and rather cryptic anti-semitic remarks on what appears to be a gross misunderstanding of Judaism and the mindset of modern-day Jews. Perhaps if you got to your central question or point, the rest of us would be in a far better position to help you correct your misunderstandings. However, should you decide to continue with your cryptic and tangential anti-semitic points and questions, I'm afraid that none of us, yourself included, will derive any benefit from this discussion. Loomis 13:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Barringa does not sound like an anti-Semite to me but rather like one who is trying to find consensus on what the definition of an anti-Semite should be. In fact, can't find it right now, but I believe Barringa actually stated he was not. Denouncing Jews who love worldly possessions more than God is not in my opinion anti-Semitism. Instead of succeeding in making Barringa out to be an anti-Semite what you have made abundantly clear is that you want him to be your scapegoat. Baked Beans 13:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well there you go. This is precisely why I was so against censoring many of Barringa's previous comments. Now that we've completely removed each and every one of Barringa's clearly anti-semitic statements, the whole ugly issue has been nicely sanitized, with myself once again coming across as the bad guy, looking for some innocent, blameless individual to scapegoat. Perhaps I'm the only one, but to me, anyone who asks such questions as: "Is money the true God of the Jews"? And makes statements like: "[T]he true God of the Jews is money - but delete it so as to hide this fact from everyone" and "Wikipedia is controlled by Jews who believe that God is money". Baked, are you telling me that to you, the author of such ugly and hateful remarks is not clearly an anti-semite, and that branding him as such is merely a matter of scapegoating? Please, Baked, get real. Loomis 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this clear. Jews don't worship money. Jews are obligated to give money away. Some people like money a lot. Some of those people are Jews. There's no link between Judaism and love of money, quite the opposite. Someone who's not a good Jew in terms of halacha is still a Jew. I've never met someone who is Jewish or non Jewish who "loves" money. Maybe I'm lucky. But if there is such a person, it seems a position incompatible with halacha, which is not the same thing as some of the weird assertions made by Barringa. Does that cover it? --Dweller 13:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason Jews are overrepresented in banking and finance is due to the fact that for centuries the Church restricted them from certain forms of labour (agrarian, etc.) while forcing them into other forms of labour which Christians were prohibited from (loan-sharking, etc.). The flipside is that, due to persecution and an emphasis on education (or at least, literacy), Jews have also been overrepresented among revolutionaries who aim at overthrowing 'worship of money' (i.e. capitalism). Nazis and their pseudoscientific, racialist kind bring up figures (large number of Jews involved in banking; large number of Jews who were members of the Bolshevik Party, etc.) through an insidiously simplistic, would-be genetic models, totally ignoring these entirely explicable historical forces. The original question was, however, posed in a provocational manner and its author (and sockpuppet) has been indefinitely blocked for disruption. El_C 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well, though we may disagree on how to deal with these hate-mongers, (they tend to be their own worst enemies, the more they talk, the more ridiculous they sound, and in turn, the more they delegitimize their ugly cause,) blocking them is an understandable reaction, and was clearly done with only the best of intentions. I therefore respect this decision. Loomis 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Every individual has an agenda, or a purpose for their actions. Even a question can lead a conversation in a direction. There are personalities that can be attributed to corporations, and so groupings can be said to have an agenda, sometimes recognisably distinct from individuals. It is said people in committees agree to decisions they would never agree to as individuals. While it is true that some Jewish peoples form groups, it is not true that there is a single Jewish collective.

Groupthink is observable. Worldwide, the so called Western Dialectic expresses itself through commonality of ideas. Socialism is an expression of the Dialectic, as is Conservatism, Radicalism, Republicanism and Communism, to name but few. Judaism is a religion with multiple expressions. I think the paranoid fantasy of Jewish Agenda is an expression of anti semmitic radicalism. DDB 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And since there is no Jewish agenda we use other excuses for deleting comments and blocking users who ask questions which suggest there is, especially any comments or questions we deem non-Jewish or can claim to be anti-Semitic. (BTW if you don't see this comment again its because one of our bots decided it was a little too revealing, is not Jewish or in some other way against wikipedia (Jewish) policies we can enforce in our own arbitrary way. Rabbi Benton 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Barringa, once again, I presume? Loomis 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If Mary is a virgin then
Does that mean that Jesus is the bastard son of Joseph? 211.28.131.148 04:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See jesus. According to the bible I understand that Jesus is the son of god, and that god gave Mary the virgin-birth. I also understand bastard is a term for someone born outside of marriage - not sure whether or not Mary/Joseph were married so perhaps the bastard part is correct. I'm sure a theology-enthusiast/expert will be able to clarify further. ny156uk 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To keep Jesus from being labelled a "bastard", there are two ways to approach it. First, you can claim Mary was wedded to God, so Jesus was conceived and born in that wedlock.  At the time, it was not considered a sin to have multiple spouses, so it was OK for Mary to marry both God and Joseph.  Second, you can claim a bastard is a child conceived of man and born outside of wedlock.  Jesus was not conceived of man, so could not be considered a bastard.  There's always a loophole when religion is involved. --Kainaw (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If anything, it seems like Jesus was the bastard son of Yahweh, who cuckolded Joseph. But I don't know of any denomination that uses such terminology. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Some atheists believe that Jesus was actually a bastard and raised as such by Joseph. They believe that Joseph suffered this humiliation of being Cuckold so that Jesus the man would become so against infidelity that he would follow a career of denouncing infidelity and wrongdoing in general. Some atheists believe the whole story surrounding this perspective is just embellishment to get everyone to listen. Bottom line is that what ever point of view anyone takes tends to define their relationship with God and other men rather than defining God or others. 71.100.0.252 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The question raises a terminological one: if my hypothetical wife bears a son fathered by another, is there a concise term for that child's relation to me? Does stepson stretch that far? &mdash;Tamfang 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would depend on the circumstances. Miracles aside, your wife could bear a son of:
 * another couple, as a surrogate - this has no relation to you (unless you're related to the biological parents, and then it's your nephew/cousin/whatever)
 * another man in adultery - you might call him a stepson but (depending on where you live) might legally be your son even if the two of you were divorcing at the time of the birth
 * another man after an assault - this again would legally be your son, and if your wife kept the child you'd be a damned fool to call him anything but your son
 * a sperm donor - again legally your son, and (since you likely signed off on the procedure) your son in word as well. -- Charlene 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The theology of the matter is exhaustively covered here. The most significant Vatican statement on the subject is that of Leo XIII, in the encyclical Quamquam Pluries of 1889, in which it is stated that ''For he (Joseph) indeed, was the husband of Mary, and the father, as was supposed, of Jesus Christ. From this arises all his dignity, grace and holiness''. Fatherhood is understood here in the most comprehensive sense. Clio the Muse 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

History
I would like to know about the history of Prudential Bank (bought by Bank of the Philippine Islands). Does anybody know about it? Thank you very much.

= February 18 =

Christian and Jewish view of future prophets
It is my understanding that Islam considers Muhammad the final prophet. Do the various denominations of Christianity feel the same way about Jesus? Does Judaism have a similar figure whom they consider in practice to have been the "final" prophet, or is it more open-ended? Specifically, do Jews admit the possibility of a future non-messianic prophet, in other words, one who precedes the final messiah but isn't a messiah him/herself? Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand Christians wait the second coming of the Christ. Jews wait the first. DDB 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify DDB, it seems to imply that Jews deny the historicity of Jesus' life, which they absolutely do not. What is rejected by Jews is "just" (!) the claim that he was the messiah. DDB's second wikilink should probably more fairly point to Mashiach. --Dweller 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a bit more than that, Dweller. Jews also clearly deny that Jesus was the son of God and was divine in any way. As for the historicity of Jesus' life, well on that point Jews likely go by what the secular historians have to say about the man, definitely not the precise details of his life and death as described in the New Testament. Loomis 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The role of the messiah in Judaism is generally overestimated by Christians. Classical Judaism views Malachi as the last prophet; and like most established religions, asserts that no future prophet could change the religion in any substantive way (that is, anyone holding themselves out as prophet would be judged to be a false prophet if he purported to change religious law.). Christians generally believe that no prophet will come after Jesus, though some sects calling themselves Christians hold that such prophets exist (e.g. Mormonism, The Summit Lighthouse, etc.). - Nunh-huh 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue of prophecy is open to discussion among both Jewish and Christian religions. The Christian bible is different for Catholics and Protestants owing to understanding and custom. The books that form the bible are largely agreed upon, as it isn't rocket science. The Apocrypha, which I understand to literally mean 'hidden,' used to refer to books that were restricted to non clergy. More recently, it is those books that Protestants don't believe are related to Jesus. The Apocrypha is mainly those books of the last few hundred years before Jesus. They mainly refer to the acts of Angels, cf Tobias. DDB 00:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Christains believe that Jesus Christ is God there is not much credit given to other prophets who want to compete with this. Christains are likewise warned about the Anti-Christ in terms of anyone proclaiming to be the Second Coming of Jesus Christ or the next or final prophet. -- Barringa 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Christians don't believe that Jesus is a prophet. They believe that he is the Son of God. Jesus said "The Law and the Prophets were until John [the Baptist]". Christians expect no other prophet or person to come and give further revelation of God. The next "thing to happen", if you like, is the return of Christ. BenC7 03:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some Christians believe in post-Christ prophets, such as the Latter Day Saints (among others). The Jade Knight 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Middle East territorial disputes
What effect would 20 or more, 100 megaton blasts have for the territorial disputes in the Middle East? Would Christians, Jews and Moslems return to this land, resurvey it and draw up new boundaries or still fight over the old boundaries that were then strewn with creators? Also what would be the consequences of the loss of all artifacts stored or not otherwise removable from there in terms of each religion? -- Barringa 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I don't have a crystal ball, I can't really answer this question. Nor do I think that committing an atrocity is an effective way of solving conflict in the Middle East. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The disputes would be put on hold for a few hundred thousand years in Chernobyl South, unless they were willing to start wearing lead underwear. Clarityfiend 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chernobyl showed that radiation is not as dangerous as many think. I understand that after the initial deaths of some tweny people from direct exposure to high radiation, there are statistically no substantial long term side effects. Similarly at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the initial death toll was greatest as a result of the blasts. The highly radioactive contamination still has side effects, but people can still live there. However, that is not the point of the question, is it? I gather that OP is still gathering research material for his evolutionary war. DDB 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Evolutionary war? Are you talking about the new Intel 80 CPU chip and the processor frequency war with AMD that turned into the number of processor core war? Baked Beans 12:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you specified "100 megaton" -- neither Israel, Pakistan, nor Iran is likely to have 100 megaton bombs at any time in the forseeable future. I would guess that the last-ditch worst-case Samson Option scenario is more likely to involve nuking about 50 middle-east cities with A-bombs of maybe 50 to 100 kiloton strength.

In any case, Judaism adapted to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem long ago (after 70 A.D.), and the importance of the Holy Land to Christianity is as pilgrimage sites related to Jesus' life, but which don't really play a major personal role in the worship of most ordinary believers. It's Islam which would have to adapt in a more significant way if its holiest sites in the Mecca area were destroyed. AnonMoos 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds the most foolish thing the questioner has chosen as a stratedgy to resolve the middle-east crisis. The first thing Israel and the US has to learn is the value of patience. And Sheer impatience for desires leads to an orderless society lacking all moral values19:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Twenty one-hundred megaton nuclear blasts would probably just kill a lot of people. They've been going at it for thousands of years and I really don't think they'll ever stop. Their societies just hunger for war. The Gini coefficient, literacy rate, and poverty rate, as quantizations are too unfavorable, and their population pyramids are rather alike. Whether it be sects, or religions, or classes, their society is just too messed up. [' Mαc Δαvιs '] X ( How's my driving? ) ❖ 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Raison d'Être
I almost posted this in about four different places, but decided to post here, in search of English language buffs, who I thought may or may not inhabit the Languages board (which was my #2 choice!)

The article Raison d'Être seems to be a mishmash compilation of a barely acceptable discussion of the term and a band. The capitalisation doesn't seem to suit either. Anyone? --Dweller 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can get the capitalisation. It´s like when you say "What´s the meaning of Life?" A.Z. 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the capitalizations in that article is standard in either English or French. Moreover, from what I can tell, the band doesn't use any of those capitalizations either!  Wareh 23:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The capitalization is only used for Être (Being) when it is used in such phrases as "The Supreme Being" or "the essential Being of something" so it's misspelled in the article (especially as they use several different spellings). But what was the question? Keria 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The expression is used to say "reason to be," or "destiny." [' Mαc Δαvιs '] X ( How's my driving? ) ❖ 08:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of moving the linguistic parts of the article to Raison d'être and the band's to Raison D'être with a disambig link to one another, redirecting the current page to the former. What say you all? --Dweller 08:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * When you have a good idea, be bold.--Shantavira 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea, Dweller, but Raison d'être (band) would be better for the band, since I see no indication that they use the (idiosyncratic and ugly) capital D. Wareh 15:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether this is relevant or not is for you guys to decide. I just thought it would be worth mentioning that in French, the upper case is not required nearly as often as in English. For example, unlike in English where it's traditional to use the upper case, the first letters of months and days always use the lower case, as in "lundi" for "Monday" or "janvier" for "January". Similarly, even what we would call "the French language" (with the upper case "F") would be expressed in French as "la langue française" (lower case "f"). For the term, aside from when it's used to begin a sentence, (in which case the "R" and the "R" alone would be changed to upper case,) to me the most appropriate way of expressing it would be in all lower case ("raison d'être"). I realize I'm not being of much help here, except to say that in French, the upper case isn't nearly as important as it is in English. For the band, I'd go with whatever they choose (for example, Robert De Niro apparently prefers to have both words capitalized, whereas Charles de Gaulle apparently preferred the "d" in his name to be in the lower case). As for the title for an article...well that seems to follow an entirely different set of rules, but my best judgement would be to put it as "Raison D'Être". Perhaps it's wrong, but capitalize everything that can possibly deserve capitalization and I don't see how badly you can go wrong. Loomis 06:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the proposed article title Raison D'Être, I don't agree because (1) English and French usage is very well established with lowercase d and ê; (2) Wikipedia's naming conventions say, "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized." Wareh 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. An administrator should really move the article as is to Raison d'être, pending disambiguation (needs an admin since the confusion produced a two-line edit history there). Wareh 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing your conclusion at all, Wareh. My French isn't perfect so you're probably correct anyway. I just don't understand your first point: "(1) English and French usage is very well established with lowercase d and ê". I'm curious as to what you meant by that. Thanks for correcting me, I'm always open to improving my French. Loomis 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brazil
What´s the general view people have of Brazil? I´d like to know it from Wikipedians. Everyone who travels abroad says foreingers see Brazil this way, that way and, as I don´t travel abroad, I thought I´d ask here so I can learn for myself about how people in other countries see my own. A.Z. 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-centered... (Just kidding... ;)) 惑乱 分からん 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm... Does my question make me look like I´m self-centered? A.Z. 22:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, as a Brazilian, that's how I see Brazil and Brazilians in general. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? How come? I had never heard that about Brazilians. A.Z. 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but in online games (MMORPGs), they're usually scammers. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, outside Brazil, Brazilianly brazenly mentioning one's Brazilian Brazilianhood is a sign of a Brazilian's Brazilian Brazilianness... =S (I should get serious...) 惑乱 分からん 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I see in your user page that you´re from Sweden. The Queen of Sweden is Brazilian. What do you think about her? A.Z. 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, well, yeah. Seriously, I guess she's doing her work quite well, although I consider monarchy rather old-fashioned in today's modern world. Compared to the king, she seems quite intelligent and beautiful... =S I'd probably consider her more of a German than a Brazilian, however... 惑乱 分からん 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Brazil,where the nuts come from";- Charlie's Aunt.hotclaws**== 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What about her Brazilianness? A.Z. 23:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, actually, I don't think of her as Brazilian... ;) Simple as that... I think I'll have to go to bed, soon, anyway. I'll reply to any further questions after I've slept... 惑乱 分からん 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are my personal collected clichés: Brazilans I met all had a remarkable sensitivity for enjoying and sharing the present moment. Sometimes I encountered them in groups I found to be very inclusive and welcoming. They knew their songs and how to party, but preferred discussing philosophical questions or literature to soccer and samba. Your songs give me the shivers; your language and melodies have a mysterious happy-sad quality and always will. ---84.75.111.138 23:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Your answer is really great and that was the kind of thing I was looking for! I know what you´re talking about when you say the happy-sad thing. It´s like another cliche, the word saudades, which is very happy-sad.A.Z. 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See, that's my point. Brazilians just like to shine their Brazilian-ness for all to see, and they do it too often. It's always this constant "look at us, we're from Brazil! What do you think of Brazilians and Brazil? That person\thing is from Brazil, what do you think of it?". Certainly, Brazil is Brazilian's favourite subject when talking to people from outside, and they act as if Brazil was so amazing, or as if Brazilian people were statistically prettier - which is nonsense, there are pretty people everywhere. Actually, I'm always amazed at how this "we have prettier people" is always used as an argument for Brazilian greatness. Really shows off how incredibly hedonistic Brazilians are, and this is something I despise.
 * By the way, Brazilians hardly discuss or get involved with things from outside the country, so it's no wonder all they can talk about is the country itself. In fact, if you get involved with things from outside, you're treated with disrespect by other Brazilians. They act as if you were arrogant, selfish and alienated by other cultures. You have to either like Brazilian culture or love it. We may look friendly and inclusive, but that's just a lie: Brazilians are culturally xenophobic and arrogant.
 * On the internet, Brazilians are also known for being extremely abusive within internet communities such as social networking websites, forums, chat networks and online games. Brazilian IPs have been banned from a whole lot of places, just look it up. This is not a surprise, Brazilians are abusive outside the internet as well. There's even a popular term for it: Lei de Gerson. "Always take advantage of everything". That's the Brazilian way of life, crawling up whenever you have the chance.
 * It's no wonder I have no pride or taste for our culture and country. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said "this was exactly what I was looking for", I wasn´t referring to the nice things he said about Brazilians. I was just saying I was looking for that kind of general commentary about the country and the people, whether it is good or bad. Yours, for instance, despite not being by someone from outside.
 * Your view of Brazilians is interesting, though I would say it is becoming rather cliché nowadays. There are a lot of people like you, saying all the time those same old things. See for instance VEJA magazine, which every week condemns those same bad habits and the same lack of ethical behavior you talk about. And all those shows in cable TV do the same over and over again. Which only proves that, despite "them" being the majority for now, "we" are becoming popular. Furthermore, It´s not only Brazilians who like to talk about their country all the time. Just look at Americans, for instance. A.Z. 00:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My impressions of Brazil from the 5 or 6 times I've visited (I also lived there as a young child): wonderful food; bad split between the rich and the poor; many stunningly beautiful people (in Rio, especially); excessive machismo/sexism in the men; terrifying drivers; a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. --TotoBaggins 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My impressions of Brazil derive from my understanding of History/Geography and from those I interact with online at icompositions.com. I love South American voices and music. I love the energy and the youth and the celebration. I understand that Brazil is about the same size as the US, with a similar population, but substantially poorer. I feel that this is because European leftwing politics has a stronger hold in South America than the Brit conservative politics. I understand that there was a gun control bill voted down recently, and I feel that such things happen when the left is too powerful (I know, guns are a conservative fancy, but I believe that gun control is left unchecked by liberals to allow them to justify their existance). I understand that Brazil speaks Portuguese, and has much in common with Timor. I don't know much about Brazil haircuts, but I loved the Terry Gilliam Film, Brazil, which I know has nothing to do with the nation. DDB 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Samba (Brazilian) -- Lowerarchy 07:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Egocentric to say the least and why not? They have exchanged Rain forest and the Oxygen it produces for Sugarcane and Ethanol and oxygen. They have tamed the might river and used its power to produce electricity and to grow more sugarcane to produce more Ethanol and oxygen. As a result they are far less dependent upon Fossil fuel and have thereby relieved themselves and the rest of the world of the air and water pollution it produces. In this way Brazil is a model and example for other growing countries to emulate. The down side? The poor are treated as if in the way - a less powerful entity that can be ignored and even stepped on. For this reason Brazil is a magnet, like many other South American countries, for Marxism. Solution? Active programs for the poor that will allow them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps without all that killing and poverty that Marxism promotes. The rest of the world looks at Brazil as a place it can do business whatever that business might be. Baked Beans 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought of Brazil as a normal country by normal standards - it's also suprisingly good at keeping out of the news given it's size. I've often wondered just how industrialised it is.87.102.4.2 10:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

| An (as usual) interesting article from the BBC about the Brazilian Inferiority Complex. I, personally, having nothing but positive opinions about Brazil. It seems like a very passionate nation. 194.80.32.8 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And I just met an exchange employee working in the tourist entertainment and housing trade here while riding on a local bus. My assessment is very open and friendly with a zest for life no different than any other people from any other part of the world. 71.100.171.80 13:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

= February 19 =

Thomas Jefferson
—Hi.

I have been unable to locate the source for a Thomas Jefferson quote. It is "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man". I found it in a book by Richard Dawkins called The God Delusion, at page 43. The author does not ( unbelieveably) provide a source reference. I tried his website but had no luck there either. Thank you for your help.

Elaine Brown


 * According to this, Jefferson wrote that Christianity was "the most sublime and benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man" in a letter to Adams. Lowerarchy 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Was this reference to sexual perverts? 71.100.0.96 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably not. The word got its sexual meaning only recently. "Perverted" orginally meant "corrupted" or "misguided". Chl 15:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on Thomas Jefferson provides this reference: The Religious Affiliation of Third U.S. President. Baked Beans 18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cato the Elder and Livy
I'm currently looking for some beginning info on Cato the Elder and the Roman writer Livy (Titus Livius). I have read the Wikipedia articles on both people, but I am still confused as the articles go into a lot of detail. Simple English Wikipedia has no article on them. I just want to understand very briefly who they were, and what makes them famous in Antiquity history. Any "lamens terms" info will do, nothing fancy. Thanks for your help in advance, I appreciate it. Bobo is soft 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cato was a successful Roman statesman from the republican period he was Consul and Censor (the highest offices at the time). Livy was a historian who wrote about the history of Rome. Gradvmedusa 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For the former, try the (definitely digestible!) Carthago delenda est. (Don't worry, the article isn't in Latin!) The expression tells us a lot about his personality. --Dweller 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cato the Elder is especially remembered for presenting himself as old fashioned: a "follower of the old Roman strictness" and a member of "that purist faction who displayed their adherence to the stricter virtues of the ancient Roman character" (to quote the article). Livy, on the other hand, is remembered as a writer who told the story of Roman history in a vivid and dramatic way&mdash;not a writer trying to come across like a cynical intellectual (that was more Sallust and Tacitus' department), but a storyteller whose style had a "milky richness" (to quote the ancient literary critic Quintilian).  Wareh 23:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghost of an atheist grandfather
I saw a ghost today. I was sitting on sofa alone at my home when I realised that someone is at another kitchen, looking at me. I was terrified until I realised it was my grandfather. He looked very happy and I asked him how is he. He said everything is fine, and then he disappeared. Then I realised something funny. My grandfather was a die hard atheist. He would never had believed in ghosts! How could he be a ghost if he does not believe in them?

If you happen to be a Christian, Jew or a Muslim, please explain me how it is possible that an atheist can be happy after his death? According to your teachings he should be suffering great torture in hell. Was he perhaps in some kind of limbo state and did not realise that he is going to hell later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihmemies (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 February 2007


 * You should also consider the possibility that you were just seeing things that were not there. Our mind can play a lot of tricks on us, and they can be very convincing. It doesn't mean you're crazy either, just that you were particularly susceptible to this sort of thing at the time. I had some when I was younger, but nowdays I can discard them as hallucinations or dreams.
 * Yes, I know this wasn't the answer you were looking with your question, but it can be an answer of sorts as well. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If ghosts exist, they exist whether or not anyone believes in them. I've never heard of any teaching that says one goes to Hell just because they are an atheist.  JackofOz 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, believers and atheists are often seen as being closer to one another than either are to agnostics. Your anecdote immediately reminded me of Yann Martel's The Life of Pi, where Pi imagines an atheist taking a leap of faith in his/her final deathbed moment, while the agnostic tries to rationalize and find another explanation for the "white light" instead of relying on his imagination and the more plausible story it supplied. ---Sluzzelin 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * John 14:6 has Jesus saying, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", which does seem to imply that non-Christians aren't going to heaven. That's bad enough for heathens like me, but seems especially unfair for people who lived and died before Jesus did. :( --TotoBaggins 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The meaning of that phrase changes when you stop it in mid conversation as you did. In the 10th verse, Jesus explains that the words he is speaking are not his own.  They are the Father's/God's words.  So, the phrase is not "I, Jesus, am the way..."  It is "I, God, am the way..." --Kainaw (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but in my corner of the world, that quotation is taken as justification by the predominant religious organizations for statements of fundamental principles, like, There is no salvation apart from personal faith                   in Jesus Christ as Lord.  --TotoBaggins 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your question does not make any sense. The fact that your grandfather is an atheist is irrelevant because if (the phenomena of) ghosts exist then a person can become a ghost regardless of what he/she believes when they are alive.

For example: If I truly believe that gravity does not exists, will I fall to my death if I jump off a cliff? My personal belief is irrelevant in this case.

It is wishful thinking to believe that a person's personal belief can shape reality. A person's personal belief can only shape the perception and interpretation of reality. Otherwise beggars would be riding horses,

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

202.168.50.40 03:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You scared me. I think you should have said it was a ghost story which might scare some people. In fact, you could do it before you scare someone else. A.Z. 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I admit to laughing at this. Being an Atheist, although there's probably a correlation, does not have to do with believing in, or seeing ghosts. Also, let's say he didn't believe in ghosts, but he turned out to be one? This doesn't make it impossible, this just makes him wrong. However I'd have to learn towards the suggestion of you reading The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, my favorite book! :) [' Mαc Δαvιs '] X ( How's my driving? ) ❖ 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

From a Jewish perspective, a non-Jew doesn't need faith to enter the world to come. And he certainly doesn't need to be Jewish. He just needed to keep the Noahide Laws. I wish him a very happy eternity. And please God by the rest of us. --Dweller 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, you don't neccesarily have to believe in God/Allah/etc to believe in ghosts. There's plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts. The two, though related, don't preclude each other from being true. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Christian but some Christians have told me that if I don't believe that Jesus is a god and if Jesus does not somehow enter my soul I will be tortured in Hell forever. 193.65.112.51 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a teaching of any Christian denomination I've ever heard of. Faith is meant to be a gift from God; those who haven't been given the gift of faith can hardly be punished for this.  Some people have never even heard of Jesus, so how could they be blamed for not believing in him.  Others have heard of him but seriously and genuinely don't believe in him, so again how can they be punished for not believing in something that would be a lie to them.  It's those who do believe in Jesus, but choose to break his commandments anyway, that are said to be at risk of Hell fire.  JackofOz 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * :There are a multitude of interpretations within christianity of how people attain salvation. Salvation lists many differing stances. While you have given your personal reasoning and interpretion, many others exist. If you think these are not "true" christians you should read up on the No true scotsman fallacy. Diletante 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think any existence of ghosts have particularly much to do with religion. Wouldn't the existence of ghosts contradict the idea that souls will go to wither heaven or hell? 惑乱 分からん 14:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Universalist Christians believe that everyone will be saved. &mdash;Tamfang 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

History
What is Bankok full name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CroatiaFlag (talk • contribs).


 * See Bangkok. Dar-Ape 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

liberal vs. conservative muslim states of Afghanistan
I heard that province of Herat is considered as conservative muslim province. is there any province of Afghanistan that are considered Conservative? What about other states that are considered as liberal muslim states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.228 (talk)


 * Traditional Afghan Islam, before the Soviets invaded in 1979-1980, was largely based around traditional holy men, saints' tombs, Sufi orders etc. (and had very little in common with puritanical back-to-the-origins / Wahhabi / Salafi forms of Islamism). However, I'm not sure that there's too much remaining of the customs and institutions of that kind of Islam to be found there anymore, and even prior to 1980, many groups still had traditional repressive customs and attitudes toward women etc.  I'm not sure that the word "liberal" has too much relevance in the Afghan religious context -- "non-revivalist" or "non-Salafi" would probably be a better word to use... AnonMoos 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Crucifixion Question
In Anicent Rome after people were crucified what would happen to the crosses they were crucified on.
 * I guess they were used again to crucifice more people. 193.65.112.51 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably right, and when the time came when the crosses were not good enough to be used to crucify more people they would probably sell them to the highest bidder. Mieciu K 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that tongue-in-cheek? I know very little about the material culture of executions, but my guess is that they'd eventually become firewood. The Jade Knight 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Without reading crucifixion, from memory: Crucifixion was often done on trees - so the tree was just left there. When performed as a spectacle, the crucifixion grounds were often reused - meaning that the vertical poles were left there.  It is a good reminder of what could happen to you if you don't shape up.  The "cross" was added later to the spectacle.  It had nothing to do with the crucifixion.  It was used to torture the person as they walked from the prison to the crucifixion grounds.  With their arms bound straight out to their sides by a cross beam, they couldn't stop themselves when they fell - which happens a lot when you are marched down a cobbled street full of people pushing and kicking you.  The cross beam used there could easily be used over and over.  However, it was nothing special.  So, any old beam would do. --Kainaw (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

War and Peace
Is it necessary to have war for peace? The Updater 11:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * from what perspective? Philosophically, if dark is just an absence of light, you could argue that peace is just the absence of war. So if war didn't exist, neither would the concept of peace. But it'd still be quite peaceful. So, is this a homework question? If so, what subject is it for? Philosophy? History? Sociology? --Dweller 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Human beings, because of human nature, necessarily fight wars, so that war is necessary simpliciter without bringing peace into the explanation. Ideas of peace as a positive concept in its own right have been developed, especially in a religious context.  But our word "peace" comes from Latin pax, which (like the Greek equivalent) first had the negative meaning, related to a "pact"&mdash;a cessation of (what has thus been viewed as the default state) hostility.  Wareh 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Romans said si vis pacem, para bellum -- so you don't need to have war, but you need to be prepared for it in order to have peace. I believe Switzerland agrees. Chl 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Costa Rica, in contrast, does not! It has not had a national army for almost sixty years.  Nevertheless, it does remain true in a general sense that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  Clio the Muse 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * War is rather organized activity; you can easily have animals, even humans, which never really engage in warfare (that does not mean that they are peaceful, though). As for peace, it is hard to have that even without war. So I could see you living without war, but not so much in a constant state of peace. Bummer. --24.147.86.187 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The question was given to us in an English class at school for us to ponder upon.The Updater 08:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's English, then the pedantic answer I gave at the start is possibly what the teacher was seeking. --Dweller 11:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo
Where could I find the Latin text of Marco Polo's voyages?

Also, if he was Venetian, why was his book originally written in langue d'oïl?--Siva 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was probably written in Old French because that was the only really widely used vernacular medium for literary prose at the time. Since you know the Latin version is not original, I'll assume you really want to consult it, despite the fact that it is a defective version in many ways.  I doubt it's available online.  Printed edition: Milione: redazione latina del manoscritto Z (versione italiana a fronte), ed. Alvaro Barbieri (Milan: Fondazione Pietro Bembo and Parma: Guanda, 1998).  You can use OCLC's WorldCat to see what library near you has it, or buy it for around €30.  Wareh 18:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which version is the least defective?--Siva 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but, as you stated in your question, the Old French is the original version. The Catholic Encyclopedia claimed, "The Latin, Venetian, and Tuscan versions are merely translations which are often faulty, or abridgments of the first two texts."  However, despite their problems, they may be valuable as the only source for some authorial revisions, and apparently the text has been the subject of much scholarly dispute.  So maybe I am too hasty in suggesting you shouldn't read the Latin.  Apparently the first scientific edition (of the text in any of its versions) & comprehensive discussion of the textual problems was given by Luigi Foscolo Benedetto, Marco Polo: Il milione (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1928).  In the Geographical Review for 1928, we read that "As a result of Benedetto's work the need now arises for a wholly new English translation."  That need may have been met by The description of the world, translated and annotated by A.C. Moule & Paul Pelliot, which was a bilingual, Latin-English edition (in 2 vols.) that I bet would interest you (London: Routledge, 1938, reprinted New York: AMS Press, 1976, ISBN 040411525X).  (There is also The travels of Marco Polo, translated into English from the text of L.F. Benedetto by Professor Aldo Ricci, with an introduction and index by Sir E. Denison Ross, London: Routledge and New York: Viking, 1931.)  Beware that most of the English translations in print (Everyman, Modern Library, etc. etc.) are based on versions predating the supposed 1928 watershed.  Bottom line: seek out one of the editions of the Latin text, and I'm sure its introduction will apprise you of what you need to know about the textual history. Wareh 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Since I see you are fluent in French, you may wish to consult the recent and ongoing (4 vols. published so far) critical edition of the Old French text: Marco Polo, Le devisement du monde, édition critique publiée sous la direction de Philippe Ménard (Genève: Droz, 2001-). The Harvard library catalog (which has been wrong before) designates this book as "French translation of the original Latin," so it is certainly possible that this is now the prevailing view (and that the Catholic Encyclopedia, e.g., is outdated on this point as on many others).  Wareh 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks like Modern French to me. Anyway, I was able to find an edition in Old French and Italian in some university libraries. Thanks all the same.--Siva 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Growing in grace
Supposedly there is this guy named Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda who has 666 tattoed on his arm and claims to be the new christ. I wondering if any body konws anything about this.

CNN has this An annoying preacher DDB 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read our article on Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda? Just one of the list of people who have claimed to be Jesus. (What would happen if you could put all those guys together in a room and lock the doors?)--Shantavira 08:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? Aren't there thousands of Hispanics who not only claim to be Jesus, but could pass WP:V for their claim? Oh. That Jesus. --Dweller 14:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Much the same as if you were to turn off the lights, and leave a room empty, but for a shamrock. DDB 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Communities of waring countries
is there any information on the impact war has on the communities of the countries that are warring? I am looking to find out what sorts of things happen? Do they still fly planes in and out and is this what martial law is? How do they get food and stuff? What happens with the foreign nationals in the country? Do they get evacuated?

Thanks Mirelle86.31.103.34 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mirelle, you would have to look in detail at specific examples, because experience of warfare can vary so widely. Where possible planes will still fly in and out of the country-civilian as well as military-as they clearly do today in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Martial law refers to the system of rules in force when the miltary take control of a country.  This, however, does not always happen when two countries are at war, and there are many examples of martial law being imposed when a country is under no external threat.  Food will still be produced and transported in war regions where it is possible to do so, though again this depends on the intensity of the conflict.  In major wars naval blockades can reduce populations to near starvation levels, as they did in the Confederacy during the Civil War and Germany towards the end of World War One.  More recent wars in Africa have contributed significantly to disruption in agricultural production, causing widespread death from famine.  Foreign nationals will tend to be evacuated from conflict zones, as they were from Rwanda in 1994, though some for various reasons, professional or otherwise, will choose to remain.  Clio the Muse 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only echo the muse on this, and provide some references. Berlin Airlift, see the second paragraph of American Civil War, World War I, Vietnam War, Crusades. One of the bubonic plagues started after mongol warriors catapulted dead bodies into a European town (Mongol invasion of Rus). The siege of Constantinople was the first time gunpowder was used for cannon (Fall of Constantinople). I imagine those two events had pecuiarities for those being besieged. Also Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC). DDB 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with the above responses. And throw in the fact that besides the price of gasoline, life in the U.S. for most of the population has hardly been affected at all by the war in Iraq.  Everyday life has changed more significantly for those who have family members or friends who are/were there for the war.  I would suspect that there was very little change in the everyday lives of most of the citizens of England during the Falklands War as well.  Dismas |(talk) 08:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ZFC
Assuming the axiom of choice, given a set of an infinite real number of elements, is it necessarily the case that the choice function is undefinable? Please refer me to the proof. Thank you. Willie

Kurt Gödel had two Gödel's incompleteness theorems that refer to infinite elements and computability/labelling. DDB 10:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * However, before accepting Gödel's incompleteness theorems as either valid or complete you may wish to review Gödel's ontological proof and Gödel's cause of death . -- Barringa 11:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Before accepting Gödel's incompleteness theorems as either valid or complete, you should check that the proofs of these theorems are logically correct. End of story. Gödel's religious beliefs and mental health problems have no bearing on the validity of his mathematics. After all, Newton was an alchemist who serahced for hidden messages in the text of the Bible; Teichmüller and Bieberbach were anti-semitic Nazis; Nash was a schizophrenic; and Erdős was famously eccentric, but none of this invalidates their mathematics. Gandalf61 15:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by a 'set of an infinite real number of elements,' but certainly there are infinite sets with definable choice functions: for any ordinal the function 'take the least element' is a well-defined choice function. btw, someone who knows how it's done should move this to the maths page Algebraist 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Them and Us" culture
Recently I had no choice but to be in the company of a man who in the USA would probably been called a Redneck, having been brought up and worked on a farm and then in various low-skill insustrial jobs. All day I heard him going on about his right-wing views, particularly how he disliked Polish people who came over to work here in the UK. I have heard other views in other times and places, eg racism.

It makes me think that these views are universal to many bigots, and the common elements of "Us and Them"ism are beliefs that:

1) There is a group of people who have a distinguishing characteristic.

2) This characteristic is of great import, and makes "them" very different from "us". These differences go far beyond the distinguishing characteristic.

3) The "them" group is not very competant, but at the same time

4) "they" are deviously cheating "us" out of our resources (or lowering our prestige).

5) This is very bad for "us"

6) Those in authority are not doing enough about this, and at an extreme,

7) People should take the law into their own hands.

Has anyone every written about this Them and Us culture, as it seems so universal among the right wing?

Another feature is the development of a 'hero' who comes from the "us" group and battles with "them" to recover the resources they have taken from "us". The hero is greatly esteemed by the "us" group. This implies that if you want to be a hero, you have to make people believe in 1) to 7) above.

The popular appeal of "Them and Us" comes from raising the self-esteem of the "Us" group by comparison with the despised "Them" group.


 * Xenophobia (and the various close cousins listed under "See also" in that article)? Wareh 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the last point (which I think is maybe the scariest) doesn't necessarily have to apply. 惑乱 分からん 15:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * From my perspective I see this as a mis-match of nationalism, cynicism and frustration. Most often the people display a weak form of racism in so much as they have no issue with the people they speak ill of 'in their own country', but they display a (to use an English example) "England is for the English" mentality. I would note that I do not believe that is anything to do with being right-wing - nationalism exists on the left and right-wings. The cynicism about whether the authorities are helping is nothing to do with political-wings and to do with a lack of trust in the desire of people to help - often excused by past-failings (hence cynicism). Normally on pressing people who state these beliefs they fear losing their current way of life. This aspect could make them conservative and on the tradition of right-wing, but there is nothing in socialism that suggest it promotes positive outlook on change. ny156uk 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is, in fact, another dimension to this issue-which you have hinted at, Ny156-which has nothing at all to do with nationalism or racism; namely that of class, which dominated so much of English politics and life over the last hundred years. In this context 'them' would usually be taken to mean the establishment-usually identified with the upper class-and 'us' would be the people, understood in general terms, but sometimes taken to mean the working class in particular.  I recall reading about a wall poster produced early in the Second World War, announcing that 'YOUR sacrifice will bring US victory'.  It was not well received! Clio the Muse 09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Great Discussion is another expression, description of what is sometimes called the Western Dialectic. It didn't start with Plato and his students, but it was certainly observable in their writings. In terms of Western Philosophy, it can be seen as 'two sides' on any topic that analyse the subject through opposition. This forms the basis of politics, justice and scientific thought. To get close to the heart of an argument is to be close to the 'cutting edge.' Any small change to the cutting edge can gain much kudos and affect future research. Eastern Philosophy has similar expressions for opposition, cf yin yang DDB 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As the original poster I would like to add to my initial comments. I think this may be a common feature of human society. It occurs in classroom cliques, school bullying, football team supporters, Hitler and the Holocaust, lynchings, and other things. I forgot to add that these attitudes may stem from being unable to put yourselve in the place of the "out" group: being incapable of imagining how you would feel if you had been born Polish or black or whatever (in itself perhaps connected with the fatalism of authoritarianism).

The relation of this type of thinking to people scoring above-average on the Psychoticism Scale of H J Eysenck is discussed in Creativity In Science, by D K Simonton, with several academic references. In the fifth chapter, Psychopathology section (page 114 in my edition) he says that these people cannot ignore the irrelavant, so to them the distinguishing characteristic is not trivial but highly significant.

If this sort of thinking could be cracked, then mankind would be a lot happier. Perhaps this was what the Communists were trying to do.


 * What the Communists were trying to do? Might I suggest, to take but one small example, that you examine the policy of the late Todor Zhivkov towards the Turkish minorities in Bulgaria?  Clio the Muse 23:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First, please end your comments with four tildes ( ~ ) - it makes things easier if someone wants to reply on your talk page.


 * As for your question: I think a lot of it is the unwillingness we all have to blame ourselves for our troubles, and the even stronger unwillingness we have to not assign blame at all. Something or somebody MUST be at fault (because things don't go wrong on their own), but it's not us. We therefore have to find someone to blame. Why not those other people who are not like us (and consequently must be responsible for whatever's wrong)? It's related to the idea that illness is always the fault of the sufferer. For instance, although smoking increases our chance of getting lung cancer, avoiding smoke doesn't eliminate the possibility by any means.


 * I think that in both cases the accuser isn't saying "it's your fault"; he's really saying at a very basic level, "it's not MY fault". -- Charlene 08:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

former army air corp base
Trying to find information about Gelders Field (sp ?) Air Corp Base in Princess Anne, Somerset County, Maryland, USA. My father was born in 1923 and remembered it the other day. I don't know what period of time it existed, but Dad said it was only there for 2 - 3 years. Any information would be appreciated. Cat322 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to try getting a copy of this book http://www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net/md-aloft.html Check out this group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AbandonedAirfields/ This website http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/ Gradvmedusa 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing I found useful when looking for old Second World War airfields is Google Maps. Search for the city, set the utility to Satellite View, and look around for an abandoned airfield. In most cases where there hasn't been redevelopment (and in Princess Anne I'm not sure if there would be), the outline of the runways can be seen. This at least tells you a) that it did exist and b) whether it's really closer to a tiny hamlet or village that's sprung up since, and which it might be referenced under. -- Charlene 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually tried doing just that and didn't see anything that jumped out at me as a former airfield, also it isn't mentioned on the abandoned and little known airfields website or in any of the Air Force history books I could find. I have a feeling that if the field did indeed exist it was very small and temporary in nature. 71.247.71.125 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Or it could have been a training, communications, administrative, or other base for non-pilots. I'm guessing that during the Second World War there would have been at least ten support personnel to every pilot in the Air Force - and quite likely more. Have you tried calling the Princess Anne, MD historical society? -- Charlene 11:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

= February 20 =

one for the musicalologists
Glenn Gould's song "So You Want to Write a Fugue" contains this advice:
 * Never be clever for the sake of being clever, for the sake of showing off.
 * For a canon in inversion is a dangerous diversion,
 * And a bit of augmentation is a serious temptation,
 * While a stretto diminution is an obvious allusion.

Raising the obvious question: does "So You Want to Write a Fugue" embody these crimes? Do the lines illustrate themselves? &mdash;Tamfang 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not an accomplished muso. I am aware of Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach which elucidates on fugues etc. I know that when trying to make a musical piece, there is a temptation to find a rythm and break it for a lyric. It feels clever to invert the note progression .. but that might not lead anywhere. Choosing a diminishing chord is a good way to take the light from another muso in a band, but isn't going to promote a piece. All in all, I think the song sage. DDB 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it "While a stretto diminution is an obvious solution?" --Wetman 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Maybe this is one for the list of mondegreens.  JackofOz 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As opposed to other parts of the lyrics, this segment's printed words aren't self-referential by themselves, but in the context of the musical structure they probably are. I couldn't tell, because Amazon's sample wont play here. By the way, I don't think Gould's usage of diminution and augmentation refers to harmony but to tempo. A diminution canon, for instance, cuts the rhythmic proportions in half, while an augmentation doubles them. ---Sluzzelin

Vatican 2
In this question, I particularly want someone with personal experience to reply. In Vatican 2, I understand that several changes were made, such as the language to be used, direction the priest faced, location of the altar and tabernacle, and acceptance of other religions. Laity participation was also increased, I take it.

My question is: in your point of view, in what ways did the Church change? Were there some other changes that the media failed to recognize? How did you personally react to these changes? How did the public in general react to the Council's changes?

In addition, were these changes immediately put into effect? For example, would a priest have said mass in Latin and then in English the day the council ended? If not, how long did it take for the laity to accept these changes? -- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Many fundamental changes were made at Vatican II, but only indirectly were these changes in the liturgy. These were made in the subsequent years leading up to the publication of the revised liturgy. The earlier custom of using Latin exclusively was custom only -- the Latin Mass is frequently referred to as the Tridentine ('of the Council of Trent') Mass, but in fact it had little to do with the Council itself, which only declared that it was wrong to to say that liturgy MUST be in the local language. Previous to Trent the liturgy in the Western Church was largely in Latin, that being 'the language of the educated', but it was far from unknown for other languages to be habitually used. Subsequent to Trent masses in languages other than Latin were used in missionary fields.

The principle drive of Vatican II was to give much greater influence to the laity in all aspects of the life of the Church, and for their opinion to be consulted and respected. Broadly speaking this has been ignored by subsequent popes. Chris Towner 13:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vakil
What's a vakil? There seem to be some people by that name, but no mention of the generic meaning. The term is used by Gandhi in The Story of My Experiments with Truth/Part I/My Helplessness. &mdash; Sebastian 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My Arabic dictionary defines &#1608;&#1603;&#1610;&#1604; as "authorized representative, proxy, commercial representative, attorney" (among some other meanings). AnonMoos 08:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Now I'm wondering where best to put this. It's probably not enough for an article on its own. Would List of exported Arabic terms, List of Arabic loanwords in English or wikt:Category:Arabic derivations be appropriate? &mdash; Sebastian 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First you need to find out what exactly it means in English (if it's a recognized loanword into English), which could be different or more specific than its Arabic meaning. The use of "v" suggests that it was borrowed through Persian (and almost certainly not directly from Arabic into English), so that might be relevant, too... AnonMoos 12:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The OED lists it as Anglo-Indian and marks it not naturalized, alien. Its first cite is from 1622 when it meant a representative or agent and by 1776 it meant a native attorney. It was apparently adopted through Urdu from Persian-Arabic. It has numerous variant spellings including wakil, vakeel, vaquil, fakeel and vicle. Hobson-Jobson even lists it spelt vehicle and its first cite is from a Persian glossary where it meant scribe.  meltBanana  15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith
how do you pronounce Bahá'í?
 * You could have looked in the Bahá'í article, which has: (/baˈhaːʔiː/) The Jade Knight 04:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, traditionally, the word is pronounced "Bar-har-ee", however, Americans generally pronounce it "Bar-high". -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  04:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ba-high. We're non-rhotic.  Corvus cornix 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The non-rhotics are the ones who think "bah" and "bar" sound alike. &mdash;Tamfang 01:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant to say "we're rhotic", and the "non" snuck in there. Corvus cornix 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Knighthood and the Presidency
What would the legality of an American citizen who has been honourarily knighted becoming POTUS? It seems to be a conflict of interest (at least to me. Crisco 1492 09:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ClarifyingFor anyone (like me) who's never heard of a "POTUS", there's a redirect on that to President of the United States. --Dweller 12:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about Rudolph Giuliani. Well a KBE does not imply fealty to the crown has been bought or that you have to now fight for the UK, even less so an honorary K. To ban someone from political office because they have accepted an award from a foreign power—as if their loyalty is now suspect—seems rather demented. You do know that the films of Clint Eastwood are now not to be trusted, he just got a Legion d'Honneur.  meltBanana  16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To ban someone from political office because they have accepted an award from a foreign power—as if their loyalty is now suspect—seems rather demented. Welllll, sometimes it might be prudent. :) --TotoBaggins 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget from Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." Since Giuliani wasn't a federal official at the time he should be ok. Rmhermen 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It didn't stop Eisenhower becoming President. He was knighted in 1945 for his military achievements in WW2, and became president in 1953.  (George Bush sr and Ronald Reagan received their honorary knighthoods only after they ceased being president, I believe). See List of honorary British Knights.  JackofOz 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Knighthoods aren't the only honors. Universities and colleges hand out Doctorates like so much candy to those who are so famous they can't be used professionally. What about the highly lauded Dr Fidel Castro? I would not be proud of the college that gave him the honor, but am confident he feels no loyalty to them. DDB 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I dare say Fidel has many honorary degrees; but I feel sure that the title in question refers to the Doctor of Laws, awarded for his academic work by the University of Havana in 1950. Now, surely they at least must be proud of him?  Clio the Muse 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Muse! I did not know that. I recall a few universities giving him honorary doctorates .. DDB 05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The US Constitution seems to be relatively strict in this regard. Keep in mind that Irish Republican Gerry Adams is a member of the UK Parliament at Westminster (though as an abstentionist, he refuses to participate). Here in Canada, the Bloc Québécois, a separatist, republican, anti-monarchist party was once sworn in as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". Even today, opposition Liberal Stéphane Dion actually possesses dual citizenship of both Canada and France. Whether these far more serious "conflicts of interest" should be allowed is a separate issue. My only point is that the potential for any "conflict of interest" existing by allowing an honorary British Knight to hold office in the US is extremely mild in comparison. Loomis 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I was thinking more along the lines of Jack Ryan. I had no idea that there has been a President who was knighted beforehand. And yes, it is rather mild in comparison to Bloc Québécois and whatnot, but it was a question for the sake of clarification about the subject. Crisco 1492 07:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)